Environmental Defense Fund Strongly Opposes So-Called "Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998"

The revised version of regulatory “reform” legislation (S. 981) released earlier this month provides far too many opportunities for the regulated community to delay new public protections and divert resources from enforcement of existing ones, and will hinder and delay governmental decisions on health, safety, and the environment, an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) attorney told a Senate panel today.

“Nothing in this bill addresses critical problems within the existing regulatory system, which is already too slow and riddled with loopholes,” said Karen Florini, an EDF attorney who testified before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs at today’s hearing. “This bill just makes matters worse. It creates many new opportunities for litigation by industry lawyers seeking to set aside protections, and it will force agencies to spend much of their time developing massive records so that important protections are not thrown out by the courts.”

“Under the current regulatory system, regulatory action can’t be taken absent massive data on toxicity, even if there’s no information indicating that exposures are safe,” said Florini. “The bill ignores this fundamental problem, despite the fact that basic data needed to complete even a preliminary assessment of health risk are not publicly available for over 70% of high-volume industrial chemicals.”

According to EDF, the legislation exacerbates many existing problems:

• Industry lawyers will have new and expanded opportunities to delve into agency cost-benefit determinations and cost-benefit analyses in lawsuits challenging newly adopted rules.
• Regulated agencies will move even more slowly in preparing new rules than they currently do, in an attempt to minimize the chances of unfavorable court action.
• Significant agency resources will be consumed in reviewing existing regulations, litigating over which ones warrant review, and defending second-bite-at-the-apple lawsuits involving rules already in effect.
• Substantial additional delays will be introduced by the bill’s complex 10-step process for preparing and reviewing risk assessments, without improving the ultimate outcome.
• Peer review panels are likely to be biased, given that the bill fails to bar participation by industry employees, although it bars all agency personnel.