The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday finalized one of its most controversial rules, limiting the types of studies the agency can weigh when crafting its policies.

The rule has been one of the top concerns for public health advocates and environmentalists who say it will restrict EPA’s ability to consider landmark public health research and other studies that do not make their underlying data public.

Dubbed by former EPA Administrator Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittWhite House appears to conclude review of EPA ‘secret science’ rule Reversing rollbacks in the post Trump-era is not enough OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA proposes reapproving uses of pesticide linked to brain damage in children | Hispanic caucus unhappy with transition team treatment of Lujan Grisham | Schwarzenegger backs Nichols to lead EPA MORE as a way to battle “secret science,” the agency has billed the rule as a transparency measure.

ADVERTISEMENT

But critics say it’s unnecessary for the agency to review spreadsheets full of sensitive personal health data or proprietary business information rather than evaluating the scientific underpinnings of the research itself.

“Too often Congress shirks its responsibility and defers important decisions to regulatory agencies. These regulators then invoke science to justify their actions, often without letting the public study the underlying data. Part of transparency is making sure the public knows what the agency bases its decisions on,” EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerWhite House appears to conclude review of EPA ‘secret science’ rule OVERNIGHT ENERGY: EPA declines to tighten air quality standard for smog | Green groups sue over Trump bid to open Alaska’s Tongass forest to logging EPA declines to tighten air quality standard for smog MORE wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal late Monday before the rule was unveiled.

The first version of the 2018 rule sparked major pushback — the 600,000 comments it elicited made it one of EPA’s most-commented on regulations ever. Its merits were even questioned by the agency’s independent science board, who said the agency had not resolved how to protect sensitive data.

Tuesday’s rule is the third iteration, a slightly narrower take than earlier versions by focusing only on dose-response studies that show how increasing levels of exposure to pollution, chemicals and other substances impact human health and the environment rather than all studies. It would allow the administrator to make an exception for any study they deem important.

But rather than apply to just the agency’s rulemakings to all influential scientific information, a broad term that could exclude public health research as the agency issues guidance or takes other actions. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Critics argue the rule takes a page from the book of the tobacco industry, which sought to undermine science linking its products to cancer.

In the case of its latest rule, the EPA could block consideration of Harvard’s 1993 six cities study, which linked air pollution to premature death. It’s conclusions have formed the basis for many of EPA’s air pollution rules.

“Over my career, I’ve reviewed hundreds of studies and papers. You don’t review the raw data, you review the basic methods and statistics and results and see if the results support any conclusions that were drawn,” Andrew Rosenberg, director at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists previously told The Hill. 

“They are basically going to say the studies where the data is publicly available are better than studies where the data isn’t publicly available, irrespective of how good and important the science and the evidence is.”

Wheeler is set to formally unveil the rule, dubbed the Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information rule, at an event with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank. It’s the second recent rule unveiling Wheeler has held at a conservative think tank, rolling out a December rule limiting how incoming administrations evaluate their air regulations at the Heritage Foundation.