U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog: State pollution, safety rules threatened

One reason we need 51 laboratories of public policy, not just 1, is to ensure strong solutions to real problems that hurt consumers and the environment. Industry's goal is to enact weak federal rules that just coincidentally also limit state authority. This week, automakers moved to block strong state air pollution laws. Also, a comment period on a Bush administration roof safety proposal ended. If approved as proposed, the automakers will get a weak rule that won't save lives but will prevent victims from suing under state law. Finally, although a dollar short and a day late, the GAO has issued a report critical of a 2004 power grab by the bank bureaucrats over at the OCC.

We've written extensively in this blog on preemption threats to state authority. PIRG has a site devoted to watching state law preemption efforts by the unelected national bank bureaucrats over at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC Watch) and another site on stronger state laws generally. While we often comment in the blog on preemption of state laws protecting privacy, the threat is broader.

Today's New York Times has a story by Danny Hakim, Battle Lines Set as New York Acts to Cut Emissions, on automaker litigation against New York's adoption of stricter California emissions standards to fight pollution and global warming (free reg. req.):

The rules, passed this month by a unanimous vote of the State Environmental Board, are expected to be adopted across the Northeast and the West Coast. But the auto industry has already moved to block the rules in New York State, and plans to battle them in every other state that follows suit.

Also this week, Public Citizen led efforts to oppose proposed new roof safety rules issued by the Bush National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NHTSA rules are abjectly weak and won't save many, if any lives, for the cost, but come with a kicker.

The proposed rule also contains a “pre-emption�? provision that would prohibit people from suing manufacturers for injuries sustained from crushed roofs if the vehicles meet the government standard. This would effectively shut the courthouse doors on consumers and would remove incentives for manufacturers to make safe vehicles when minimal government standards are insufficient or outdated, or are not well enforced, Public Citizen argued. It also would burden the taxpayers with the costs of these crashes.

We've joined with Public Citizen to ask Congress (letter to Congress) to examine this outrageous proposal.

Also last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report sharply critical of the decision-making process used by OCC in implementing 2004 rules sharply limiting state authority over both national banks and their operating subsidiaries. According to OCC Preemption Rulemaking: Opportunities Existed to Enhance the Consultative Efforts and Better Document the Rulemaking Process:

We were able to determine the process OCC followed for the preemption rulemakings only by pulling together information from multiple sources, including the rulemaking dockets, other OCC documents, and officials and stakeholders we interviewed. OCC’s rulemaking files alone did not contain much of this information—the files omitted details on both the fact and substance of OCC communications with key stakeholders. Given the controversial circumstances surrounding these rulemakings, it might have been in the agency’s best interest to have created better documentation of its actions and decisions.

We're also shocked, (shocked!) that GAO finds that OCC appears to have mailed it in on its compliance both with Executive Order 13132 concerning rules with an impact on federalism and Executive Order 12866 concerning rules with a major effect on the economy.