News of the Week
AGENCIES AIM TO CUT REGULATION BURDEN Government agencies have begun an attempt to ease the burdens of what many businessmen view as overregulation by these agencies. But how much easing of the regulatory morass will result from this attempt is not clear. At an interagency forum held in Dallas, heads of four major regulatory agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food & Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—pledged to work hard and to cooperate among themselves and with the public and business to ease such things as the number of regulations and the red tape involved in compliance with regulations. The forum is thé first joint presentation since President Carter earlier this fall established the Regulatory Council, which represents more than 100 federal regulatory agencies. EPA, FDA, OSHA, and CPSC also make up the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG), formed more than a year ago. EPA administrator Douglas M. Costle pointed out that the public has sent a message via Proposition 13 in California demanding a better return on tax dollars. Although neither he nor his colleagues at the meeting presented any figures on potential savings from the regulatory plan, big savings could result, for example, by
cross-agency research management to cover all bases in federally funded research on pollution control, and help in safety improvements on and off the job. Money is diversely spent in the health field, according to FDA chief Donald Kennedy. Checking is necessary, for example, to find out if all areas of toxicology of chemical substances are being covered. Now, efforts are under way to give missionoriented agencies, such as the regulatory agencies, the authority to call on research-oriented agencies for help, he adds. But some in the chemical industry have doubts that these plans will ease the burdens of government regulation. At a meeting of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers in New York City, Richard Fleming, executive vice president of Air Products & Chemicals and a member of the steering committee of the American Industrial Health Council, said that he believes that coordination of the agencies probably will not work. Fleming says that IRLG is preparing a general policy statement on common problems in regulation of potential carcinogens, but no one except agency personnel is permitted to participate. "All signs are that each agency is sticking very firmly to its own version of such a policy and I have been advised by people close to this work that the IRLG statement, when finally available, will be subscribed to by all agencies involved, but be so loose and broad in its
Kennedy: use research agencies
statement that each agency's policy will be unchanged by it." The chemical industry has, in effect, set up its own answer to IRLG. This is the Council of Chemical Associations, made up of SOCMA, the Manufacturing Chemists Association, the Society of the Plastics Industry, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, and the National Paint & Coatings Association. Each member association will track one or more groups in IRLG to determine its impact on the chemical industry. The results of their findings will be circulated among the organizations making up the council. D
National policy on stands ds devised The U.S. has a sizable public and private capability for developing standards. But it hasn't had a national policy for most effectively, economically, and equitably employing these resources. That lack has now been remedied. Two years of effort by the National Standards Policy Advisory Committee has resulted in a National Policy on Standards for the U.S., as well as a plan for implementing it. The committee hopes that voluntary adherence will be achieved. The committee was set up at the initiative of the American National Costle: message via Proposition 13 Standards Institute (ANSI), gener6
C&EN Dec. 18,1978
ally recognized as the functioning coordinator of the U.S. voluntary standards system. The committee, however, was entirely independent, with funding raised in small amounts from more than 50 organizations. The 30-member committee was made up of representatives of government, organized labor, public interest groups, trade associations, industry, professional societies, standards-writing bodies, testing laboratories, and consumers. Its final act, following completion of the policy and the plan for its implementation, was to abolish itself. The policy deals with various gen-
