Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, subpoenaed the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting all documents related to its role in EPA's recent revision to the national air quality standard for ozone, or smog. In that rule, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson tightened the standard but did not go as far as its staff and scientific advisors had recommended.

Waxman is targeting OMB because some documents already available to the public show that the White House, not Johnson, was responsible for the decision to set a standard inconsistent with the body of scientific evidence. (See this OMB Watch statement for more on the White House's interference in the rule.)

Waxman's subpoena isn't likely to turn up much information, and not just because the White House has about as much respect for congressional subpoenas as it does for letters from Publishers' Clearinghouse. The evidence of OMB interference is already in the rulemaking record, and all the players' positions are pretty well staked out: EPA's staff and advisors wanted a tighter standard that what was ultimately settled on; Industry lobbyists, President Bush, and Susan Dudley (head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) wanted EPA to set an unjustifiable, weak standard; and EPA Administrator Johnson wants to cater to the White House's every demand.

Some rigorous questioning might turn up more information or at least force White House officials to answer for their sins. For example, why does the White House believe the views of a handful of industry lobbyists are more important than the well-being of millions of Americans — particularly children, the elderly, asthmatics, and those at risk for heart disease?

More pointedly, did OMB know, or care, that their interference would subject the new rule to legal challenges? Do Bush and Dudley have any respect for the Clean Air Act, or do they merely view it as an obstacle thrown in their path upon them by pesky congresses past? (Waxman has announced his intention to hold a hearing on this issue.)

The White House foisted its own opinion on EPA, ignored the scientific evidence in support of a tighter standard for ozone, and, because Dudley and Bush are typically sympathetic of the views of industry lobbyists, may have urged EPA to consider compliance costs. With that evidence, even Lionel Hutz could make a case that the new standard is in violation of the Clean Air Act.

Of course, the White House would probably pay no concern to a legal challenge to the rule. The new standard will make some progress in the area of reducing ozone exposure, and polluters will incur compliance costs to meet the rule's requirements. Since litigation can mire regulations for years, Bush may be able to secure a legacy of regulatory delay even after his time in office has expired. Now there's a scary thought.

Today, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing investigating recent regulatory lapses at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Christopher Conkey of The Wall Street Journal reports on the damning testimony of the Department of Transportation's inspector general:

Three days into an extraordinary bout of flight cancellations stemming from a special safety review of the nation's airlines, inspector general Calvin Scovell told a Senate subcommittee that the FAA continues to give airlines too much freedom on complying with safety regulations. He criticized the agency's reliance on industry-provided data to determine risk areas for its inspectors to examine, and said that airlines shouldn't be able to sidestep penalties or costly fixes by voluntarily disclosing safety missteps to regulators.

"We are concerned that FAA relies too heavily on self-disclosures and promotes a pattern of excessive leniency at the expense of effective oversight and appropriate enforcement," Mr. Scovell said in his testimony to the committee.

Scovell is right to condemn the reliance on industry-reporting, especially in area as critical as air safety. Relying on the cooperation of businesses, no matter how accommodating they may be, is no replacement for zealous government oversight.

A cursory review of government data shows that, as Americans take to the air more frequently, FAA employment is shrinking. In 1983, FAA employed one full-time staffer for every 107 departing flights. By 2006, FAA employed one full-time staffer for every 286 flights. (In his testimony, Scovell acknowledges that one of FAA's major challenges will be hiring in two critical areas: air traffic control and aircraft inspection.)

Granted, technological improvements have surely made FAA's job more effective and efficient. But the controversy surrounding FAA casts aside the notion that government is in the way. Instead, it underscores the idea that voluntary industry compliance is not an adequate substitute for strong public protections and a government that acts on behalf of its citizens.

Today, a House hearing spotlighted recent lapses in regulatory oversight of airlines. "Federal Aviation Administration inspectors and managers told lawmakers Thursday that the agency's top officials endangered passenger safety by being too cozy with the airlines they oversee," according to CQ.com.

The House Transportation Committee scheduled the hearing after an audit showed three unnamed airlines missed inspection deadlines. Witnesses included one of two FAA inspectors who blew the whistle when their bosses ignored safety concerns they raised about Southwest jets. (See the Project on Government Oversight blog for more.)

Rigorous aircraft inspection is critical to the safety of millions of passengers. Aircraft safety is one area where the American public seems to unequivocally accept the need for our federal government to play a strong role and intervene when necessary.

Reg•Watch believes Americans should start expecting government to play a similarly strong role in the areas of environmental protection, food and drug safety, and on other issues that impact us everyday, but over which we have little control.

On last night's Colbert Report, during a segment on FAA inspections, Stephen Colbert poked fun at those who would argue against any role for government: "These FAA inspectors get paid to ruin our vacations. If I want to fly cheap on a plane that might not have all the 'parts,' that's my choice. I say let the free market decide which wires are necessary to deploy wheels for landings."

Colbert's point sounds ridiculous in the context of aircraft safety, but it is the same argument anti-government lobbyists use to counter pollution controls, import inspection programs, worker safety rules, and other protections that would benefit the health and welfare of Americans.