Today, the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy announced its final list of regulations under its regulatory review and reform initiative. Ultimately, this list tees up 10 rules the Bush administration may attempt to rollback in its final year in office.

Last year, the Office of Advocacy solicited nominations for rules it could then push federal agencies to modify. Business owners, industry lobbyists, and anti-regulatory think tanks nominated more than 80 such rules.

The final list shows a bias against public health and safety standards. Four of the rules the Office of Advocacy will target are EPA rules: dry cleaner air monitoring; drinking water systems; solid waste recycling; and oil spill prevention.

Two other rules are occupational health standards. One is an OSHA rule protecting lab and medical workers from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Another is Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) rule regulating the use of explosives in mines.

Another rule places restriction on flights around the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued the rule as an interim rule in the wake of the September 11 attacks and plans to finalize it, according to the Office of Advocacy.

Of the remaining three rules, one is an IRS rule regarding home office deductions, and the other two relate to federal procurement and contracting.

The Bush administration will likely spend its last year in power trying to accomplish through regulation what it cannot accomplish legislatively. Associated Press reporter Matthew Daly (via GovExec.com) portends another of these 11th hour administrative changes:

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday that his department will review gun laws on lands administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Officials will draw up new rules by April 30 for public comment, Kempthorne said in a letter to 50 senators who requested the review.

The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates hailed the announcement as the first step to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) called the regulations "inconsistent." According to the article, "Crapo and other lawmakers had complained to Kempthorne that the existing guidelines were 'confusing, burdensome and unnecessary.' "

First, what is confusing about the existing regulations? Loaded guns are not allowed in national parks. If that confuses you, it is probably not appropriate for you to even have a gun in the first place.

Second, if anything is unnecessary, it's a gun in a national park. Citizens are not allowed to shoot things in national parks. Even if Interior changes the rules and allows guns in national parks, no one will be legally allowed to use them. A rule change would only serve to add unnecessary risk in areas where enjoyment and relaxation should be paramount.

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees and other organizations are adamantly opposed to the rule change: "The groups say current regulations requiring that visitors to national parks render their weapons inaccessible were working and have made national parks among the safest places in America."

But, with the clock is running out on Bush, the National Park Service Retirees will take a back seat to the National Rifle Association every time.

The Bush administration's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has spent the better part of the past year pushing for changes at the federal level that would make it more difficult for states to administer government healthcare benefits.

One batch of regulations targets federal funding of state Medicaid programs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "Each of the regulations is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by directly limiting the level of provider reimbursement, restricting the scope of services eligible for federal match and by limiting states' ability to finance their Medicaid programs."

In August, CMS proclaimed new guidance (a form of administrative government that is not subject to the standard public notice-and-comment period) that undermines the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). CMS issued the new policy to reduce the chance state plans would extend SCHIP coverage to individuals who may be eligible for private coverage. Opponents of extending SCHIP eligibility often refer to this as "crowd-out."

CMS would accomplish this goal by prescribing a host of new requirements states would have to meet before receiving federal funding to extend benefits to children in need. Several states have already sued CMS over the guidance.

As BNA news service reports today, governors are angry about the changes. According to the article, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (D) said the SCHIP guidance would prevent certain children from being covered even though their parents would be eligible for other government provided healthcare. Washington governor Christine O. Gregorie, "said the SCHIP directive would interfere with its goal of providing health care coverage to all the state's children by 2010."

"Governors from both parties also urged Congress to stop several Medicaid regulations from being implemented, saying they would shift $13 billion in Medicaid spending over five years to the states at a time when states are facing an uncertain economy," according to the article.

The National Governors Association has written to Congress requesting a delay of the Medicaid regulations. Read the letter here.

The Bush administration is pursuing or has achieved several policy goals that work to cut social support services by reducing federal funding for Medicaid programs. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has released all of these policies — three proposed rules, one interim final rule, and two final rules — in the past nine months.

Two recent reports (one by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and one by the Kaiser Family Foundation) link the policies together to show a uniform attack by the Bush administration on federal support of state Medicaid programs. From the Kaiser report:

The Administration views these regulatory changes as promoting the purposes of Medicaid by enhancing the integrity of the program. However, states argue that many of the regulations could limit flexibility in administering the program and could impede the ability of the Medicaid program to fulfill some of its critical roles in the health care system such as providing support to safety-net providers or providing long-term care supports in the least restrictive settings.

Basically, the new rules undermine Medicaid benefits by placing an increasing burden on the states. "Each of the regulations is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by directly limiting the level of provider reimbursement, restricting the scope of services eligible for federal match and by limiting states' ability to finance their Medicaid programs," according to the Kaiser report. By reducing federal spending, states would be forced to either cut benefits or pick up the slack financially.

Some of these rules represent efforts by the Bush administration to circumvent Congress. For example, one of the proposed rules would limit the ability of state governments to provide rehabilitation services (such as transitions to independent housing) for people with mental illnesses or developmental disabilities. According to the Kaiser report, the Bush administration proposed this limitation as a legislative provision in 2006, but Congress rejected it.

These are exactly the kind of administrative changes we should expect the Bush administration to pursue in its waning days of power. Confronted by a Democratically-controlled Congress and election-year politics, the administration will try to accomplish administratively what it cannot accomplish legislatively.

Reg•Watch in Review is a biweekly email update of recent news from the regulatory world. Reg•Watch in Review highlights regulatory process issues and stories about environmental, product safety, workplace safety, and scientific integrity policy.

Preview today's edition here, or sign up below.