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 


Thursday, January 31, 2008

Polar Bear Trails Oil and Gas in Race to a Decision

[Reg•Watch Update: Oil and Gas Companies Win, Polar Bears Lose Feb. 6]

The Department of Interior is all set to approve Feb. 6 a lease program for oil and gas companies to operate in Chukchi Sea off Alaska's coast. The timetable for a decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act is much looser. The agency was required to make its decision on the polar bear by Jan. 9, but it is now aiming for "the very near future," according to AP.

Yesterday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee pressed an administration official, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, on the connection between the two decisions. If Interior chooses to list the polar bear before approving the lease program, the agency would have to analyze the impacts of oil and gas activity on the polar bear's health and habitat. If approval of the lease plan comes first, the polar bear is on its own.

The delay in the decision to list the polar bear reeks of a favor to oil and gas industry execs who would prefer to be able to drill in the region without taking special precautions to protect the species. In opening statements, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer said, "I find it curious that while your agency in the Interior Department is dragging its feet to list the polar bear, another agency in the Interior Department-the Minerals Management Service is charging full speed ahead to allow new oil and gas drilling activities in one of biological hearts of the polar bear's domain-the Chukchi Sea."

But the Bush administration would never put industry interests ahead of its obligation to govern in a timely and responsible fashion, right? According to AP, "Hall told the Senate committee the delay is not based on unresolved scientific issues, but — given the issue's high profile — a desire to assure that Congress and the public will understand the decision when it is made public."

Reg•Watch is not moved by Hall's concern. Congress and the public understand exactly what is going on — and it stinks. (On a related note, for another example of a Bush official patronizing the American people, read this post.)



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:54:51 AM



Wednesday, January 30, 2008

FDA a "Hollow Government" Agency

Resource shortfalls at the Food and Drug Administration were the focus of a House panel hearing yesterday. The House Energy and Commmerce subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight heard from members of FDA's Science Advisory Board who recently completed a report titled, "FDA Science and Mission at Risk." Among other things, the report highlighted how funding and staffing have not kept pace with FDA's ever-growing responsibilities to ensure the safety of the nation's food and drug supply.

One member of the board, Gail Cassell, spoke of the glaring problems the board saw when preparing the report:

It became rapidly apparent that the FDA suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities…Since every regulatory decision must be based upon the best available scientific evidence in order to protect the public's health, we concluded that American lives are at risk and that there is an urgent need to address the deficiencies.

But both members and witnesses recurrently brought the conversation back to resources. Another member of the board, Peter Barton Hutt, argued scientific problems at the agency cannot be fixed without an infusion of cash and an increase in staff:

The accumulating unfunded statutory responsibilities imposed on FDA, the extraordinary advance of scientific discoveries, the complexity of the new products and claims submitted to FDA for premarket review and approval, the emergence of challenging safety problems, and the globalization of the industries that FDA regulates — coupled with chronic underfunding by Congress — have conspired to place demands upon the scientific base of the agency that far exceed its capacity to respond. FDA has become a paradigmatic example of the "hollow government" syndrome — an agency with expanded responsibilities, stagnant resources, and the consequent inability to implement or enforce its statutory mandates.

Hutt called on Congress to double appropriations to FDA over the next two years and called on FDA to use that money to increase employment by 50 percent.

FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach also testified. Subcommittee chairman Bart Stupak (D-MI) pressed the commissioner on whether the president would be asking for an increase in funds for the agency when he releases his FY 2009 budget request next week. Von Eschenbach said he had asked for an increase in funding for his agency but could not comment on the president's budget before its release.



Posted by Matt Madia, 11:05:49 AM



Friday, January 25, 2008

House Members Begin Investigation of Plastics Chemical

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began an investigation into the use and federal regulation of bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical commonly found in a host of consumer products including CDs and baby bottles.

Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) wrote to seven manufacturers of infant products inquiring as to the chemical's use:

We have learned that BPA may be contained in the material used to line cans that contain infant formula and that BPA from this lining may leach into the formula itself, thereby exposing babies to BPA. We are interested to know how often BPA is used in such lining, whether the companies that produce the infant formula are aware that BPA is being used in this manner, and if they have tested their product for the presence of BPA.

The committee members also wrote to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach asking about FDA's recent determination that BPA is not currently a safety concern and, therefore, not worth regulating:

On what studies is FDA basing the claim that there is no "safety concern at the current exposure level"? If FDA is relying on published studies, please provide us with the scientific citations from any studies used by FDA in making this determination.

The committee's oversight is welcome in light of recent evidence that another BPA study — this one conducted by the National Toxicology Program — gave improper weight to scientific studies sponsored by chemical makers. The study called the chemical's risks "negligible" — a conclusion which could undermine the argument in favor of BPA regulation. The National Toxicology Program has since announced it will conduct a thorough review of the study.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:57:50 AM



Thursday, January 24, 2008

EPA Staff Advised Johnson Against Denying California

Yesterday, Reg•Watch blogged about EPA's refusal to release background documents on its decision to deny California's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. EPA rattled off several lame excuses for withholding the information from the public.

Details of those documents are beginning to surface. As expected, they show that EPA staff advised Administrator Stephen Johnson to grant California's request and instructed him that, if EPA blocked California from enacting its own regulations, the agency would likely lose in litigation.

Yesterday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), released the information, though not the actual documents. According to BNA news service (subscription), "EPA allowed committee staff to look at three different versions of the October PowerPoint presentation during a meeting Jan. 22. Three staff members were given five hours to review the three versions, according to the committee. They were not allowed to make copies."

We're not talking about nuclear launch codes or classified intelligence here. This information should not be shared solely with Congress. The American people have a right to know exactly why their government is preventing states from curbing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Johnson is scheduled to appear before Boxer's committee today at 10:00 am. The hearing is scheduled to be broadcast on C-SPAN.

Posted by Matt Madia, 10:03:56 AM



Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Industry Pushing for Drug Marketing Loophole

In November, Reg•Watch blogged about an FDA proposal that would allow drug companies to market drugs for unapproved uses by passing out journal articles and other studies. In a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, Rep. Henry Waxman — whose committee had discovered the proposal — complained that, by creating the loophole, drug companies could promote their drugs using studies they fund themselves, free from FDA oversight.

After some prodding by Waxman's committee, FDA turned over a memo from a meeting between FDA officials and drug industry representatives including Dan Troy, a former FDA chief counsel. In another letter to von Eschenbach, Waxman expresses concern:

According to this memorandum, Mr. Troy and the other drug company representatives urged you to issue FDA guidance allowing the distribution of journal articles promoting off-label uses to protect the drug companies from "Federal prosecutors pursuing distributors of this information for criminal conduct."

This document raises questions about the rationale for the draft guidance.

For now, that's the end of the story, because FDA has refused to turn over any more documents relating to the proposal. FDA claims those documents are "predecisional" and therefore privileged information.

Never deterred by the administration's obstructionism, Waxman is demanding more information:

In your December 2l letter, you state that you are not providing the Committee with other documents or answering the Committee's questions because this information is "predecisional." This is no basis for withholding from the Committee communications about the use of joumal articles that FDA received from private drug companies. This is also no basis for withholding internal FDA communications where — as in this case — there is evidence that FDA's actions may be unduly influenced by regulated companies.

For copies of letters and more information from Waxman's committee, click here.



Posted by Matt Madia, 02:38:00 PM



Friday, January 18, 2008

Holding Agencies Accountable (or Not) for Regulatory Delay

In a MarketWatch article published today, reporter Ruth Mantell discusses how agencies are rarely held accountable when they miss statutory deadlines for writing regulations. In one particularly onerous example, EPA has missed a Congressional deadline — by more than 11 years — for a rule that would limit exposure to lead paint during home renovation.

The nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has sued EPA, a tactic that too often must be used to prod agency action, as Mantell points out:

Repercussions are typically light, if they are any at all, for a federal agency or other governmental body that's been late or slow in complying with a mandate, consumer advocates say. In response, a cottage industry in scheduling lawsuits, such as PEER's against EPA, has bloomed, looking to make sure that obligations are met.

Congress sometimes exerts its powers of oversight to push agencies along. However, oversight falls short when considering the scope of the federal bureaucracy (about 2.5 million civilian employees and half-a-trillion dollars in non-defense, discretionary spending) and the decades-worth of federal legislation agencies are responsible for enforcing.

As for the lead renovation rule, EPA plans to finalize the standard in March; but before EPA can do that, the rule has one more major hurdle to clear. The White House is currently reviewing the rule under Executive Order 12866. White House review — one of the many across-the-board government requirements agencies must abide by — certainly does not help agencies move more quickly.

This week, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs held a closed door meeting to discuss the rule with officials from EPA and representatives of the National Association of Home Builders — an outspoken opponent of the rule.



Posted by Matt Madia, 04:45:31 PM



Friday, January 11, 2008

Questions for the Year Ahead: Regulatory Policy Outlook for 2008

As Reg•Watch mentioned last week, in 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Newspapers continually ran stories on White House interference, unsafe imports, and new hazards being ignored by government despite scientific evidence imploring regulation.

In 2007, Americans became trenchantly aware of the positive role government can play and the consequences that can be wrought when regulatory protections break down. But 2007 may have only been the beginning of a new chapter in American domestic policy. Many problems have been identified, but few have been solved. Dangerous imports, workplace hazards and environmental degradation may dominate headlines to an even greater extent in 2008.

But will mounting evidence be enough to tip the scales in favor of regulation in the face of the Bush administration's obstructionist policies? Federal agencies like EPA and OSHA may continue to drag their feet on issues such as diacetyl exposure (which threatens workers and consumers exposed to the artificial butter flavoring in microwave popcorn) and greenhouse gas emissions, and the White House will likely continue to meddle with agency regulations and may find new ways to enact even more damaging systemic changes.

Will a Democratically controlled Congress be able to move with the force necessary to pass new laws that respond to public needs? Despite the increased attention given to resource shortfalls at agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and FDA, Congress has been unable to approve appropriations bills that would make funding and staffing at those agencies commensurate with regulatory responsibility. Legislative measures, like those to improve import safety or reform our nation's energy policy, are constructive but have gained little traction in a Congress seemingly without a sense of national priorities — a Congress which prefers partisan bickering to positive governing.

Most importantly, will the public continue to look to government to play a positive role in society? If regulatory failures do indeed continue through 2008 and beyond, will the public succeed in imploring government intervention where circumstance has not? If our leaders continue to disregard science, govern on the cheap, and make politics a higher priority than policy, the public must hold those leaders accountable and demand change.



Posted by Matt Madia, 04:09:19 PM



Thursday, January 10, 2008

Plastics Chemical Report to Go under the Microscope

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) will conduct a thorough review of a controversial assessment of the health effects of bisphenol-A, a chemical commonly found in a host of consumer products including CDs and baby bottles. NTP will give the report "unprecedented scrutiny," according to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

NTP's reproductive health panel released the report, which was roundly criticized by scientists and environmental advocates, last August . The report came on the heels of a National Institutes of Health study which found health problems in newborn animals exposed to bisphenol-A.

Critics complained NTP had relied on industry-funded science which downplayed the negative effects of bisphenol-A. The panel called the chemical's risks "negligible" — a conclusion which could undermine the argument in favor of bisphenol-A regulation. In December, a Journal-Sentinel investigation confirmed those complaints.

The Journal-Sentinel found the panel "gave more weight to industry-funded studies and more leeway to industry-funded researchers." In one case, "The panel accepted a Korean study translated by the chemical industry's trade group that found bisphenol A to be safe."

The report's authors conveniently omitted other studies which concluded bisphenol-A does pose a health risk: "The newspaper found that the panel missed dozens of studies publicly available that the newspaper found online using a medical research Internet search engine."

The panel's report has been the object of controversy for some time. Last March, OMB Watch reported on Sciences International, a contractor with ties to the plastics industry which had been hired by NTP to prepare the report. After it was alleged Sciences International's conflict of interest had led to suspect scientific research, their contract was terminated.

Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for more.



Posted by Matt Madia, 01:48:27 PM



Thursday, January 03, 2008

States Turn to Courts to Allow GHG Regulation

Yesterday, 16 states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its refusal to allow California to implement a program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Had EPA granted California permission, the other 15 states in the suit would have adopted the California program.

EPA administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's request on Dec. 19. Johnson claimed California's proposed program is unnecessary in light of a recent federal law which would tighten the national fuel economy standard and that a federal regulation is preferable to a "confusing patchwork of state rules."

Johnson's argument is bogus. Had EPA approved California's request, other states could have adopted California's program (not created their own willy-nilly). The presence of two policies is neither confusing nor a patchwork. Furthermore, the Clean Air Act (not to mention the Constitution) contains provisions affording states the opportunity to enact their own regulatory schemes even if they are stricter than federal standards.

EPA insiders have acknowledged Johnson's decision does not hold water and will likely be overturned in court. But, since federal lawsuits take months or years, the Bush administration will still achieve its goal: delaying any meaningful action on climate change for eight long years.

Some progress may occur in the short term if Congress moves swiftly with focused oversight hearings. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have both requested EPA documents and communications related to Johnson's decision. EPA's general counsel has instructed agency personnel to provide said material, including any evidence of communications with the White House, according to the Associated Press.

Although congressional attention will alter policy, identifying who is responsible for the denial of the California's request will allow the public to hold the culprits accountable.



Posted by Matt Madia, 10:57:20 AM




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

Industry Ties Bind FDA Advisors

Right Whale Protection Rule Finally Here

Industry Pressuring EPA to Weaken Lead Rule

EPA Won't Keep Rocket Fuel out of Water

Roof Strength Rule Delayed Again

Bush Taking Credit for Whale Rule He Delayed

What Should the U.S. Do about China's Bad Milk?

Did OMB Block Asbestos Cleanup in Montana Town?

Whale Protection Rule Clears White House, 573 Days Later

EPA Just Kidding Around on Children's Health

Archived Entries for Oversight

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

November, 2006

September, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

April, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

October, 2005

September, 2005

July, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004