Blog Posts of Rick Melberth

Regulatory Process Oversight Hearing Postponed

 

A hearing entitled Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process that was scheduled for today was postponed because one of the witnesses is ill. The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law had scheduled the hearing, the first congressional hearing to focus on regulatory process issues in the Obama administration. OMB Watch's executive director, Gary Bass, was scheduled to testify among others.

The subcommittee had extended to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) an invitation to testify but the administration declined to participate. We don't know if OIRA declined because of scheduling conflicts or other reasons. (Hearings are very often scheduled at the convenience of high-ranking government officials to ensure that key witnesses can appear.)

Here's hoping that the postponement provides another opportunity for the subcommittee to issue an invitation to OIRA, and that the OIRA administrator, Cass Sunstein, will be able to appear. In keeping with the administration's emphasis on transparency and government accountability, a congressional oversight hearing would be a great opportunity for OIRA to highlight its actions, and for Congress to ask questions of the administration. Regulatory oversight hearings rarely occur and the administration should participate when they do occur.

Additionally, we want to extend a “thank you” to the Judiciary Subcommittee for planning an oversight hearing on federal rulemaking. Regulations are about enforcing the laws passed by Congress and ultimately about protecting the public. The Bush administration was widely criticized by the public interest community as favoring less regulation, tilting regulations in favor of industry when it had to regulate, and reducing enforcement of regulations on the books. The Obama administration promised to curb the influence of special interests and get the regulatory machinery moving again to protect health, safety, and the environment.

While a little over one year may be too early to fully assess progress made by the Obama administration, it is appropriate for Congress to provide vigilant oversight.

(Rick Melberth 03/16/10; 0 comments)

Obama Signs Bill Regulating Tobacco

 

President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 today giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) powers to regulate tobacco for the first time. The law bans tobacco advertising within a thousand feet of schools and playgrounds and curbs the marketing of products to children.

It allows FDA to take steps to reduce the harmful effects of smoking through a new Center for Tobacco Products. More than 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses, according to the White House blog. The White House also issued a fact sheet on the bill.

 

(Rick Melberth 06/22/09; 0 comments)

Obama Issues Memo on Preemption Practices

 

President Obama issued a memorandum May 20 to the heads of executive departments and agencies that should limit some of the worst preemption practices used by the Bush administration.

The memo outlines the general policy of the Obama administration as one in which:

…preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.

The memo directs agencies to stop using one of the Bush administration's favorite practices of inserting preemption language into the preambles of regulations – sometimes after the regulation had gone through the notice-and-comment process and been completed. Bush used this approach to preemption mainly to protect product manufacturers from state-level lawsuits by citizens who had been damaged by defective or malfunctioning products.

The Obama memo prevents this practice unless preemption provisions are in the regulation itself. Preemption in the regulation should be included only after proper legal vetting including the consideration of the nine federalism principles set out in Executive Order 13132 issued in 1999.

Just as important, however, is a provision in the memo requiring agencies to review regulations issued over the last ten years that contain preemption statements in either the preambles or the codified provisions of regulations to determine if the preemption provisions are legally justified. If the agencies find rules in which preemption cannot be justified, the agencies should take "appropriate action."

(Rick Melberth 05/21/09; 0 comments)

Settlements Reached in Crandall Canyon Civil Suits

 

The Salt Lake Tribune and the Mine Safety and Health News are reporting that families of victims in the August 2007 Crandall Canyon mine collapse have reached a settlement with the companies that owned and operated the mine and related insurance companies. The settlement involves three civil suits representing 16 groups of plaintiffs and includes seven defendants.

According to the Tribune, the civil settlement does not affect the criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney for Utah, Brett Tolman. That investigation continues. The companies are still contesting more than $1.5 million in civil penalties proposed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for violations at the mine, according to Mine Safety and Health News.

The settlement is reportedly the largest in Utah mining history but terms of the settlement remain confidential. The largest prior mine settlement was in 1984 for more than $22 million. Attorneys for the two sides had been in mediated talks for more than a year trying to reach a settlement without going to litigation.

Six miners were killed in the initial collapse and just days later three rescuers were killed when another section of the mine collapsed. Litigation would have been long and costly because reports about the accident have assigned responsibility for the failure to various parties including MSHA for approving faulty mine safety plans.

(Rick Melberth 05/13/09; 0 comments)

Lobbyists Opposing FDA Changes

 

Congress is attempting to formulate and pass legislation to address problems that have become apparent at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). After increasing questions in recent years about the safety of prescription drugs and imported food, we've learned about the limited ability of FDA to regulate effectively some of the products.

Legislation in Congress, particularly in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, that addresses ways to reform how FDA protects us from harmful products in the marketplace is being strongly opposed by lobbyists for the food and drug industries. According to an article in POLITICO, the lobbyists are trying to delay the legislation and run the clock out in this abbreviated election year session of Congress.

One of the lobbying groups active in the fight is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). It represents agribusiness and food processing companies. GMA last year put forth its own proposal calling on FDA to adopt a foreign supplier quality assurance program after FDA announced an import ban on five different types of Chinese farm-raised seafood products. Apparently, GMA thinks Congress wants to go too far in moving to protect consumers at the expense of its members.

The Energy and Commerce Committee seems undeterred, according to POLITICO: "Our plan is still to do a comprehensive overhaul of FDA to equip it to deal with an increasingly globalized market," said spokeswoman Jodi Seth. "We're interested in cleaning up the whole mess, including contaminated heparin and tainted tomatoes. Consumers want all the products they consume to be safe."

It may not be easy to get anything meaningful passed to enhance FDA's powers this session, but one would think the lobbyists would be less resistant to getting a bill completed this year — while they still have their friend in the White House.

(Rick Melberth 06/25/08; 0 comments)

It All Depends on Who You Ask

 

Following last week's hearing by the House Education and Labor Committee on the underreporting of workplace injuries, the committee held a hearing today entitled, Is OSHA Failing to Adequately Enforce Construction Safety Rules?

Not too surprisingly, the answer is different depending on who you ask. If you ask the brother-in-law of a worker killed in a Las Vegas accident, or the Acting Building Commissioner in New York City, or the President of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the answer to the question is pretty similar. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could be doing a lot more to save lives and prevent injuries.

Most of the questions, however, were directed to Edwin Foulke, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. In what has become the standard script for administration officials in testimony before congressional oversight committees, Foulke 1) talked about the progress the agency is making, 2) used a couple big numbers without providing a context in which to tell what those numbers mean, and 3) refused to answer questions about what resources the agency needs to do its job better.

No fewer than four times, committee members asked Foulke, in one way or another, if OSHA needed more resources for inspections, training, enforcement, or to get rules written to protect American workers. Foulke did not answer that question even once. His standard response was to talk about the progress OSHA is making in reducing the rates of injuries and accidents.

The irony of repeating that mantra before the committee — a committee that had, the week before, learned about the underreporting of injuries, that had just pointed out to him the soaring rates of increases in injuries among Hispanic construction workers, and that asked him to explain why the rates of fatalities in Canada and several European countries were about half the U.S. average — seemed lost on Foulke.

According to testimony at the hearing by the union representative, four construction workers die each day in the U.S., around 1,200 to 1,500 workers each year. That is 10 times the number of law enforcement officials and 10 times the number of firefighters lost each year. Let's stop asking the administration how it's doing and start documenting the uncomfortable facts about its performance. It may not change agency behavior at this late date, but at least such information can teach us how not to govern.

(Rick Melberth 06/24/08; 0 comments)

Mattel Recalls Another 9.5 Million Toys

 

Mattel, Inc. and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced recalls of 9.5 million Chinese toys today due either to magnets coming loose from the toys or excessive levels of lead-based paint, according to The Washington Post. The magnets can come out the toys and be swallowed by children causing potentially fatal problems.

Mattel discovered the problems while investigating all its factories in China after an earlier recall of 1.5 million toys due to lead paint coatings. According to the Post story, Mattel had never recalled products for lead paint problems prior to this month.

(Rick Melberth 08/14/07; 0 comments)

Toy Factory Owner Commits Suicide

 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that one of the Chinese owners of the toy manufacturer tied to the Mattel, Inc. recall of 1.5 million toys committed suicide Aug. 11. Cheung Shu-hung, an owner of Lee Der Industrial Co., killed himself at his Chinese factory.

It is not clear if the suicide is related to the recall, according the WSJ article, but Mattel revealed late last week that Lee Der was the manufacturer of the recalled toys, which may have been coated with excessive levels of lead-based paint. After the Aug. 2 recall, China announced that Lee Der was prevented from exporting its products and was being investigated.

Chinese manufacturers face intense cost pressures and may be facing huge losses as U.S. companies begin to look elsewhere for their products. An Aug. 11 Washington Post story cited instances of U.S toy retailers looking to purchase more goods from domestic and E.U. sources, although many of their holiday orders for goods have already been placed. E.U. manufacturers have higher safety standards than the U.S. and test products made in China before exporting them. The Post also reports that the Toy Industry Association is working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to write legislation that makes testing mandatory for all toys. As we noted last week, CPSC has just had its full powers legislatively restored temporarily. If the two groups working together propose steps away from the current voluntary approach, it would be a great leap forward.

(Rick Melberth 08/13/07; 0 comments)

Another Risk to Consumer Safety

 

As we blogged earlier this month, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has been without a quorum since July 2006. This has prevented it from fully addressing all of its responsibilities since January of this year. The agency oversees the safety of thousands of domestic and foreign consumer goods used in homes, schools, and sports.

Life at the agency has become so difficult that one commissioner worries publicly that the agency may not survive, according to an Associated Press (AP) story published today. Commissioner Thomas Moore is quoted as saying that cuts in staffing and budgets have employees worried that the agency may not exist much longer and many are looking for other jobs. The number of full time staff has declined to about 400, half of what it was in 1980.

Both Moore, a Clinton appointee, and Acting Commission Chairwoman Nancy Nord, an appointee of President Bush, support congressional action that could strengthen CPSC's powers and modernize laws related to its functions. Democrats in Congress have proposed legislation to accomplish this and to allow CSPC to function for another six months without a quorum.

The CPSC people have reason to worry. Like the Reagan administration, which sharply cut back staff in the 1980s after businesses complained about the agency, the Bush administration isn't likely to embrace efforts to enhance CSPC's powers. Bush took eight months to nominate Michael Baroody, an industry representative who fought CSPC for years, to fill the current commission vacancy to reach a quorum. It's been two months since Baroody withdrew his nomination in the face of considerable Senate opposition and Bush still hasn't nominated a replacement. Surprised?

(Rick Melberth 07/27/07; 0 comments)

Paranoia Strikes Deep

 

The Associated Press (AP) published a story today noting the decline in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) criminal enforcement of polluters. According to the article, "The number of the Environmental Protection Agency's criminal investigators has dropped this year to 174, below the 200-agent minimum required by Congress, even as the EPA's overall criminal enforcement budget rose nearly 25 percent over three years to $48 million, according to EPA records." Civil settlements, however, which require spending on pollution controls, are increasing.

The data cited in the article are from an Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) report issued in May. EIP's report looks at 10 years of EPA enforcement data which show that criminal fines were down 38 percent during the fiscal years 2002-2006 compared to 1996-2000. Criminal investigations were down 23 percent over the same period and reached an all time low in FY 2006 of 305.

An EPA official quoted in the AP story said the EPA's focus was on more "high-impact" polluters and that the reductions in the number of investigators stemmed from retirements and transfers.

Could there be another reason? According to the AP, "The EPA acknowledged that criminal investigators sometimes are pulled off cases to check routes and guard EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson when he travels, although an eight-person team separate from the criminal division is dedicated to his protective detail." This started after September 11, 2001.

At least the polluters aren't afraid.

(Rick Melberth 07/26/07; 0 comments)