New evidence shows that the White House is meddling with a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rule to protect the North Atlantic right whale — one of the most critically endangered whale species in the world. The rule has been awaiting clearance — or, more accurately, gathering dust — at the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) since February 2007.

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been working on the rule since 1999, and in 2006 proposed limiting the speeds of large ships in the Atlantic during seasons when the right whale is most active. Ship strikes are a major cause of death for right whales. "Ship strikes are responsible for 37% of whale deaths in just the last twenty two years," according to the office of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

An investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shows the White House is not merely stalling, but also actively working to thwart the efforts of NMFS's staff and undermine the marine science serving as the basis for the rule. "According to documents obtained by the Committee, the rule's delay appears to be due to baseless objections raised by White House officials, including officials in the Office of the Vice President."

Today, Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote to Susan Dudley, the administrator of OIRA who President Bush installed by recess appointment last year. Documents show that as many as three separate White House offices — the Council of Economic Advisors, the Office of the Vice President, and one unnamed White House source (probably OIRA) — are pressuring NOAA to change the rule, or simply drop its efforts to protect the right whale altogether. From Waxman's letter:

[T]he Vice President's staff "contends that we have no evidence (i.e., hard data) that lowering the speeds of 'large ships' will actually make a difference." NOAA rejected these objections, writing that both a statistical analysis of ship strike records and the peer-reviewed literature justified the final rule. In its response to the objections from the Vice President's staff, NOAA reported that there is "no basis to overturn our previous conclusion that imposing a speed limit on large vessels would be beneficial to whales."

A third document reveals that the White House requested that NOAA consider unpublished information relating to the birth rate of right whales. NOAA responded that it "used the latest, peer-reviewed, scientific data when developing" the rule.

Stalling regulations and putting politics ahead of science is always bad, but they are especially troubling in this instance, as time is of the essence for the right whale. Fewer than 350 of the mammals remain. Since the summer of 2004, seven have died as a result of ship strikes, according to Waxman. Two right whales have been struck by ships, and one has likely died, in the time the rule has been stuck at OIRA. NMFS officials warn that even one more dead female could set the species on an irrevocable path toward extinction.

NMFS experts have been working diligently to extend protections for the right whale but have been stonewalled by political apparatchiks like OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley and Vice President Dick Cheney. The White House's delay and scientific interference is truly an example of executive power run amok.

OMB Watch recently reported on an EPA decision to revise its process for assessing human exposure and associated health risks of industrial chemicals. Under the revised process, EPA will give the White House, specifically the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an opportunity to alter or delay scientific results at nearly every stage of the chemical assessment process. By attacking the scientific basis for future regulatory decisions, OMB will be able to erode the foundations upon which public protection standards are built.

In reality, OMB has already been tinkering with EPA's chemical assessments, according to a new Government Accountability Office report. The report hasn't been officially released, but the Associated Press has obtained a copy, and report H. Josef Hebert wrote an article published last night discussing some of the results:

The GAO said many of the deliberations over risks posed by specific chemicals "occur in what amounts to a black box" of secrecy because the White House claims they are private executive branch deliberations.

Such secrecy "reduces the credibility of the ... assessments and hinders the EPA's ability to manage them," the GAO report said. …

"Unless there is concurrence by other agencies, ... things don't go forward. It means we stop what we are doing," said the scientist, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of endangering his career.

"The (EPA) scientists feel as if they have lost complete control of the process, that it's been taken over by the White House and that they're calling the shots," the scientist said.

In addition to outright interference, OMB is also able to achieve its anti-regulatory goals by delaying chemical assessments indefinitely. The report mentions at least four chemicals for which EPA has yet to determine carcinogenicity, despite widespread use and evidence of risk. They are naphthalene, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, and formaldehyde, according to the AP article.

Now, under the revised process EPA recently announced, OMB will have even more opportunities to meddle in EPA science, and even more incidences of interference, suppression, and delay are likely to occur. Unfortunately, because EPA has mandated this process occur behind closed doors, these incidences may never come into the light of day.

Check back here later today, Reg•Watch will post the GAO report when it becomes available electronically. Update: Here is the link to the GAO report.

In a story that has garnered little media attention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced it will ban certain forms of cattle feed in order to reduce the risk of mad cow disease. The announcement came after the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had stalled the rule for months. (Click here for more on the delay of the rule.)

FDA's new rule adds to the list of substances that cannot be fed to cattle. Allowing cattle to feed on the rendered meat, bones, or blood of other cattle raises the risk of mad cow, also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). According to the agency, "FDA believes that the final rule would effectively remove about 90 percent of any remaining BSE infectivity from possible spread through the animal feed system."

FDA's announcement came as a bit of a surprise since OMB seemed content to allow the rule to languish under its review while the cattle industry continued to avoid further regulation. The turning point came at a meeting between U.S. and South Korean officials on trade. According to The Wall Street Journal, "South Korea last week agreed to lift restrictions on U.S. beef and, according to one U.S. government official, the country did so on the condition that the U.S. strengthen its livestock feed rules."

Since late 2003, when a U.S. cow was diagnosed with mad cow disease, some foreign nations have been reluctant to import U.S. beef. In fact, when identifying potential benefits of the rule, FDA argued, "The U.S. economy may also benefit from increased exports to the extent that the rule persuades foreign governments to import U.S. beef products."

Nonetheless, it's a sad commentary that the Bush White House is more responsive to the concerns of the South Korean government (and the domestic producers who will benefit from increased exports) than to its own food safety agency or considerations of public health. The rule is fairly typical of Bush's cronyism approach to regulation: "Fight tooth-and-nail against government intervention, unless it would help out my buddies."

But bottom line, new policies are now in place that could prevent an outbreak of mad cow disease. The rule takes effect in April 2009.

Today, the Senate Commerce Committee approved a bill that would force the White House Office of Management and Budget to stop sitting on a regulation to protect the North Atlantic right whale. The rule has been held up at OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) since Feb. 2007.

The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most critically endangered marine species in the world. Although the species has benefited from federal protections for years, it is still having difficulty recovering. Collisions between whales and shipping vessels are a particularly serious problem.

In response, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began working in 1999 on a federal rule to limit the speed of large shipping vessels traveling along the eastern seaboard. The speed limits would vary based on geographic location and season.

NOAA published a proposed rule (which OIRA also reviewed) in June 2006. Since receiving and reviewing public comments into early 2007, NOAA has been waiting for OIRA to give its approval.

The bill, passed by voice vote, states, "Not later than 30 days after the earlier of the date of the enactment of this Act or June 1, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, shall prescribe regulations to reduce the incidence of vessels colliding with North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) by limiting the speed of vessels."

The Ocean Conservancy has a timeline on the rulemaking and reported ship strikes of the right whale. According to the Ocean Conservancy, since NOAA published the proposed rule, there have been five reported ship strikes and three confirmed deaths.

While that may not sound like much, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who cosponsored the legislation along with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), points out that the species' ranks are small and growing smaller and that federal action is critical:

We've only got less than 350 whales left alive today and passage of this legislation comes at the eleventh hour. Ship strikes are responsible for 37% of whale deaths in just the last twenty two years. Without this legislation, the United States would have continued to risk extinction of the right whale.

The bill (S. 2657) will now move to the full Senate for a vote. A similar bill (H.R. 5536) is awaiting consideration by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC) released a report citing "strong evidence" that exposure to ozone, or smog, contributes to premature mortality. According to BNA news service (subscription), "John Bailar, who led the National Research Council team, told BNA the agency is 'quite sure there is an effect, but not knowing how big it is, that's the challenge for the EPA. They have to find out the size of the problem.' "

The report says that, if there is any threshold at which exposure to ozone is safe, it is likely below the level EPA recently announced as the new national air quality standard (0.075 parts per million).

The NRC report should close the book once and for all on any uncertainty surrounding the link between ozone exposure and premature death. During the recent debate over the ozone standard, independent scientists, public health advocates, and EPA all recognized the potentially deadly effects of ozone and endorsed tight standards.

The last remaining deniers reside mostly in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In fact, when EPA was preparing to propose its new standard for ozone, OMB edited a supporting document in order to downplay the relationship between ozone and premature mortality.

The original document read, "There is considerable variability in the magnitude of the ozone-related mortality association reported in the scientific literature." OMB altered the language to, "There is considerable uncertainty in the magnitude of the association between ozone and premature mortality." [Emphasis added.]

The nonprofit group Environmental Defense came up with another example of OMB interference. In a rulemaking that would limit emissions from small engines, OMB objected to EPA's assertion that ozone is related to premature death:

The EPA response to OMB's objection states: "We have removed all references to quantified ozone benefits (including mortality) in the most recent version of the [economic impact statement]." The EPA document in question was, in fact, finalized with the monetized benefits of reducing ozone removed. Meanwhile, EPA has yet to finalize the clean air standards for these high-polluting engines.

The NRC report says that policy makers "should give little or no weight" to arguments like the one advanced by OMB.

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.

The Bush administration continues to delay a rule that could protect the public from being exposed to mad cow disease. The Food and Drug Administration rule would prohibit farms from using certain animal by-products as feed for cattle. (FDA rules already prohibit some similar kinds of feed. The current FDA proposal would strengthen existing regulations.)

Allowing cattle to feed on the rendered meat, bones, or blood of other cattle raises the risk of mad cow, also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). According to the agency, "FDA believes that the final rule would effectively remove about 90 percent of any remaining BSE infectivity from possible spread through the animal feed system. The U.S. economy may also benefit from increased exports to the extent that the rule persuades foreign governments to import U.S. beef products. While we are unable to quantify these benefits, they are potentially large…"

Even though FDA believes the benefits to be "potentially large," the White House is likely more concerned about the potential costs to the agriculture industry. The FDA rule has been stuck at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House Office of Management and Budget since November. Under Executive Order 12866, agencies must submit significant rules to OIRA for a review period; but OIRA is supposed to finish up its review within 90 days and may extend the review period once by only 30 days. That time limit expired in early March.

While reviewing the rule, OIRA and FDA have met with industry representatives on two occasions. A January 17 meeting included representatives from the American Meat Institute and the National Cattleman's Beef Association which opposes the rule as it is currently written.

The delay is emblematic of the Bush administration's policy on preventing mad cow disease. Since the first U.S. case of mad cow was discovered in December 2003, the administration's policy has been one of inaction and broken promises. The administration has also shied away from an animal identification system that could speed up the response time of public health officials in the event of an emergency.

For more on the Bush administration's policies on mad cow disease, read the OMB Watch, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Consumer Federation of America paper "Cow Sense: The Bush Administration's Broken Record on Mad Cow Disease."

Reg•Watch Update: "With White House Blessing, FDA Finalizes Mad Cow Rule"

The Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will allow political considerations to infiltrate its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) — one of the most important sources of information on human exposure to potentially toxic chemicals. IRIS is a database which contains risk assessment documents covering more than 540 contaminants, according to Environment News Service.

IRIS assessments can inform regulatory action (or inaction) intended to protect humans from the harmful effects of certain substances. "Through IRIS, EPA provides the highest quality, science-based, human-health assessments to support EPA's policymaking activities," according to the agency.

Yesterday, EPA announced changes to IRIS. EPA is altering a number of aspects of the process, but one of the biggest, and most troubling, is the decision to include the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the scientific assessment process.

Under the revised process, EPA will perform a qualitative assessment of a chemical which will include potential health risks, susceptible populations, and potential uncertainties. After a public review period, EPA will then perform a draft toxicological review of the chemical. The toxicological review will include quantitative assessments of the chemical and attempt to give policy makers and the public a more concrete understanding of the risks associated with exposure to the chemical under review.

Unfortunately, under the revised process, EPA will then have to submit the draft toxicological review to OMB — the Executive Branch's graveyard for scientific thought.

Granting political appointees at OMB the opportunity to censor, alter, or suppress human health assessments may lead to weaker public protections. Instead of attacking policies during the regulatory review period, as OMB currently has the power to do under Executive Order 12866, OMB will now be able to destroy the very foundations on which these regulations are built.