Pruitt Unveils Controversial ‘Transparency’ Rule Limiting What Research EPA Can Use COMMENT DEADLINE extended to August 16, 2018

by Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis (The Washington Post) Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt moved Tuesday to limit what science can be used in writing agency regulations, a change long sought by conservatives.

The proposed rule would only allow the EPA to consider studies where the underlying data is made available publicly. Such restrictions could affect how the agency protects Americans from toxic chemicals, air pollution and other health risks.

But a chorus of scientists and public health groups warn that the rule would effectively block the EPA from relying on long-standing, landmark studies on the harmful effects of air pollution and pesticide exposure. Such research often involves confidential personal or medical histories or proprietary information.

The proposal will be subject to a 30-day comment period, EPA officials said. Scientific organizations are already campaigning to block the rule from being finalized. Based on previous court cases, it could prompt legal challenges if implemented.

Former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said that requiring the kind of disclosure Pruitt envisions would have disqualified the federal government from tapping groundbreaking research, such as studies linking exposure to leaded gasoline to neurological damage or a major 1993 study by Harvard University that established the link between fine-particle air pollution and premature deaths.

Scientists often collect personal data from subjects but pledge to keep it confidential. Researchers will have trouble recruiting study participants if the rule is enacted, she predicted, even if they pledge to redact private information before handing it over to the government.

“But it means following people’s personal history, their medical history. And nobody would want somebody to expose all of their private information.”

House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), who was with Pruitt during his announcement Tuesday, has for years sought to establish a similar requirement. His 2017 legislation, titled the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, failed to pass both chambers.

Conservatives, such as Trump EPA transition team member Steve Milloy, have long tried to discredit independent research the agency used to justify limiting air pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels.

While the administration presses ahead, legal experts warn that the rule may be vulnerable to a court challenge. In unanimous decisions in 2002 and 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA is not legally obligated to obtain and publicize the data underlying the research it considers in crafting regulations.

In the 2002 case, brought by the American Trucking Associations, two judges appointed by Ronald Reagan and one named by Bill Clinton wrote that they agreed with the agency that such a requirement “would be impractical and unnecessary.” The government’s defense had noted that “EPA’s reliance on published scientific studies without obtaining and reviewing the underlying data is not only reasonable, it is the only workable approach.”

Yet the American Chemistry Council praised Pruitt’s effort. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations,” its statement said, “while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights.” READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico's Morning Edition: EPA is moving full-speed in its controversial scientific policy that would exclude the use of studies that don't publicly disclose all data. The agency published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on Monday, kicking into gear a 30-day comment period. And already, several groups have come forward to oppose the policy, laying out what they see as the policy's adverse effects - and calling for more consideration before any formal change.

- The Union of Concerned Scientists - which sent a letter signed by more than 1,000 scientists to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last week asking him to reverse course prior to the rule's announcement - plans to send another urging for the comment period to be extended a minimum of 60 days and calling for the agency to hold three public hearings across the U.S. to receive additional input. "The current timeframe and lack of opportunities for engagement are wholly inadequate and will not allow for thorough public input of this proposed rule and its impact on science-based health and environmental safeguards." Read the letter here.

- A group of scientific journals released a joint statement saying that the proposal "does not strengthen policies based on scientific evidence to limit the scientific evidence that can inform them; rather, it is paramount that the full suite of relevant science vetted through peer review, which includes ever more rigorous features, inform the landscape of decision making. Excluding relevant studies simply because they do not meet rigid transparency standards will adversely affect decision-making processes." READ MORE

Excerpt from Politico's Morning Energy: EPA extended the comment period for its controversial "secret science" proposal that was set to end on May 30. The public will now have until Aug 16 to make their voices heard on the proposal to ban the use of studies that don't publicly disclose all data. EPA also said it would hold a public hearing July 17 in Washington on the proposal rule, heeding public requests to do so. READ MORE