Wheeler’s effort to run over science hits bumps in the road

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The author argues that the Trump-era EPA's 'Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science' rule (the 'Censored Science Rule') is an attempt to undermine mainstream science to justify deregulation. The document highlights concerns from the EPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) regarding the rule's potential to exclude critical human health data and its overall vagueness, which may lead to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The 'Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science' proposal, referred to by the author as the 'Censored Science Rule', could prevent the EPA from using scientific studies if the raw data is not 'publicly available'. This is particularly problematic for human health data, such as studies linking fine particulates to disease, which cannot be made public due to privacy requirements.
  • The author contends that the rule's structure allows a political appointee to 'cherry pick' scientific studies based on political preference rather than scientific value, as the Administrator would have the power to decide which otherwise excluded studies to include.
  • The EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) voted in June 2019 to conduct a full review of the substance of the proposal, despite Administrator Wheeler only requesting input on confidential business and personally identifiable information.
  • The proposal is described as 'unreasonably vague', which the author argues may violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide the public an opportunity for meaningful comment and making it difficult for a final rule to be a 'logical outgrowth' of the proposal.
  • The author notes a conflict between the proposed rule and the EPA's mandate to utilize the 'best available science' to protect public health and the environment.

Cite the original document

APA
Hashimoto, H. (2019). Wheeler’s effort to run over science hits bumps in the road. Clean Air Task Force. https://www.catf.us/2019/09/epa-wheelers-effort-to-run-over-science-hits-bumps-in-the-road/
Chicago
Hashimoto, Hayden. Wheeler’s effort to run over science hits bumps in the road. Clean Air Task Force, 2019. https://www.catf.us/2019/09/epa-wheelers-effort-to-run-over-science-hits-bumps-in-the-road/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Hashimoto |first1=Hayden |title=Wheeler’s effort to run over science hits bumps in the road |publisher=Clean Air Task Force |date=11 September 2019 |url=https://www.catf.us/2019/09/epa-wheelers-effort-to-run-over-science-hits-bumps-in-the-road/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{hashimoto2019wheelers, author = {Hashimoto, Hayden}, title = {{Wheeler’s effort to run over science hits bumps in the road}}, institution = {Clean Air Task Force}, year = {2019}, month = sep, url = {https://www.catf.us/2019/09/epa-wheelers-effort-to-run-over-science-hits-bumps-in-the-road/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated