Yesterday, EPA held two public hearings on the agency's proposed revision to the national standard for ozone (a.k.a. smog) exposure. In June, EPA proposed tightening the standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million. The current standard is 0.084 ppm.

The Philadelphia Enquirer and The Los Angeles Times report on the hearings in their respective cities. In both hearings, speakers expressed displeasure with the proposal. Public health advocates and local citizens demand an even stricter standard, while industry representatives want to maintain the status quo.

Both articles offer compelling tales of speakers afflicted with asthma who feel as though the government has a responsibility to step in and ensure the safety of the human environment. Both articles also point out supporters of tighter standards outnumbered industry reps during the hearings.

Industry representatives likely know EPA is under a legal and moral obligation to tighten the standard. But the manufacturing industry is concerned the proposal may hurt their bottom line. They resort to two arguments in attempts to defeat EPA's efforts.

Recently, the media has paid a lot of attention to the risk of lead in children's toys and jewelry. Yesterday, USA Today ran a story on another source of potential lead exposure: house paint.

The dangers of lead paint have been recognized for years, but the threat is still real. As the article points out, major problems can occur during the renovation of old houses.

Congress addressed this problem back in 1992. Congress passed a law charging EPA with the responsibility of developing regulations which would require renovators to be adequately trained in the dangers of lead paint and the proper methods for removing or painting over it. According to the law, EPA was to finish work on the regulation by 1996.

In 2006, EPA finally got around to proposing the rule. The agency now hopes to finish work on the regulation by early next year.

The primary responsibility of regulatory agencies like EPA is to enforce federal laws in the spirit — and with the speed — intended by Congress. EPA has failed miserably on this one.

In other news, while Americans tend to keep their lead in house paint, Chinese manufacturers sometimes prefer watercolors. In another incident of dangerous Chinese-made products coming into America, Toys 'R' Us is recalling 27,000 crayon and paint sets, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) will propose a rule which would make it easier for mining companies to search for coal on mountaintops and dump the waste into nearby valleys and streams, according to The New York Times.

Currently, federal regulations prohibit most mountaintop mining activities within 100 feet of streams. The rules are regularly flaunted. According to Earthjustice, a nonprofit group focused on environmental law, "1,208 miles of streams in Appalachia were destroyed from 1992 to 2002."

Instead of ramping up enforcement, OSMRE decided to change the rule in order to allow dumping. OSMRE issued a proposed rule to that effect in Jan. 2004. The proposal claimed the rule to be "not significant" because it would not have a substantial impact on the economy or the environment.

Luckily, common sense prevailed. OSMRE decided to delay the rule and prepare a detailed environmental impact statement after the public expressed concern during the comment period. The general tenor of the concern was, "So you're saying that chopping off the top of a mountain and dumping it into a stream does not have an environmental impact…Wha?!?"

Earthjustice has acquired a copy of the environmental impact statement. The news is not good. Ignoring the potential for severe environmental degradation, OSMRE will propose to allow most kinds of mining activities to occur within the stream buffer zone.

OSMRE is expected to issue the proposed rule tomorrow. The priority of the rule has been changed from "not significant" to "other significant." Because of this change in designation, the White House had the opportunity to make edits before publication. It's hard to imagine the White House could have made this proposed rule much worse, but you never know. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for more.

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

Crandall Canyon Mine Collapse Implicates MSHA Procedures

Bush Administration Skirts Broad Environmental Law

New Report Examines Agency Review of Regulations

Yesterday, a U.S. district court ruled the White House has violated federal law by not preparing and releasing a statutorily-mandated report on climate change. The Global Change Research Act of 1990 requires presidential administrations to assess the latest research and the potential impact of climate change "On a periodic basis (not less frequently than every 4 years)." The last report was released by the Clinton administration in 2000.

In arguments, the White House resorted to its usual defense — that the law only applies when it's convenient or jibes with President Bush's policy. The plaintiffs (the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace) hailed the decision as a rebuke of the White House's anti-climate-change research views. The ruling orders the White House to release a new report by March.

The decision comes on the heels of a recent Office of Management and Budget/ Office of Science and Technology Policy memo which outlines the research and development priorities of the administration. The memo is chock-full of references to climate science and renewable energy.

Of course, given the White House had to be forced by a federal court just to write a report on climate change, we should not take this as a sign of progress. Bush wants R&D on his terms. The memo promotes Bush's laughably modest goals of reductions in energy consumption and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions "cost-effectively."

The memo also calls for agencies to prioritize "eliminating scientific and technical barriers that limit the advancement of renewable, zero emission, and alternative energy sources." Reg•Watch thinks the biggest barrier to progressive energy policy won't be removed until Jan. 20, 2009.

Is President Bush becoming a conservationist? Today, Bush issued an executive order titled "Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation." The order instructs federal agencies to, among other things, "Manage wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities, including through the use of hunting in wildlife management planning."

Reg•Watch wonders what issue or problem this order is trying to address. Perhaps Bush was just inspired in the midst of his extended vacation in Crawford.

It is unclear whether the executive order will have an impact on the ability of Vice President Cheney to shoot people in the face.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report critiquing two EPA cost-benefit analyses on an oil spill prevention regulation. In 2002 and 2006, EPA amended the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule which requires oil-storage facilities to prepare plans in the event of an oil leak or spill. Because the amendments to the rule could have a significant impact on the economy, the White House required EPA to prepare cost-benefit analyses of both sets of amendments.

GAO found that EPA's cost-benefit analyses were flawed. The report criticizes EPA for assuming, in the identification of costs, facilities were already in compliance with the original rule. GAO asserts, citing White House guidelines, EPA should not have jumped to this conclusion. By assuming all facilities were in compliance, EPA likely understated the costs of the amendments to the regulation thereby weakening the economic justification for issuing the amendments.

The original SPCC rule was issued in 1973. Facilities had up to 30 years to comply. If facilities weren't in compliance, that hardly seems like a reason for EPA to forego further development. Where's the investigation as to why oil-storage facilities are having trouble complying with this rule? (The requester of this report, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), is no friend of the environment, and likely has no interest in examining why oil-storage facilities may be breaking the law, only in attacking EPA.)

Of course, the real issue here is the ridiculousness of cost-benefit analysis in rulemaking. The Bush White House designed its cost-benefit guidelines in order to force agencies to develop estimates that make regulations appear more costly. EPA issued the amendments to the SPCC rule in order to reduce the so-called burden of the regulation. Even so, EPA was forced to prepare a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

The complexity of the current cost-benefit analysis system and the disproportionate focus on quantitative costs rather than qualitative benefits are two primary contributors to the lack of speed and responsiveness in the regulatory process.

Bloomberg News columnist Cindy Skrzycki today writes about the White House delay of a rule that would protect the North Atlantic right whale. Under Executive Order 12866, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has 90 days to review regulations before they are finalized. In consultation with the issuing agency (in this case, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) OIRA may extend the review period by 30 days.

NOAA submitted the whale protection rule on Feb. 20, 2007. Therefore, OIRA has exceeded the review period by almost two months, and there is no end in sight. An OMB spokesperson refused to comment on the progress of the rule, according to the article. (For more on the White House's role in delaying this rule, click here.)

Congress has taken notice of the delay. In two separate letters, three senators and six congressmen have written President Bush urging him to allow NOAA to finalize the rule. As the senators' letter points out, "The North Atlantic right whale is one of the world's most endangered marine mammals with approximately 350 whales alive today, and should accordingly be among the Administration's top conservation priorities."

Unfortunately, this is not the only case of the White House using delay to serve its anti-regulatory agenda. As of July 20 (the last time Reg•Watch did its research), nine percent of rules under review had exceeded the time limit. Congress should investigate further to stop this sneaky, underhanded tactic.

Read the congressmen's letter here.

Read the senators' letter here.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) will investigate the nexus of two major problems plaguing the FDA: the ability of the agency to ensure the safety of drugs already on the market and the ability of the agency to monitor imports.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, Grassley requested a meeting to answer questions about FDA's practices regarding drug imports. According to Grassley's letter, "Nearly 80 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in the U.S. are manufactured abroad."

Grassley asks a slew of questions about how the agency conducts inspections of foreign facilities, how often it conducts those inspections, how often FDA inspects brand-name-producing facilities vs. generic-producing facilities, what kind of partnerships FDA has with foreign governments, whether FDA has plans to create foreign offices, and many more.

Let's hope FDA provides meaningful responses to these questions. The public deserves to know how the nation's premiere drug regulator is handling this situation.

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

Toy Recalls Bring Attention to Commission's Inadequacies

OMB Manipulates Science in Cost-Benefit Analysis for Ozone Rule

Size Matters: Nanotechnologies Present New Challenges

Much has been said about the energy bill (H.R. 3221) the House of Representatives passed on Friday Aug. 4 (here is a recap from The New York Times). The provision receiving the most attention is the renewable electricity standard which would require private utilities to generate 15 percent of their output using renewable resources by 2020.

How exactly would this renewable electricity standard work?

• The Department of Energy (DoE) would retain the regulatory authority of promulgating rules related to the standard and making sure electricity suppliers comply.
• Beginning in 2010, private electricity providers (municipal providers are exempt) would have to provide DoE with documentation they are meeting the standard.
• The standard gradually increases every year, from 2.75 percent in 2010 to 15 percent in 2020.
• For providers unable to meet the standard, a credit system is included in the bill. Providers may buy and sell credits on a sort of renewable electricity credit marketplace regulated by DoE.
• The bill would mandate DoE promulgate regulations on measuring and verifying electricity savings under the program. The bill grants to DoE all the powers it would need to collect relevant information. Unfortunately, there is no explicit transparency provision that would allow the public access to this information.

The bill is a good start to what will hopefully be broad and comprehensive energy reform legislation taken up by the 110th Congress. Naturally, President Bush has vowed to veto the bill. In a statement, the White House Office of Management and Budget called this bill and another reducing tax breaks for big oil, "two bills that are not serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs."

Of course, President Bush has a policy of only attaching his name to "serious" legislation, as is evidenced by this White House press release.

Yesterday was a busy day for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The panel approved legislation which would force EPA to decide on California's request to implement its own vehicle emissions standards. (More on California's request here.)

The bill — introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) — would also prevent delay from occurring in the future by giving EPA a 180 day window to decide on future requests.

The committee approved the bill 10-9 on party lines. The bill will now move to the Senate floor. A House committee is considering similar legislation.

The EPW Committee yesterday also approved a bill which would overturn an EPA regulation easing reporting requirements for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The bill would restore the stronger reporting thresholds that were in place for almost twenty years and remove EPA's authority to alter the program's reporting requirements without the approval of Congress.

That bill will also move to the Senate floor. Find out more and urge your senators to vote in favor of the bill by clicking here.