Key agencies charged with protecting public health, safety and the environment continued to abandon work on long-identified priorities for new or improved regulatory safeguards, according to the fall 2004 Unified Agenda released last December. According to the fall 2004 edition of the Unified Agenda, a special feature of the Federal Register that projects agency regulatory priorities every six months, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) continued to abandon work on proposals for improved regulatory safeguards -- some of which had been on agency agendas since Bush I, while others were proposed to improve security in the aftermath of 9/11. EPA withdrew 12 items from its agenda, four of which predated this administration. Among the withdrawn items were the following:

• A 1997 proposal to increase fees for pesticide tolerance actions, to counter the problem of "costs substantially exceeding the fees currently charged" (RIN 2070-AD23);
• A 2003 proposal to unbundle contracts in order to create more opportunities for small businesses (RIN 2030-AA86); and
• A 2003 proposal to require background checks of contract and subcontract workers at federal facilities and sensitive locations such as Superfund removal sites (RIN 2030-AA85).

NHTSA withdrew six items from its agenda, of which all predate this administration and one in particular dates back to Bush I. That proposal would have required improved radiator caps to prevent the accidental scalding of motorists and service station attendants who hastily remove caps from still-hot radiators (RIN 2127-AE59). FDA withdrew only one item from its agenda, although it was originally proposed in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress passed a law to improve the security of the food supply, repeatedly using a key term -- "serious adverse health consequences" -- to describe the scope of FDA's duties to protect the food supply against potential bioterrorist attack. FDA added the task of defining that term to its fall 2003 agenda, but it removed it from the fall 2004 agenda with no explanation. Neither the Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Mine Safety and Health Administration withdrew more items from its agenda. Examples of Proposals Withdrawn from Agendas   Why We Needed the Agency to Act Excuse for Not Acting EPA On-Site and Off-Site Background Checks Performed by EPA and Contractors from the December 2003 Unified Agenda: The events of September 11, 2001, have heightened both Government and private industry awareness relative to protecting facilities and the personnel who work therein. EPA has a large number of contracts that require contractor (and subcontractor) employees to access federally-owned or leased facilities and space, federally-occupied facilities, and Superfund, Oil Pollution Act, and Stafford Act sites. Although such access is often necessary for contract performance, it nevertheless creates significant potential risks for EPA. While background checks provide no guarantee as to a person's loyalty, trustworthiness, or suitability for contract performance, they provide valuable information that may prove useful in determining an individual's suitability to perform on-site services for the EPA. from the Federal Register: The public comments EPA received objected not only to the proposed clause's broad application, but also to its key substantive provisions. EPA has decided to withdraw this proposed EPAAR clause, and plans instead to incorporate a narrowly tailored background check requirement in the Agency's emergency response contracts' statements of work. Currently, this category of contracts consists of Superfund Technical Assistance and Removal Team (START), Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS), and Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC). In the future this requirement may be included in other types of contracts. FDA Definition of "Serious Adverse Health Consequences" from Bioterrorism from the December 2003 Unified Agenda: The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted the need to enhance the security of the U.S. food supply. Congress responded by passing the [Bioterrorism Act, which uses] the term "serious adverse health consequences" to describe the standard [for] many of the new authorities provided therein. Together with the final rules implementing [other sections] of the Bioterrorism Act . . . , a definition of the term will further enable FDA to act quickly and consistently in responding to a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the U.S. food supply or to other food-related, public health emergencies. A definition of the "serious adverse health consequences" term will promote uniformity and consistency across FDA in understanding of the term and determining an appropriate response. In addition, a definition of the term will inform the public and stakeholders about what FDA considers to be a serious adverse health consequence under the Bioterrorism Act. No explanation provided NHTSA Fixing Radiator Caps to Prevent Scalding from the November 1992 Unified Agenda: The purpose of the thermal locking radiator cap would be to prevent the accidental scalding of motorists and gas station attendants who hastily open the cap on a hot radiator of a motor vehicle. from the December 2004 Unified Agenda: However, based on current cost estimates and reduced incidence of injuries, the agency decided to withdraw the rulemaking.