A hearing entitled Federal Rulemaking and the Regulatory Process that was scheduled for today was postponed because one of the witnesses is ill. The House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law had scheduled the hearing, the first congressional hearing to focus on regulatory process issues in the Obama administration. OMB Watch's executive director, Gary Bass, was scheduled to testify among others.

The subcommittee had extended to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) an invitation to testify but the administration declined to participate. We don't know if OIRA declined because of scheduling conflicts or other reasons. (Hearings are very often scheduled at the convenience of high-ranking government officials to ensure that key witnesses can appear.)

Here's hoping that the postponement provides another opportunity for the subcommittee to issue an invitation to OIRA, and that the OIRA administrator, Cass Sunstein, will be able to appear. In keeping with the administration's emphasis on transparency and government accountability, a congressional oversight hearing would be a great opportunity for OIRA to highlight its actions, and for Congress to ask questions of the administration. Regulatory oversight hearings rarely occur and the administration should participate when they do occur.

Additionally, we want to extend a “thank you” to the Judiciary Subcommittee for planning an oversight hearing on federal rulemaking. Regulations are about enforcing the laws passed by Congress and ultimately about protecting the public. The Bush administration was widely criticized by the public interest community as favoring less regulation, tilting regulations in favor of industry when it had to regulate, and reducing enforcement of regulations on the books. The Obama administration promised to curb the influence of special interests and get the regulatory machinery moving again to protect health, safety, and the environment.

While a little over one year may be too early to fully assess progress made by the Obama administration, it is appropriate for Congress to provide vigilant oversight.

Today, March 9, is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s scientific integrity memo which instructed his staff to produce within 120 days recommendations for ensuring independence of federal scientists and limiting political interference in their work. 365 days later, we’re still waiting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is critical of the delay. Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s scientific integrity program, had this to say:

While the new administration has been generally supportive of scientific integrity values, it's moving too slowly to establish badly needed reforms. The current system still discourages scientists from communicating about their research results, for example. It still keeps the public in the dark about the scientific basis for policy decisions, and it still rewards staffers who keep quiet about political interference in science. 

The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

But by failing to follow up with a concrete set of reforms, Obama and John Holdren – the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who was tasked with developing recommendations – are sending a terrible message to those who believe scientific integrity ought to be a priority for this administration.

Interference in science reached new heights under President George W. Bush; but just because Bush is gone does not mean the problems go away too. As OMB Watch discusses in the latest issue of our e-newsletter The Watcher, a new report from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) proves that much work remains. SKAPP interviewed federal scientists during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and found that although there were a few bright spots in scientists' views of the changes that had occurred, a majority felt similar frustrations.

Couple this delay with the now year-plus delay on Obama’s effort to improve the regulatory process by writing a new executive order, and my outlook on the administration’s commitment to government reform is dimming.

Photo by Flickr user davidfntau. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Congress’s push to kneecap greenhouse gas regulation got a little stronger today when Sen. John Rockefeller (D- coal WV) introduced a bill that would delay for two additional years any EPA regulation of stationary sources like power plants and oil refineries.

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin reports some of Rockefeller’s quotes, not worth repeating here, and points out that the bill is “one of several recent congressional efforts to curb the EPA's authority to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.”

Rockefeller’s move comes one day after EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that she plans to modify the agency’s 2009 proposal for stationary sources in order to sweep in fewer facilities. “At [a Senate subcommittee] appropriations hearing, Jackson said state regulatory agencies have informed EPA that the 25,000-ton threshold would affect too many small sources not currently subject to Clean Air Act requirements,” according to BNA news service (subscription). Jackson said EPA will likely raise the threshold to 75,000.

So while EPA is trying to be flexible, the Senate continues to play games. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R- oil AK) is sponsoring a resolution of disapproval for EPA’s endangerment finding. The endangerment finding is not regulation in and of itself. It is a formal statement that says, based on scientific study, greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health, welfare, and the environment. If the resolution of disapproval becomes law (which it won’t), EPA would be prohibited from making any similar findings, now and in the future. An identical resolution has been introduced in the House.

Rockefeller’s bill isn’t quite as bad as Murkowski’s resolution. The Rockefeller bill would only stall regulation for two years, whereas Murkowski’s measure could kill regulation outright. Also, the Rockefeller bill only takes aim at stationary sources; it would still allow EPA to regulate tailpipes. Perhaps most importantly, Rockefeller’s bill targets an EPA policy decision – the decision to regulate stationary sources at a certain threshold. It does not subvert the underlying science that serves as the foundation for climate change policy and debate, as Murkowski's resolution of disapproval does.

Of course, the easiest way for Sens. Rockefeller and Murkowsi and their colleagues to take the bite out of EPA regulation would be to pass comprehensive climate change legislation, à la cap and trade. But why waste time writing real, substantive legislation when you can just slap your name on the legislative equivalent of the National Enquirer…

Allegations that the White House watered down an EPA rule on air pollution monitors are false, according to a senior EPA official who says the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) actually made the rule stronger.

EPA Assistant Administrator for clean air Gina McCarthy told the Wonk Room, a blog of the Center for American Progress, that OIRA prompted EPA to rearrange the placement of air pollution monitors to ultimately better protect vulnerable populations, all without reducing the overall number of monitors. Wonk Room reports this quote from McCarthy:

[OMB] asked us, “Did we respond to the states’ comments?” We realized we could design the monitoring system in a better way than we had proposed. We could take the 40 monitors and place them by roadways near our most vulnerable populations. It was a significant win for us to be able to do that. It didn’t diminish the system. 

At issue is the air monitoring network for nitrogen dioxide pollution. Last month, EPA issued a final rule tightening the standard for nitrogen dioxide exposure and announced a new framework for detecting pollution levels by placing more monitors in urban areas, especially near roadways. EPA describes these environments as “high-risk.”

At first glance, it looked like OIRA had pushed EPA to reduce the overall number of monitors, just days before the rule was due. (I perpetuated that idea here.) But, according to McCarthy’s comments, the last-minute changes made to the monitoring network did not reduce the number of monitors; instead, the changes grant on-the-ground EPA and state officials more flexibility to site monitors themselves.

The change means that 41 fewer near-road monitors will be required, but that 40 more monitors will be required “in communities where susceptible and vulnerable populations are exposed to NO2.” Those communities may or may not be near roads – it’s up to EPA regional administrators, working with the states.

The rulemaking docket contains emails showing that another senior EPA official objected to a proposed reduction in the number of monitors. However, from McCarthy’s comments, it would appear the granting of authority to regional administrators appeased all sides, since the total number of monitors remains about the same.

This instance does not change my view that the rule-by-rule review required by Executive Order 12866 and carried out by OIRA is unnecessary and at times counterproductive. However, in this case, it seems OIRA worked with, not against, the EPA. “There was no arm-twisting involved,” McCarthy told Wonk Room.