Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Friday, April 27, 2007

House Oversight on Regulatory Process Changes: Part II

Yesterday, the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a long-awaited second hearing on President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. Much of the hearing focused on the role of the Regulatory Policy Officer (RPO) — a position with newly enhanced responsibilities.

The changes state "no rulemaking shall commence" without the approval of the RPO. Steve Aitken, former acting administrator of the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, told the panel that the Clinton administration had issued a dictate forbidding agencies to "issue" rulemakings without similar approval. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) latched on to this as reason to drop the whole case against the Bush administration.

Reg•Watch has checked its dictionary, and apparently "issue" and "commence" are two different verbs with two different meanings. Exactly when a rulemaking commences is unclear.

This kind of confusion begs the question: What transparency measures will be included in this process? Committee Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) expressed legitimate concern that RPOs "can smother regulatory efforts in the crib before an agency can even begin considering a regulatory action."

In the hearing, OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass recommended several improvements in transparency. Though OMB Watch fully opposes the changes embodied in the new E.O. and Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, if they are to exist the American people should be allowed to see into the process. At the very most, Congress should act to nullify these changes. At the very least, it should shine more sunlight on the regulatory process.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:35:09 AM



Thursday, April 26, 2007

OIRA Instructs Agencies to Comply with Regulatory Process Changes

Last night, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) issued a memo instructing agencies on how to implement President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process. The memo was the first missive by newly minted OIRA administrator Susan Dudley.

On Jan. 18, the White House issued two documents changing aspects of the federal regulatory process and mandating agency guidance documents (memos, policy statements, etc) fall under OIRA review. If those documents were forms of guidance on guidance, yesterday's memo is guidance on the guidance on guidance.

Unfortunately, despite the plethora of guidance, many questions remain unanswered. For example, the E.O. states "no rulemaking shall commence" without the approval of agency Regulatory Policy Officers. OMB Watch has expressed concern this will allow RPOs to stifle regulations in their infancy because it is unclear when a rulemaking commences. Does a rulemaking commence when scientific testing on an issue begins, when a draft rule is published, or somewhere in between?

The memo fails to clarify this concern. It states: "As a general matter, a rulemaking commences when the agency has decided as an institutional matter that it will engage in a rulemaking."

Translation: A rulemaking commences when we say it commences.



Posted by Matt Madia, 05:19:58 PM



Watch the Hearing Live

As Reg•Watch blogged yesterday, the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight will hold a hearing on President Bush's changes to the regulatory process. OMB Watch Executive Director Gary Bass will be testifying. Watch the hearing live starting at 10:00 a.m.



Posted by Matt Madia, 09:19:09 AM



Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Johnson Refuses to Admit Danger of CO2, Astonishes Audience

Not to be outdone by Alberto Gonzales, Stephen Johnson appeared before the Senate yesterday and achieved new levels of obstinacy.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee questioned Johnson, the administrator of EPA, about the Supreme Court's recent ruling affirming the agency can regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The legislation instructs EPA to regulate harmful air pollutants.

The hearing started as a back and forth about the speed with which EPA would pursue regulation. Democrats want swift action and urged Johnson not to wait for potential greenhouse gas legislation. Johnson refused to commit to a timetable preferring to move with the Bush administration's usual sloth.

Things could have stymied there, but Johnson chose to antagonize the committee further by abandoning reasonable thought. Since the Clean Air Act only requires the regulation of emissions harmful to the public, EPA would not have to regulate if it determined carbon not to be harmful. But that would be a ludicrous notion, wouldn't it? The LA Times reports:

As to whether the EPA will regulate carbon emissions nationwide, Johnson said the agency must first determine whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health or welfare.

That remark drew criticism.

"Surely, you acknowledge that global warming does endanger public health," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said.

Johnson refused to say whether he considered global warming the No. 1 environmental problem. That rankled Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

"You astonish me," Whitehouse said.

Amen to that, Mr. Whitehouse.

Democrats want swifter EPA action on emissions standards [LA Times]



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:57:00 AM



Tuesday, April 24, 2007

EPA Pollutes Scientific Thought

The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is supposed to be a group of scientists who independently analyze standards for the implementation of the Clean Air Act. Those standards are integral in ensuring progressive air pollution limitations that embody the latest scientific and technological breakthroughs.

As Reg•Watch has reported, CASAC recently recommended tighter standards for smog, much to the chagrin of industry and EPA brass.

As though determined not to let that happen again, EPA has appointed to CASAC two members with industry ties. The new members will serve on the panel for nitrogen and sulfur oxides (NOx and SOx). The Center for Science in the Public Interest sums it up:

Ignoring protests from consumer watchdog groups, the EPA has appointed two conflicted scientists to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee primary advisory panel that will evaluate NOx and SOx pollution. In January, CSPI wrote to the EPA opposing the nomination of Richard B. Schlesinger, who has received financial support from the American Petroleum Institute, and Christian Seigneur, who works for Air Quality Division at Atmospheric & Environmental Research (AER) Inc., which is funded by three organizations (API, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Health Effects Institute) that receive money from industries that have a direct financial interest in the committee's decisions. The final roster did exclude Roger McClellan, the New Mexico-based industry consultant whom clean air advocates also protested.

Advisors with ties to the power industry are grossly inappropriate for a panel charged with scientific recommendations on two greenhouse gases. It is not EPA's duty to include the views of industry in enforcing the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act is one of our country's greatest environmental achievements in part because it was designed to stay one step ahead of pollutants and polluters. Standards are to be improved every five years and, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Whitman v. American Trucking Association, cost and achievability are not to be considered. CASAC should be a place for unpolluted scientific thought.



Posted by Matt Madia, 03:47:37 PM



Thursday, April 19, 2007

PDUFA Reauthorization Moving through Senate

Yesterday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted favorably to reauthorize the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). PDUFA allows FDA to collect money from the drug industry in order to pay for safety tests of new drugs. While this may sound like a good way for the government to raise funds, the money comes with strings attached. The drug industry, to some extent, dictates the timetable for drug approval.

PDUFA reauthorization is one part of the Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act (S. 1082). Four Republicans and one independent joined all committee Democrats in voting to report the bill to the full Senate. If enacted in its current form, the legislation would:

  • Reauthorize PDUFA for another five years. FDA will be able to collect more user fees from the drug industry, per the agency's recommendation.
  • Allow FDA to review TV ads for new drugs (you know, the commercials that list a variety of unpleasant side effects). Some Republicans have raised First Amendment concerns in regard to this provision.
  • Strengthen FDA's ability to monitor drug safety after the drugs reach the market.
  • Reauthorize MDUFMA, a law similar to PDUFA but for medical devices instead of drugs.
  • Create special provisions for the study of pediatric drugs and medical devices.
  • Place medical marijuana under the regulatory purview of FDA. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) added this provision as an amendment.

The bill will now move to the Senate floor. Bill cosponsor Ted Kennedy has also vowed the final bill will include language to allow FDA to approve generic drugs, a provision the drug industry adamantly opposes. The House is still developing its PDUFA reauthorization bill.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:23:36 AM



Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Small Government, Big Problems

Author Rick Perlstein has an excellent opinion piece on TomPaine.com. He argues conservative values, specifically the idea of limited government, are responsible for the dwindling ability of the FDA to ensure the safety of the nation's food supply.

Perlstein argues that budget cuts are responsible for the FDA's inability to preempt contaminated food crises. When the FDA does act it is often too late, as it was with the recent peanut butter incident:

This was the system working as it is presently designed. Barn door: closed. Cow: already long gone. That, basically, is as good as it gets in the modern FDA.

The arguments in the column aren't all that surprising to me. (Conservative values have been making me sick for years.) But I do hope the idea of sticking up for big government flourishes.

America's character has long been one of progress and inclusion. Government ought to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure health, happiness, and opportunity for each and every one of its citizens. Conservatives have done a remarkable job tarnishing the reputation of government. It's time for the rest of us to get up off the mat. Big ideas need Big government, and Big government needs Big ideas. America deserves no less.



Posted by Matt Madia, 01:45:06 PM



Latest Watcher

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

Recess Appointment Makes Dudley Head of White House Regulatory Policy Office

Courts Rebuke Bush Administration's Forest Actions

EPA Issues another Delay in Contaminant Regulation








Tuesday, April 17, 2007

NIH to Review Contractor's Work on Bisphenol A

Last week, the National Institutes of Health officially ended its relationship with Sciences International, a private consulting firm. As OMB Watch has reported, SI had essentially been managing an NIH group studying reproductive health. The consultant's research and summaries of a particular chemical, bisphenol A, exhibited industry bias. Subsequently, SI became the focal point of a controversy over scientific contractors and conflicts of interest.

Now, NIH will review all the work SI performed related to bisphenol A (The Washington Post reports ). This is a welcome step by NIH. Without such oversight, SI would have been able to affect scientific decisions through previously prepared documents despite having been fired.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:16:37 AM



Friday, April 13, 2007

EPA Punts on Perchlorate...Again

EPA has once again delayed developing a standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Perchlorate, an ingredient in rocket fuel, can detrimentally effect the human hormonal system even in low doses.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose support for perchlorate regulation is unimpeachable, is perturbed with EPA's decision, or lack thereof. In a statement, Boxer said, "I am outraged that EPA has yet again refused to do its duty to protect the health of our families and communities from perchlorate pollution." For more info on the EPA decision, read NRDC's press release.

OMB Watch often criticizes the regulatory process for being too slow in responding to the public's needs. The process is muddied and subject to political interference. Perchlorate testing is a prime example of what we mean.

  • 1998: EPA assesses perchlorate. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
  • 1999 — 2002 : EPA assessment is peer reviewed. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
  • 1999: EPA issues toothless interim guidance on perchlorate exposure.
  • 2002: EPA's peer-reviewed assessment is reviewed by the Pentagon and EPA, allowing the agency to reach new heights in redundancy.
  • 2003: EPA issues interim guidance about the 1999 interim guidance. (Again with the redundancy.)
  • 2004: White House and Pentagon spend their time interfering in an upcoming NAS study on perchlorate.
  • 2005: NAS releases study on perchlorate. Verdict: perchlorate bad.
  • Yesterday: EPA decides not to regulate perchlorate citing the need for "additional investigation."






Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Scientific Consensus on Smog Standard: Will EPA Listen?

Once every five years, EPA is required by law to revise the national standards for ground-level ozone, a.k.a. smog. As the agency prepares its revisions, another scientific body has urged EPA to tighten the standard.

In a letter to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, a group of 111 medical scientists called for tighter rules on smog, according to BNA news service (subscription). The scientists point out the current standard allows exposures which can cause serious adverse health effects.

This group of scientists joins two EPA science panels — the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee — in recommending tighter standards. Considering the obvious consensus, EPA should revise the national smog standards to reflect the scientific recommendations. EPA's final decision is due in early 2008.



Posted by Matt Madia, 11:13:00 AM



Friday, April 06, 2007

FDA Improves Transparency by Launching New Webpage

FDA's ability to monitor and ensure the safety of drugs and medical devices after they appear on the market has been the subject of great scrutiny lately. As OMB Watch has reported, Congress and others have been critical of the agency for failing to conduct post-market safety studies.

There are plenty of ideas for how the agency can improve their practices. Legislation is floating on Capitol Hill to beef up FDA funding and authority.

Today, with the realization that those solutions are months off, FDA took a good step to improve the process in the near term. FDA has launched a webpage where the public can monitor the progress of post-market studies on medical devices. This is certain to hold the FDA more accountable to the American people. It also improves the transparency of the agency's actions which are often criticized for being too subject to industry influence. Reg•Watch hopes FDA expands this transparency to post-market studies on drugs as well.



Posted by Matt Madia, 03:44:57 PM



Dudley on the Editorial Pages

Susan Dudley's recess appointment is the subject of editorials in this morning's Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Let's compare and contrast.

Read the rest of this entry

Posted by Matt Madia, 10:54:30 AM



Thursday, April 05, 2007

Lieberman Unhappy with Bush Choice to Bypass Senate on Dudley

Yesterday, President Bush recess appointed Susan Dudley to be the White House's regulatory czar. The announcement comes just days after Senate members indicated they would consider the Dudley nomination in the normal fashion.

Sen. Joe Lieberman isn't happy with the president's blatant disregard for checks and balances. Lieberman chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, which was responsible for Dudley's confirmation. A spokeswoman for Lieberman, Leslie Phillips, released the following statement:

The Administration's decision to recess appoint Susan Dudley shows disrespect for the advise and consent responsibilities of the U.S. Senate and for the American people, on whose behalf the Senate acts. The power to recess appoint should not be used to avoid any scrutiny of Presidential nominees. Senator Lieberman was proceeding with Ms. Dudley's nomination, and there has been no suggestion that she would be denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:08:38 AM



Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Meet Your New OIRA Administrator, Susan Dudley

President Bush just installed Susan Dudley as White House regulatory czar through a recess appointment. Dudley will now serve in the White House Office of Management and Budget as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

Dudley is a triple threat when it comes to the federal regulatory process.

  • First, she is ideologically opposed to regulation of any kind. She is likely to roll back countless public protections, and will be loath to support any new rulemakings.
  • Second, Dudley is over-zealous when it comes to regulatory review and cost-benefit analysis. The policies she will pursue as OIRA administrator will likely result in "paralysis by analysis."
  • Third, Dudley is a friend of industry, and corporate executives are likely to have unprecedented access to the regulatory process.
Three strikes … and now she's in.

Moreover, Bush's choice to use a recess appointment circumvents Congress and shows disregard for the democratic process. "At a time when the American people are growing more frustrated with back-room, special interest dealings at the White House, Bush has bypassed the transparency afforded by the Senate confirmation process," said Rick Melberth, OMB Watch's Director of Regulatory Policy.

For more, read the OMB Watch press release.

Related posts: "Lieberman Unhappy with Bush Choice to Bypass Senate on Dudley""Dudley on the Editorial Pages"



Posted by Matt Madia, 04:42:08 PM



Latest Watcher

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

OMB Manipulated Climate Science, Report Says

Miners Detail MSHA's Failings in Emotional Testimony

FDA Issues New Conflict of Interest Guidelines






Monday, April 02, 2007

Supreme Court Says CO2 Should Be Regulated

The Clean Air Act is clear in stating the federal government should reduce the presence of harmful air pollutants. However, for years the Bush administration has ignored one of America's premiere environmental laws and failed to address perhaps the world's most harmful emissions: greenhouse gases.

Today, the Supreme Court set the record straight. In what will surely be hailed as a landmark decision, the court ruled 5-4 the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The ruling comes at an ideal time, as Congress and the American people are realizing the time to combat global climate change has arrived. Moreover, it proves the virtue of checks and balances in our democracy, as the Supreme Court has checked the Bush administration's failure to execute its constitutionally charged duties.

For more from the Natural Resources Defense Council, click here.

For background on the court case, click here.



Posted by Matt Madia, 01:16:55 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

For EPA Staff Trying to Protect the Planet, "Disappointment is Profound"

Consumer Product Bill Delivers Win for Consumers

Will New FDA Guidelines Really Reduce Conflicts of Interest?

Crane Rule Held Back by Bush Administration Ideology

Senate Passes Product Safety Bill

Product Safety Bill Overwhelmingly Approved by House

Salmonella Source Found

On Phthalates, Congress Taking Safety-First Approach

Occupational Risk Assessment Rule Revealed

Swing and a Miss on Canceling SCHIP Cuts

Archived Entries for Public Health

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004