The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency intends to issue a revised version of its proposed "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule in early 2020 instead of finalizing the original proposal by the end of the year as originally planned, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a congressional oversight hearing.
During his first appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Wheeler announced Sept. 19 that his agency is planning on issuing a "supplement" to the proposed regulatory science transparency rule. Unveiled in April 2018 by Wheeler's predecessor, Scott Pruitt, the proposal aimed to ensure the science used by the federal agency to develop environmental regulations, including data or models used within a scientific study, is publicly available in a way that allows for independent verification.
Democratic lawmakers and others have decried the proposal as an ideological attempt to roll back environmental regulatory burdens placed on industry by censoring the EPA's research and science at the expense of the environment and the public's health.
In announcing that the agency will issue a supplemental proposal early in 2020, Wheeler said it would apply prospectively to final significant regulatory actions and not retroactively to the EPA's existing environmental standards. The EPA chief also said the agency will wait on a pending review by its Science Advisory Board of the proposed rule and its possible impacts on regulatory actions before issuing the supplement. The Science Advisory Board is a statutory body tasked with reviewing the scientific and technical information in EPA rulemakings.
Ranking Member Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., commended the Trump administration's EPA for using "sound, transparent science" to craft environmental standards. "If we want our policies to be successful, they need to be based on the best available science — and also be achievable without damaging our economy."
But Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., said the proposed rule "is an attack on the role of science itself at the EPA." By "impeding the scope of the research that EPA can consider when making decisions," she said the proposal threatens the EPA's mission of ensuring clean air and clean water quality.
"As a cornerstone of its regulatory processes, the EPA relies on peer-reviewed science, and the proposed rule perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science the EPA relies on is somehow hidden and it is not," Bonamici said. "The information used by the EPA is not secret."
When asked by Bonamici, Wheeler affirmed that the proposed rule would change the way the EPA considers scientific studies in regulatory decisionmaking, including the agency's use of underlying data that is not made publicly available for independent evaluation. Bonamici then cited a footnote in the proposed rule that acknowledged previous court decisions upheld the EPA's use of nonpublic data in its support of regulatory decisionmaking.
Not backing down, Wheeler said the public has a right to know the science behind the EPA's regulatory actions. "If we put that science out for everybody to see and to understand ... there would be more acceptance of our regulatory decisions."
Wheeler also addressed the revocation of California's waiver authority to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles to curb its largest source of emissions. The EPA is "doing nothing to take away California's authority to set health-based standards for automobiles — only energy efficiency."
Wheeler's comment came on the same day the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration jointly issued a final rule declaring that only the federal government can set vehicle fuel economy standards. The issue could be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court as federal district courts have twice struck down that claim.
