Last night, President Bush nominated Susan Dudley to the position of administrator of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).

No, you have not traveled back in time. The White House has nominated Dudley to the position in which she currently serves. Bush recess appointed Dudley in April.

What gives? The White House is likely trying to push Dudley through the standard confirmation process in order to legitimize her. It's not a bad strategy. If the Senate confirms Dudley, critics like OMB Watch will no longer be able to chastise the White House for circumventing the Constitution.

Meanwhile, a confirmation process could drag on for months. Because the renomination continues the process, the White House will be able to present Dudley as legit.

As a bonus, the White House has nothing to lose. If the full Senate rejects Dudley, she can continue to serve in her position (though likely without pay). Just like the founding fathers intended!

Reg•Watch Update: Dudley Nomination Just a Paperwork Requirement

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

House Hearing Asks Interior: Entangled in Politics, or Enlightened by Science?

Cost-Benefit Provision Latches onto Fuel Economy Standard

Senate Passes FDA Reform Bill, Expands User Fees

Monday, the Senate Commerce Committee sent a vehicle fuel economy reform bill to the floor. The bill would do some good by providing more information on fuel efficiency to car buyers and increasing funding for our national fuel economy program — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard run by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

However, the bill would also mark a shift in the legislative view of vehicle fuel economy — from protecting the environment and strengthening national security to making economic factors a paramount consideration.

The legislation (S. 357) originally set a standard based on national need. However, amendments in committee (from Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Ted Stevens (R-AK)) inserted a cost-effectiveness provision which could allow NHTSA to undermine the entire program.

NHTSA may promulgate a weaker standard if the statutorily mandate standard "is shown not to be cost effective." Yes, stricter fuel economy standards will impose costs on automakers which will then be passed on to consumers. But what about all the intangible benefits? Although the legislation would instruct NHTSA to consider benefits like "national security" and "human health," NHTSA will not be able to monetize them. The cost-effectiveness provision does no good, and only serves to provide the current and future administrations with an opportunity to give breaks to industry.

America's enormous appetite for fuel makes us beholden to foreign exporters, and increasing emissions accelerate global warming and jeopardize public health. Americans do not have a choice in dealing with these dangers — neither should NHTSA.

For more on the bill, visit Public Citizen.

Reg•Watch in Review is a biweekly e-newsletter highlighting recent news from the world of regulatory policy. By signing up for Reg•Watch in Review, you will receive convenient updates on White House regulatory policy, scientific integrity, agency rulemakings and much more. (Click here to see the latest issue.)

Just fill in your email address and name below, and you will soon receive Reg•Watch in Review in your inbox.

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

OSHA's Lack of Standard Setting under Fire

White House Tightens Grip on Regulatory Power Grab

House Subcommittee Steps Up Oversight on Regulatory Changes