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.

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

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.

FDA has announced the creation of an advisory panel which will aid agency officials in communicating food and drug safety risks to the public. Last year, the Institute of Medicine recommended Congress pass legislation creating such a panel.

FDA should be applauded being proactive on the recommendation. During recent food and drug safety crises, FDA has seemed unwilling or unable to allay public fears with immediate communications and relevant information. Establishing this panel has the benefit of being both good politics and good policy.

But policy and politics don't always get along so well. Members of this panel will need to be unbiased and apolitical in their assessments of food and drug safety and the need for public outreach. Even so, because political officials will likely be doing most of the actual communicating, the potential for politically-motivated cover-ups remains.

The Institute of Medicine report states:

The expertise needed on the advisory committee may include consumer and patient perspectives…risk communication, health literacy, social marketing expertise, public relations expertise, social sciences expertise with an emphasis on qualitative research and survey science, journalism, and ethics.

Even if FDA improves its regulatory actions and post-market surveillance, drug and food safety problems are inevitable. America needs a trusted voice in these situations. One of the roles of government should be to provide that voice.

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.)

EPA is considering appointing Dennis C. Paustenbach to the asbestos panel of its Science Advisory Board. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Paustenbach has made a career out of defending corporations in asbestos exposure suits.

Agency panels and committees, such as EPA's Science Advisory Board, are important tools for regulatory decision-makers. Panels are supposed to consist of impartial experts who can provide valuable scientific and technical advice.

EPA created the asbestos panel to aid the agency in maintaining risk assessments and exposure standards consistent with the most up-to-date scientific data and technological feasibility. Unfortunately, it appears Paustenbach's expertise is in downplaying the risks of asbestos exposure and advocating for less protective federal standards.

EWG has sent a letter to EPA further detailing their opinion as to why Paustenbach is a bad choice. To read the letter, click here.