Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

States Battle Administration on Vehicle Emissions

Senate Watching Carefully as Risk Guidelines Reemerge

The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reviewing under Executive Order 12866 a revised air pollutant rule. The rule is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, a.k.a. smog.

Over the past several months, Reg•Watch has been tracking the growing support for tightening this critical air pollution standard. Scientists and medical professionals have been lining up to voice their support, but EPA has been cautious in expressing its opinion on more protective smog regulation.

Considering the environmental track record of the current administration, experts are skeptical. Frank O'Donnell at Clean Air Watch is framing the revision of the standard as a science vs. politics showdown. Read his breakdown here.

OIRA should complete its review within 90 days. Reg•Watch hopes science prevails and the proposed rule calls for tighter standards. If not, who will be to blame: EPA, the White House or both?

Two governors let loose on the Bush administration in an editorial in the Washington Post today. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger and Connecticut's Jodi Rell called for Bush and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to get out of the way and let states put programs in place if the federal government doesn't want to act on global warming. Saying it "borders on malfeasance" to continue to block a waiver California has been seeking for 16 months and which would provide a model for 10 other states, the governors argue that the EPA is blocking the will of millions of citizens who want action. California wants to put in place a program to strengthen tailpipe emissions standards on vehicles resulting the reduction of millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only is EPA sitting on the waiver request (waivers are a common practice used to allow states to enact stronger regulations), but the governors point to Bush's new executive order issued last week that tells EPA and other agencies to study the issue until the end of 2008 and then put forth suggestions for how to solve the problem. "To us, that again sounds like more of the same inaction and denial, and it is unconscionable." They continue:

There can be little debate anymore on whether the effects of climate change constitute a looming threat to the public's health and welfare… Whether it is Northeastern states uniting to reduce greenhouse gases from electric generators or Western states looking to reduce emissions throughout the economy, momentum is building everywhere but in Washington. The federal government should not stand in the way of dealing with the most serious environmental challenge facing the world.

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

House Hearing Asks Interior: Entangled in Politics, or Enlightened by Science?

Cost-Benefit Provision Latches onto Fuel Economy Standard

Senate Passes FDA Reform Bill, Expands User Fees

Yesterday, President Bush made comments in the Rose Garden concerning greenhouse gases and global warming.

In his speech, one may have expected the President to announce a new landscaping project turning the Rose Garden into the Orchid Garden due to quickly rising global temperatures. Instead, Bush announced a new Executive Order which requires collaboration among EPA, the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Agriculture, OMB, and the White House Council on Environmental Quality in pursuing new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Lots of media outlets and environmental groups (and now Reg•Watch) have already focused on Bush's speech and E.O., and the White House has trumpeted them with its usual pomp and circumstance.

But there is no real news here. The administration is merely announcing it is in the earliest stages of considering a regulatory plan on greenhouse gases. Bush had to take this course eventually because of a recent Supreme Court ruling. The inter-agency approach is the obvious tack to take on such a complex issue. The 20-in-10 plan is a months-old initiative, and Congress is not likely to pay much attention to it.

The only new information here is Bush's decision to direct agencies to finish their regulatory action by the end of his administration. If Congress doesn't act by passing legislation (a possibility considering the disorganization of Democrats on energy thus far) it is possible Bush could leave a regulatory legacy — and a weak one at that. A regulation in the pipeline could also serve as a chip for bargaining with Congress in order to move legislation more inline with administration priorities.

Of course, those regulations could easily change with the caprice of future administrations. Please wake Reg•Watch when someone in the legislative or executive branch takes real action on climate change.

Monday, the Senate Commerce Committee sent a vehicle fuel economy reform bill to the floor. The bill would do some good by providing more information on fuel efficiency to car buyers and increasing funding for our national fuel economy program — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

However, the bill would also mark a shift in the legislative view of vehicle fuel economy — from protecting the environment and strengthening national security to making economic factors a paramount consideration.

The legislation (S. 357) originally set a standard based on national need. However, amendments in committee (from Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ted Stevens (R-AK)) inserted a cost-effectiveness provision which could allow NHTSA to undermine the entire program.

NHTSA may promulgate a weaker standard if the statutorily mandate standard "is shown not to be cost effective." Yes, stricter fuel economy standards will impose costs on automakers which will then be passed on to consumers. But what about all the intangible benefits? Although the legislation would instruct NHTSA to consider benefits like "national security" and "human health," NHTSA will not be able to monetize them. The cost-effectiveness provision does no good, and only serves to provide the current and future administrations with an opportunity to give breaks to industry.

America's enormous appetite for fuel makes us beholden to foreign exporters, and increasing emissions accelerate global warming and jeopardize public health. Americans do not have a choice in dealing with these dangers — neither should NHTSA.

For more on the bill, visit Public Citizen.

By now, we all know President Bush's recent changes to the regulatory process will further bottleneck federal regulatory policy in an attempt to help regulated industries escape new obligations. Specifically, changes regarding agency guidance documents will force those interpretive memos (often only suggestions) through a burdensome and unnecessary White House review process.

For a preview of the nightmare the American public will face when these changes take effect (July 24), take a look at an article from BNA news service (subscription) published today. The article chronicles two guidance documents OMB has been sitting on for months. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly developed the guidance documents which concern wastewater processing.

The story exemplifies a concern OMB Watch has expressed: businesses and communities often need direct clarifications from the federal government in order to operate with the utmost legality, safety and effectiveness. From BNA:

Since January, environmental advocates, wastewater utility officials, and home builders have been asking both agencies, as well as OMB, when the guidance documents will be issued.

"It's a mystery," Virginia Albrecht, an attorney with Hunton & Williams who has represented the National Association of Home Builders and the National Mining Association, told BNA May 3.

Albrecht said the corps has a jurisdictional backlog of 20,000 cases, all awaiting final guidance. "The corps needs the guidance to do their job and they are frustrated," she added.

EPA and the Corps chose to submit these guidance documents to OMB. Come July 24, agencies will no longer have that choice. This is the kind of delay agencies will have to grapple with.

OMB refuses to indicate when it will complete review of these guidance documents, according to the article. Meanwhile, wastewater facilities will have to deal with uncertainty, and the American public will be put at risk.

Congressional Quarterly (subscription) is reporting the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will move forward with an ambitious proposal to improve vehicle fuel economy. The legislation, scheduled for mark-up next week, would reform the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard by increasing to 35 from 27.5 the miles per gallon ratio for all passenger vehicles.

The senators responsible for the emerging proposal are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ted Stevens (R-AK). While the support of Feinstein and Inouye is predictable, Stevens, the committee's ranking member, has surprised environmentalists with his persistence in reforming CAFE standards. In the 110th Congress's early days, Stevens introduced legislation proposing an even more ambition mpg requirement (40mpg), but also proposed an exemption for light trucks.

In March, Reg•Watch blogged about Julie MacDonald, one of the Bush administration's political minions who was manipulating environmental science to meet political ends. Yesterday, the Interior Department announced MacDonald's resignation.

Interior is right to hold MacDonald accountable for her transgressions, but, as The New York Times reports, the move comes as the House Natural Resources Committee prepares to hold an oversight hearing next week on scientific integrity.

Reg•Watch hopes MacDonald isn't just a sacrificial lamb. Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Program Director Francesca Grifo welcomes the move, but also realizes MacDonald "represents a much larger problem of widespread political interference at federal agencies."

The Bush administration should not always be on the defensive in reacting to violations of scientific integrity. Senior officials should take a proactive approach to weeding out those pushing political agendas in lieu of faithfully serving the public.