Partially lost in all the mishagas surrounding OMB and President Bush's intervention into EPA's efforts to tighten the national standard for smog has been a new policy proposal the agency floated alongside the new rule. In a surprise move, EPA Administrator Johnson also announced his intent to seek legislative changes to the Clean Air Act. Johnson wants Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to allow his EPA — and all future EPAs — to consider compliance costs when setting air pollution standards. For the six air pollutants under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program, EPA must base its decision on the latest scientific evidence and may not consider compliance costs. (The six pollutants are ozone, lead, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide.) Legislative changes would be necessary because the Act is explicit in prohibiting the consideration of costs, a notion the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2001 (Whitman v. American Trucking Association). Environmentalists and public health advocates immediately assailed Johnson's proposal. Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit Clean Air Watch, said the changes "would be a radical attack on the Clean Air Act" and said Johnson's proposal "is taking a page directly from the playbook of polluters and their most ardent supporters in Congress." In a statement, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also criticized the proposal: "It is outrageous that the Bush Administration would call for changes that would gut the Clean Air Act, which has saved countless lives and protected the health of millions of Americans for more than 35 years." A recent OMB Watch report found that economic analyses in environmental rulemaking often overstate compliance costs. Cost assessments do not, and cannot, account for technological improvements that may be developed to control pollution more efficiently, the report found. More importantly, economic analyses do not adequately account for many intangible or invaluable benefits associated with environmental regulations. Regulations can preserve environmental majesty, reduce health risks, or even save lives. How do you put a price tag on that? While the proposal could be disastrous if adopted, the Clean Air Act is probably safe for now. A March 17 New York Times editorial predicted Congress would dismiss the proposal: "Since this would permanently devalue the role of science while strengthening the hand of industry, the proposal has no chance of success in a Democratic Congress." Read this OMB Watch analysis for the full scoop on EPA's revision to the national standard for ozone: "White House Interferes in Smog Rule"