Tobacco Documents Online

SEF' „26 ' 9a 16: 06 FP,OM CONGRES6MRN BL I LEY SUMMARY OF WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION COMMENTS PRGE. 6C32 • Focuses on procedural and lega1 issues. Does not address scier,tific issues directly other than to note that 19 of 24 studies the risk assessment looked at found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer in non-smokers and ETS exposure. • WLF argues that EPA prejudged the issues, The Policy Guide was drafted before the draft Risk Assessment was complete. Indoor Air Division (IAD) contract with Rotaert Rosner, head of Smoking Policy Institute jan organization whose business is helping formulate workplace smoking restrictionsl, Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Policy Guide would recommend drastic restrictions on workplace smoking. • The Policy Guide's discussion of the state of law regarding workplace smoking restrictions is inaccurate. WLF notes that it "appears to be designed to accomplish two objectives: (1) to scare employers into imposing workpiace smoking bans, in order to avoid lawsuits by nonsmoking employees; and (2) to encourage suits by nonsmoking employees against their employers. WLF argues that this is inappropriate. WLF then points out the Policy Guide's faulty legal discussion and provides a correct interpretation. • WLF 'p4ints out that while EPA has no regulatory authority in this area, its actions related to the Poficy Guide do indeed constitute a de facto rulemaking. WLF argues that at the very ieast, the issuance of any Policy Guide should have been done consistent with the Administrative Proceure Act's Notice and Gernment Rulemakirsg process. • WLF concludes that lAD should withdraw the Policy Guide at least until work on the Risk Assessment has been completed and rsviewed.