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A third document reveals that the White House requested that NOAA consider unpublished information relating to the birth rate of right whales.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.

Last night, a federal court ruled the Bush administration must make a decision by May 15 on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. Three advocacy groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace — sued the Department of the Interior in order to force a decision after months of delay.

The last time we heard from officials in Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), they promised a decision by July. However, FWS has failed to keep its word a number of times already, giving the public no reason to believe the agency would make its decision this summer, if ever.

Meanwhile, another agency within the Interior Department (the Minerals Management Service) has been working hastily to hand out permits to oil and gas companies to drill in areas in Alaska where the polar bear lives. Because FWS has yet to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the companies do not legally have to take into consideration the effects of their operations on the bears' habitats.

The melting ice caused by global warming is the primary threat to the polar bear's existence, which means climate change skeptics are also opposed to listing the animal under the Endangered Species Act.

But environmental advocates are hopeful that, with this court decision in place, the administration will make the correct decision. Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement, "By May 15th the polar bear should receive the protections it deserves under the Endangered Species Act, which is the first step toward saving the polar bear and the entire Arctic ecosystem from global warming."

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 Department of Transportation proposed new standards to improve vehicle fuel efficiency under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. In December, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which requires the revisions to the CAFE standards.

The New York Times reports the proposed rule will actually be more progressive in setting fuel economy standards than Congress required: "The pace [Transportation Secretary Mary Peters] laid out is nearly 50 percent faster than what would be required to meet the law passed last December." Kudos to the Bush administration for recognizing a more aggressive course is possible and for enforcing federal law in the spirit intended.

When these regulations go into effect, they will represent the first meaningful action on fuel economy the federal government has taken in about three decades.

Of course, the impetus for the law which forced the administration to act is the need to address greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence on oil. The nonprofit group Environmental Defense has released a statement which points out that while these regulations mark a positive step, further mandatory federal requirements are necessary to address global warming and oil dependence in a comprehensive fashion.

Environmental Defense's argument is important to remember because the Bush administration has repeatedly argued that the new fuel economy standards springing forth from the Energy Independence and Security Act are enough for now, and that any further efforts to reduce vehicle emissions or improve efficiency are unnecessary and "confusing."

But addressing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and greenhouse gas emissions from other sources, is a complex problem situated at the nexus of environmental, economic, and foreign policy. Federal action on controlling emissions is like a chess match: The complexity of the situation requires a concerted attack that moves pieces in combination, rather than a narrow approach that can be easily impeded.

Administration officials and Congress should continue to look for new opportunities to curb emissions — keep their foot on the gas, so to speak.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again changing its tune on when it will announce plans to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. The agency has said it needs 10 more weeks to make the decision, according to the Associated Press.

The legal deadline for making the decision was Jan. 9. At that time, FWS, which is an agency within the Department of the Interior, said it would make its decision in early February. The latest announcement of delay indicates the decision may be pushed into early July at the earliest.

How could FWS's estimates be so off? In early January, FWS thought it only needed about another month to decide. But apparently, it needed another six months. That's quite the miscalculation.

Meanwhile, another agency within the Interior Department (the Minerals Management Service) has been working hastily to hand out permits to oil and gas companies to drill in areas in Alaska where the polar bear lives. Because FWS has yet to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the companies do not legally have to take into consideration the effects of their operations on the bears' habitats.

Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, a group which has filed suit to force the agency to make a decision, recognizes that FWS is callously delaying its decision to help out the oil and gas industry. According to the AP, "The request for more time, Siegel said, is probably a tactic to delay a decision until the Minerals Management Service can finish issuing offshore petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest shore, home to one of two polar bear populations in Alaska."

The Interior Department's Inspector General is investigating the delay.

When EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and the White House get together to talk about environmental regulations, it seems they often decide to blatantly ignore federal law. Recently, EPA has refused to let California regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and set a new standard for ozone that dismisses the advice of the agency's scientific advisors. Both decisions ignore plain language provisions in the Clean Air Act, and both were made under pressure from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

In our system of our government, we have the courts to intervene and interpret the law correctly. The courts will strike down regulations that do not follow the letter of the law and instruct agencies to write ones that do.

Indeed, EPA hasn't had much luck defending in federal court some of its particularly faulty decisions. A letter from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to Johnson presses the administrator on the issue and mentions a number of challenges EPA has lost, including a recent court decision which rejected a trading system for mercury emissions.

"I am concerned that these cases indicate that your agency is disregarding unambiguous statutory directives when the law requires action that differs from the Administration's policy preferences," Waxman writes. "In almost all cases, the EPA rules and decisions overturned by the courts benefited polluting industries at the expense of human health and the environment."

But while democracy may continue to function as envisioned, the decisions to ignore law in the first place are not without consequence. Important rules to protect the public from air and water pollution or global warming are delayed when litigation and regulatory mulligans ossify the process.

Another problem is the drain on agency staff time and resources. Because EPA has produced so many rules in clear violation of federal law, Waxman wants to know, What is the cumulative cost to taxpayers? He requests EPA "identify the amount of agency resources in money and personnel … expended to date to develop and defend the rule or decision that was challenged."

EPA knowingly spends time on legally indefensible rulemakings and then spends even more time defending them, leaving Americans with unnecessarily dirty air and water. Meanwhile, taxpayers are funding the whole process. It seems Americans are getting hosed on both ends.