The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft scientific integrity policy is missing critical elements needed to effectively safeguard science at the agency, OMB Watch said in comments filed yesterday. The policy must be improved if the agency is to ensure that the best science informs policy decisions that affect the health and environmental quality of all Americans.

The Obama administration recognizes that sound, uncensored science is critically important to protecting our health, economy, and environment. Consequently, President Obama issued a memo shortly after taking office, establishing protections for scientific integrity and directing agencies to implement them. Unfortunately, implementation of that memo has been sluggish and uneven. However, there have been some bright spots, such as the draft policy at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which OMB Watch praised.

EPA's efforts have been more mixed. For example, the process to develop a policy at EPA has been mostly open: the agency posted a draft policy and solicited public comment. But the openness has been less than full-fledged, as important appendices and references are missing from the policy posted. EPA should be sure the public has an opportunity to comment on a complete version of the policy before finalizing it.

The content of EPA's draft policy is also flawed. The draft policy moves in the right direction but stops short of what's needed to adequately protect scientific integrity. Fundamentally, an effective scientific integrity policy must do two things: prevent political interference with science and protect the free flow of scientific information. EPA's draft policy is inadequate on both counts. As we say in our comments:

In general, the portions of EPA’s draft policy that have been released to date establish the appropriate principles for scientific integrity, particularly in striving to keep science free from political interference and to foster a culture of scientific openness. However, the translation of these principles into effective policies is lacking, and we recommend that EPA make significant changes to the draft policy to address this gap.

To improve EPA's draft policy, OMB Watch makes these recommendations in our comments:

1. Make the prohibitions on political interference with science enforceable;
2. Strengthen protections for the free flow of scientific information;
3. Protect personnel who blow the whistle on scientific integrity violations;
4. Improve scientific integrity in peer review and federal advisory committees;
5. Expand the role and responsibilities of the Scientific Integrity Committee; and
6. Strengthen scientific integrity in interagency processes.

EPA's draft suggests that the agency understands the central role of scientific integrity in achieving its critical work to protect Americans' health and natural resources. But EPA needs more than just principles in order to have a policy that effectively upholds scientific integrity. Luckily, EPA has a great model to draw from: the draft NOAA policy. We're hopeful that EPA will make the revisions necessary to ensure that EPA science continues to be top-caliber research that Americans can trust.

The August 2011 Economic Policy Survey from the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that a large majority of business economists have a positive perspective on the regulatory environment in the United States, contradicting the overheated, anti-regulatory rhetoric coming from Big Business lobbying shops.

According to the survey:

Regulatory activity has gained a lot of attention, with many groups suggesting that American businesses are overregulated by the current administration. With that said, 80 percent of survey respondents felt that the current regulatory environment was "good" for American businesses and the overall economy.

Moreover, according to these experts, many of whom work hands-on in the business world, the watchword "uncertainty," when used by many businesses, refers to anxieties over the weak economy, not so-called "regulatory uncertainty." Nearly 75 percent of survey respondents said that "once the economy starts to improve, such anxieties will go away." NABE also noted, "The majority of survey respondents indicated that while uncertainty might be a concern, it is not a major one."

The NABE survey is the latest piece of evidence that the sky is not falling when it comes to regulations or the regulatory environment. In fact, recent studies from the independent Economic Policy Institute clearly show that regulations do not have a significant impact on job loss overall, that some rules can help create jobs in certain sectors, and that specific regulatory protections, including a series of environmental and public health standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can have significant economic and quality-of-life benefits. Other studies and reports, including pieces from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the Clean Air Council, illustrate that industry messaging on regulations is misleading and that the benefits of key public protections far outweigh their costs to business.

The bottom-line take-away from all of this evidence, coupled with common sense? The American people simply do not have to – and should not be asked to – choose between job creation and protecting their families and communities from environmental, workplace, and consumer product hazards.

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew from consideration a final rule that clarified exemptions to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirement. The articles exemption clarification was being reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the last step before it could be finalized and published in the Federal Register. The OIRA review process is not made available to the public, so it is impossible to tell what caused EPA to pull the rule.

TRI is an important part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act that requires manufacturers whose production processes release toxic chemicals into the environment above a certain threshold to report it to EPA. However, chemical releases that occur during storage of materials not made at the facility, or through the natural deterioration of materials, are exempt from the TRI reporting requirement. EPA created this “articles exemption” to reduce the reporting burden on facilities.

In 2007, representatives of the wood treatment industry contacted EPA for guidance on the articles exemption. EPA found that wood treatment facilities incorrectly believed off-gassing wood that had been treated with toxic chemicals was exempt from TRI reporting requirements under the articles exemption provision. As a result, wood treatment plants were exposing surrounding communities to toxic chemicals such as ammonia, arsenic, and benzene without reporting it. EPA, acknowledging that its existing guidance on exempt articles was misleading, began the rulemaking process to clarify that off-gassing did not qualify for the exemption.

The withdrawal of this rule is cause for concern for two reasons. First, EPA pulled the rule in its final stages, after it had been through the rigors of the rulemaking process during which stakeholders, the public, and OIRA had the opportunity to weigh in on the proposal. In addition, EPA held a meeting with industry in July 2010, before the final rule was completed, giving the agency ample opportunity to respond to industry complaints. EPA then finished the final rule and submitted it to OIRA in November 2010. The withdrawal indicates that EPA must have received new information or felt additional political pressure since drafting the final rule, though none of this has been disclosed to the public.

Second, OIRA delayed its review of the exemption clarification, which is often a red flag indicating potential industry or political interference in the rulemaking process. By law, OIRA has 90 days to review a rule and return it to the agency for revisions or for publication in the Federal Register. It may file one 30-day extension if it needs more time to reach a decision on the rule. The exemption clarification was at OIRA for 214 days – more than twice the standard time for review.

EPA has ignored press requests for information regarding the withdrawal of the rule, including whether the agency plans to resubmit a revised version of the exemption clarification or to cancel the clarification entirely. While not required by law, EPA should release the OIRA markup of the final rule and let the public know why it pulled a straightforward clarification that would have improved protections to public health and safety.

For months, the country has been bombarded with increasingly negative and misleading messages about federal regulation, and Congress has responded by launching attacks against public protections that safeguard our air, our water, our food, our workplaces, and our economy. What's been missing from these anti-regulatory broadsides are examples of the benefits of regulation, but such stories emerged earlier today during a Coalition for Sensible Safeguards press call.

The call, held one day before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is scheduled to discuss a variety of legislative proposals targeting regulation, featured four speakers from diverse backgrounds: Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen (a co-chair of the coalition); Mike Krajovic, the president and CEO of the Fay-Penn Economic Development Council in Pennsylvania and a member of the American Sustainable Business Council's steering committee; Margo Moskowitz, a native of Virginia (she now lives in Georgia) who suffered a severe case of E. coli infection from cookie dough; and Cathy Stoddart, a registered nurse at a Level 1 trauma center in Pittsburgh, PA.

The speakers illustrated the benefits of regulation and provided examples of what happens when sensible, effective safeguards are not in place. Moskowitz, for instance, told a powerful story about her foodborne illness experience several years ago, the effects of which she is still living with today. Stoddart noted that before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cracked down on needle safety issues, nurses and other health care professionals were frequently falling victim to needlesticks; one of her colleagues eventually died after becoming infected with hepatitis from a needlestick. Stoddart said that since needle safety rules have been in place, incidents of hepatitis and other infections from needlesticks have fallen dramatically, preventing untold illnesses and deaths among health care workers.

Krajovic said that small business owners want to do the right thing, especially considering that much of their success is based upon the quality of life in the communities in which they live and work. During the call, he said that many small businesses are "naturally doing what's naturally right" and are playing by the rules on a daily basis. He also stressed that Big Business and its allies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, do not speak for the small business community and have what he called a "myopic" view of public protections. Without regulations, he said, communities suffer from the irresponsible actions of these big corporations, such as shipping jobs overseas.

These stories and others like them show that public protections are critically important. Hopefully, lawmakers in the Senate and beyond will start listening and will come to understand that legislation that delays critical rules and prevents agencies from effectively protecting the public is counterproductive and poses a threat to the health, safety, and quality of life of the American people.