An estimate of the cost of public protections often cited by regulatory opponents has been rejected by researchers from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The critique, Flaws Call for Rejecting Crain and Crain Model, concludes that because the $1.75 trillion cost estimate is heavily based on flawed methodology and flawed data, it "should not be used either as a valid measure of the costs of regulation or as a guide for policy."

Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew from consideration a final rule that clarified exemptions to its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirement. The articles exemption clarification was being reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the last step before it could be finalized and published in the Federal Register. The OIRA review process is not made available to the public, so it is impossible to tell what caused EPA to pull the rule.

For months, the country has been bombarded with increasingly negative and misleading messages about federal regulation, and Congress has responded by launching attacks against public protections that safeguard our air, our water, our food, our workplaces, and our economy. What's been missing from these anti-regulatory broadsides are examples of the benefits of regulation, but such stories emerged earlier today during a Coalition for Sensible Safeguards press call.