http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/08/30/MN262014.DTL
Saturday, August 30,
2003
San Francisco Chronicle
White
House wants extra hurdle in regulating industries
Opponents say plan stalls enforcement of environmental
laws
Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post
Washington -- The Bush
administration proposed new requirements
Friday that would force federal regulators to seek independent
scientific review of new rules before issuing them.
The announcement by
the Office of Management and Budget was cheered
by groups linked to industry but questioned by advocates who warned
it would paralyze new environmental protections and stymie enforcement.
The proposal requires
agencies to systematically seek outside
opinions when evaluating scientific findings or disagreements,
a process called peer review.
Although such independent
appraisals are widely respected
in science, critics said the process could quickly get murky
when applied to such issues as global warming, pesticide use
and ergonomic safety, in which the calculation of risks and
benefits of regulations is complex, expensive and politically
charged.
John Graham, administrator
of OMB's Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, said the measure would keep politics out
of the regulatory process, but critics countered the proposal
could easily turn into a bonanza for big business.
"You have to be
suspicious," said Lisa Heinzerling, a professor
of law at Georgetown University who studies health and environmental
policy. "This would be another weapon for the administration
and
its corporate allies to use against protective regulation."
But Jim Tozzi, a former
OMB manager in the Nixon and Reagan
administrations and now a member of the board of advisers
of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, said the measure
would improve the quality of science used to justify regulations
and provide companies facing regulation a way to question
incorrect data.
"What this document
does is put additional teeth in what is
meant by peer review," said Tozzi, whose group works closely
with trade associations and private companies. He suggested
that environmental regulations and dietary guidelines might
get re-evaluated under the new standard.
According to the proposal,
which is expected to go into effect
in February,
if a regulation costs
firms more than $100 million a year and
companies challenge the quality of science behind it, regulators
must convene a panel of experts from outside the agency to
re-evaluate the science.
Graham said most of
the scientists doing reviews would likely
be drawn from universities. While the additional hurdle would
increase the time required to adopt a regulation, he said there
would be long-term benefits for regulators, industry and the
nation.
"It will take
agencies some time to do peer review, but
in the long run this will make their rules more competent
and credible and reduce their vulnerability to political
and legal attack," said Graham. "Rules based on peer
review
will be more durable than those that rely on the in-house
expertise of the agency."
A number of scientists,
public interest groups and Democrats
have charged that the Bush administration is taking the teeth
out of regulatory agencies, replacing scientists critical of
industry with those sympathetic to corporate and ideological
interests.
Rep. Henry Waxman,
D-Los Angeles, said Friday the Bush
administration had manipulated scientific committees to
advance political and ideological goals. "Based on their
track record, I'm concerned that the policy they are proposing
today will open the door to even more abuse," he said in
an
e-mail.
Graham said agencies
and the public would have several months
to comment on the proposed new standard, allowing the OMB time
to refine and improve it.
The new standards are
certain to increase the acrimony over
complex scientific issues, where experts can disagree about
the meaning and quality of the data, critics said.
"Peer review could
become a tool to say, 'When there is
uncertainty, don't regulate -- you need dead babies before
you can regulate,' " said Gary Bass, executive director of
OMB Watch, a regulatory watchdog group.
Page A - 4
