Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Monday, January 30, 2006

Anti-Reg Trend Watch
The SBA Office of Advocacy recently released its report on the proceedings of a recent symposium on the Hill about the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Click here for the report, here for appendices.

Of note:

Re-writing history on E. coli? The general counsel of the American Meat Institute apparently presented a revisionist history -- grounded in "science," presumably -- that the public's response to the E. coli tainted beef epidemic was overblown, because there was a policy response made based on "bad data or lack of data." "[T]he regulatory response to the epidemic might have been different had the research been done prior to the determination that the pathogen was a problem," SBA reports.
Even greater role for industry in influencing regs: "EPA now has an 'any any' policy, meaning that for any rule that imposes any impact on small businesses, EPA's programs must take them into account and solicit information and concerns about them." The "any any" policy is a departure from current law, which requires giving special access to special interests only when a proposed standard would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We'll probably see the E. coli theme repeated as the year wears on, especially if industry-backed radicals use the upcoming reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act as a vehicle for anti-regulatory attacks. The E. coli issue proved devastating to the anti-reg pieces of the Contract With America, and corporate special interests appear to want to turn that issue on its head and use it as a case for harmful regulatory process changes.

Posted by Robert Shull, 02:35:04 PM

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Unmet Needs: Lead in Drinking Water
A new GAO report reveals that there are significant gaps in our regulatory protections against lead in drinking water, with corresponding gaps in our knowledge about whether or not children and families are sufficiently protected:

EPA’s data suggest that the number of drinking water systems with elevated lead levels has dropped significantly since testing began in the early 1990s. However, EPA’s database does not contain recent test results for over 30 percent of large and medium-sized community water systems and lacks data on the status of water systems’ efforts to implement the lead rule for over 70 percent of all community systems, apparently because states have not met reporting requirements. In addition, EPA’s data on water systems’ violations of testing and treatment requirements are questionable because some states have reported few or no violations. As a result, EPA does not have sufficient data to gauge the rule’s effectiveness.
Implementation experiences to date have revealed weaknesses in the regulatory framework for the lead rule. For example, most states do not require their water systems to notify homeowners that volunteer for periodic lead monitoring of the test results. In addition, corrosion control can be impaired by changes to other treatment processes, and controls that would help avoid such impacts may not be adequate. Finally, because testing indicates that some “lead-free” products leach high levels of lead into drinking water, existing standards for plumbing materials may not be sufficiently protective. According to EPA officials, the agency is considering some changes to the lead rule.
On the basis of the limited data available, it appears that few schools and child care facilities have tested their water for lead, either in response to the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 or as part of their current operating practices. In addition, no focal point exists at either the national or state level to collect and analyze test results. Thus, the pervasiveness of lead contamination in the drinking water at schools and child care facilities—and the need for more concerted action—is unclear.

Download report

Posted by Robert Shull, 03:39:28 PM

Monday, January 23, 2006

Making Our Food Less Safe
The Detroit Free Press reports on a new industry-led effort to ban state and local governments from limiting genetically engineered products in their communities. In response to local initiatives in towns and counties in California and New England that ban raising genetically-engineered crops, state legislatures in18 states have put forward proposals "that would bar towns and counties from enacting local legislation to regulate genetically engineered seed." Initiatives have already passed in 14 of the 18 states.

Genetically-engineered foods pose a variety of known risks both to humans and to the security of the nation's food supply. Moreover, as a relatively new technological advancement, genetically-engineered products also pose many unknown risks as well. The legislation bars communities from enacting the precautionary principle, which would require new technologies be proven safe before being adopted.

Moreover, the situation exemplifies the problems facing state advocacy. Though states have often surpassed the federal government in achieving strong and responsive public protections, they have also presented an easy target for industry special interests whose legislative agendas may meet more resistance in the national arena. Just as state initiatives may present great opportunities for advancing social goods, they are also susceptible to the vast influence of corporate special interests.

More on the hazards of genetically-modified crops: Nanotech, Genetically Modified Crops Spotlights Regulatory Gaps (11/01/2005)

More on state progressive reform: States Present Opportunities and Pitfalls for Progressive Reform (8/22/2005)

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 11:26:07 AM

Latest Entries by Theme

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications