The Ozone Two-Step

Regulatory certainty is a benefit for industry, allowing orderly design, planning, and budgeting for capital expenditures. Many environmental regulations have been in place for many years and provide a certain level of continuity. However, the national ambient air quality standard for ozone has not proven itself to be a model of stability over the years.

The Clean Air Act requires that national ambient air quality standards be set at a level that protects human health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety. For years, the standard for ozone was set at 80 parts per billion (ppb). In 2008, EPA lowered the standard to 75 ppb. However, when the Obama Administration entered office in January, 2009, EPA reviewed actions taken by the previous Bush Administration. As to ozone, EPA initiated a rule-making in 2010 to reconsider the 2008 Standard, relying on, among other things, the fact that 75 ppb was above the range recommended by EPA’s scientific advisory board and so may not be protective of human health. The reconsideration rule proposed that the standard be set between 60 and 70 ppb. Continue reading “The Ozone Two-Step”

The Ever-Expanding Regulatory Burden

The number of regulations and pages in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is already staggering and growing at a record pace. From 2002 to 2008, the number of total pages, by year, in the Federal Register was between a low of 71,269 pages in 2003 and a high of 79,435 pages in 2008. After a dip to 68,598 pages in 2009, the 2010 and 2011 totals were 81,405 and 81,247, respectively. While the number of pages of the Federal Register fluctuated in the 70,000 range until 2010 and 2011, the number of total pages in the Code of Federal Regulations has trended upward from 145,099 in 2002 to 169,301 in 2011. Collectively, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules in 2010 and 3,807 in 2011, according to the National Archives and Records Administration’s Office of the Federal Register. Continue reading “The Ever-Expanding Regulatory Burden”