Client Alerts & Insights
EPA Proposes to Limit Consideration of Scientific Research From Non-Public Data
March 5, 2020
Yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a supplemental proposed rule to give preference to scientific studies developed from publicly available underlying data when promulgating new regulations, a move scientists decry as “nonsensical”[1] – particularly in the arena of public health, as those studies would not be able to share the underlying data without exposing subjects’ confidential health information.
The supplemental proposal covers all data and all studies, and expands the scope to other agency activities, not just the EPA.
Controversy:
Critics say the proposal is designed to weaken regulation by preventing the EPA from “considering epidemiological and other studies in which researchers have promised to protect the privacy of human subjects.”[2] Whether or not the underlying data of a study is made publically available has no bearing on the merit of the research. “Think of this in the context of coronavirus” said Andrew Rosenberg from the Union of Concerned Scientists. [3]
The EPA has said its “rulemaking is designed to increase transparency in the preparation, identification and use of science in rulemaking.”[4]
Background:
In the original version of the proposed rule entitled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” first promoted by former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in April of 2018, the EPA wanted to prohibit the promulgation of regulations based on research concluded from data that was not made publicly available. That proposal was drew more than 600,000 comments and was lambasted by environmental, scientific, and patient advocacy groups for blocking crucial public health research from consideration.[5]
Significance:
The EPA supplemental proposal could limit the science considered by governmental agencies when formulating public health and safety protections.
The supplemental proposal is available here.
Once the supplemental proposal is published in the Federal Register, there will be a thirty-day period for public comments. The EPA says it anticipates promulgating a final rule later this year.[6]
For more information on this topic, contact a member of Benesch’s Energy Practice Group.
______________________________________________________________________________
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/485811-epa-revamp-of-secret-science-rule-will-still-limit-research
[2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/epa-s-secret-science-plan-back-and-critics-say-it-s-worse
[3] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/485811-epa-revamp-of-secret-science-rule-will-still-limit-research
[4] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/new-york-times-several-glaring-inaccuracies-thats-fit-print
[5] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/epa-s-secret-science-plan-back-and-critics-say-it-s-worse
[6] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-posts-clarifying-details-to-secret-science-rule
Latest News
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.
Supply Chain Security – C-TPAT Program Growing in Significance for U.S. Operations
Geopolitical challenges are triggering executive-level focus on supply chain security across industrial sectors and transportation service providers, including renewed interest in the Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism (“C-TPAT”) program.
BREAKING: Seventh Circuit Holds Text Messages are not Telephone Calls Under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA
In a significant post-Loper Bright win for defendants, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398, affirming a trial court ruling that “§ 227(c)(5) [of the TCPA] does not permit plaintiffs to sue for the receipt of unwanted texts . . . .”
Connecticut’s New PFAS Rules: What Businesses Need to Know About the Regulations and Covered Product Categories
Connecticut has joined the growing roster of states cracking down on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), the so-called “forever chemicals” long prized for their water resistance, stain resistance, and non-stick performance.