Last week, Reg•Watch blogged about an OSHA rule currently under review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The rule would require employers to pay for protective equipment for their employees.

Yesterday, Rep. George Miller (D-CA and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee) and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA and member of the appropriations committee with jurisdiction over OSHA) wrote to OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley expressing their concern with the White House's review of the rule. (Read the letter here.)

As Miller and Roybal-Allard point out, OIRA met with representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (two groups opposing the rule) without the presence of an OSHA official. Like all OIRA meetings about rulemakings, this one occurred behind closed doors. The congressmen write:

A strong comprehensive standard that codifies OSHA's longstanding policy and practice that employers pay for safety equipment is necessary to protect the health and safety of American workers. It should not be weakened through exclusive backdoor meetings between OMB and industry representatives.

As OMB Watch recently reported, EPA is preparing to announce the regulatory scheme it will pursue for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Supreme Court's April decision which said greenhouse gases could be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

An EPA official has reportedly indicated the agency will pursue a regulatory scheme similar to that of California and the other states, wherein the agency would set targets to reduce emissions over time, according to BNA news service (subscription). More information on EPA's plans may surface when the agency releases its annual Regulatory Plan later in 2007.

EPA may only be in the early stages of a rulemaking, but the White House is already all over this like white on rice. As Frank O'Donnell at the Blog for Clean Air points out, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has already held at least four meetings regarding potential greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

The list of attendees does not engender much confidence in the outcome of the rule. In addition to government personnel from EPA, USDA and the Departments of Transportation and Energy, OIRA has met with Shell, Frontier Oil, Hyundai, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and some power companies from Nebraska.

Reg•Watch will wait patiently to see if OIRA invites anyone from the environmental, public health or energy security communities to solicit input.

One of the OIRA meetings also included a representative from the Vice President's Office. The Bush White House has kept Cheney's presence in these meetings to a minimum and generally only brings in a representative from the VP's office for the most significant of agency regulations.

Thanks to the Pump Handle blog for pointing out this story. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are lobbying the White House, potentially with the aim of derailing an important worker safety rule.

The Pump Handle has some background on the rule:

More than 8 years ago, OSHA proposed a rule designed to clarify that employers are supposed to provide and pay for [personal protective equipment (PPE)] . . . Under Bush's Labor Department, a final version of the rule was in perpetual limbo until two labor unions filed suit in January 2007 to compel OSHA to issue it.

OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) began reviewing the rule on Sept. 10. Although OSHA and Department of Labor officials have committed to issuing the final rule in November, OIRA could continue its review of the rule into the new year under the rules of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

Meanwhile, on Oct. 23, officials from NAM and the Chamber of Commerce met with officials from OMB to discuss the rule. Because these meetings occur behind closed doors, it is unlikely the public will ever know what was discussed.

What we do know is that no official from OSHA was present. E.O. 12866 requires a representative from the appropriate agency (in this case OSHA) to attend these meetings or, if a representative cannot attend, requires the public be notified as to why no agency official was present. No explanation has been made public.

Regular readers of Reg•Watch may remember a similar story surrounding OMB's review of EPA's national ambient air quality standard for ozone. In that instance, no EPA official was present at a meeting featuring lobbyists from the Chemical Industry Institute and the Auto Alliance.

Reg•Watch hopes this is not becoming a trend with OMB reviews.

Reg•Watch Update: "Congressmen Press Dudley on Review of OSHA Rule"

Edwin Foulke, Administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, says the agency will not pursue an emergency rulemaking for diacetyl but will instead choose to let industry police itself, according to Inside OSHA (subscription). Workers exposed to diacetyl, a chemical used to give microwave popcorn its buttery flavor, are at risk for a severe and sometimes fatal lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans.

Foulke is making a legal argument against pursuing an emergency standard. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA can only issue emergency standards if workers face a "grave danger" and if the "standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger." Since the popcorn industry is voluntarily phasing out use of diacetyl, Foulke argues the standard is unnecessary.

OSHA's current position on an emergency standard for diacetyl is indicative of a trend in President Bush's approach to public protection. Voluntary industry standards can serve as a welcome and effective compliment to strong federal regulations, but the Bush administration has consistently viewed them as a substitute for government involvement.

One major problem with using voluntary industry standards as a substitute for regulation is the ensuing lack of accountability. In the case of diacetyl, the popcorn manufacturing industry is approaching the issue with good intentions; but who know what the future will hold? Federal regulations allow agencies to monitor compliance and pursue corrective action in the form of fines or, in some instances, criminal prosecutions.

Congress also plays a role. If an agency is doing a poor job of enforcing regulation, Congress can hold oversight hearings, strengthen existing statutes, or use its power of appropriations to hold the agency accountable. Voluntary standards strip government of these important tools. And when government is cut out of the process, so too is the public.