The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is close to finalizing its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on greenhouse gas emission regulation. The ANPRM is an indication that EPA may someday consider taking a look at possibly addressing global warming through some sort of undefined future action…perhaps.

Even still, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is all over the document like stink on a monkey.

The Wall Street Journal has gotten a sneak peak at the document and reports on it this morning: "The draft document…outlines how the government, under the Clean Air Act, could regulate greenhouse gas emissions…"

The Journal goes on to identify OMB's likes and dislikes:

The White House's Office of Management and Budget has asked the EPA to delete section of the document that say such emissions endanger public welfare, say how those gases could be regulated, and show an analysis of the cost of regulating greenhouse gases in the U.S. and other countries.

The OMB instead wants the document to show that the Clean Air Act is flawed …

In 2007, EPA promised — in response to a Supreme Court decision mandating it consider greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act — to actually take action greenhouse gas emissions through a notice of proposed rulemaking. But in March, EPA announced instead that it would pursue the ANPRM.

At the time, there was no proof of White House interference. However, recent reports show that OMB blocked EPA's proposal. As The New York Times reported last week, OMB went so far as to refuse to open an email containing EPA's proposal.

EPA and White House officials maintain that Johnson made the ultimate decision to punt on greenhouse gas regulation, but the evidence indicates otherwise. As we've seen with the California waiver decision and the revision to the national standard for smog, Johnson is merely a puppet for the White House.

OMB is calling the shots on seemingly every major environmental policy decision; it is running roughshod over agency scientists, ignoring the plain language of federal law, and disregarding court orders.

Jason Burnett, an associate administrator for EPA, recently resigned in frustration. The Washington Post reports on his sad yet accurate assessment:

Burnett refused to comment on the White House calls but said in an interview, "In early December, I sent an e-mail with the formal finding that action must be taken to address the risk of climate change," adding that he resigned his political appointment because the agency had been stymied in its efforts to respond to the Supreme Court. "The White House made it clear they did not want to address the ramifications of that finding and have decided to leave the challenge to the next administration. Some [at the White House] thought that EPA had mistakenly concluded that climate change endangers the public. It was no mistake."

A House panel voted last week to tie the hands of agency regulatory policy officers (RPOs). The move comes in response to continued concern about President Bush's 2007 executive order that expanded the powers of RPOs.

President Bush's E.O. 13422 — which amended E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review — dramatically expands the power of the RPO. E.O. 13422 states, "no rulemaking shall commence" without the RPO's approval. Conveniently, E.O. 13422 does not define when a rulemaking commences, thus providing the RPO with wide latitude in exercising this new authority.

Ultimately, the RPO can act as a regulatory gatekeeper within the agency. OMB Watch has expressed concern that this power may be abused when the RPO's interest align more closely with those of the White House Office of Management and Budget than with the RPO's own agency or, more importantly, the public.

E.O. 13422 also requires the RPO be selected from among the presidentially appointed positions already existing within the agency.

While the provision does not technically remove any power from the RPOs, it would tie their hands by cutting off funding for their activities. The provision reads, "None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used" for Bush's changes related to RPOs.

The provision is included in the House FY 2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, which the House Appropriations Committee approved by voice vote June 25. That bill funds the Executive Office of the President and some other agencies. However, because the provision states, "by this or any other Act," the bill would freeze funding for RPOs across the federal government.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) wrote to the White House June 11 asking about the Office of Management and Budget's role in EPA's revised process for assessing the health effects of industrial chemicals. EPA announced changes to the process, known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), in April.

One of the major problems with the revised process is the lack of transparency. OMB and other federal agencies will be able to have input into a chemical assessment without ever disclosing their views — scientific or political — to the public. Miller wrote to Susan Dudley, the head of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which will coordinate the OMB/interagency review of IRIS assessments, expressing his concern:

[T]he interagency process OIRA manages is secret. The public has no insight into who is being invited to discuss what, when. The public has no way of getting at materials associated with those discussions because the pre-decisional exemption of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applies to all of those materials.

The bottom line is that if the interagency discussion taking place is solely about science, there is no reason why that discussion and all communications surrounding it, cannot survive the light of exposure to the public. The only reason to hide a discussion about science is if the discussion is actually not about science, but about other things that are being used to trump the science.

Miller is the chair of the House Science Committee subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight. Yesterday, the subcommittee held its second hearing on the changes to the IRIS process.

During the hearing, ranking member James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) discussed another problem with the revised process: the delayed completion of IRIS assessments and subsequent backlog of chemicals needing to be assessed. Sensenbrenner pointed out that EPA has completed only two IRIS assessments in each of the last two years, and called the process "broken down."

Sensenbrenner then addressed the OMB/interagency review which will allow other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense or NASA, to delay the assessment process:

[EPA] argues that it can expedite the IRIS process by involving other agencies earlier in the process. While preventing last minute delays is an important reform, the ability of other agencies to extend the time frame of assessments should be sharply limited. Data gaps in risk assessments will always exist, as better science is always developing. The EPA needs to limit the time frame of assessments to prevent other agencies from indefinitely delaying the process.

For more information on the changes to the IRIS process, see this OMB Watch factsheet.

Saturday's New York Times has an article about the White House's new policy setting deadlines for any regulations agencies intend to finalize during the Bush administration. The policy, outlined in a memo sent by Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, says, "Except in extraordinary circumstances, regulations to be finalized in this Administration should be proposed no later than June 1, 2008, and final regulations should be issued no later than November 1, 2008."

Bolten issued the memo under the guise of reversing "the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months" — commonly known as midnight regulations. In reality, the memo may simply change when the clock strikes midnight in order to insulate potentially controversial rules from disapproval by a new administration.

The Times article quotes White House spokesperson Emily Lawrimore as saying, "We're just making clear that we will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process as we near the end of the administration." Lawrimore is referring to the process where the White House reviews regulations before they are cleared to become official policy.

Of course, those "high standards" are usually employed to derail public protections or weaken them at the behest of industry lobbyists. We've seen that recently as the White House blocked the efforts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration effort to protect the North Atlantic right whale and countermanded EPA's attempt to set a separate standard for ozone that would protect sensitive plants during summer months.

OMB Watch has an analysis of the Bolten memo which also includes a list of high-profile regulations the administration may try to rush through by November 1, for better or for worse (mostly worse). The regulations would:

• Revise the definition of solid waste to allow recycling of hazardous materials;
• Revise the federal standards for roof strength in passenger vehicles;
• Mandate public notification of retail outlets that have received recalled meat and poultry products;
• Allow for permitting exemptions for farms claiming "no discharge" into waterways;
• Revise air pollution control requirements for industrial facilities operating near national parks;
• Permit surface mining operations to place excess material in waterways;
• Allow for reporting exemptions for farms emitting air pollution from animal waste;
• Revise rules implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act;
• Limit the number of hours a truck driver can drive in one day;
• Repeal the ban on carrying loaded guns in national parks.

A few of those sound super, but, as the analysis shows, the devil is in the details.

The analysis also discusses how the Bolten memo may impact the options of the next administration and next Congress in dealing with Bush-era rules.

Click here to read more.