NEWS OF THE WEEK
FEDERAL REGULATION CURBED House approves business-friendly bills ouse Republicans have scored another victory in their blitzkrieg on federal regulations, overwhelmingly passing last week their risk assessment and cost-benefit bill. This triumph comes on the heels of House approval of a one-year moratorium on most new regulations. These two bills—and another on property rights or "takings" being debated at press time— are part of the House Republicans' "Contract With America/' After sometimes raucous debate, the risk assessment bill was approved 286 to 141, with 60 Democrats joining the majority. The bill ultimately would force regulators to put more emphasis on costs to the economy than on health protection when issuing regulations. This shift in regulatory philosophy— especially in the environmental arena where most laws mandate health-based standards—is strongly supported by industry. Environmental groups and the Clinton Administration just as vigorously reject it. The fate of similar measures in the Senate is unclear. The House bill requires rigorous assessment of how effectively a rule reduces risks to the public. It mandates a costbenefit analysis for any regulation that would cost the economy more than $25 million. And if costs exceed $100 million, the cost-benefit analysis must undergo formal peer review. Critics argue such reviews pose potential conflicts of interest because review panels could include representatives of affected firms. Under the bill's language, regulators not only must demonstrate a proposed rule is the most cost-effective way to reduce risk, they also must show no alternatives exist. Regulators also must compare the risk being addressed to common risks—like smoking. And every final rule must include an analysis of its effects on small businesses, as well as the cumulative effect of the new rule and existing regulations on "persons producing products." An agency could be sued in federal court if
H
6
MARCH 6,1995 C&EN
it failed to comply with all steps in this maze of requirements. Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), one of two Republicans who voted against the bill, agrees "the time has come and is long overdue" to formalize risk assessment. But, he adds, "The fault is not with the intent [of the bill] but with the end product, which I think goes overboard." Instead of the bill's "overreach ... Congress should fulfill its oversight responsibility." Business wholeheartedly supports the bill. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers and chairman of the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation (ARR), an industry coalition, says, 'The historic passage of H.R. 1022 is the first step in bringing common sense and accountability to the regulatory system." Fred Webber, president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, an ARR member, declares the bill "will do more to make government more responsive to people's concerns and more efficient than any legislation approved by the Congress in this century." And Mary J. Legatski, vice president for public affairs of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association, calls it "a step in the right direction—toward the use of sound science in the development of regulations while still assuring that health, safety, and the environment are protected." In sharp contrast, Gregory S. Wetstone, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, denounces the bill as "the single most destructive antienvironment legislation ever considered in Congress." It will "create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more litigation, and far less protection," he explains. "That is not reform, it is repeal. It is not streamlining, but the creation of a new system of gridlock." And Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner labels the bill "a full frontal assault on protecting public health and the environment. ... We look forward to working
Boehlert: Senate will save us with the Senate to address this simplistic and ill-advised approach." Indeed, Boehlert says the "good news is that the Senate will save us"—not only from the risk assessment bill, but also from a bill the House approved, 276 to 146, that freezes federal rule making. Boehlert was one of two dissenting Republicans. This freeze is retroactive to Nov. 20,1994, and effective until the end of this year—or until Congress passes reform legislation like the Houseapproved risk assessment bill and the takings bill it is considering. The moratorium bill provides several vague exceptions, including emergency exemptions for rules to enforce criminal laws or to protect against "an imminent threat to health or safety." But there is no exemption for pending food safety inspection rules to protect against bacterial contamination. However, the House voted to exempt migratory bird hunting regulations, making duck hunters happy. President Clinton has hinted he would veto a moratorium bill. Lois Ember
