Over the past several months, the White House has met with industry representatives to develop a sweeping deregulatory strategy. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has given industry a leg-up on the upcoming reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). According to Inside EPA, OIRA has been working with a coalition of industry groups to strategize using the PRA reauthorization as a vehicle for developing new anti-regulatory policies. On top of that, during the mid-December White House economic summit, Treasury Secretary John Snow led a panel discussion on tax and regulatory reform. According to BNA's Daily Labor Report, representatives of industry groups and industry-funded think tanks recommended rolling back existing regulations and developing anti-regulatory policies that echo the suggestions developed in the meetings between OIRA and industry. Both the OIRA meetings with industry and the economic summit indicate a broad attempt by industry, industry-funded think tanks, and the administration to dismantle or weaken existing regulation while making it more difficult to promulgate new public safeguards. Following through on the industry recommendations -- which range from increasing the use of cost-benefit analysis to legislating judicial review for the Data Quality Act -- business may very well receive the "regulatory relief" it seeks at the cost of longstanding public health, safety and environmental protections. The Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act created the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB and gave it a number of very specific assignments, which included meeting annual paperwork reduction goals, reviewing every agency's information management activities, and improving federal information policy. Despite this broad mandate, the heart of the law turned out to be the paperwork clearance process resurrected from the 1942 Federal Reports Act. Through the paperwork clearance process, OIRA reviews all activities of federal agencies, including the independent regulatory agencies, which involve collecting information from ten or more persons. These information collections include application forms, questionnaires, surveys, and reporting, recordkeeping or labeling requirements. Thus, everything from tax forms to health research questions must be approved by OMB. Funding for the PRA expired in 2001, and since that time paperwork reduction has received funding annually through Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations. According to the Inside EPA article, OIRA has met with industry officials and industry-funded think tanks to discuss several additions that may be included when the bill is reauthorized this year. On the whole these changes will create new barriers that agencies must surmount to pass new regulation as well as open up existing regulation to potential rollbacks. The changes to the PRA may face some resistance in Congress but will certainly be an important agenda item for the House Government Reform Committee in the coming year. Potential Pro-Industry, Anti-Regulatory Measures A number of overlapping themes emerged from both the summit and OIRA�s meetings with industry for potential anti-regulatory measures that may be enacted during the PRA reauthorization or in other forms during the coming congressional session. Industry representatives weary of �regulatory burden� have recommended rollbacks of existing regulations. At the economic summit, Mercatus director Susan Dudley recommended inserting sunsets into rules that appear to be outdated. She asserted that older rules must have a demonstrated necessity in order to remain on the books. Responding to industry demands that new regulations be based on �better� information, OIRA is considering including language in the PRA that will expand the use of cost-benefit analysis and giving greater authority to the Data Quality Act. Industry has also suggested a desire to expand the use of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to review existing rules on the books. Increasing the Use of Cost-Benefit Analysis One possible amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act being considered by industry representatives and OIRA is a codification of Executive Order 12866. Issued under Clinton, E.O. 12866 requires agencies to perform cost-benefit analysis on regulations prior to publication and also requires OMB to review all �major� rules. Cost-benefit analysis is already a tool often used by opponents of regulation. While it is easy to quantify the cost of a new regulation on industry, it is much more difficult to estimate the benefit in economic terms, especially when that benefit is a better quality of life, healthier children, or cleaner air. Rather than cost-benefit analysis being just another tool in the regulator�s toolbox, codifying E.O. 12866 will create a legal mandate for cost-benefit analysis and will increase its role in developing regulation. Reviewing Existing Regulation Already the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies proposing rules that would have a �significant� economic impact on small business, small not-for-profit organizations, or small governmental entities must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and try to find simpler, less burdensome ways for such small organizations to comply with federal requirements. The Act was created in 1980 in response to criticism from small businesses that they were drowning in federal forms and going broke because of federal regulations. The Act also requires that agencies go back and review existing regulations at least once every ten years and reassess the rule�s impact on small business. According to the Inside EPA article, industry may also use the occasion of the paperwork reduction act to ensure the increased the use of Regulatory Flexibility Act analyses. EPA and other agencies have already begun to increase the number of reviews they perform. Between the December 2002 Unified Agenda and the December 2004 agenda, the number of rules undergoing section 610 reviews increased from 34 to 42. The additional reviews seem to be especially targeting the Environmental Protection Agency. The December 2002 agenda included no 610 reviews for EPA, but 10 have been added over the past year, including reviews of regulation regarding lead-based paint activities in child-occupied facilities and worker protection from pesticides. Larry Mocha, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce representative, voiced the business community�s desire for greater use of section 610 reviews. Mocha plans to lead town hall sessions on the Regulatory Flexibility Act at the state levels. The Small Business Administration, working in conjunction with the industry-funded think tank ALEC, has likewise been lobbying the states. Expanding Data Quality Provisions The call by industry representatives that regulation be based on �better� information could translate into an expansion of the powers of the Data Quality Act. One idea being floated at OIRA is to include language in the Paperwork Reduction Act that would create the legal right to sue agencies over data, cost benefit analyses, and other decisions that agencies use to make regulatory decisions. This provision would effectively overturn two recent federal court decisions holding that the DQA is not judicially enforceable, and it could open regulations to even more challenges from industry. A Mounting Threat Both in President Bush�s closing remarks at the summit as well as in White House information on the conference, regulatory reform was put forth as an objective in the coming term. The �White House �Securing Our Economic Future� Fact Sheet stated that though �America has a growing, dynamic and changing economy . . . the economy remains handicapped by unnecessary tax and regulatory burdens.� It went on to say that �the president wants to streamline regulations and reduce paperwork.� OIRA�s meetings with industry provide even further evidence that regulatory reform is clearly on the agenda for the coming year, and the strategy against public safeguards is beginning to take shape.