When George W. Bush became president, he shocked Washington by practicing what he preached. Now his regulatory czar is facing criticism for doing the same thing.

John Graham, the director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), is getting used to life in Washington -- the hard way. First, Graham was pummeled with a front page spread in the New York Times that was apparently engineered by environmental lobbies intent on derailing his Congressional confirmation. According to the Times, Graham was only out to serve his corporate masters and promote his radical, right-wing agenda. And earlier this month USA Today piled on, giving a platform to critics appalled by Graham's suggestion that some environmental regulations may need modification.

Opponents of Graham's appointment claimed he was a big-business shill, having had the audacity to accept corporate contributions to his Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, an organization that pioneered objective analysis of safety and health policies. Never mind that Graham was obsessive about disclosure, listing all contributors on the Center's web site. Never mind those contributors also included mainstream foundations as well as government agencies -- among them, the Environmental Protection Agency. And never mind that almost all academic researchers worth their salt have to raise money from business or government. Indeed, 106 eminent researchers in regulation signed a letter decrying the defamation and calling Graham, "an eminent scholar and a person of the highest personal and professional integrity."

We believe the money issue raised by Graham's opponents was a smokescreen for his real crime: Graham championed the use of cost-benefit analysis as a means of insuring that society's investments in the environment, health and safety regulation yielded the maximum bang for the buck.

And Graham was viewed as all the more dangerous because he backed up his rhetoric with hard numbers. According to one study that he coauthored, shifting society’s resources from less effective regulations and medical interventions to more effective ones could save the lives of 60,000 people annually without increasing total expenditures. By the same token, he calculated that society could save the same number of lives as the current set of regulations while reducing costs by over $30 billion annually.

Graham's work is consistent with that of other high quality research showing that just a handful of government regulations yield the lion’s share of health, safety and environmental benefits, while a large fraction are expensive losers. A study published by the AEI-Brookings Joint Center found that about half of the environmental regulations specifically aimed at saving lives actually resulted in a net increase in deaths. The other half did save lives -- though not always at a cost in line with most people’s inclination to invest in health and safety at the expense of other goods.

As a member of the Bush Administration, Graham has launched a multi-pronged attack on the inconsistencies in government policies toward risk. First, identify areas where regulation is plainly inadequate -- where the low-hanging fruit has yet to be picked. Second, identify existing regulations where the costs could exceed any plausible measure of benefits. Third, keep the public, the regulators and the interests most directly affected by regulation well informed about what his office is doing.

To these ends, Graham invented a new tool called a "prompt letter." In the past, OIRA only sent "return letters," which required an agency to reconsider a proposed regulation. Prompt letters, which are non-binding requests that an agency consider imposing a new regulation or altering an existing one, give OIRA a more active role in prioritizing the nation’s regulatory agenda.

The first two prompt letters, sent earlier this year, both promoted regulation. One suggested that the Food and Drug Administration consider labeling trans-fatty acids, a contributor to heart disease whose widespread use was ironically promoted by labeling regulations that effectively discouraged the use of saturated fats in food products. The FDA's preliminary analysis estimated that such a rule could save 2,500 to 5,600 lives per year at minimum cost.

The second letter asked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to consider promoting the installation of automatic external defibrillators in work places. Defibrillators, which revive heart attack victims, have proven to be a useful (and cost-effective) device on airliners.

Those who thought Graham was determined to roll back all regulation may have been surprised to see OIRA propose more regulations, but Graham was only doing what he had long advocated. Although Graham and his former colleagues at Harvard are critical of many regulations, they have advocated others, including the mandatory installation of airbags in automobiles and tough air-pollution controls.

The first two prompt letters were an important and exciting step, making it clear to those with open minds that reforming regulation means a whole lot more than getting government off the backs of corporations. Now, OIRA has taken a second step, making it equally clear that the office is willing to challenge regulations whose costs far exceed the benefits. OIRA has listed 23 rules it intends to investigate for potential modification. USA Today rightly calls this step "unprecedented," but fails to note the reason: the Clinton Administration failed to comply with the spirit of a Congressional requirement to supply such information in the OIRA annual report.

Contrary to the press spin, most of the suggestions on OIRA's list are modest. One, for example, asks the Environmental Protection Agency to clarify definitions and reduce redundancy in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Another asks the Department of the Interior to work with the 4,000 snowmobile riders who want to use trails in the Rocky Mountain National Park -- an issue that seems to elicit more passion than light from both sides.

Pushing regulators to use better information and state their reasons for acting seems exactly what any good regulatory czar would do. But Graham is going a step further, opening regulatory debates to a broader public by, among other things, aggressively employing the Internet to increase public access. The documents posted on the OIRA website will include lists of regulations currently under review, monthly summaries of agency actions, prompt and return letters and information on meetings between OIRA and outside parties. The agency is also developing a fully integrated, electronic system for tracking regulations and public comments to replace the current, 20-year old system.

Many politicians have long promised to put the national nanny in her proper place by holding regulators more accountable and producing results more consistent with good economics. Now that Graham is trying to deliver on the promise, it would be nice to see the media focus on the real story.

Mr. Hahn is Director of the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. Mr. Dudley is a researcher at the Center.