On Jan. 3, EPA published a proposed rule potentially allowing "major source" air pollutant emitters to be downgraded to "area source" emitters. Major sources are subject to maximum achievable control technology (MACT), which often results in a significant reduction in air pollution. Area sources are not subject to the MACT standard.

Under the current rules, major sources retain that designation permanently — a policy EPA refers to as "once-in, always-in." The proposed rule would repeal the current policy.

Environmentalists have criticized the rule for being too lenient on big polluters. Yesterday, the House took action. The bill appropriating funds to EPA includes language which would forbid EPA from using money to implement the rule, according to BNA news service (subscription). The bill passed the House and will soon be reconciled with the Senate version.

The bill will likely be vetoed by President Bush for exceeding his budget request. Regardless, this is an interesting case example of Congress's ability to use its power of the purse to counter the administration's deregulatory actions. It's a strategy Democrats should continue to examine during the remainder of Bush's second term.

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

EPA Announces Proposed Smog Standard

House Legislation Would Force Regulatory Review

House Bills Address Mining Health and Safety Shortfalls

In December 2005, California petitioned EPA to let the state develop its own program and standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, the federal government holds the express right to regulate emissions but may grant waivers to states, which it often does. If EPA grants California's waiver request, 11 other states could follow suit.

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stating EPA would make its decision by the end of 2007. That's two full years after the initial request.

Why so long? Since the Supreme Court decided in April greenhouse gases may be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, there is no basis for denying California's petition. Therefore, for an administration which holds environmental regulation in contempt, the only remaining choice is endless delay.

In April, Schwarzenegger wrote to Johnson threatening to sue EPA if a decision was not made by October. Johnson's stall tactic will set up a showdown between EPA and the states. Reg•Watch does not believe Schwarzenegger is the kind of governor who would back down from a fight.

Johnson's letter is provoking anger here in Washington as well. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, frequently finds herself vexed by Johnson. One would think she'd have grown tired of scolding the administrator, who happens to be one of this administration's smuggest and least cooperative officials. Nonetheless, Boxer was able to muster a response:

An announcement of yet another delay is unacceptable. California has never had a waiver request denied, and long ago submitted a comprehensive record in support of this petition. California is a leader in cleaning up the environment and fighting global warming, but the Bush Administration continues to slow down efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is long past time for the EPA to grant this waiver, get out of the way and let us step up to the challenge of global warming. I will continue to conduct oversight hearings and communicate directly with the Administrator on this issue until the matter is resolved.

On June 21, EPA announced a proposal for a revised national standard for ozone exposure. The proposal, mandated by court order, proposes a range from which EPA will pick its final standard.

Any limit picked from within the proposed range will fall short of what is needed to protect the public health. EPA's proposed range is 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million, but in recent months scientific consensus has emerged in supporting a limit no greater than 0.070 ppm and ideally closer to 0.060 ppm.

EPA has already caught a lot of flack for skirting a real decision and proposing limits weaker than scientists have recommended. But the role of the White House should be scrutinized as well.

EPA is under court order to publish by today a proposed rule on its periodic review of the national air quality standard for ozone. The rule just went through a White House regulatory review process characterized by closed-door meetings which let in industry reps. Public health experts were heard from in a last-minute meeting held Monday.

One of industry's loudest voices in Washington — the National Association of Manufacturers — has apparently received advanced word of the standard. (OMB Watch often complains of a lack of transparency in the rulemaking process. It's nice to see industry lobbyists getting a peek.) According to the NAM blog, the proposed rule will recommend a range between 0.070 and 0.075 parts per million.

NAM complains this range is too stringent and that the status quo should be included for debate in the notice-and-comment period. That's a bunch of hooey. There is scientific consensus that the limit for ozone exposure should be set between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm.

Reg•Watch will post again when the proposed rule is announced. If NAM's connections in the Bush administration are legit (and they surely are), prepare to be disappointed.

Recently, Reg•Watch has been critical of Congressional Democrats' disorganization on passing comprehensive energy legislation.

But now, it appears as though the voices of sanity of prevailed in the House of Representatives. According to numerous reports (like this one from Reuters), Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are abandoning several ill-conceived provisions which they were pushing from their positions on the House committee crafting the legislation. The two lawmakers revised the language under pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wants a bill by the July 4 recess.

Language which would have prevented individual states from implementing their own vehicle emissions programs is among the dropped provisions. That provision had drawn the ire of environmentalists, federalism watchdogs, and some House Democrats.

Dingell and Boucher's committee hopes to report the bill to the House floor by the end of next week.

OMB Watch and Clean Air Watch have been carefully watching as the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviews EPA's rule to revise the national standard for ozone, a.k.a. smog. OIRA already entertained industry reps on two occasions (read more on that here).

The press is starting to pay attention to this issue. Articles in Greenwire (subscription) and The Hill discuss the importance of a tighter standard and the scientific basis behind it. The articles also chronicle industry's efforts to block EPA from developing a more protective standard.

The ozone standard is the first big regulation OIRA is reviewing with its new administrator, Susan Dudley. President Bush recess appointed Dudley in April. Before that, OMB Watch adamantly opposed Dudley's nomination. One of our primary concerns was the undue access she would give to industry during the regulatory review process. It seems those concerns are now manifesting.

I have tried to contact both OIRA and EPA to talk about this issue. Despite my pleasant phone manners and polite emails, my queries have gone unrecognized. Perhaps the American Automobile Alliance is higher up in their inbox.

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

Democratic Disarray on Greenhouse Gases May Let Bush off the Hook

White House Meets with Industry on Smog Standard

Long-delayed EPA Risk Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors Exhibits Flaws

This morning, Reg•Watch blogged about a proposal from leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which would prevent vehicle greenhouse gas emissions regulation.

A BNA news service (subscription) article today proves Democrats are in disarray on what to do about greenhouse gas regulation. Some Committee Democrats are trying to derail the aforementioned proposal. The proposal also runs counter to the agenda of House Speaker Pelosi and will likely result in infighting by Democrats on the House floor.

Separately, some Democrats are critical of Pelosi's July deadline for energy legislation, according to the article. Both Democrats and Republicans would like to have more time.

There is no excuse for needing more time to develop ideas to solve our nation's energy crisis. A legislative solution was one of the Democrats' campaign promises last November. Democrats should have been working on concrete proposals long before their sweeping election victory. (It's not as if this is a new problem.) A myriad of bills have already been proposed. It's time to start working.

By now, almost everyone realizes greenhouse gases pose a threat to society. To address the problem, America needs a strong statutory framework within which regulation can occur. The 110th Congress should provide one.

The Bush administration probably wouldn't spend so much time obfuscating greenhouse gas regulation if it knew Congressional Democrats were just as willing to do the job.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) is pushing legislation which would forbid states from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. The proposal would, as The Washington Post put it today, "kneecap" the effort of 12 states to institute their own program. Under the Clean Air Act, those states need EPA to grant them a waiver in order to begin regulating. The proposal removes EPA's authority to grant those waivers.

The proposal would effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision which found greenhouse gas emissions could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Reactionary legislation to overturn Supreme Court decisions is probably not what the founding fathers had in mind. Nonetheless, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) is sticking up for Boucher's proposal. Dingell claims the Court decision is causing "wonderful confusion." The only thing confusing is the actions of Boucher and Dingell.

To counter, 11 committee Democrats sent a letter to Dingell and Boucher expressing their "serious concern" about the proposed legislation, according to a BNA news service article (subscription).

It is unclear what kind of legislation will emerge from the committee, but the situation will only worsen as time passes. Boucher and Dingell have given EPA an advantage: the agency can continue to stall on the waiver request knowing law may eventually prohibit EPA from granting it. Then EPA can say, "Sorry states, Congress says we can't grant your waiver."

Won't Democrats look foolish then? The House needs to drop this crazy proposal and let the states do their thing.

Reg•Watch Update: Democrats Failing on CO2 Regulation: Part 2

Back in February and March, Reg•Watch blogged about President Bush's proposed budget which called for cuts in EPA funding. EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson has been submissive in allowing the White House to hack away at his agency's resources.

Naturally, budget cuts at EPA undermine the agency's ability to promulgate regulations to protect the environment. Bush proposed cuts the past few years, and Republican congresses were complicit in reducing the agency's resources.

This year, Democrats are bucking the trend and standing up for environmental protection. As Congressional Quarterly (subscription) reports today, a House Appropriations subcommittee approved a bigger budget:

Rejecting the president's call for further cuts this year, Democrats proposed a 4.5 percent increase over fiscal 2007 in discretionary spending for the EPA, the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department's Forest Service and several cultural agencies. The Appropriations Committee approved the bill by voice vote, despite Republican complaints that such funding increases are fiscally irresponsible.

"I do not know of one increase in the package which cannot be fully justified based on need or on ability to spend the money wisely," said Norm Dicks, D-Wash., chairman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee.

The Blog for Clean Air has discovered draft legislation by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) which would prevent states from developing greenhouse gas emission regulations. California and other states are waiting for word from EPA on whether they may institute their own tailpipe emissions programs. Boucher's legislation would stop states' efforts dead in their tracks.

The Clean Air Act includes language specifically forbidding states from pursuing emissions regulations for motor vehicles but does provide a caveat allowing EPA to grant waivers.

Boucher's legislation would not eliminate waivers, but it would amend the Clean Air Act to read as follows:

No such waiver shall be granted if the [EPA] Administrator finds that such State standards are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By now, those of us with common sense are used to seeing greenhouse gas regulation halted by way of delay and scientific manipulation. But to halt regulation through statute in such an explicit way is shocking.

On Sunday, The Dallas Morning News ran a story detailing the flaws in a new EPA risk assessment. Federal agencies use the process of risk assessment to evaluate the extent to which public hazards may adversely affect health, safety and the environment.

The assessment under fire is the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are substances which affect the endocrine system of the human body. The endocrine system regulates certain mood, growth and development functions including hormonal and thyroid functions. EDs are thought to be commonly present in a wide array of consumer products including finished plastics.

The article highlights problems of the ED risk assessment which critics accuse of being designed to purposefully minimize the adverse effects of EDs. From the method of testing dosages to the choice of rat species, a host of factors in the risk assessment design appear to be fishy. Not surprisingly, industry is blamed in influencing EPA's design.

The article does not go into detail as to why EPA is pursuing an ED risk assessment, so let Reg•Watch sum it up: EPA has been absolutely atrocious in studying and regulating EDs. In 1996, Congress passed a law prompting EPA to determine substances which disrupt the human endocrine system. Eleven years later, how many has EPA studied? Wait for it…none. Not even one.

Meanwhile, EDs affect hormonal function and recent evidence shows EDs may be leading to hermaphroditic fish in the Potomac River. Americans are probably exposed to lots of EDs, but public knowledge is paltry compared to the potential for danger. In a February House hearing, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) questioned EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on the agency's lack of progress. Johnson's smug response was, "We have been doing the research, but there's this pesky thing called science."

Though Johnson was being sarcastic, the designers of this risk assessment do indeed appear to find science pesky. After an 11 year wait, the least EPA could do is design a scientifically sound and thorough risk assessment.

Scientists criticize EPA chemical screening program [Dallas Morning News] (Thanks to the Center for Science in the Public Interest for pointing out this story.)