Document wKDwag4L1VNxdQML0Z3LaZbvB

CAHCER . UCC 013336 SLIDE 1 CANCER l(h>ka,t Ht* p^b/fc ?% kJ t* b*]*&*) THE DEATH RATE DUE TO CANCER IS INCREASING RAPIDLY. * WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF AN EPIDEMIC OF CANCER. 80-902 OF CANCER IS CAUSED BY OUR ENVIRONMENT. WE ARE DROWNING IN A SEA OF CARCINOGENS. OUR MANUFACTURING PLANTS POLLUTE OUR ENVIRONMENT AND CAUSE CANCER. UCC 013337 SLIDE 2 MEDICAL AND REGULATORY CLICHES . THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL FOR A CARCINOGEN. (A SINGLE MOLECULE . CAN CAUSE CANCER TO A RARE SUSCEPTABLE PERSON.) USE OF CARCINOGENS SHOULD BE BANNED OR REDUCED TO THE LOWEST FEASIBLE LEVEL. (DEPENDS ON AGENCY STATUTORY AUTHORITY.) WHERE A SUBSTITUTE FOR A CARCINOGEN IS AVAILABLE THE CARCIN OGEN IS BANNED. . UCC 013338 SLIDE 3 PRESENT REGULATORY CLIMATE 1. TWO RECENT EVENTS HAVE MADE IT A WHOLE NEW BALL GAME - a. THE SUPREME COURT BENZENE DECISION b. THE ELECTION 2. SUPREME COURT BENZENE DECISION - a. Puts the burden of proof on the agency to demonstrate that an "unreasonable risk" exists before a regulation can be promulgated. b. Applies specifically to OSHA but has broad implications. 3. THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION a. Extensive philosophy of less rather than more regulation. b. Executive Order 12291 c. Clean out of the activist political appointees from the previous administration at policy making levels. d. Lower level (and critically important)bureaucrats still remain. UCC 013339 SLIDE 4 OSHA BACKGROUND 1. EMERGENCY ASBESTOS STANDARD DECEMBER 1971; FINAL JUNE 1972; MODEST CHANGES. 2. PROPOSAL ON OCTOBER 9, 1975. 0.5 FIBERS/CC (GENERAL INDUSTRY ONLY, CONSTRUCTION UNCHANGED). 3. NIOSH 0.1 FIBERS/CC BASED ON ANALYTICAL LIMITATIONS. RECENT MOVES 1. BACK BURNER SINCE 1975. 2. NEW TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS SUGGESTING 1 FIBER/CC OR LESS. 3. NEW INTERPRETATION RE SMOKING - ASSITIONAL RISK. 4. EPA INITIATIVES FORCE THEM TO PROTECT THEIR TURF (1979). 5. BEEN UNDER ACTIVE STUDY FOR PAST TOO YEARS. (BENZENE DECISION PRESENTS MAJOR PROBLEM.) EXPECTED FUTURE ACTIONS 1. MAJOR CHANGES IN REGULATORY APPROACH MUST BE DEVISED. 2. NEED TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. (VERY OBJECTIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO CONTEND WITH, PROBABLY SPLIT OUT ALL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STANDARDS.) 3. MUST PRESENT EXTENSIVE JUSTIFICATION UNDER EO-12291. 4. NO NEW ACTION FOR AT LEAST 7 MONTHS. 5. GOOD POSSIBILITY OF A LEVEL IN THE 0.5-1 FIBER/CC RANGE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS FOLLOWED BY UNION COURT CHALLENGE. UCC 013340 SLIDE 5 EPA PRESENT REGULATIONS A. CLEAN AIR ACT 1. 1973 - NO VISIBLE EMISSIONS OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS. 2. 1974 - WASTE DISPOSAL TO CONTROLLED LANDFILL. 3. 1975 - BAN ON SPRAYING OF CERTAIN FRIABLE MATERIALS (WETTED AND ENCAPSULATED ASBESTOS NON INCLUDED). B. RECRA 1. 1980 - LISTED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER SECTION 261.33f. . (COMMERCIAL ASBESTOS FIBER ONLY - 1000 KG/MONTH EXCEPTION) 2. - SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN (TEMPORARILY) FOR STUDY IF PRESENT CLEAN AIR ACT REGULATIONS ARE ADEQUATE. C. TSCA 1. ASBESTOS BEING USED AS A "TRIAL HORSE" TO DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THEIR AUTHORITY. 2. "CRADLE-TO-GRAVE APPROACH". 3. OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION a. OUTRIGHT BAN IN FAIRLY NEAR FUTURE (SEVERAL YEARS) ALL USES WHERE THEY DEEM SUITABLE SUBSTITUTES ARE AVAILABLE. b. LIMITS ON TOTAL USAGE. STEADILY DECREASED WITH TIME TO VIRTUAL BAN. C. BAN STARTING IN 1985 AND FULLY IN PLACE IN 1990. ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL USES MEETING THREE CRITERIA. NO REASONABLE WAY TO GET AN EXCEPTION. BURDEN OF PROOF ON USER. 4. ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSAL RULEMAKING - OCTOBER 20, 1980 a. REQUESTS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION - GENERALLY NOT SUPPLIED. b. GENERAL ORDER UNDER SECTION 8(a) TO FORCE SUBMISSION OF INFOR MATION. PROPOSED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. MUST BE FILED BY PRODUCERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND USERS OF ASBESTOSCONTAINING PRODUCTS. 5. PROPOSAL TARGET HAS BEEN LATE 1981, UNDOUBTEDLY SLIP FURTHER a. HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS FROM THE BENZENE DECISION TO WORK AROUND. b. AIA/NA HAS BEEN IN CONTACT LAYING GROUND WORK FOR A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. PROBLEM - ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR EPA HAVE NOT BEEN CONFIRMED. 6. OPTIMISTIC THAT IMPACT WILL BE SCALED DOWN AND LARGELY BLUNTED. UCC 013341 SLIDE 6 CPSC 1. PUBLISHED ANPRM OCTOBER 20, 1980 2. GENERAL ORDER, MUCH REDUCED IN SCOPE, HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AND COLLECTION OF INFORMATION IS IN PROGRESS. 3. IMPACTS UCC MAINLY VIA CUSTOMERS WHO MANUFACTURE TEXTURED COATINGS. 4. CPSC IN MAJOR TROUBLE IN THE NEW ADMINISTRATION'S ATTITUDE ON REGULATIONS. a. Greatly reduce scope or shut down as ineffective. b. Confine actions to immediate hazards. 5. NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ANTICIPATED. SLIDE 7 UCC 013342 SUPERFUND 1. LEGISLATION PASSED AT END OF LAST SESSION OF CONGRESS. 2. EPA TO DEVELOP IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS. 3. CONFUSION IN INTERPRETATION a. UCC Transportation people say any asbestos spill of more than one pound must be reported by the transporter. b. AIA/NA - Not in effect until implementing regulations promulgated. UCC 013343 SLIDE 8 STATE ACTIVITIES 1. SHIFT IN ACTIVIST PRESSURES FROM THE FEDERAL TO THE STATE LEVELS. 2. DIVIDE AND CONQUER - MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO RESPOND TO PROPERLY. 3. NEW YORK a. Proposed legislation to ban all asbestos-containing products in the state. b. Hearing on April 11. AIA/NA and UCC to attend. c. Problem - Will active opposition attract attention to a bill which may die by itself. 4. CONNECTICUT a. Effective ban on Asbestos-Cement Pipe UCC 013344 SLIDE 9 INDUSTRY ACTIONS EPA AND OTHER REGULATIONS PAST POSITION 1. ALREADY CONVICTED. REASON WILL NOT PREVAIL. 2. ONLY POSSIBILITY TO ALLEVIATE EXCESSIVE AND UNNEEDED REGULATIONS IS THROUGH THE COURTS. 3. HIRED A HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED WASHINGTON LAW FIRM - ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION OF RESPONSES. 4. FIGHTING THE BATTLE STEP-BY-STEP. 5. BASIC POSITION: A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY EXCEEDED (BENZENE DECISION). B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED. C. REGULATORY OPTIONS ARE NOT THE "LEAST BURDENSOME" (E012044). 6. THE BENZENE DECISION STILL PRESENTS A VERY HIGH HURDLE. PRESENT POSITION 1. REASON MAY PREVAIL. 2. NEED TO WORK ACTIVELY TO GET REALISTIC, WORKABLE REGULATIONS IN PLACE. 3. STILL MAINTAIN CAPABILITY TO FOLLOW EARLIER STRATEGY. (Could be fighting same battle in conjunction with the agencies vs. the activists.) UCC 013345 SLIDE 10 JUDGEMENTS RE NEW ASBESTOS REGULATORY ACTION 1. OSHA a. 0.5-1 fiber/cc Standard In 1 -2 years. 2. EPA - TSCA a. Substantial moderation in broad-based ban and mandatory substitutes approach. b. Possible increased labelling and limited bans (friable products) as a compromise. 3. EPA - RECRA a. Possible, at least partial inclusion under RECRA such as permits and specific waste disposal requirements. Small generator exemptions still in place. b. Numerical emission standard. 4. CPSC a. Minimal activity. 5. SUPERFUND a. Some spill reporting requirements with workable cut-off level. 6. STATES a. New battleground - Could have important local impacts. UCC 013346 SLIDE 11 Thursday February 19, 1981 Part III The President Executive Order 12291-- Federal Regulation UCC 013347 Federal Register Vol. 46. No. 33 Thursday. February 19. 1981 Title 3-- The President \ Presidential Documents 13193 Executive Order 12291 of February 17, 1981 Federal Regulation By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order toVeduce the burdens of existing and future regulations^increase agency accountability for regulatory actions, pro vide for presidential oversight of the regulatory process) minimize duplication and conflict of regulations, ana insure well-reasoned regulations, it is hereby ordered as follows: .. . . Section i. Definitions. For the purposes of this Order: (a) "Regulation"vor "rule" means an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:. (1) Administrative actions governed by the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code;. * (2) Regulations issued with respect to a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or [3} Regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel. (b) "Major, rule" means any regulation that is likely to result in: (1) An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or C3) Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, pro ductivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. (c) "Director." means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (d) "Agency" means any authority of the United States that is an "agency" under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), excluding those agencies specified in 44 U.S.C. 3502(10). (e) `Task. Eorce" means the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief. - Secrz^General Reguirementsi ln promulgating new regulations, reviewing existing regulations, and developing legislative proposals concerning regula tion, all agencies, to the extent permitted by law, shall adhere to the following ' requirements: (a} Administrative decisions shall be based on adequate information concern ing the need for and consequences of proposed government action; . (b) Regulatory action shall not be undertaken unless the potential benefits to ` society for the regulation outweigh the potential costs to society; . .' (c) Regulatory objectives shall be chosen to maximize the net benefits to society; (d) Among, alternative approaches to any given regulatory objective, the alternative involving .the least, net.'cost to society shall be chosen; and (e) Agencies shall set. regulatory priorities with the aim of maximizing the aggregate net benefits to society, taking into account the condition of the UCC 013348 13194 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1981 / Presidential Documents particular industries affected by regulations, the condition of the national economy, and other regulatory actions contemplated for the future. V* : ` Sec. 3..Regulatory Impact Analysis and Review. (a) In order to implement Section 2 of this Order, each agency shall, in connection with every major rule, prepare, and to the extent permitted by law `consider, a Regulatory-Impact Analysis. Such Analyses may be combined with . any Regulatory Flexibility Analyses performed under 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. (b) Each agency shall initially determine whether a rule it intends to propose or to issue is a major rule, provided that, the-Director, subject to the direction of the Task.Force, shall have authority, in accordance with Sections 1(b) and 2 of this Order, tOs prescribe criteria for making %uch determinations, to order a rule to be treated as a-major rule, and to require any set of related rules to be considered togetheras a major rule. (c) Except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, agencies shall prepare Regulatory Impact Analyses of major rules and transmit them, along with all notices of proposed rulemaking and all final rules, to the Director as follows: (1) If no notice of proposed rulemaking is to be published for a proposed major rule that is not an emergency rule, the agency shall prepare only a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, which shall be transmitted, along with the pro posed rule, to the Director at least 60 days prior to the publication of the major rule as a final rule; ' ' (2) With, respect to all other major rules, the agency shall prepare a prelimi-^ nary Regulatory Impact' Analysis, which shall be transmitted, along with a - v notice of proposed rulemaking, to the Director at least 60 days prior 'to the ' publication of a noticejo| proposed rulemaking, and a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, which shall be transmitted along with the final rule at least 30 days prior to the publication of the major rule'as a final rule; ' ^ "*(3) For all rules other than majorrules, agencies shall submit to the Director, at least IQ: days, prior to publication, every notice of proposed rulemaking and -- . final rule. ` "v . (d)'To permit each proposed major rule to be analyzed in light of the requirements stated in Section 2 of this Order, each preliminary and final Regulatory Impact Analysis shall contain the following information: (1) A description of the-potential benefits of the rule, including any beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and the identification of . those likely to receive the benefits; - (2) A description-of-the potentialcosts, of the rule, including any adverse effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and the identification of those likely to bear the costs; .' (3) A-determination., of the potential. net benefits of the rule, including an evaluation of effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms; . _ 1 (4) A description of alternative approaches that could substantially achieve the same regulatory goal at lower cost, together with an analysis .of this potential benefit and costs and a brief explanation of the legal reasons why such alternatives, if proposed, could not be adopted; and - ' (5) Unless covered by the description required under paragraph (4) of this subsection, an explanation of any legal reasons why the rule cannot be based on the requirements set forth in Section 2 of this Order. (e) (1) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, which shall resolve any issues raised under this Order or ensure that they are presented to -- the President, is authorized to review any preliminary or final Regulatory . _ Impact Analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking, or final rule based on the requirements of this Order. - . (2) The Director shall be deemed to have concluded review unless the Director advises an agency to the contrary under subsection (f) of this Section: UCC 013349 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1981 / Presidential Documents 13195 .' / * N' * . ^ (A) Within 60 days of a submission under subsection (c)(1) or a submission of a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking under subsection (c)(2); (B) Within 30 days of the submission of a final Regulatory Impact Analysis and a final rule, under subsection (c)(2); and (C) Within 10- days of the submission of a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule under subsection (c)(3). (f) (1) Upon the request of the Director, an agency shall consult with the Director concerning the review of a preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking under this Order, and shall, subject to Section 8(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing its preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis or notice of proposed rulemaking until such review is con- eluded. .... (2) Upon receiving; notice that the Director intends to submit views with respect to any final Regulatory Impact Analysis or final rule, the agency shall, subject to Section 8(a)(2) of this Order, refrain from publishing its final Regulatory Impact Analysis or fined rule until the agency has responded to the Director's views, and incorporated those views and the agency's response in - the rulemaking file. (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as displacing the agencies' responsibilities delegated by law. (g) For every rule for which an agency publishes a notice of proposed . rulemaking, the agency shall include in its notice: ` . (1) A brief statement -setting forth the agency's initial determination whether the proposed rule is a major rule,, together with the reasons underlying that determination; and . ' (2) For each proposed major rule, a brief summary of the agency's preliminary --. Regulatory Impact Analysis. (h) Agencies shall make their preliminary and final Regulatory Impact Analy ses available to the public. (i) Agencies-shall initiate-reviews-of. currently effective rules in accordance with the purposes .of. this Order, and perform Regulatory Impact Analyses of , currently effective major rules. The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may designate currently effective rules for review in accordance with this Order, and establish schedules for reviews and Analyses under this Order. - Sec. 4-ReguIatory Review.BefoTe approving any final major rule, each agency shall: ............... (a) Make a determination that the regulation is clearly within the authority delegated by law and consistent with congressional intent, and include in the Federal Register at the time of promulgation a memorandum of law supporting that determination. (b) Make a determination that the factual conclusions upon which the rule is based have substantial support in the agency record, viewed as a whole, with - full attention to public comments in general and the comments of persons directly affected by the rule in particular.. `v Sec: ^.RegulatoryAgendas^--^ - (a) Each agency shall publish, in October and April of each year, an agenda of proposed regulations that the agency has issued or expects to issue, and currently effective rules that are under agency review pursuant to this Order. ' These agendas may be incorporated with die agendas published under 5 U.S.C. 602, and must contain at the minimum:1 (1) A summary of the nature of each major rule being considered, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate UCC 013350 , I 13196 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1981 / Presidential Documents " ..................... ' 1 tv ......" ....................................................................................... schedule for completing action on any major rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking; (2) The name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official for each item on the agenda; and (3) A list of existing regulations to be reviewed under the terms of this Order, and a brief discussion of each such regulation. (b) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may, to the extent . permitted by law; ... . (1) Require agencies to provide additional information in an agenda; and (2) Require publication of the agenda in any form. j | i j ! j I I (a) To the extent permitted by law, the Director shall have authority, subject to the direction of the Task Force, to: (1) Designate any proposed or existing rule as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order; " . . . , (2) Prepare and promulgate uniform standards for the identification of major rules and the development of Regulatory Impact Analyses; . / (3) Require an agency to obtain and evaluate, in connection with a regulation, any additional relevant data from any appropriate source; (4) Waive the requirements of Sections 3, 4~ or 7 of this Order with respect to any proposed or existing major rule; '' * - (5) Identify duplicative; overlapping and conflicting rules, existing or pro posed, and existing or proposed rules that are inconsistent with the policies underlying statutes governing agencies other than the issuing agency or with the purposes of this Order, and, in each such case, require appropriate interagency consultation to minimize or eliminate such duplication, overlap, or conflict; (6) Develop procedures for estimating the annual benefits and costs of agency regulations, on both an.aggregate and economic or industrial sector basis, for purposes of compiling a regulatory budget; . (7) In consultation with interested agencies, prepare for consideration by the President recommendations for changes in the agencies' statutes; and (8) Monitor agency compliance with the requirements of this Order and advise the President with respect to such compliance. (b) The Director, subject, to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized to establish procedures for the performance of all functions vested in the Direc tor by. this Order. The Director shall take appropriate steps to coordinate the implementation of the analysis, transmittal, review, and clearance provisions of this Order with the authorities and requirements provided for or imposed upon the Director and agencies under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. ` 601 et seg., and the Paperwork'Reduction Plan Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et . . . seg. . . ^.tii-Sec* 7.iPendina.ReauIations~^ - . . (a) To the extent necessary to permit reconsideration in accordance with this Order, agencies shall, except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, suspend dr postpone the effective dates of all major rules that they have promulgated in final form as of the date of this Order, but that have not yet become effective, excluding: ' (1) Major rules that cannot legally be postponed or suspended; ' (2) Major rules that, for good cause, ought to become effective as final rules without reconsideration. Agencies shall prepare, in accordance with Section 3 of this Order, a final Regulatory Impact Analysis for each major rule that they suspend or postpone, k <' .. : UCC 013351 ____ `A %t- ' Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19, 1981 / Presidential Documents 13197 (b) Agencies shall report to the Director no later than 15 days prior to the effective date of any rule that the agency has promulgated in final form as of the date of this Order, and that has not yet become effective, and that will not be reconsidered under subsection (a) of this Section: (1) That the rule is excepted from reconsideration under subsection (a), including a brief statement of the legal or othpr reasons for that determination; or (2) That the rule is not a major rule. - (c) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized, to the extent permitted by law, to: (1) Require reconsideration, in accordance with this Order, of any major rule that an agency has issued in final form as of the date of this Order .and that has not become effective: and (2) Designate a rule that an agency has issued in final form as of the date of this Order and that has not yet become effective as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order. ............ (d) Agencies may, in accordance' with the Administrative' Procedure Act and other applicable statutes, permit major rules that they have issued in final form as of the date of this Order, and that have not yet become effective, to take effect as interim rules while they are being reconsidered in accordance with this Order, provided that, agencies shall report to the Director, no later than 15 days before any such rule is proposed to take effect as an interim rule, that the rule should appropriately take effect as an interim rule while the rule is under reconsideration. ' ." / (e) Except as provided in Section 8 of this Order, agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, refrain from promulgating as a fined rule any proposed major rule that has been published or issued as of the date of this Order until a final Regulatory Impact Analysis, in accordance with Section 3 of this Order, has been prepared for the proposed major rule. (f) Agencies shall report to the Director, no later than 30 days prior to promulgating as a final rule any proposed rule that the agency has published, or issued as of the date of this Order and that has not been considered under the terms of this Order: (1) That the rule cannot legally be considered in accordance with this Order, together with a brief explanation of the legal reasons barring such considera tion; or ' (2) That the rule is not a major rule, in which case the agency shall submit to the Director a copy of the proposed rule. (g) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, is authorized, to the extent permitted by law, to: (1) Require consideration, in accordance with this Order, of any proposed major rule that the agency has published or issued as of the date of this Order; and (2) Designate a proposed rule that an agency has published or issued as of the date of this Order, as a major rule in accordance with Section 1(b) of this Order. - (h) The Director shall be deemed to have determined that an agency's report to the Director under subsections (b), (d), or (f) of this Section is consistent with the purposes of this Order, unless the Director advises the agency to the contrary: (1) Within 15 days of its report, in the case of any report under subsections (b) or (d); or '_ (2) Within 30 days of its report, in the case of any report under subsection (f). UCC 013352 13198 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 33 / Thursday, February 19,1981 / Presidential Documents (i) This Section does not supersede the President's Memorandum of January 29,1981, entitled "Postponement of Pending Regulations", which shall remain in effect until March 30,1981, (j) In complying with this Section, agencies shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, and with any other proce dural requirements made applicable to the agencies by other statutes. j Sec. 8. Exemptions. (a) The procedures prescribed by this Order shall not apply to: (1) Any regulation that responds to an emergency situation, provided that, any such regulation shall be reported to the Director as soon as is practicable, the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a statement of the reasons why it is impracticable for the agency to follow the procedures of this Order with respect to such a rule, and the agency shall prepare and transmit as soon as is practicable a Regulatory Impact Analysis of any such major rule: and (2) Any regulation for which consideration or reconsideration under the terms of this Order would conflict with deadlines imposed by statute or by judicial order, provided that, any such regulation shall be reported to the Director together, with a brief explanation of the conflict, the agency shall publish in the Federal Register a statement of the reasons why it is impracticable for the agency to follow the procedures of this Order with respect to such a rule, and the agency, in consultation with the Director, shall adhere to the requirements of t this Order to the extent permitted by statutory or judicial deadlines. . (b) The Director, subject to the direction of the Task Force, may, in accordance with the purposes of this Order, exempt any class or category of regulations from any or all requirements of this Order. ' i Sea 9. Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal ( Jmanagement of the Federal government, and is not intended to create any j right, or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person. The determi- t nations made by agencies under Section 4 .of this Order, and any Regulatory f Impact Analyses for any rule, shall be made part of the whole record of j agency action in connection with the rule. \ ' Sea 10. Revocations. Executive-Orders-No. 12044, as amended, and No. 12174 are revoked. .. . ` - \ [FR Doc. 81-5730 Filed 2-17-81; 3:19 praj Billing code 3195-01-M THE WHITE HOUSE, February 17, 1081. UCC 013353 I \ f Carter Activists Create "Baby OSHA' by Hank Cox ` While ex-President Jimmy heard to howl outside the De 78, NIOSH sent about 100 Carter has packed his bags and partment of Justice building: documents while OSHA issued fled the banks of the Potomac "I have not come to surrender. standards for only five or six. to more hospitable climes, some 1 have come to tear down the The reason for the disparity of the social-activist officials he government." It did not seem is the complex nature of health brought into his government likely at that time that he would hazards. Under the law, NIOSH have burrowed into the bu pursue his goal at the taxpay is supposed to "develop criteria reaucracy to avoid dismissal. ers' expense. dealing with toxic materials and Nowhere is this phenomenon Past and present officials of harmful physical agents and more obvious than at the Na NIOSH accuse Robbins and substances which'will describe tional Institute for Occupa Froines of a variety of offenses, exposure levels that are safe for tional Safety and Health ranging from mismanagement various periods of employment, (NIOSH) where two self-ap to malfeasance. The General including but not limited to the pointed champions of the Accounting Office has been exposure levels at which no em working class have trans asked by more than one Con ployee will suffer impaired formed a research agency into gressman to conduct an in health or functional capacities The an enforcement atm of the Oc quiry, but has yet to launch a or diminished life expectancy cupational Safety and. Health full-scale investigation. as a result of his work expo Action Network: \\tidiin&on\Vateh Administration (OSHA) in de fiance of the law and to the detriment of occupational health research. , The controversial adminis trators of NIOSH are Director' Anthony Robbins and his dep Background Both NIOSH and OSHA were created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act; OSHA to enforce job safety and health standards, and NIOSH to con sure." This task is extremely diffi cult. Though much progress has been made in industrial hygiene in recent years, no one can say exactly what levels of exposure' to hazardous substances are safe. uty John Froines, dubbed "Bad duct long-term research into the The evidence against health hazards, especially cancer- causing agents, is seldom con crete. Many scientists believe in dividual susceptibility is a more important factor than exposure Tevels in the development ot occupational disease. Also, lew workers are exposed to only one hazard and the problem of mul Man and Robbin" by their sub causes of occupational disease. tiple exposures greatly compli ordinates. Robbins came to Congress took great care to cates the issue. NIOSH via the health depart separate NIOSH from OSHA, The criteria documents pro ments of Vermont and Colo placing it in a separate depart duced by NIOSH are compre rado where his radical anti ment, because it knew OSHA hensive analyses of all evidence business posture endeared him would be subject to political against specific hazards. They to labor union officials. Though pressures and unable to per state what is known and what he reportedly left both state form objective research. is not known. They are scien agencies "in shambles," he was Under its first leader. Dr. tifically sound, but make weak >> able to move onward and up-, Marcus Key, NIOSH became documentation for OSHA stan ward through his contacts with a first-class research institute. ' dards that must be defended in the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic "Key and his successor, Dr. John court." ' Workers Union and the per Finklea, sought to fulfill the Despite the legal shortcom sonal support of the late George agency's mandates by produc ings, however, the documents Meany, president of the AFL- ing scientific criteria on work are the most detailed informa CIO. , place health hazards, particu tion on health hazards that ex Froines, who worked with larly those suspected to cause ists. They are widely used by Robbins in Vermont, was em cancer. It published its findings corporate medical staff, union ployed at OSHA when sum in criteria documents which officials, and other health moned to work with Robbins were sent to OSHA to serve as professionals as guides for re at NIOSH. Froines was one of a basis for standards, as re ducing work exposures. When the infamous Chicago Seven quired by law. - . a health hazard is present in the who disrupted the 1968 Dem Unfortunately, OSHA was workplace. a professional's first ocratic convention. Three years unable to issue regulations as response is usually to see if there ill: later, during the 1971 May Day fast as NIOSH could produce is a NIOSH criteria document riots^in .Washington, he.was criteria documents. From 1971- on the subject, Msm** * " March 1981/Regulatory Action Network: Washington Watch ' _ .* ' Si , ,T. ' -V ov ,*v.:v/. UC-C 013354 With or without an accom panying OSHA regulation, the criteria document is a valuable tool in the continuing campaign against occupational disease. The Robbins Solution When Eula Bingham was ap pointed OSHA Administrator in early 1977, she quickly voiced her disapproval of NIOSH's in dependent, scientific approach to dealing with occupational hazards. She wanted an end to the development of criteria documents which she consid ered an embarrassment to her agency. Bingham also wanted NIOSH to back up her allegation that more than 30% of all cancers are related to workplace ex posures. NIOSH had con ducted its own research and concluded the real figure was between one and five percent. During public hearings on OSHA's proposed new cancer policy, Bingham's officials put pressure on NIOSH to raise its estimate. "We've got to get the figure up to justify the policy," one OSHA official told NIOSH representatives. Dr. John Finklea, who was then director of NIOSH, balked at these demands. His stubborn refusal to compromise his agency's integrity for ideologi cal purposes reportedly infuri ated Bingham. Using her con tacts with the White House and the labor unions, Bingham had Finklea removed and Robbins installed in his place. Robbins quickly raised NIOSH director Anthony Robbins. NIOSH's estimate of the im pact of workplace exposure on cancer rates to conform to OSHA propaganda and shut off the flow of criteria documents. At the time, the institute had between 30 and 50 documents in various stages of develop ment by private contractors, for which funds had already been appropriated. A single criteria document can cost up to $250,000. One by one, the expensive and important documents were completed and sent to Robbins' office where almost all of them disappeared. Critics say Rob bins has sent only one docu ment to OSHA during his ten ence of NIOSH from OSHA, ure at NIOSH. Robbins says so painfully crafted by Con the figure is three, though that gress and preserved by Key and is still far short of the 24 per Finklea, was an early casualty year the institute had been of the Robbins-Froines re sending. The case of the missing gime. criteria documents has been, a The result is a "Baby OSHA." source of vigorous debate iff As NIOSH rejected the mission occupational health circles for assigned to it by Congress, it the past two years. became a covert arm of OSHA's The suppression of this val enforcement mechanism. Con uable information appears to gress had given NIOSH the au be a product of the political- thority to enter workplaces and ideological orientation of Rob conduct investigations as part bins, Froines, Bingham, and of its research function. Rob other social-activists who rose bins has greately expanded this to power in the Carter Admin minor aspect of the NIOSH istration. Closely allied with program to create an unau militant labor unions and en thorized inspection force work vironmental groups, they ing hand-in-hand with OSHA. seemed to regard their agencies ' According to Phil Bierbaum, as weapons in a class war against NIOSH deputy director for the private enterprise system. hazards surveillance, NIOSH If the criteria documents could inspectors automatically report not be converted into regula all of their findings to OSHA tions to use against business, and the labor unions. NIOSH they did not fit into the OSHA- on-site investigations, called NIOSH scheme of things. health hazard evaluations, are The expensive documents used as "precursors" for OSHA with life-saving potential are inspections. If NIOSH finds collecting dust on NIOSH what it believes to be a hazard, shelves. Tens of millions of tax it qrders the employer to make* dollars have gone down the corrections. Then OSHA con drain. Robbins has reduced the ducts a follow-up inspection criteria document staff from 35 and, if the alleged hazard has to a skeleton crew of five. Ac not been corrected, issues a cording to NIOSH insiders, the willful and repeated violation agency has sent very little sci citation carrying heavy penal entific criteria of any kind to ties. In effect, NIOSH investi OSHA during Robbins' tenure. gators are now OSHA inspec "If it won't lead to an OSHA tors.' ' standard, why bother?"'one This new emphasis has de NIOSH official told Washing stroyed the institute's credibil ton Watch. ity as a scientific organization. New Directions - Where once NIOSH could ex pect cooperation and assistance The all-important independ from industry, the agency now is often forced to seek Federal warrants to gain access to workplaces. A spate of recent court de cisions has upheld NIOSH's right to enter the workplace, view employee records, and obtain ex parte warrants. But the fact that NIOSH has been forced to go to court over these matters is itself evidence of the decline in the agency's prestige. Fantasy Facts Despite the curtailment of NIOSH research and his own meager experience in occupa tional health, Robbins is never theless undeterred from assert ing himself as the expert on what should be done to reduce oc cupational disease. His approach is awesome in its simplicity. Rather than spend the time and effort required to study a suspected hazard and develop control technology, Robbins suggests that "sus pected" hazards be wholly eliminated, regardless of the impact on the economy and the loss of jobs. A case in point is the problem of asbestos which is known to contribute to the development of cancer among workers ex posed to large amounts, espe cially those workers who smoke cigarettes. For years, OSHA and NIOSH--along with business and labor--have wrestle'd with the question of how much ex posure is dangerous. The prob lem is crucial, for asbestos is used in many consumer prod ucts. It is used in buildings as a fire deterrent, and its heat re sistance and bonding properties piake it uniquely suitable for automobile brakes. . In a speech before the AFLCIO, Robbins said "There is no safe exposure limit for asbes tos," a statement which cannot be true since asbestos is one of the most common minerals known to man and everyone has been exposed to it. In a speech to an incredulous gathering of the Asbestos In formation Association, Rob bins said the U.S. must move to "halt completely" the use of asbestos because of its hazard ous properties. To this pro nouncement, David L. Kendall S-2 . Regulatory Action Network: Washington Watch/March 1981 -- ** "UCCjO'13'355' , v. of Research Triangle Institute information but do not begin beryllium as a human carcin Standards Completion Project, responded that while there is to address the critical question ogen in defiance of scientific a long-term effort of NIOSH "no absolutely necessary use of of safe exposure levels. Var findings. In a sharply-worded to supplement OSHA's Thresh asbestos, there is no absolutely iously described as "scanty" and letter to the head of the Center old Limit Values for 380 toxic necessary use of the automobile "shabby" by leading experts, for Disease Control, Bayliss substances. Many occupational either." these reports appear to be more charged that NIOSH was trying experts believe that up to 80% A New Approach designed to frighten workers to "provide support of the pro of worker exposures to hazard than accomplish any scientific posed OSHA standard and of ous substances are related to In the absence of criteria doc purpose. the position advanced by OSHA these 380 toxic agents. OSHA uments, Robbins and Bingham The cadre of top-flight sci that beryllium should be treated has exposure limits on the books came up with a new system for entists assembled by Key and as a human carcinogen." Ac but nothing more. NIOSH be standards development. Ac Finklea in the early days of cording to Bayliss, "the entire gan a project to supplement cording to ex-NlOSH officials, NIOSH have fled the agency in study should be transferred out these limits in 1976, developing OSHA decides--with advice disgust at the antics of Robbins of NIOSH and placed in the work practice guides, sampling from the unions--what the ex and Froines. According to one hands of a truly independent methods, and the usual infor posure level for a given sub report, there is now not one research organization whose mation employers need to con stance should be, and NIOSH board-certified industrial hy scientific integrity is unblem trol exposure. Up to $10 mil tries to, scrape up some "sci gienist in a position of power ished and whose objectivity is lion was spent on the project, entific data" to back it up. at NIOSH where once there uncompromised." Clearly Bay but Robbins has released noth This cart-before-the-horse were 40. liss, who once served as assis ing. approach is probably the one creative contribution made by Professional Protests tant chief of NIOSH's biometry NIOSH insiders say it is the section at its Cincinnati labo same old problem of OSHA not the activist OSHA-NIOSH ca Not surprisingly, the cavalier ratory, does not have much faith wanting the information. If bal, but its utility to occupa attitude of Robbins and Froines left in the institute's credibility. OSFIA doesn't want it, Robbins tional health is questionable. to scientific method has aroused Another tiff involved NIOSH doesn't send it. The guidelines "When conclusions are drawn animosity in occupational health and the American National prepared by NIOSH would be before the science is in," former circles. One particularly nasty Standards Institute (ANSI). extremely valuable to employ NIOSH deputy director Ed Baier furor arose over NIOSH's stud After participating on an ANSI ers whose workers are exposed says, "something is amiss." ies of the hazards of beryllium. committee developing a vol to the 380 toxic agents. Like What little information A former epidemiologist for untary standard for use of res the criteria documents, they are NIOSH has produced under NIOSH, David Bayliss, who was pirators and approving the final collecting dust on NIOSH Robbins and Froines has come among those who fled the Rob rule, NIOSH changed its mind shelves. in the form of "hazard reviews" bins regime, has taken strong and criticized the standard as Robbins also stopped publi and "current intelligence bul offense to efforts of NIOSH to inadequate. According to Wil cation and distribution of letins" that provide some useful rewrite the record and establish liam H. Revoir, chairman of the NIOSH's "Worker Safety and ANSI committee, the criticisms Health Guides" and "Safe Former Director Key Looks Back... made by NIOSFI were "based Practices Manuals" which were on very little research, the use designed to help small busi As conceived by Congress, NIOSH is supposed to be a high- ` caliber research institute, not an enforcement agency, according to Dr. Marcus Key, the first director of the institute. Key, who served at NIOSH from 1971-1974, is now professor of occupa tional medicine at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Houston. . There should be regular feedback from OSHA enforcement to of some incorrect data, ques tionable assumptions, and the use of some improper methods of calculations." Other mem bers of the ANSI panel shared Revoir's opinion of NIOSH's criticisms. nesses reduce exposures. The elimination of this inexpensive and useful program is inexplic able unless it is another ex ample of the pro-union tilt of Robbins and Froines. Small businesses are usually non NIOSH research, Key said. NIOSH and OSHA should work to gether to develop priority lists of hazardous substances for study. In.the future, NIOSH will need to produce criteria documents, Other Missing Reports In addition to the missing union. Eccentric Behavior but not on the same scale as before. Key said. Future studies criteri'a documents, other im . Some observers theorize that probably will not be devoted to single agents, but rather to types portant NIOSH reports have Robbins and Froines have of industry and operations and to classes of substances. v disappeared. One was a major turned their backs on occupa Also, NIOSH will have to address issues of cost-benefit analysis study of the Bunker Hill Smelter tional health research because and feasibility in future studies, Key said. "Scientists don't like in Idaho, a massive investiga it takes too long and the results cost-benefit analysis, but in the wake of the Supreme Court's tion upon which NIOSH spent do not make good news stories. decision on OSFLA's benzene standard, they will have to get in more than $500,000 of the tax Anti-business rhetoric makes volved in it," he said. payers' money. The study was better news copy than quiet, NIOSH cannot stick with the dose-response approach to study completed in 1976, but NIOSH painstaking research, especially ing hazards, Key said. In the future, criteria documents may be has yet to release a final report. when the results of that re part of industry-wide studies. Many top-notch occupational health Former NIOSH director Dr. search do not support their pro scientists have never been in an industrial plant, he added. To that John Finklea acknowledges it union biases. extent, they are "babes in the woods." Participation in industry could have taken NIOSH two More importantly, criteria wide studies will enable them to gain practical experience in the years or so to analyze the data, documents are peer reviewed workplace., n , , 1 v . but that does not explain why by scientific panels, a process Key added that he hated to see NIOSH become politicized. the report is still unissued in that could be embarrassing to "I hope professionalism will win out over the adversary relation 1981. . an institute that reaches con ship," he said. .^ . Of greater significance is the clusions prior to conducting March 1981/Regulatory Action Network: Washington Watch S-3 UCC 013356 research. As friendsofJaneFonda,Tom Hayden, and others in the anti nuclear power movement, Robbins and Froines are very interested in nuclear power plants. They possess little ex pertise in the subject and NIOSH is expressly forbidden by the Occupational Safety and Health Act from interfering with au thority of other agencies. Nu clear power plants are under the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and thus out of bounds for NIOSH, but "Bad Man and Robbin" are undaunted by such legal refine ments. When the nuclear accident occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Robbins quickly dispatched a NIOSH investigator to the scene. What the investigator was supposed to do is anyone's guess. In the words of one NIOSH official, he "mucked around and asked stupid questions," much to the annoyance of the Nuclear Reg ulatory Commission, the Bu reau of Radiological Health, and other government agencies that had a legitimate reason To be there. According to one eyewitness, Robbins summoned a subor dinate to give him a quick brief ing on nuclear energy. Robbins than called the Pennsylvania health commissioner and de manded the immediate evacu ation of the Three Mile Island area. Fortunately, the state of ficial had sufficient presence of mind to ignore the demand which Robbins had no author ity to make. Froines has reportedly used his office and facilities to assist in political campaigning, albeit not on behalf of Jimmy Carter. The object of Froines' admir ation and support was Gover nor Jerry Brown of California. Three former NIOSH officials have confirmed to Washington Watch that Froines spent an inordinate amount of time on the telephone to California, at government expense, in stategy sessions with other Brown sup porters. Another questionable Rob bins move was the assignment of a NIOSH official. Dr. Joseph S-4 - - ' '' Wagoner, to perform full-time A Private Consultant's Report... work for the Environmental Defense Fund for two years. The In late 1978, NIOSH retained a private contracting firm--Pol assignment of a Federal em icy Research, Inc. (PRI)--to identify problems with criteria doc ployee drawing government uments and recommend improvements in the program that would salary to work for a private sec enhance their effectiveness in reducing occupational disease. tor activist group is highly ir The viewpoints of 45 occupational safety and health experts regular. NIOSH officials report from labor, industry, academe, and Federal and state government they know of no other incident agencies were solicited. Their comments were analyzed and sum of a public health officer being marized in a report prepared by PRI. so used. Acknowledging that the criteria documents "make a helpful Robbins also has reportedly contribution to the national effort to protect the health and well instructed NIOSH personnel to being of the workers," the report suggested the criteria document conduct research into the value program be divided into two parts: one to serve as a basis for of transcendental meditation as OSHA standard, and the other to provide information to con a means of relieving stress cerned groups such as OSHA, industry, and labor. among white collar employees. While some of the experts thought OSHA's inability to issue Considering Robbins' own al Standards in response to criteria documents meant the documents legations about the seriousness were not useful for that purpose, others thought it had more to ofworkplace carcinogens, this do with OSHA's own internal problems. Many of the experts does not appear a worthwhile reported they had used the documents as reference sources for expenditure of the agency's re information on health hazards, and that they were very useful for sources. this purpose, regardless of their utility in standards-setring. Robbins' latest ploy is to ex Almost all of the experts agreed that criteria documents should tend his influence by getting in contain information on what the workers can do to protect them volved in the much-publicized selves while on the job, and that this section should be written "Superfund" that the Environ-v in understandable language so it can be used by workers and small mental Protection Agency will businesses. administer to clean up chemical The experts were very critical of NIOSH's on-site investiga waste sites. Congress gave tions--health hazard evaluations--recommending that such visits NIOSH no role to play in this be conducted by "knowledgeable people," which, they said, was project, but once again the lure not standard NIOSH practice. of publicity has tempted him beyond his agency's jurisdic tion boundaries. . of it in tax-free medical incen and Human Services. Robbins Burrowing In tive and housing allowances. and Froines are his employees. Robbins has vowed to fight Apparently more concerned While sabotaging NIOSH's any efforts to remove him from with his inflated salary than his long-term health research pro office. His wife is a lawyer in leftist ideology, Robbins is gram and dabbling in nuclear the general counsel's office of sounding more like a conserv energy and transcendental the Department of Health and ative Republican every passing meditation, Robbins and Froines Human Services, of which day. In a January 19 speech in took care to insulate themselves NIOSH is a part, so he knows Texas, he said NIOSH and from possible removal in the the rules as well as anyone. OSHA will no longer be able wake of election reverses such as occurred on November 4. Epilogue to rely on regulatory powers to fulfill their missions, but will Neither is a Schedule C political As of this writing, Robbins have "to work harder to dem appointee and neither can be and Froines are still in com onstrate significant risk" of easily fired by the Reagan mand a; NIOSH. Unlike OSHA, health hazards. Administration. . NIOSH is far down in the bu * In the light of the Supreme Froines is a GS-15 in the Civil reaucratic chain and draws lit- > Court's benzene decision of last Service. He can be transferred tie 'attention from the media. summer, that is an understate but not fired. The taxpayers will Also, the issues are so complex ment. In the future, OSHA will be supporting him indefinitely. that few people outside the oc need NIOSH's research capa Robbins has the best deal of cupational health profession are bility more than ever. In order all. With union backing, he ob aware of what they have, done to protect workers from haz tained the status of Assistant to the institute. ardous substances, OSHA will Surgeon General and member Ironically, Robbins and have to prove the substances ship in the Commissioned Froines draw their political are in fact hazardous. To obtain Corps, a quasi-judicial military support from the same unions that information, NIOSH will organization available only to that orchestrated the smear have to resume its research role Public Health Service officers. campaign against Sen. Richard and,- more importantly, regain He has the status of an 0-7, Schweiker (R-PA) last year when its reputation for scientific in equivalent to a one-star gen the Senator introduced a bill to tegrity. That is not likely to eral, and draws a salary in ex curb OSHA's power. Schwei happen with Robbins and cess of $70,000 a year, much ker is now Secretary* of Health Froines in control. r'-'y-V . r*.-'-1 V. ` Regulatory Action Network: Washington Watch/March 1981 ; -'.-v :-:UC'e-'af335f^' THE ADMINISTRATION A hard apprenticeship for Labor's Donovan Can an ardent salesman for a conserva tive Republican President succeed as La bor Secretary? Raymond J. Donovan, President Reagan's new Labor Secre tary, says he can. But he faces an uphill battle. Donovan's experience and his in stincts indicate that he will be a skilled manager and will do well in promoting smooth collective bargaining, one of the three key responsibilities of the depart ment. But in the other two major areas, manpower development and regulation, Donovan has barely begun to learn. And he still lacks the experienced subordi nates he will need if he is to take charge . of the politically sensitive department Donovan survived bitter confirmation hearings in which allegations of deals with organized crime were declared un substantiated. Now he must walk what a Republican former Labor Secretary calls a "very difficult tightrope" between Reagan and labor. His first attempt to "build bridges," on Feb. 20, was an awk ward one. After meeting with the aflCiO's executive council, he said, some what nervously, thatperhaps half of the council at least partly supported Rea gan's new economic plan. But Lane Secretary Donovan: Controversial aides and an early run-in with the AFL-CIO. Kirkland, the federation's president, old former loan vice-president at Chase said Donovan was "mistaken" and pri Manhattan Bank and a fellow campaign vately called his overselling of the coun er for Reagan in New Jersey, to be cil's support "fairly miserable." assistant secretary for employment and Not a `referee.' But the soft-spoken Don training. He also chose Thorne G. ovan has an ambitious agenda, and he is Auchter, 35, a construction executive turning first to issues with which he from Jacksonville, Fla., to administer feels most comfortable, improving the OSHA. Neither man is an expert is his management of his department "We new field. But Donovan chose both be want to do what you do with any busi cause he thinks they are good managers, ness, get the lines of communication which, he says, is more important than running out and down into the bowels of what either "knows about the product" the department" he says. Some of this Donovan initially gained points with must wait however, because Donovan Kirkland and other union leaders by and the White House have yet to name promising to emulate James P. Mitchell, an Under Secretary and three assistant President Eisenhower's Labor Secre secretaries, appointments that he hopes tary, who was extremely popular with will be made within a few weeks. organized labor. Mitchell contemporar Donovan hopes to offset his first run- ies point out that he, too, chose his aides in with the AFL-CIO with a bargaining primarily for their management ability. approach he hopes will please labor. But Mitchell was also well-known to "Our job is to facilitate bargaining, to labor when he was appointed in 1953, Donoyan lacks experience in key areas: Manpower and he was a strong advocate for worker interests, earning the title of the "social conscience" of the Eisenhower Adminis development and regulation tration. "If Donovan wants to be like Mitchell, he's got his work cut out for lend our offices and services, but not to him," says Walter C. Wallace, a top .become a referee," Donovan told busi Mitchell aide for seven years who is now ness week. He has a reputation as a in private business. "Mitchell was his skilled bargainer among the building . own man in every way." trades, with whom he negotiated in New Jersey as executive vice-president of Schiavone Construction Co. He feels that in most cases "there is not enough communication in advance" of negotia tions, and he will work behind the scenes to remedy this and push for the creation of labor-management committees. But Donovan's positions on other mat i ters of Labor Dept policy seem unlikely to ingratiate him with workers, whose interests he is charged by law with pro tecting. He admits that he is still learn ing on issues of employment and train ing. Nevertheless, he wants to eliminate more than 300,000 public service jobs for disadvantaged workers and put .more federal money into business-sponsored programs that train these workers for jobs in private companies. Donovan sees a "great opportunity" to rewrite the Comprehensive Employment & Training Act (ceta) when it comes up for renewal in 18 months to make it more "result oriented." He also plans to cut Labor's budget by at least $6.8 billion, or 18%. On regulation, Donovan echoes Rea gan. "We have been on a regulatory binge," he says, promising to change the Occupational Safety & Health Adminis tration so that it creates "less confronta tion" with business. He also promises strong prosecution of union officials who violate federal labor law. Controversial aides. Appointments the new Secretary has made so far are also attracting criticism. Despite the. reluc tance of some White House officials, he insisted on Albert Angrisani, a 31-year- BUSINESS WEEK: March 9,1981 UCC 013358 - GOVERNMENT k fast start for the Reagan strategy Less than six weeks after tak ing office, the Reagan Admin istration is bringing into focus On Jan. 29, Reagan froze all "midnight" regulations that _____ Government regulations impose an became final but not effective its strategy for combating a problem that candidate Rea gan proclaimed one of the most serious besetting the U. S.: overregulation. As it be gins its war against the tens enormous burden on large and small business J? PailernS la? days* Then 011 in America discourage productivity and con- eCutive ^d^nc'entratiSgTn tribute substantially to our current economic the office of Management & woes__ It is my intention to curb the size and Budget a veto-and-rewrite influence of the federal establishment power over executive agencies; of thousands of rules, restric the order also requires the tions, and requirements that agencies to perform an exten affect American business, the White House is mindful that sive economic* analysis of present and proposed rules. the success of the Reagan Presidency will be measured Further, Reagan designated __ Vice-President George Bush in large part by its ability to to lead a White House task reverse the half-century-long force to oversee the deregula wave of federal intervention tion effort. into nooks and crannies of The Administration's strat American enterprise. egy for regulatory control Of course, most recent boils down to this: appoint Presidents have decried the regulators who clearly sup panoply of business regulation port Reagan's determination that hampers efficient pro to reduce government inter duction and job "creation. vention; use the power of the Former President Jimmy executive order and seek bud Carter even made significant get cuts to rein in agencies strides in deregulating certain under the President's direct industries--airlines, trucks, control; and ask Congress to . railroads, and financial insti-. enact fundamental reforms tutions. The new Administra that would also apply to inde tion will seek to remove still pendent agencies not under more price and entry restric executive control. tions, but its eye is on bigger Obviously, all this will not game: the pervasive social be easy. There is politically regulation that affects busi potent opposition to virtually ness large and small. Reagan ever}' change in rules that is betting that he can take the Reagan wants to make. The political heat and risk of slow | first test is the forthcoming ing social progress in such y debate over renewal of the areas as workplace safety and | Clean Air Act and of sewage health, equal employment, en treatment provisions of the vironmental cleanup, and con Clean Water Act Neverthe sumer protection. less, a combination of factors The core of the Administra gives Reagan a better-than- tion's regulatory philosophy is that gov productive. As one close aide describes even chance of achieving substantial reg ernment intrusion in the private sector Reagan's frame of mind: "He's seen the ulatory reform: is justifiable if--and only if--it produces way regulations haven't worked. You The mood in Congress, where many of benefits that outweigh the costs and the don't have to read that in a book." the reforms must be approved, is run regulation chosen is the least expensive Although Reagan believes that the ning in Reagan's favor. With a Republi of the alternatives. These economic no case against most regulation can ulti can Senate and a relatively conservative tions provide the standard against which mately be made on economic terms, cost- Democratic House, even many liberal to measure the ultimate success of the benefit analysis--a technique econo legislators are now ready to prune the effort to deregulate. And they represent mists use for measuring the costs and bureaucracy. the personal views of the most deregula benefits to society of government pro Unlike Carter, Reagan owes little to tion-minded President ever to hold of grams--is inherently uncertain and the traditional constituencies of regula fice. Reagan has felt for more than 20 hugely time-consuming. For that reason, tion-unions, environmental interests, years that most regulation is intrinsical the Administration has moved quickly to and consumer groups. He has much ly burdensome, inefficient, and counter- seize control of the regulatory process. more political freedom, for example, to 62 BUSINESS WEEK: March 9, 1981 ft- /> UCC 013359 1 - . GOVERNMENT '* T!y'`ir.5-* *--:~5i :fr-Kf-v/'*^a**T-u{*. '^~"-`1- -a ^ ' These principles will guide Reagan's deregulation push - uc'~i' - -vv;'~fc,,'...-.;.->.`.U.-ltW.>. ,v';-^->-.~-''Vi. ';.^ .?rv-v';-\ -*;<-. --i.7.:tL-xssrl.??> vmaoa p&MiiUliAne amIu SI hanolile avA^arl !*"' ^ Dorflira imnQ^aeeoru nanaruiArU an4 .' l'" '>* > -. apply cost-benefit analysis to proposed will have to make when he gets in the prong in Reagan's deregulation strategy rules. . . job," White House personnel director E. gives his White House more official con Business groups are firmly behind Pendleton James says. "Once he's ap trol over agencies and their bosses than' Reagan's deregulation goals and are pointed and once he's confirmed, we're any President has ever had. "Sometimes poised for a massive lobbying effort to locked in." . you don't know your appointees until persuade Congress to limit the authority But drastically changing the goals of ` after they're in," says a White House of such bodies as the Environmental agencies with thousands of employees in official. Protection Agency. both Washington and field offices This control was made concrete by Reagan's regulators and their initial around the country will take more than Reagan's executive order. It gives the actions reflect the ideological goals of his an expression of adherence to the new OMB the power to rewrite or veto rules Administration. Housing & Urban De regulatory philosophy by top adminis that are in early stages of proposal by velopment Secretary Samuel R. Pierce trators. For that reason, the second executive agencies such as the epa, osha, Jr., for example, froze all and the National Highway his department's proposed m and pending rules two days Reaeah'sreuuiatiirv hit lis Traffic Safety Administra tion. By one estimate, after the inauguration and seven days before the Pres ident's governmentwide freeze. Likewise, Labor \H .^Environmental f'* Protection Agency ^standards, such as smokestack ~ . ^scrubbers for all coal-fired plants, these rules account for 70% of the costs imposed -3 on the private sector by regulation. Although the Secretary Raymond J. `toward performance standarda~'5A1^f- legality of putting those Donovan has already with- drawn a proposed rule that \ would have required the Occupational Safety & Emphasize personal-protectionjleylces .; * Health Administration, v ^rather than costly engineering controls j f '-:-achieve workplace .safe^tgv^; ^ agencies so firmly under the thumb of the White House will almost certain labeling of all hhaazzaarrddoouuss workplace materials. Much of the detailed work will be in the hands of the regulators. "The new appointees will solve a lot of problems, problems r consumer Product KtC2^Eh:>phasize.dangerous-jirtjduct^-'>'y ^ Safely Commission ^warnings over product regulation f~t, \ Food i DrugReview the law that prohibits food A...d..m....i.n..i.s. .t.r..ation#!^ .additives that may<ca-use.cancer--n*o\**-.j ' -v **; -'C~-^V`A5 ^^^matterAow, low Agriculture Dept^^g^^Ease meat-fabelihg requirements ly be challenged in the courts, Administration of ficials maintain that a law Congress enacted last fall reducing government pa perwork gives the White House that authority. we hope will never surface t National Highway-.^^g'^ Postpone rule requiring air Bags or Enlisting the help of to the task-force level," i Traffic Congress in his antiregula says task-force counsel and Administratroiipi#^^ tion drive, Reagan will Bush aide Boyden Gray. For this reason, poten tial appointees to the v- " 1- - 1 J. ^Energy Deptjf^ ;AReIax requi rements for utilities and -- 5^industry to.convert to^coai p6wer/;-`4 soon propose revamping the process by which rules are created. He wants his Reagan Administration executive order enacted in have undergone personnel screenings unprecedented in their ideological empha sis. For instance, John W. *1-Nuclear Regulatory^^ rr C--om--m--is---sio--n `..... "** a statute that will extend OMB review authority to in dependent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Com Hernandez, newly named mission and the Equal deputy administrator of Employment Opportunity the epa, spent four hours Commission. being grilled by domestic A bill that would have policy chief Martin C. An required agencies to ana derson and at least four more with omb officials. Federal Energyp'^^S^fj!vv Speed up^decontfol of natural gas Regulatory Commission Wg* lyze the economic effects of proposed major rules died "We want to make sure each individual is philo sophically committed to making the decisions he Equal Employmentj&^took for case-by-case discriminatory^ OpportunityCommission^practjcesjather thanseekr^^fVvrK?'^ patterns (rfffiscrifnlnatioa^ in the 96th Congress, but this year's legislators are expected to be more recep tive to virtually any. move GOVERNMENT UCC OL3-360.,,r - BUSINESS WEEK: March 9, 1981 63 to soften the economic impact of regula tion. "Gradually, there has been a real ization that regulation can damage very important interests. Even the more pro gressive members of my party under stand that," says Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). However, the difficulties that tripped up the legislation last year may persist and thereby impair the chances of Reagan's new proposals. Congress was not averse to reining in the regulators, but it wanted its own control over specif ic regulations. And the so-called legisla tive veto, which in its most extreme form would permit either house to overturn without the signature of the President any proposed rules, is expected to be attached to the regulatory reform bill again this year. The Administration may thus find itself forced to share pow er with the legislative branch to get its procedural changes. Any regulatory-reform legislation that passes Congress, moreover, is likely to include provisions requiring agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis on pro posed rules. This is politically controver sial. Environmentalists and others con tend that the benefits of a particular regulation--fewer cases of cancer or cleaner air, for instance--cannot be mathematically balanced against the cost of achieving those socially desirable goals. Reagan's economic advisers agree that some benefits of regulation cannot be expressed in dollar figures, but they deny that cost-benefit analysis is in tended to be a mere numbers game. "To be against cost-benefit analysis is to be in favor of regulating with less informa tion," says James C. Miller III, adminis trator of the omb's Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs and executive di- lush: `W must get this country back to work' As one of his first official acts. Presi dent Reagan created a Presidential task force on regulatory relief &nd named Vice-President George Bush to . head it Serving with Bush on the reg , ulatory taskforce are seven members with Cabinet rank. Following are ex cerpts from an interview in which Bush discussed the Administration's regulatory goals with Herbert W. Che shire, deputy bureau chief of the McGraw-Hill World News bureau in Washington, and correspondent Anne Swardson. cies has been adversarial. What's the best word tor what that relationship is going to be now? \. We're going to welcome suggestions, not just from businesses that are regu lated' but* [also] from those groups which have other interests as their prime concern. We are going to act in an evenhanded fashion as best we can and do things to encourage real growth and real productivity. So I would ex pect that business should be excited about this prospect. Labor, environmental, and consumer groups are already gearing up for opposi tion drives.- . They geared up for an opposition drive against us in the election, a strong one; a lot of them, not all. But many of these people are reasonable. . . . We've, already met with s.ome of. the top labor leaders. They feel very, very strongly about certain provisions of laws affecting safety in working places. But every single one has ac knowledged that in some areas there have been excesses. ' It's our perception that everybody in this country knows that we've got some enormous economic problems What strategy will the Adminis tration follow in trying to achieve its goal of lessening regulation? The goal is regulatory reform and relief, obviously, and the strategy is simply to go through the channels available. That would include executive orders, legislation, and working with various individuals in various levels of the federal bureaucra cy. We think something can happen with this task force. We aren't going to write a 500-page The goal is regulatory reform and relief___We aren't going to write a 500-page report and file it p ... ... ........ k and that we've got to compete abroad and we've got to pro duce again. Even those in some of the special interest groups you're talking about must un derstand that We're not look ing for a. fight We're not out to rape, pillage, or plunder the en vironment or anything else. And it's not all pure dollars and cents. There are human compo nents to be considered. But we must get this country back to work. report and file it, When might we see results from What will the task force be doing the' Administration's deregula in the next few months? . tion drive in terms of helping the Drafting a legislative pack economy--one year, two years? age of regulatory reform pro It all depends. If a regulation posals and formulating execu can be removed that totally tive orders to the agencies, holds up the construction of which the President will enthu some kind of productive facili siastically sign . . . [and] work ing with people who share the ty, it could happen pretty fast. In general, I think regulatory President's view on excessive regulation. So some of [the so lution] is people, some of it is executive action, some of it is relief will have a rather quick impact on the economy. Part of it will come from the anticipa tory effect If an investor is law. convinced the President is real ly determined to bring regula The past relationship between business and regulatory agen- tory relief, that in itself will have an effect . $4 BUSINESS WEEK: March 9, 198t UCC .013361 GOVERNMENT rector of the Bush task force. "Cost-ben efit analysis is not a panacea, but it's way ahead of what we have today," Mill er says. None of these changes will come with out a tough fight. The AFL-Cio's Industri al Union Dept, (iud), for example, has joined several environmental groups to form political action committees in 12 states and to organize grass-roots back ing to publicize the benefits of regula tion. Says Howard D. Samuel, president of the iud: "We think there are a lot of people in Washington who are not aware of the constituent support" for health and environmental laws. Reagan will also find that changing regulatory laws already on the books-- especially when it comes to undoing such hard-won past compromises as the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 and sched uling the phaseout of natural gas price controls--will open a Pandora's box on Capitol Hill. "The laws and regulations we now have represent the perfect ex pression of the political conflict of ideas and pressures," says a former Carter Administration official. "Can Ronald Reagan really develop a national constit uency to override the provincial and sec toral political power centers?" Within reason, however, Reagan regu lators may be able to circumvent court scrutiny on changing a rule by enforcing the regulation little or selectively; judges are generally reluctant to override pros ecutorial discretion. Important as the debate over proce dure is, the make-or-break issues for specific industries will come as Congress moves to rewrite each particular statute and reform particular agencies. Espe cially significant are the 1970 Clean Air Act and its 1977 amendments, together the most sweeping environmental stat ute ever enacted by Congress. The Clean Air Act has spawned hundreds of regu lations, and hundreds more are in the offing. It has significantly reduced air pollution--but, if industry' is to be be lieved, at the price of thousands of jobs and widespread plant closings. The steel and coal-mining industries maintain that complying with the law forces companies to invest huge sums of cash that could be spent on modernizing plants. William J. De Lancey, chairman of Republic Steel Corp., says that envi ronmental spending last year equaled $20 for each ton of steel the company produced. In 1977 the industry's cost for How lawsuits, might slow, deregulation %% 3 p Eyettt.if,ta.s^expwted/luie^exnitiye-v'also consumer authority to sue p. branch curtails itsjole^^ovwseer ofi ' directly^ manufacturers ' who do'not j '. business, iifdoesjM^^ Frc rulM.lAmendments;to ^ ' parties^ are off ffieaegulatoi7; ; hbok.^ I .the;. Equal. Gredit^Opportonitjr' Act ; suite'by $ a ' private nti^ntS;T(allihg.oit.'them tb ^borrowers. whose loans were Rejected'v ;--:' act a3 substitute^'to'inforMreiristing ^ ^becaUse,!-sex bia^Amendments' tO '^ . rnTpa'pnH normTo finrio ^ - ] 'A4AKI . YVUUiU,rUUb,; ^UCVVL - -- "* -v-V?* rVincrrot:a. QnR fha'1 pnnrfa'' nWvcr'tin rtt'hjr^fpfl.Csnrne' !f'rivJafo'9ro"cinrir'1i Headed for court Nor is modifying existing regulations ' an easy process. If a rule has become filial--and osha's $1 billion standard to control workplace lead exposure is a prime example--it can be changed only through the same administrative process by which it was created: a series of pro- \posals, hearings, written comments, and negotiations that often takes years. "Our major problems are with regulations. that are already in place," says Reagan health adviser and Washington (D. C.) lawyer C. Joseph Stetler. The Reagan deregulators will ulti mately fight their battles in an arena until now used primarily by industry in opposing regulations: the courts. Con gress 'has written many of the major environmental and health laws in eje* tailed fashion specifically to deny the implementing agencies room to maneu ver. These laws also open the way for citizens to complain to the courts if the statutes' mandated goals are not fully carried out Several laws administered by the epa, for example, dictate the lev els of technology required to achieve clean air or water, instead of leaving the method to the agency's discretion. Many of these same laws include provisions making it easier for people to sue. "It's a serious possibility that the courts could prevent the Administration from achiev ing its deregulatory ends," says Ronald Levin, administrative law expert at Washington University in St Louis. :Vpm'ate^partiesjwiih!;mOTe^md;*..'e^orceffieni^has^^nrfMly`.,been'33- ;^ ,^mqre'_accept`'.that^ihyitafijMr?Tiv>.t:hec r^sumed:to'^e'a government monopoly." >. years immediately, ahead,>;'*>; Forv'corporations; there' are clear ' the."gov-._ ^ ampl^"the fact 'that*the federal gpyk i'-' ernment ari a private plaintiff. Most emrnent is ciittirig' back'its litigption'i.;Vwh6ihave been uiyoifed'm both kinds-', : Tmayyery well increase prfyate; fitigaPv.jof battles opt for tK'e.latterS^`I would ' tion/-'_p_redicts.-Washington atton^^^'rather.'face a private litigant any.'day;: l James ^HouriliMC.diairman''says Clear- ny\ m iMi aa Tif faw / IT1 r\ \ Ta rrrr-o U 1 Wn 1! n aa ' Tin yiitigants!rather^tah7h3i:the:EqbMfi^usually''tries to'establish" a^gen'eral.. .'^Employment, Opj%i^ity.:rCommis^`-` "principle, forcing a 'single target.com-; ''sioi;;; And.',a t heist' of tbtfier::lews'~^y:*p'anyj to . defend a'.'praetice for the' 'tfh^uc^g;;^&t|^.lenmi%,^d7hm-^>ntire;ihdustry.-^n'goveriuheht liti-V i sion,; security;--giye^-j>nvat ga.tiory you generally-, cant 'just- pay_i f.' Apraferabie'aayersy^3^e,io^P^^;want'alof'more than that,"'explains*~ :;'pmate,'a^ra^`^raOTal;aa0s.'l*^^?e'fe;~.B.?.Piwmia^.f'of/vGhrcagoip,aa?>: .^:weH?emld<!ejiijn;'W<air^^'vgr'^at^brot'~ordec:>ron>. Fy7the"gqvernment TTOaVTnRixnrli-idi'ritairififTFQ.Ttrrtnortif- "rnQir frvrpo iVnnlA!lrm fnaTfor ^Ke'way ' result"': ;"popu!arity'in_C6hgress.; Thu3,:. when 3,which," says,-Mozart G;, Ratner," . the rawm^erAin 1974 gave the.Washington', (D. C.) Tabor. ' lawyer,'- i j.eral Trade^CommisaohJ.new powerJtox;^"private' plaintiffs . are understand-"-f v-"1 rpcnildfA mnrp infprp^fpH in fVio VnVrVc-,f '- GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WEEK: March 9, 1981 65 UCC 013362 _____ -ML Calculating the cost of government i emulation In his televised report to the nation on the economy on Feb. 5, President Reagan said that "altogether, regula tions . . . add $100 billion or more to the co3t of the goods and services we buy." Reagan's estimate--which is highly controversial--had its genesis in the computations of Robert DeFina, an economist formerly with the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis and now at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. According to Murray L. Weidenbaum, the new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and a former director of the St. Louis center, DeFina made a "pioneering effort" in 1976 to compute an . aggregate .mea- sure of the total cost of regulation. In the book The Future of Business Regulation: Private Action and Public Demand, Weidenbaum wrote that De Fina "culled from the available litera ture the more reliable estimates of the costs of specific regulatory' programs. By using a conservative estimating procedure, he put the figures on a con sistent basis and aggregated the re sults. He found the total [for 1976] to be approximately $66 billion, consist ing of $3 billion of taxpayer costs to operate the regulatory agencies and $63 billion, or 20 times as much, for business to comply with regulations. Thus, on the average, each dollar that Congress appropriates for regulation imposes an additional $20 of costs on the private sector." The compliance costs included an estimated $25 billion for paperwork alone. , Multiply by 20. In a paper published last November, Weidenbaum prepared a "rough update" of the DeFina estimate by applying the multiplier of 20 to budgeted administrative costs for more recent years. He came up with total compliance costs of -5115.5 billion for 1979 and $126 billion for 1930, includ ing paperwork costs. The total is, of course, an approxi mation that does not stem from a rig orous cost-analysis. Moreover, the off setting economic benefits of regula tion--usually more difficult to measure than costs--play no part in the calcula tion. . ' . every additional 1% reduction in air borne pollution was $45 million, accord ing to the American Iron, & Steel Insti tute. The industry claims that it has now removed 96% of the air pollutants and that the cost for each additional 1% will be $1.2 billion by 1982. Congress must decide by Sept. 30--the Clean Air Act's expiration date--what changes it will make. Utilities, steel pro ducers, and coal companies say they believe in the goal of the act and do not want it dismantled. However, industry will ask for some significant changes-- for example, relaxation of air-pollution compliance deadlines, simplification of some technology-forcing standards, and far more reliance on independent panels of scientists to set standards. But Repre sentative John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Com merce Committee, and his counterpart. Senator Robert T. Stafford `(R-Vt.), chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, are opposed to major changes in the law's goals. Protecting consumers No matter what Congress does with the clean air law, Reagan can have a sig nificant effect on the EPA, which by mid summer must issue more than 100 new regulations, all of them extensive and complicated. He has already taken the first step by appointing Ann M. Gorsuch, a Colorado attorney who has participated in suits against epa regula tions, as administrator. Through his ex ecutive power over the agency, Reagan can also to some degree control the course of environmental rules. But Reagan has far less power over the agency that will confront Congress with its second major debate on deregu lation: the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Unlike the epa, the cpsc is The case for personal protection, how wholly independent of the executive ever, has been significantly weakened by branch, although Reagan can appoint a. the National Institute for Occupational new chairman. Hearings begin this Safety & Health's recent recall of month on renewing the CPSC's funding, 300,000 faulty firefighting and mining which expires on Sept. 30. There is seri respirators. And on Feb. 17, a niosh- ous talk on Capitol Hill of abolishing the funded study found that some hazardous agency altogether or limiting it to an substances can easily penetrate protec educational body that would perform tive gloves used by millions of workers. studies and print brochures about dan Reagan's deregulation strategy will gerous consumer products but would not also affect most other areas of govern have power to set regulatory standards. ment: ' Senator Robert W. Kasten Jr. (R-Wis.), energy. As one of his first acts on chairman of the Senate Commerce Com becoming President, Reagan eliminated mittee's consumer subcommittee, has price controls for oil, and he is planning asked Reagan not to appoint a new CPSC to speed up the decontrol of natural gas chairman until the agency's fate is de wellhead prices. The Administration cided. also wants Congress to weaken the 1978 Reagan's biggest regulatory headache Fuel Use Act, which requires utilities is likely to be osha because that agency and large industrial plants to convert touches more individual companies than from oil and gas to coal. Until Congress does any other arm of government ex-. acts, the Energy Dept.'s Economic Regu cept the Internal Revenue Service. Con latory Administration (era) will ease up gress will do little to untangle osha's on enforcing the programs and be more myriad regulations this year. Senate La generous in allowing companies tempo bor Committee Chairman Orrin G. rary- exemptions to use natural gas. Hatch (R-Utah) Says he is takinga wait- In the nuclear area, the Administra and-see attitude. Likewise, osha's new tion will move to promote wider use of administrator, Thorne G. Auchter, talks nuclear-generated electric power by only in-general terms of trimming back. streamlining the Nuclear Regulatory But economists including the omb's Commission licensing process, which Miller have long argued that worker pro now takes as long as seven years. tection can be most efficiently achieved autos. The industry is asking the through personal-protection devices such Reaganites to roll back some emissions as earplugs or respirators and not standards from 1981 to 1980 levels, through osha's approach: altering the streamline the process for certifying workplace by means of noise-dampening compliance with those standards, and equipment and emission-reducing de freeze safety regulations. Ford Motor vices. The Supreme Court will take up Co. estimates that these changes would this issue for the first time when it rules save the industry as much as $5 billion this year on osha's $656 million cotton- annually by 1985. Says Thomas A. dust standard, which orders the textile Staudt, vice-president of marketing at industry to install controls to reduce American Motors Corp.: "We've carried chronic lung disease among workers. the biggest burden in the world market The industry contends that respirators in regulations on the production of vehi are enough. . cles. We see a far greater future pros- 66 BUSINESS WEEK: March 9, 1981 UCC 013363 GOVERNMENT pect for an alliance [with government].'' food. Congress is likely to modify the Delaney Amendment, which bans food additives bearing any trace of sub stances that have been shown to cause cancer in animals. employment. The eeoc is likely to change its course by defending individu als rather than pursuing its recent policy of suing on behalf of large classes of workers. "We'll be claims adjusters, pure and simple," says a commissioner. The eeoc can also be expected to move away from hiring goals and timetables. transportation. The department's urban mass transportation rule requir- i jing that mass transit be accessible to handicapped and disabled persons-- which has the effect of compelling ex pensive subway modifications and new bus purchases in many cities--is a prime target of the Bush task force. economic regulation. Under the Car ter Administration, substantial price- : and-service deregulation was achieved in the airline, trucking, railroad, and bank ing industries. Communications will un doubtedly be next, though the initiative jwill come more from Congress, especialJly from Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), who is particularly interested in the broad cast area. The Administration is likely , to delay action on telecommunications deregulation, however, until the six- year-old antitrust lawsuit against Amer- ' ican Telephone & Telegraph Co. is final ly resolved. . The Securities & Exchange Commis sion will probably continue streamlining i and simplifying disclosure processes. . Chairman-designate John S. R. Shad is likely to downplay corporate governance 'and put greater emphasis on the ability of companies to raise money. Business would like to see the SEC push for weak ening the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and prod its Enforcement Div. to con centrate on major violations of securities law rather than pursuing and often j settling many minor cases. Controversial Enforcement Div. chief Stanley Sporkin j may stay on. '. I If all these regulatory changes are. made, the effect on the economy and on the operating environment for business could be enormous. And even though the political process will doubtless force modifications in the grand design, the chances of substantial reform are never-' theless bright. Says Alexander B. Trow bridge Jr., president of the National Association of Manufacturers: "I don't think the election was a mandate to undo the entire framework of regula tions. But it was a general statement that we've overdone this process and! overburdened the private sector. This] Administration will push that view far more than [have] previous ones." GOVERNMENT UCC .013364 ----- Mi ___ ;_______________ BUSINESS WEEK: March 9,1981