Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T17:39:58.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cleaning Up the Air: The EPA and Shuttle Diplomacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2011

Sara R. Rinfret
Sara R. Rinfret*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Hartwick College, Oneonta, New York
*
Sara R. Rinfret, Department of Political Science, Hartwick College, One Hartwick Drive, Oneonta, NY 13820; (phone) 607-431-4586; (fax) 607-431-4584; (e-mail) rinfrets@hartwick.edu
Get access

Abstract

In practice, building collaborative relationships between environmental groups and industry is not an easy task during environmental rulemaking. However, this article uses original interview data to document a different perspective from agency officials and stakeholders across two case studies within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ): the renewable fuels standard and the locomotive and marine engine rule. This article argues that OTAQ used a new approach, shuttle diplomacy, in these particular cases to negotiate stakeholder differences prior to publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The findings from these interviews suggest that the intent of this rule development approach is to provide an atmosphere where stakeholders begin to trust in the process because they are helping to create it.

Environmental Practice 13:1–8 (2011)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 227 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, R.N.L. 2006. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves, 2nd edition. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 544 pp.Google Scholar
Berry, J.M. 1977. Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public Interest Groups. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 344 pp.Google Scholar
Council for Excellence in Government. 2007. Working with Stakeholders: The Nonroad Diesel Rule. Report prepared for the USEPA Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2007, July 13. Producing Ethanol Could Restrain Resources. EDF, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1550 (accessed October 1, 2008).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007, April. EPA Finalizes Regulations for a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program for 2007 and Beyond. EPA420-F-07-019. USEPA, Washington, DC, 3 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f07019.htm (accessed September 18, 2008).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008a, March. EPA Finalizes More Stringent Regulations for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines [Regulatory Announcement]. EPA420-F-08-004. USEPA, Washington, DC, 5 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420f08004.htm#background (accessed September 20, 2008).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008b, March. General Position Statements. In Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-006. USEPA, Washington, DC, 463 pp. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08006.pdf (accessed July 17, 2011).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008c. Nonroad, Engines, Equipment, and Vehicles. USEPA, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm (accessed July 15, 2011).Google Scholar
E-Wire. 2008. Renewable Fuel Standard Has a Huge Price Tag. E-Wire, New York. Available at http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/787 (accessed September 5, 2008).Google Scholar
Fiorino, D.In press. Environmental Bureaucracies: The Environmental Protection Agency chapter. In Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, Kraft, M.E. and Kamieniecki, S., eds. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Fritschler, A.L. 1975. Smoking and Politics: Policymaking and the Federal Bureaucracy, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 180 pp.Google Scholar
Furlong, S.R. 1993. Interest Group Influence on Regulatory Policy (unpublished PhD dissertation). American University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Furlong, S.R. 1995. Reinventing Regulatory Development at the Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Studies Journal 23(3):466–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, M. 1998. Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(2):245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebert, H.J. 2008. EPA Directs Pollution Cuts for Locomotives, Ships, and Ferries. Seattle Times, March 14. Available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004282753_apshiptrainpollution1stldwritethru.html (accessed November 19, 2008).Google Scholar
Hoefer, R., and Ferguson, K.. 2007. Controlling the Levers of Power: How Advocacy Organizations Affect the Regulation Writing Process. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 34(2):83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interviews by the author. June–September 1–25, 2008.Google Scholar
Kamieniecki, S. 2006. Corporate America and Environmental Policy: How Often Does Business Get Its Way? Stanford Law and Politics, Stanford, CA, 348 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, C.M. 2003. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 3rd edition. Island Press, Washington, DC, 285 pp.Google Scholar
Kerwin, C.M., and Furlong, S.R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy, 4th edition. CQ Press, Washington, DC, 344 pp.Google Scholar
Kerwin, C., Furlong, S.R., and West, W.. 2010. Interest groups, rulemaking, and American bureaucracy. In The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy, Durant, R, ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 888 pp.Google Scholar
Landy, M., Roberts, M., and Thomas, S.. 1990. The Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions from Nixon to Clinton. Oxford University Press, New York, 341 pp.Google Scholar
Lavertu, S., and Yackee, S.W.. 2010. Regulatory Uncertainty and Rulemaking Deadlines. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual APPAM [Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management] Research Conference, Boston, November 4–6. Available at https://www.appam.org/conferences/fall/boston2010/sessions/panelinfo.asp?id=POSTER-02 (accessed July 18, 2011).Google Scholar
Leedy, P.D. 1993. Practical Research Planning and Design. Macmillan, New York, 348 pp.Google Scholar
Magat, W.A., Krupnick, A.J., and Harrington, W.. 1986. Rules in the Making: A Statistical Analysis of Regulatory Agency Behavior. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, 182 pp.Google Scholar
McGarity, T.O. 1998. The Internal Structure of EPA Rulemaking. Law and Contemporary Problems 54(4):57–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, A., and Yackee, S.W.. 2007. Interest Group Competition on Federal Agency Rules. American Politics Research 35(3):336–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, G. 1996. Images of Organization, 2nd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 496 pp.Google Scholar
National Corn Growers Association. 2008. NCGA Thanks EPA for Denying Request to Waive Renewable Fuel Standard. Corn & Soybean Digest, April 12. Available at http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/ncga-thanks-epa-denying-request-waive-renewable-fuels-standard (accessed July 19, 2011).Google Scholar
Naughton, K., Schmid, C., Yackee, S.W., and Zhan, X.. 2009. Understanding Commenter Influence during Rule Development. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28(2):258–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, S.R. 2011a. Behind the Shadows: Interest Groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, S.R. 2011b. Frames of Influence: U.S. Environmental Rulemaking Cases. Review of Policy Research 28(3):231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinfret, S.R., and Furlong, S.. In press. Defining Environmental Rulemaking. In Oxford Handbook of U.S. Environmental Policy, Kraft, Michael E. and Kamieniecki, Sheldon, eds. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Vaughn, J. 2011. Environmental Politics: Domestic and Global Dimensions, 6th edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 394 pp.Google Scholar
Vig, N., and Kraft, M.. 2009. Environmental Policy: A New Direction for the 21st Century, 6th edition. CQ Press, Washington, DC, 420 pp.Google Scholar
West, W. 2004. Formal Procedures, Informal Procedures, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policymaking: An Institutional Policy Analysis. Public Administration Review 46(2):66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, W. 2009. Inside the Black Box: The Development of Proposed Rules and the Limits of Procedural Controls. Administration and Society 41(5):576–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, S.W. 2006. Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1):103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, S.W. 2008. The Hidden Politics of Regulation: Interest Group Influence during Agency Rule Development. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 200 pp.Google Scholar