The Environmental Protection Agency has delayed a controversial proposal that would prohibit the agency from using scientific studies that do not make public the raw data used in research.
In an update to its plans issued Tuesday evening, the EPA shifted the proposal to the “long-term actions” section of its deregulatory agenda, and listed 2020 as its target time frame for issuing a final rule.
Michael Abboud, an EPA spokesman, said the agency remains committed to finalizing the rule, and is not beholden to a specific deadline.
“Long-term actions are those under development, but for which the agency does not expect to publish an action within the next 12 months,” he said in a statement Wednesday. “However, the agency may advance rules on a faster timeline. This is not a delay. The agency is continuing its internal rulemaking development process for this action. The spring agenda gave no deadline on a final rule.”
Critics say the rule proposed in April to combat what the Trump administration calls “secret science” would restrict the research the EPA can use in drafting environmental regulations, because it would have less research to work with and could cherry-pick information that fits its goals.
Some scientific research uses personal health information from individuals who participate knowing the details are not to be made public but used to inform policymaking.
Major studies that have depended on confidential information include a major 1993 study by Harvard University linking air pollution to premature deaths.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who introduced the proposal, said it would improve transparency and ensure science used in policymaking can be independently verified. EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler had stood by the proposed rule he inherited.
But the proposal generated an intense reaction, receiving nearly a quarter million comments during a public comment period, most of then negative, including from the Pentagon.
In addition, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, a panel of outside researchers and experts who review the quality of the science the agency relies on, said the rule was drafted without the consultation of the scientific community and outside the normal public engagement process.
