EPA Science Plan Skirted Usual Process, Raising Finalization, Legal Doubts

摘要

The Trump EPA's controversial plan requiring use of publicly available research to justify rules appears to have been developed by political appointees without following the agency's usual action development process (ADP) for crafting important rules, leaving career staff and program offices out of the loop but raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them. Sources tell Inside EPA that the science transparency rule is categorized as a "tier 3" measure, the lowest of three tiers in EPA's ADP, and therefore received the least scrutiny in the intra-agency review process before rules or actions are made public. But the sources say that the measure appears to have all the hallmarks of a tier 1 rule that requires significant intra-agency review from career staff and others, usually in a special work group. But without their involvement, it is uncertain how the agency will be able to review and respond to the thousands of comments the agency is likely to receive on the draft rule. The tier 3 status "means it gets the lowest amount of attention in terms of review and management attention. Tier I and 2 have to go through a formal workgroup process," one agency source says. "You can slip a tier 3 out without getting the sign off of all the offices." A second source says that one of the reasons the rule needs a regular staff work group is that each action's work group is charged with reviewing and determining how to address issues raised in public comments.