In the News – Safety

  • Thursday
    March 24th,
    2011

    Republican Senators Introduce Bill to Bar Agency Guidance With Regulatory Impacts

    Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University, told BNA March 21 that the CURB Act offers nothing new and would only prolong the rulemaking process.
    “Right now, there are very strong analytical requirements that agencies have to go through before they adopt regulations,” Livermore said. “There are rules set up by courts under the Administrative Procedure Act and cost-benefit analysis rules that the president has in place. These requirements are comprehensive. They are designed so that agencies look at all the costs, all the benefits, and so that they only adopt rules that maximize net benefits. So [the CURB Act’s requirements] are redundant requirements that will just create more red tape for agencies. Supposedly this is about reducing red tape.”

    Source: BNA Occupational Safety & Health Reporter (subs req)

    Issue(s): Safety

  • Monday
    August 16th,
    2010

    Disasters show flawed system of oversight

    First came the explosions. Then the funerals. Then the calls for reform. Five years ago, it was the Texas City explosion that killed 15 workers and cast the spotlight on the Chemical Safety Board, the chronically underfunded agency assigned to oversee worker safety at American refineries.

    Source: San Antonio News

    Issue(s): Safety

  • Sunday
    August 15th,
    2010

    Safety regulators caught in revolving doors

    “It’s as though the nation is walking into a casino and spinning the roulette wheel every day,” says Michael Liver­more, a government regulation specialist and executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University law school. “It’s only a matter of time before we’re going to come up with snake eyes and have another disaster.”

    Source: Houston Chronicle

    Issue(s): Safety

  • Wednesday
    April 21st,
    2010

    Study calls federal flood insurance program harmful as lawmakers ponder its future

    The cost of federal flood insurance, including the program’s $20 billion deficit, is “likely dwarfed” by its harmful impacts on natural areas vulnerable to construction, according to a new report. The program, launched 42 years ago as a financial safeguard for threatened homes, is clashing with adaptation policies being prepared for the impacts of climate change, cautions the paper by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law.

    Source: ClimateWire

    Issue(s): Cost-Benefit Analysis, Safety

  • Wednesday
    April 21st,
    2010

    FEMA Flood Insurance Program Primarily Benefits The Wealthy: Study

    A policy research group study has found that the National Flood Insurance Program, a division of FEMA, primarily benefits wealthy homeowners who build in high-risk coastal areas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. According to the Institute for Policy Integrity’s analysis, “Flooding the Market”, the flood insurance program’s subsidies help wealthy Americans with large beachfront properties or vacation homes in a typical year, and low-income individuals only during severe catastrophes.

    Source: Huffington Post

    Issue(s): Cost-Benefit Analysis, Safety