Sunstein Watch: OMB Says it Will Leave EDSP to the EPA Experts

by Rena Steinzor

November 19, 2009

On Monday, OMB Director Peter Orszag sent a letter to Rep. Ed Markey, responding to Congressman Markey’s concerns about OMB’s involvement in EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Orszag’s letter -- released by Markey's office Wednesday -- explains, in no uncertain terms, that OMB is done meddling in EPA’s scientific determinations about endocrine-disrupting chemicals. It’s a step in the right direction for Orszag and OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein, who have their work cut out for them if they are going to -- I hope -- work to halt OMB’s historical penchant for interfering in EPA’s work.

Congressman Markey’s concerns about OMB involvement in the EDSP were stoked by the same events that prompted the letter that CPR Board Member Robert Glicksman and I sent to Mr. Sunstein and his colleague Dr. John Holdren of the OSTP. We saw a trail of documents suggesting that OMB was pressuring EPA to revise the procedures through which it would allow pesticide manufacturers to avoid EPA orders to test their products for potential endocrine-disrupting effects. (See CPR Policy Analyst Matthew Shudtz’s October 20 post for details.)

In his letter to Rep. Markey, Mr. Orszag wisely avoided delving into the scientific underpinnings of the EDSP. And in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on Tuesday, EPA’s Steve Owens testified that, after numerous conversations with Mr. Sunstein, it is his understanding that OMB’s terms of clearance for the EDSP Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Request “in no way” limits EPA’s discretion under the program.

OMB’s course correction on this issue is great news for scientific integrity. Unfortunately, it cannot undo the mistakes of the past – in particular, the Bush-era changes to the EDSP that opened the floodgates for industry to claim that their old test data are adequate to replace a full battery of new tests that EPA would prefer that they undertake. EPA’s procedures for dealing with “Other Scientifically Relevant Information” aren’t perfect, but the past is behind us, and the future is looking up.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us ( and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Rena Steinzor

Rena Steinzor is a Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and a past president of the Center for Progressive Reform. She is the author of Why Not Jail? Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction.

The Major Rules Doctrine -- A 'Judge-Empowering Proposition'

Steinzor | Oct 11, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

The Hill Op-Ed: Brett Kavanaugh's Opportunistic Corner Cutting

Steinzor | Aug 30, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

The Guidance Racket

Steinzor | Mar 27, 2018 | Regulatory Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015