Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:52:59.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Science

Undermining Facts to Understate Regulatory Benefits

from Part IV - America’s Regulatory Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2022

Shanti Gamper-Rabindran
Shanti Gamper-Rabindran
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

Congress has previously passed environmental and administrative laws that tethered the regulatory process to scientific evidence. Federal agencies were obliged to weigh scientific data, as well as dispassionate economic and legal analyses, as they developed and implemented regulations. The Trump administration sought to untether the rulemaking process from science and other forms of hard evidence and expert analysis by putting contrarian scientists in charge of science advisory boards and by sidelining the views of career scientists at federal agencies and academic scientists. That strategy paved the way for oil and gas insiders at the helm of these agencies to make decisions aligned with positions advocated by the oil and gas industry, which had shared its wish-list on deregulatory actions with the Trump administration. The administration sought to undermine the scientific basis of environmental regulations by promulgating the deceptively named Science Transparency Rule that would block federal agencies' consideration of epidemiological studies that had linked pollution to adverse public health impacts. That rule was built of the decades-long views advocated by oil- and gas-funded think tanks and pro-oil members of Congress. Fortunately for the scientific integrity of rulemaking, in January 2021 a federal court ruled that the EPA had exceeded its powers in promulgating that regulation and subsequently vacated the rule.

Keywords

uncertaintiescontrarian scientistsmisinformationscience denialclimate denialregulatory captureScience Advisory Boardparticulate matterNational Ambient Air Quality Standards
Type
Chapter
Information
America's Energy Gamble
People, Economy and Planet
 , pp. 285 - 325
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bush, G. H.W.. “Remarks to the National Academy of Sciences.” April 23, 1990. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1990/90042301.html.Google Scholar
Kron, A.. “EPA’s Role in Implementing and Maintaining the Oil and Gas Industry’s Environmental Exemptions: A Study in Three Statutes.” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 16 no. 4 (2014): 586–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovarik, W.. “Ethyl-leaded Gasoline: How a Classic Occupational Disease Became an International Public Health Disaster.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11, no. 4. (2005): 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2005.11.4.384.Google Scholar
Rosner, D. and Markowitz, G.. Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Jacobs, C. and Kelly, W.. Smogtown: The Lung-Burning History of Pollution in Los Angeles. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Banerjee, N., Hasemyer, D. and Song, L.. “For Oil Industry, Clean Air Fight Was Dress Rehearsal for Climate Denial.” Inside Climate News, June 6, 2016. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05062016/oil-industry-clean-air-fight-smog-los-angeles-dress-rehearsal-climate-change-denial-exxon.Google Scholar
“Congress Faces Hard Choices on Clean Air Act.” CQ Almanac, 31st edition (1976): 245–250. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal75-1213793.Google Scholar
Hays, S.. “Clean Air: From the 1970 Act to the 1977 Amendments.” Duquesne Law Review 17, no. 1 (1977–78): 33–66.Google Scholar
Gamble, J. F.. “PM2.5 and Mortality in Long-term Prospective Cohort Studies: Cause–Effect or Statistical Associations?” Environmental Health Perspectives 106, no. 9 (September 1998): 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106535.Google ScholarPubMed
Warrick, J.. “Opponents Await Proposal to Limit Air Particulates: Industry Giants Mobilize to Block New EPA Rules.” Washington Post, November 27, 1996.Google Scholar
Warrick, J. and Yang, J. E.. “Stricter Air Quality Rules May Test Hill’s New Veto; Several GOP Chairmen Critical of EPA Move.” Washington Post, November 28, 1996.Google Scholar
Occupational Exposure to Benzene; Final Rule. Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Department of Labor. 43 Federal Register 27962–27971 (June 27, 1978).Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute, Benzene Task Force. Summary of API’s Benzene Research Strategy (2000). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373740-2000-api-summary-of-benzene-research-strategy.html#document/p2/a191357.Google Scholar
Infante, P.F.. “The Past Suppression of Industry Knowledge of the Toxicity of Benzene to Humans and Potential Bias in Future Benzene Research.” International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 13, no. 3 (July 19, 2013): 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2006.12.3.268.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute. API Toxicological Review: Benzene, Prepared under the Direction of Dr. Philip Drinker. Harvard School of Public Health (New York: September 1948). www.documentcloud.org/documents/1373098-00010795.html.Google Scholar
Lombardi, K. and Bennett, J.. A Dozen Dirty Documents: Twelve Documents That Stand Out from the Center’s New Oil and Chemical Industry Archive. Center for Public Integrity (December 2014). https://publicintegrity.org/environment/a-dozen-dirty-documents.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Climate Change Denial: Sources, Actors, and Strategies.” In Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Lever-Tracy, C.. 240–259 (London: Routledge, 2010).Google Scholar
Brulle, R. J.. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change 122, no. 4. (2014): 681–694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and Brulle, R. J.. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Supran, G. and Oreskes, N.. “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014).” Environmental Research Letters 12, no. 8 (2017).Google Scholar
Grasso, M.. “Oily Politics: A Critical Assessment of the Oil and Gas Industry’s Contribution to Climate Change.” Energy Research & Social Science 50 (April 2019): 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.017.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N.. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Climate Change: What it Means for You, Your Children, and Your Grandchildren, edited by DiMento, J. F. C. and Doughman, P.. 65–99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Michaels, D.. Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. M.. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.. Facts Not Fear on Air Pollution: How Regulators, Environmentalists and Scientists Exaggerate the Level and Health Risks of Air Pollution and Impose Counterproductive Regulations. National Center for Policy Analysis Policy Report No. 294 (2006). www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/facts-not-fear-on-air-pollution-how-regulators-environmentalists-and-scientists-exaggerate-the-level-and-health-risks-of-air-pollution-and-impose-counterproductive-regulations.Google Scholar
Crews, W. and Osorio, I.. This Liberal Congress Went to Market? A Bipartisan Policy Agenda for the 110th Congress. Competitive Enterprise Institute. January 10, 2007. www.cei.org/sites/default/files/1-CEI%20-%20This%20Liberal%20Congress%20Went%20to%20Market.pdf.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony Regarding EPA’s Proposal to Change the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. E.. Testimony on the Proposed Rule: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. July 17, 2012.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at American Petroleum Institute. Testimony of Howard J. Feldman, Public Hearings for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Proposed Rule. January 29, 2015.Google Scholar
Dockery, D. W. et al. “An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six US Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 24 (December 9, 1993): 1753–1759. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401.Google Scholar
Pope, A.C. et al. “Particulate Air Pollution As a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of US Adults.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151, no. 3 (1995): 669–674.Google Scholar
FreedomWorks. “Issue Analysis 50 – The EPA’s New Clean Air Standards: A Primer.” News release. 1997. www.freedomworks.org/content/issue-analysis-50-epas-new-clean-air-standards-primer.Google Scholar
Thurston, G. D.. “Mandating the Release of Health Research Data: Issues and Implications.” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 11 (1998): 331–354.Google Scholar
Health Effects Institute. Synopsis of the Particle Epidemiology Reanalysis Project (2000). www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Reanalysis-Statement.pdf.Google Scholar
Krewski, D. et al. “Overview of the Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 66, no. 16–19 (2003): 1507–1552. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287390306424.Google Scholar
Krewski, D.. “Validation of the Harvard Six Cities Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” New England Journal of Medicine 350 (January 8, 2004): 198–199. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200401083500225.Google Scholar
Smith, L.. “The EPA’s Game of Secret Science.” Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2013. www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323829104578624562008231682.Google Scholar
Logomasini, A., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “Pruitt’s Rule Ending Secret Science Is Pro-Science, Pro-Consumer.” The Hill, April 4, 2018. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/385411-pruitts-rule-ending-secret-science-is-pro-science-pro-consumer.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute, Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan. Inside Climate News (1998).Google Scholar
Muffett, C. and Feit, S.. Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis. Center for International Environmental Law (Washington, DC: November 2017). www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes.Google Scholar
Franta, B.. “Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming.” Nature Climate Change 8 (2018): 1024–1025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0349-9.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2017).Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal for America. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (2016).Google Scholar
Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R. and Davidson, D. J.. “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt.” Sociological Inquiry 78, no. 1 (February 2008): 2–38.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and McCright, A. M.. “Organized Climate Change Denial.” The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B. and Schlosberg, D.. 144–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010.Google Scholar
Turner, J. M. and Isenberg, A. C.. The Republican Reversal: Conservatives and the Environment from Nixon to Trump. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Dineen, K. P.. “Reading the Tea Leaves: The Tea Party Movement, the Conservative Establishment and the Collapse of Climate Change Legislation.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Masters Dissertation (June 2011). https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66804/757149232-MIT.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O.. “The Disruptive Politics of Climate Disruption.” Nova Law Review 38, no. 3 (2014): 394–472. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.ecosia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1002&context=nlr.Google Scholar
Heritage Foundation. “Trump Administration Embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations.” January 23, 2018. www.heritage.org/impact/trump-administration-embraces-heritage-foundation-policy-recommendations.Google Scholar
Bharara, P. et al. Proposals for Reform. National Task Force on Rule of Law & Democracy, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Trump, D. J.. Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. E.O. 13783, 82 Federal Register 16093–16097. Washington, DC, March 28, 2017. www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth.Google Scholar
Sussman, B.. “Back to Basics or Slash and Burn? Scott Pruitt’s Reign As EPA Administrator.” Environmental Law Institute 47, no. 109 (2017): 7–26. www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/47.10917.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, D.. “Donald Trump Is Handing the Federal Government over to Fossil Fuel Interests.” Vox, June 14, 2017. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/13/15681498/trump-government-fossil-fuels.Google Scholar
Kravitz, D., Shaw, A. and Arnsdorf, I.. “What We Found in Trump’s Drained Swamp: Hundreds of Ex-lobbyists and DC Insiders.” ProPublica, March 7, 2018. www.propublica.org/article/what-we-found-in-trump-administration-drained-swamp-hundreds-of-ex-lobbyists-and-washington-dc-insiders.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, L. et al. “History of US Presidential Assaults on Modern Environmental Health Protection.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S95–S103.Google Scholar
Dillon, L. et al. “The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture.” American Journal of Public Health 108, no. S2 (2018): S89–S94. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304360.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, S. et al. Comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Weakening of Rules Governing Methane Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Facilities. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 17, 2018.Google Scholar
Whitman, C. T.. Statement of the Honorable Christine Todd Whitman to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Mccarthy, G.. Written Testimony to House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Submitted to US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. June 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 52056–52107 www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/15/2018-20961/oil-and-natural-gas-sector-emission-standards-for-new-reconstructed-and-modified-sources.Google Scholar
Carter, J. et al. Science Under Siege at the Department of the Interior. Union of Concerned Scientists (December 2018). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/12/science-under-siege-at-department-of-interior-full-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Carter, J. et al. The State of Science in the Trump Era. Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Union of Concerned Scientists (January 2019). www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/01/ucs-trump-2 yrs-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Request for an Inquiry under the Scientific Integrity Policy into Final Rule Regarding the Definition of Water of the US. Submitted to Acting Inspector General C. J. Sheehan, Office of Inspector General. January 18, 2020.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Strengthening and Improving Membership on EPA Federal Advisory Committees. Report by E. S. Pruitt (Washington, DC: 2017). www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/final_draft_fac_directive-10.31.2017.pdf.Google Scholar
Physicians for Social Responsibility v. Wheeler, 956 F.3d 634, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Government Accountability Office. EPA Advisory Committees – Improvements Needed for the Member Appointment Process. Report by J. Alfredo Gómez. GAO-19-280 (July 2019). www.gao.gov/assets/710/700171.pdf.Google Scholar
Hornblower, M.. “Businessmen Launch Drive to Soften Clean Air Rules.” Washington Post, January 9, 1979.Google Scholar
Hornblower, M.. “Major Industries Map New Attack on Clean Air Act.” Washington Post, January 15, 1979.Google Scholar
Stern, A. C.. “History of Air Pollution Legislation in the United States.” Journal of Air Pollution Control Association 32, no. 1 (January 1982): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1982.10465369.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Regulatory Reform Task Force’s Evaluation of Existing Regulations EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 (82 FR 17793). Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. J., senior director Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, American Petroleum Institute. Appendices to API Comments on Specific Regulations. Submitted to S. K. Dravis, regulatory reform officer and associate administrator for Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy. May 15, 2017.Google Scholar
“Former CASAC Chair Says Panel Dismissals Will Weaken NAAQS’ Legality.” Clean Air Report (October 18, 2018).Google Scholar
Murray Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 936 F.3d 597 (D.C. Cir. 2019).Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. Statements on EPA’S Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Submitted to Subcommittee on Energy and Power and Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Do Causal Concentration–Response Functions Exist? A Critical Review of Associational and Causal Relations between Fine Particulate Matter and Mortality.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 47, no. 7 (2017): 609–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2017.1311838.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. EPA’s Proposed Ozone Rule: Potential Impacts on Manufacturing. Subcommittee on Energy and Power; Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade; Committee on Energy and Commerce. 114th Cong. 1st Sess. June 16, 2015.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr., and Popken, D. A.. “Has Reducing Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone Caused Reduced Mortality Rates in the United States?” Annals of Epidemiology 25, no. 3 (2015): 162–173. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25571792.Google Scholar
Frey, H. C. et al. CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. and the Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Goldman, G. and Dominici, F.. “Don’t Abandon Evidence and Process on Air Pollution Policy.” Science 363, no. 6434 (March 29, 2019): 1398–1400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9460.Google Scholar
Vanderberg, J.. John Vanderberg Response to Dr. Louis Anthony Cox, Jr. Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr. February 20, 2019.Google Scholar
Waldman, S.. “Science Adviser Allowed Oil Group to Edit Research.” E&E News, December 10, 2018. www.eenews.net/stories/1060109129.Google Scholar
Plautz, J.. “Trump’s Air Pollution Adviser: No Proof Cleaning Up Smog Saves Lives.” Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, October 24, 2018. www.revealnews.org/article/trumps-air-pollution-adviser-clean-air-saves-no-lives.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H., Futrell, P. J. and Futrell, G. E.. Public Comment on the CASAC Review of EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. December 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Network. Written Comments of John Bachmann on Behalf of the Environmental Protection Network. Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency Acting Administrator A. Wheeler and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. December 9, 2018.Google Scholar
Boylan, D. J. et al. Preliminary Draft Comments from Members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). December 10, 2018.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr., Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee chair. CASAC Review of the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft – October 2018). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. April 11, 2019.Google Scholar
Reilly, S.. “Documents Expose Ties among EPA’s Panel Experts.” E&E News, February 7, 2020. www.eenews.net/stories/1062289617.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H.. Context and Charge Questions for October 10–11, 2019 Meeting to Review the EPA Draft Policy Assessment for Particulate Matter. Submitted to Members of the Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. September 20, 2019.Google Scholar
Hogue, C.. “US EPA’s Science Advisers Split on Tightening Air Pollution Limit.” Chemical and Engineering News 97, no. 44 (November 10, 2019): 20–21. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09744-feature2.Google Scholar
Independent Particulate Matter Review Panel. Letter on EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (External Review Draft–September 2019). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. October 22, 2019.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-452/R-20-002. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/final_policy_assessment_for_the_review_of_the_pm_naaqs_01-2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Final Action. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 50. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 82684–82748 (December 18, 2020) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27125/review-of-the-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-for-particulate-matter.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Re: ‘Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.’” American Journal of Epidemiology 187, no. 6 (March 23, 2018): 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwy034.Google Scholar
Cox, L. A., Jr. “Modernizing the Bradford Hill Criteria for Assessing Causal Relationships in Observational Data.” Critical Reviews in Toxicology 48, no. 8 (January 13, 2018): 682–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2018.1518404.Google Scholar
Fedak, K. M. et al. “Applying the Bradford Hill Criteria in the 21st Century: How Data Integration Has Changed Causal Inference in Molecular Epidemiology.” Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 12, no. 1 (2015): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4.Google Scholar
Dominici, F. and Zigler, C.. “Best Practices for Gauging Evidence of Causality in Air Pollution Epidemiology.” American Journal of Epidemiology 186, no. 12 (2017): 1303–1309. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29020141.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, D. S. and Shaikh, R.. “Air Quality and Human Health: The Role of Health Science in Setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Magazine for Environmental Managers, December 2018. http://pubs.awma.org/flip/EM-Dec-2018/greenbaum.pdf.Google Scholar
Saiyid, A. H.. “EPA Advisers Can’t Agree on Revising Ozone Limits.” Bloomberg Law, December 6, 2019. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-advisers-cant-agree-on-what-to-do-about-ozone-limits.Google Scholar
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Consensus Responses to Charge Questions on the EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft – October 2019). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: February 19, 2020. https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/4713D217BC07103485258515006359BA/$File/EPA-CASAC-20-003.pdf.Google Scholar
Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on CASAC Advice on the EPA’s Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (External Review Draft). Submitted to Dr. L. A. Cox, Jr., Chair of Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. November 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Members of the Former Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ozone Review Panel (2009–14). Letter on EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants and EPA’s Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. December 2, 2019.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Policy Assessment for the Review of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division Research. Research Triangle Park, NC: May 2020. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-05/documents/o3-final_pa-05-29-20compressed.pdf.Google Scholar
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Proposed Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulation 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 79 Federal Regulations 34829–34958 (June 18, 2014). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf.Google Scholar
American Petroleum Institute et al. Comments on the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Electric Utility Generation Units, Proposed Rule (published in the Federal Register 79: 34,830 (June 18, 2014)). Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to Emission Guideline Implementing Regulations; Revisions to New Source Review Program. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division. Washington, DC: August 2018. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf.Google Scholar
Krupnick, A. and Keyes, A.. “Hazy Treatment of Health Benefits: The Case of the Clean Power Plan.” Resources for the Future, October 13, 2017. www.resourcesmag.org/common-resources/hazy-treatment-of-health-benefits-the-case-of-the-clean-power-plan.Google Scholar
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial Institutional, and Small Industrial Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 60 and 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 77 Federal Register 32 (February 16, 2012). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf.Google Scholar
Todd, M., chair of the Residual Risk Coalition. Comments on “The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review: Proposed Rule.” Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2018–0794. April 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Proposed Rule: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Reconsideration of Supplemental Finding and Residual Risk and Technology Review. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 60. Environmental Protection Agency. 84 Federal Register 2670–2704 (February 7, 2019). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-07/pdf/2019-00936.pdf.Google Scholar
External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee. Report on the Proposed Changes to the Federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2019). www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/E-EEAC%20Report%20120320191330.pdf.Google Scholar
Regulation of HAP Emissions from Coal- and Oil-fired Electrical General Units Is Not “Appropriate and Necessary”: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 31286–31320 (May 22, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/22/2020-08607/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-coal–and-oil-fired-electric-utility-steam.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “The EPA Is about to Change a Rule Cutting Mercury Pollution. The Industry Doesn’t Want It.” Washington Post, February 17, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/the-epa-is-about-to-change-a-rule-cutting-mercury-pollution-the-industry-doesnt-want-it/2020/02/16/8ebac4e2-4470-11ea-b503-2b077c436617_story.html.Google Scholar
Beitsch, R.. “EPA’s Independent Science Board Says Agency Ignored Its Advice on Mercury Rule.” The Hill, December 31, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (December 2011). www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., Logomasini, A. and Yeatman, W.. “First Steps for the Trump Administration: Champion Affordable Energy.” Competitive Enterprise Institute (December 15, 2016). https://cei.org/sites/default/files/First%20Steps%20for%20the%20Trump%20Administration%20-%20Chamption%20Affordable%20Energy.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impact Division, and Air Benefit-Cost Group. Summary of Expert Opinions on the Existence of a Threshold in the Concentration-Response Function for PM2.5-related Mortality. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: 2010. www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/Benefits/thresholdstsd.pdf.Google Scholar
Shi, L. et al. “Low-Concentration PM2.5 and Mortality: Estimating Acute and Chronic Effects in a Population-Based Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 124, no. 1 (2015): 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409111.Google Scholar
Makar, M. et al. “Estimating the Causal Effect of Fine Particulate Matter Levels on Death and Hospitalization: Are Levels below the Safety Standards Harmful?” Epidemiology 28, no. 5 (2017): 627–634.Google Scholar
Awad, Y. A. et al. “Change in PM2. 5 Exposure and Mortality among Medicare Recipients: Combining a Semi-randomized Approach and Inverse Probability Weights in a Low Exposure Population.” Environmental Epidemiology 3, no. 4 (2019). doi:10.1097/EE9.0000000000000054.Google Scholar
Cong Liu, M. S. et al. “Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities.” New England Journal of Medicine 381 (August 22, 2019): 705–715. www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1817364?query=featured_home#article_comments.Google Scholar
Castle, K. M. and Revesz, R. L.. “Environmental Standards, Thresholds, and the Next Battleground of Climate Change Regulations.” Minnesota Law Review 103 (2019): 1349–1437. www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/4Revesz_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines. Environmental Protection Agency EPA420-R-04-007. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K5U2.PDF?Dockey=P100K5U2.PDF.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Defense Council. Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science.” Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Bennett, K., Science policy director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Comments on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0001. August 15, 2018.Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 18768–18774 (April 30, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/30/2018-09078/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar
Clarifications, Modifications and Additions to Certain Provisions in the Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Proposed. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 85 Federal Register 15396–15406 (March 18, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/18/2020-05012/strengthening-transparency-in-regulatory-science.Google Scholar
Wheeler, A. R., administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Testimony. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. 2019.Google Scholar
Lavelle, M.. “Pruitt’s Own Scientist Appointees Challenge EPA Science Restrictions.” Inside Climate News, May 17, 2018. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17052018/scott-pruitt-epa-secret-science-health-fossil-fuel-industry.Google Scholar
Green, M. and Beitsch, R.. “EPA Delays Advisers’ Review of ‘Secret Science’ Rules.” The Hill, November 18, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/470968-epa-delays-advisors-review-of-secret-science-rules.Google Scholar
Frey, C. H., former member of the Science Advisory Board, Futrell, G. E. and Futrell, P. J., EPA Has a Statutory Responsibility to Use Properly Developed and Reviewed Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar
United States Code, Title 42, Section 4365.Google Scholar
McNutt, M., president of the National Academy of Sciences, et al. Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259). Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. July 16, 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Draft Report: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA’s Proposed Rule Titled Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-xxx. October 16, 2019.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J.. “EPA’s Scientific Advisors Warn Its Regulatory Rollbacks Clash with Established Science.” Washington Post, January 1, 2020. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J.. “All Science Should Inform Policy and Regulation.” PLoS Medicine 15, no. 5 (2018). https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/citation?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002576.Google Scholar
Nosek, B., co-founder and executive director, Center for Open Science. Testimony at Hearing on Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking, 116th Congress. Submitted to House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Teytelman, L., Gunn, W., and Kamens, J.. “The EPA’s Proposed ‘Transparency Rule’ Will Harm Health, Safety, and the Environment.” Stat News, December 9, 2019. www.statnews.com/2019/12/09/epa-transparency-rule-bad-for-science-health-safety-environment.Google Scholar
Thomas, W.. “Science Committee Renews Scrutiny of EPA Science Transparency Rule.” FYI Bulletin, November 20, 2019. www.aip.org/fyi/2019/science-committee-renews-scrutiny-epa-science-transparency-rule.Google Scholar
Hiar, C.. “In Battle over Pesticide Ban, Trump’s EPA Aims to Undermine the Science.” E&E News, August 23, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/battle-over-pesticide-ban-trump-s-epa-aims-undermine-science.Google Scholar
“Researchers Must Unite against US Environment Agency’s Attack on Scientific Evidence.” Nature 575, no. 415 (2019). www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03526-z.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2019. doi:10.17226/25303.Google Scholar
Jacobs, W. B., Emmett clinical professor of Environmental Law and clinic director. Comments on Proposed Rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Consultation on Mechanisms for Secure Access to Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Confidential Business Information (CBI) Under the Proposed Rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-19-005. September 30, 2019.Google Scholar
Allison, D. B. and Fineberg, H. V.. “EPA’s Proposed Transparency Rule: Factors to Consider, many; Planets to Live On, One.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, no. 10 (March 10, 2020): 5084–5087. www.pnas.org/content/117/10/5084.Google Scholar
Sweeney, L.. “Only You, Your Doctor, and Many Others May Know.” Technology Science no. 2015092903 (2015). https://techscience.org/a/2015092903.Google Scholar
Sweeney, L. et al. “Re-identification Risks in HIPAA Safe Harbor Data: A Study of Data from One Environmental Health Study.” Technology Science no. 2017082801 (2017). https://techscience.org/a/2017082801.Google Scholar
Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J. M. and de Montjoye, Y.-A.. “Estimating the Success of Re-identifications in Incomplete Datasets Using Generative Models.” Nature Communications 10, no. 1 (July 23, 2019): 1–9. www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10933-3#citeas.Google Scholar
National Research Council. Improving Access to and Confidentiality of Research Data: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9958.Google Scholar
Gostin, L. O., Levit, L. A., Nass, S. J.. Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health through Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/.Google Scholar
Sherer, T.. Testimony on Behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. Submitted to E. B. Johnson, chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and F. Lucas, ranking member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J.. “The EPA’s ‘Censored Science’ Rule Isn’t Just Bad Policy, It’s Also Illegal.” Union of Concerned Scientists Blog, November 22, 2019. https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentary/the-epas-censored-science-rule-isnt-just-bad-policy-its-also-illegal.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. B., chair of House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Opening Statement: Strengthening Transparency or Silencing Science? The Future of Science in EPA Rulemaking. Submitted to House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. November 13, 2019.Google Scholar
Michaels, D.. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.Google Scholar
Christopher, C. H., Bracewell & Patterson, LLP. Background and Proposed Program to Address Federal Agency Science. Submitted to T. Hyde and R. Johnson, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company. December 23, 1996.Google Scholar
Lerner, S.. “Republicans Are Using Big Tobacco’s Secret Science Playbook to Gut Health Rules.” The Intercept, February 5, 2017. https://theintercept.com/2017/02/05/republicans-want-to-make-the-epa-great-again-by-gutting-health-regulations/.Google Scholar
Kothari, Y.. “Internal EPA Emails Confirm That Scott Pruitt’s Secret Science Proposal Is Entirely Driven by Politics.” Union of Concerned Scientists, April 19, 2018. https://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/internal-epa-emails-confirm-that-scott-pruitts-secret-science-proposal-is-entirely-driven-by-politics?_ga=2.73012819.1119798374.1584912229-994550056.1584912229.Google Scholar
National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy. Proposals for Reform. Report by P. Bharara et al. (2019). www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/2019_10_TaskForce%20II_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Parkes, D.. “Basic Science, Agricultural Research, NASA Would Finish Strong in FY 2019 Omnibus.” American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 14, 2019. www.aaas.org/news/basic-science-agricultural-research-nasa-would-finish-strong-fy-2019-omnibus.Google Scholar
Frelinghuysen, R., chair, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Calvert, K., chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations. Opening Statement at the Hearing on the FY 2018 Budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. Submitted to House Committee on Appropriations. June 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 15, 2017. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation.Google Scholar
Collins, S.. “Senator Collins to Oppose EPA Administrator Nominee’s Confirmation.” News release, February 27, 2019. www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-oppose-epa-administrator-nominee%E2%80%99s-confirmation-0.Google Scholar
Green, M.. “Senate Confirms Wheeler to Lead EPA.” The Hill, February 28, 2019. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/432033-senate-confirms-wheeler-to-lead-epa.Google Scholar
Cama, T.. “Two GOP Senators Oppose Trump’s EPA Chemical Safety Nominee.” The Hill, November 15, 2017. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360615-2-gop-senators-oppose-trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee.Google Scholar
Lydersen, K.. “EPA Toxics Nominee Provided Koch-Funded Study in Chicago Petcoke Battle.” Energy News Network, September 7, 2017. https://energynews.us/2017/09/07/midwest/epa-toxics-nominee-provided-koch-funded-study-in-chicago-petcoke-battle/.Google Scholar
Editorial Board. “Mr. Trump’s Conflicted Regulators.” New York Times, October 18, 2017.Google Scholar
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Division of Community Health Investigations. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Frequently Asked Questions. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/docs/pfas_fact_sheet.pdf.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Z. R. et al. “Recently Detected Drinking Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Per‐and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids.” American Water Works Association 110, no. 7 (2018). https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/awwa.1073.Google Scholar
Lee, T. S., London, I. and Kindschuh, J.. “PFAS in the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry.” Lexology, August 2, 2019. www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ca7bf9a5-b0f7-4089-a993-6ca387c47f3f.Google Scholar
Wittenberg, A.. “After Controversy, US Releases Report Showing Elevated Health Risks from Nonstick Chemicals.” E&E News, June 20, 2018. www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/after-controversy-us-releases-report-showing-elevated-health-risks-nonstick-chemicals.Google Scholar
Patterson, B.. “Previously Blocked Federal Study Raises Alarm about Chemicals Like C8.” Ohio Valley Resource, June 20, 2018. https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2018/06/20/previously-blocked-federal-study-raises-alarm-pfas-chemicals/.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls – Draft for Public Comment (2018). www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/20/document_gw_08.pdf.Google Scholar
House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. Letter of Concern Regarding Rollback Measures. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
House of Representatives. Letter of Concern Regarding NAAQS and CAA. Submitted to A. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
Mervis, J. and Cornwall, W.. “Lamar Smith, the Departing Head of the House Science Panel, Will Leave a Controversial and Complicated Legacy.” Science, November 5, 2017. www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/lamar-smith-departing-head-house-science-panel-will-leave-controversial-and-complicated.Google Scholar
Leiter, A. C.. Reversing Course: Administrative Law in a Time of Change. American University Washington College of Law (2018). www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/environment_energy_resources/2018/fall/course_materials/8_Leiter.pdf.Google Scholar
US Congress. Letter of Concern on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science Rule. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A Letter to Administrator Pruitt, EPA. Submitted to S. Pruitt. 2018.Google Scholar
Mervis, J.. “Scientific Integrity Bill Advances in US House with Bipartisan Support.” Science, October 17, 2019. www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/scientific-integrity-bill-advances-us-house-bipartisan-support.Google Scholar
Showstack, R.. “Scientific Integrity Act Passes House Committee.” Eos, October 18, 2019. https://eos.org/articles/scientific-integrity-act-passes-house-committee.Google Scholar
US Congress. Senate. Scientific Integrity Act. S. 775, 116th Congress, 1st Sess. Introduced in Senate March 12, 2019.Google Scholar
Krauss, L. M.. “Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign.” New Yorker, August 21, 2016. www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-anti-science-campaign.Google Scholar
Acrivos, A. et al. An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress on Science and the Public Interest. Submitted to President D. J. Trump, 115th Congress. November 30, 2016.Google Scholar
Goldman, G. et al. “Ensuring Scientific Integrity in the Age of Trump.” Science 355, no. 6326 (2017): 696–698. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6326/696.Google Scholar
Berg, J., Campbell, P., Kiermer, V., Raikhel, N. and Sweet, D.. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 360, no. 6388 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0116.Google Scholar
Thorp, H. H. et al. “Joint Statement on EPA Proposed Rule and Public Availability of Data.” Science 366, no. 6470 (2019): 2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3197.Google Scholar
Academy of Integrative Health & Medicine et al. “Public Health, Medical, Academic, and Scientific Groups Oppose EPA Transparency Rule.” News release, https://mcmprodaaas.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/EPA%20Transparency%20Rule%20FINAL.pdf?oNbdIjRo8Ick2LxdMeWaqWuYu4NM3unc.Google Scholar
Kirch, D. G., president and CEO, AAMC, et al. Re: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-0025, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to Andrew R. Wheeler, acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. July 11, 2018.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N.. “Beware: Transparency Rule Is a Trojan Horse.” Nature, May 22, 2018. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05207-9.Google Scholar
Powell, A.. “Letter Opposes Possible EPA Shift.” Harvard Gazette, August 10, 2018. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/08/harvard-officials-hospital-leaders-call-on-epa-to-withdraw-transparency-rule-which-they-say-would-bar-use-of-best-science-data.Google Scholar
Cullen, A., chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Science. Preparations for Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB) Discussions of Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science RIN (2080-AA14). Submitted to Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons. 2018.Google Scholar
Science Advisory Board. SAB Review of the Science Supporting EPA Planned Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. 2019.Google Scholar
Bachmann, J., former associate director for Science/Policy in EPA’s Air Office. Statement of John Bachmann for the Public Meeting of the EPA Chartered Science Advisory Board (SAB), Re: June 5–6 SAB Discussions about EPA Planned Actions and Their Supporting Science. Submitted to Science Advisory Board. June 5, 2019.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of EPA Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. Submitted to E. S. Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-18-003. June 28, 2018.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Commentary on the Proposed Rule Defining the Scope of Waters Federally Regulated Under the Clean Water Act Submitted to A. R. Wheeler. EPA-SAB-20-002. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, M., Science Advisory Board chair. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of the EPA’s Proposed Rule titled The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SAB-20-003. February 27, 2020.Google Scholar
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Policy Assessment for the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, External Review Draft. Environmental Protection Agency EPA-452/P-19-001. Research Triangle Park, NC: 2019. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/draft_policy_assessment_for_pm_naaqs_09-05-2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Davenport, C.. “Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Find Opposition Within: Staff Scientists.” New York Times, March 27, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/climate/trumps-environmental-rollbacks-staff-scientists.html.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J., Dawsey, J. and Dennis, B.. “White House Blocked Intelligence Agency’s Written Testimony Calling Climate Change ‘Possibly Catastrophic.’” Washington Post, June 8, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/06/08/white-house-blocked-intelligence-aides-written-testimony-saying-human-caused-climate-change-could-be-possibly-catastrophic.Google Scholar
Friedman, L.. “White House Tried to Stop Climate Science Testimony, Documents Show.” New York Times, June 8, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/climate/rod-schoonover-testimony.html.Google Scholar
Schoonover, R.. “The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security.” New York Times, July 30, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/opinion/trump-climate-change.html.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Subcommittee on Research and Technology (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology); Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (Committee on Science, Space, and Technology) 2019.Google Scholar
US House of Representatives. When Science Gets Trumped: Scientific Integrity at the Department of the Interior. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Committee on Natural Resources. July 25, 2019.Google Scholar
Carper, T. R. et al. Letter to Trump re, Request for Documents Pertaining to Kevin Chmielewski’s Whistleblower Complaint. Submitted to President D. J. Trump. April 12, 2018.Google Scholar
Eilperin, J. and Dennis, B.. “EPA Watchdog Closes Two Probes into Scott Pruitt’s Conduct, Citing His Resignation.” Washington Post, November 30, 2018. www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/29/epa-watchdog-closes-two-probes-into-scott-pruitts-conduct-citing-his-resignation.Google Scholar
Halpern, M., deputy director of Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists. Testimony at the Hearing on Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies. Submitted to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and Joint Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Research and Technology. July 17, 2019.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A.. “The EPA’s Science Restrictions Go from Bad to Worse.” Scientific American, November 13, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-epas-science-restrictions-go-from-bad-to-worse/.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists. Comments in Disagreement with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft Replacement for the Clean Power Plan, the Proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule. Submitted to A. R. Wheeler, acting administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355. October 31, 2018.Google Scholar
Union of Concerned Scientists et al. Comments on Quantifying and Monetizing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Environmental Impact Statement for Model Year 2022–2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Submitted to C. J. Tamm, Fuel Economy Division at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Docket: NHTSA-2017-0069. September 25, 2017.Google Scholar
Goldman, G.. “Here’s One More Political Assault on Public Health.” Scientific American, June 17, 2019. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/heres-one-more-political-assault-on-public-health.Google Scholar
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Proposed Rules. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 85 and 86; 49 Code of Federal Regulations 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Environmental Protection Agency. 83 Federal Register 42986–43500 (August 24, 2018). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/24/2018-16820/the-safer-affordable-fuel-efficient-safe-vehicles-rule-for-model-years-2021-2026-passenger-cars-and.Google Scholar
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021–2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks: Final Rule. 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 523, 531, 533, 536 and 537. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 85 Federal Register 84: 24174–25278 (April 30, 2020). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf.Google Scholar
Bento, A. M. et al. “Flawed Analyses of US Auto Fuel Economy Standards.” Science 362, no. 6419 (December 7, 2018): 1119–1121. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1458.Google Scholar
Knickmeyer, E.. “EPA Challenged Safety of Administration Mileage Freeze.” Associated Press, August 14, 2018. https://apnews.com/1a7551fca3294ec49029b93e994cd7f9.Google Scholar
Joselow, M.. “Researchers Decry ‘Misrepresented’ Findings in Fuel-Efficiency Rollback Plan.” E&E News, December 7, 2018. www.scientificamerican.com/article/researchers-decry-misrepresented-findings-in-fuel-efficiency-rollback-plan.Google Scholar
Tabuchi, H.. “The Oil Industry’s Covert Campaign to Rewrite American Car Emissions Rules.” New York Times, December 13, 2018. www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html?auth=login-google.Google Scholar
Tabuchi, H.. “Climate Change Denialists Dubbed Auto Makers the ‘Opposition’ in Fight over Trump’s Emissions Rollback.” New York Times, July 2, 2019. www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/climate/climate-deniers-auto-emissions-rollback.html.Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information: Final Rule. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–473 (January 6, 2021). www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-06/pdf/2020-29179.pdf.Google Scholar
Supplemental Finding That It Is Appropriate and Necessary to Regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 63. Environmental Protection Agency. 81 Federal Register 79 (April 25, 2016).Google Scholar
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 US 497 (Supreme Court 2007).Google Scholar
Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 US 743 (Supreme Court 2015).Google Scholar
Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information. 40 Code of Federal Regulations 30. Environmental Protection Agency. 86 Federal Register 469–493 (January 6, 2020). www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-29179/strengthening-transparency-in-pivotal-science-underlying-significant-regulatory-actions-and.Google Scholar
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 515 F. Supp. 3d 1135 (D. Mont. 2021).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Science
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Science
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Science
  • Shanti Gamper-Rabindran, University of Pittsburgh
  • Book: America's Energy Gamble
  • Online publication: 06 January 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009039567.008
Available formats
×