EPA science advisers want chance to comment on controversial transparency plan

first_imgEnvironmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt The letter also raises a number of thorny issues the board wants to examine, including how much implementing the rule might cost and how it might “infringe on legitimate confidentiality and privacy interests.” There are “a number of scientific issues that would benefit from expert advice and comment from the SAB,” the board tells Pruitt.The letter marks the latest salvo in the debate over the proposed rule. Advocates say it would make the scientific basis for regulations stronger by requiring that all underlying data be disclosed. But critics argue it is a thinly veiled effort to prevent regulators from tapping influential air pollution and other studies that rest on confidential health records or hard-to-replicate study designs.Pruitt unveiled the proposal in a closed event on 25 April. Last month, the agency announced it would accept public comment through 16 August. On 17 July there will be a public hearing on the plan in Washington, D.C.Last month, an SAB working group recommended that the advisory body, which includes more than a dozen of Pruitt’s appointees, review the proposal. But some EPA officials have suggested the rule could be finalized before that review is complete.The SAB letter notes that by law, the body is supposed to advise EPA on “the adequacy of the scientific and technical basis” of a proposed action. It is not clear, however, whether Pruitt needs to wait for its advice before moving forward with a regulatory decision. EPA science advisers want chance to comment on controversial transparency plan Email Don’t do anything until we get a chance to weigh in.The 44-member Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt not to revise or finalize a controversial proposed rule on data transparency until it can analyze it and offer comments.“[T]he precise design of the proposed rule appears to have been developed without a public process for soliciting input specifically from the scientific community,” states the 28 June letter signed by SAB Chair Michael Honeycutt, who directs the Toxicology Division of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Austin.  Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrycenter_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe By David MalakoffJun. 29, 2018 , 5:30 PM Gage Skidmore/Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0) Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *