Government Executive Get the latest on need-to-know topics for federal employees delivered to your inbox.
email
The EPA rule faced criticism for placing restrictions on the scientific research career employees can use.
Senior Correspondent
The Biden administration can now quickly do away with a controversial rule that limited the research some federal employees can use when conducting their work, after a federal judge ruled Trump officials improperly rushed it through.
The controversial Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule, colloquially referred to as the “secret science” rule by its supporters, was finalized by the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency just two weeks before it left office. A federal judge in Montana issued a summary judgment on Wednesday evening finding the administration did not sufficiently justify why the rule merited a rushed implementation timeline. First proposed in 2018, the rule was met with signi
But, according to
The Washington Post, many researchers and academic organizations say that the criteria will actually restrict the EPA from using some of the most consequential research on human subjects because it often includes confidential medical records and other proprietary data that cannot be released because of privacy concerns. Says Chris Zarba, former director of the EPA s Science Advisory Board, in the same
Post article: It sounds good on the surface. But this is a bold attempt to get science out of the way so special interests can do what they want.
Another change pushed through by Trump at the last minute is a significant reduction in environmental and safety requirements for Arctic oil exploration. Native tribes there are especially incensed by this move, and have taken to social media in droves to win support against it. Given the sheer volume of public opposition, it will likely take many weeks before any auctions for these drilling rights leases could be
Share
With the outcome of last week’s Georgia Senate runoff elections producing a 50-50 Senate ratio and giving Senate Democrats majority status, there is renewed interest in the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). Under the CRA, a new Congress can act within its first 75 days of legislative session to reverse “major rules” promulgated by federal agencies during the last 60 legislative days of the previous Congress.
In 2017, Congress used the CRA to pass “resolutions of disapproval” and nullify 16 different federal regulations promulgated in the last months of the Obama Administration. Under the statute, CRA resolutions are considered under expedited procedures and not subject to Senate filibuster rules. This means a simple majority – including all 50 Democratic (and left-leaning independent) senators plus incoming Vice President Kamala Harris breaking a tie if necessary – could pass such a resolution of disapproval in the new Senate.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The rhetoric of enforcement under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-75, plays well in public. The government seeks “cleanup” and makes “the polluter pay.”
Cf. S. Rep. No. 96-848 at 13 (1980);
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, 140 S. Ct. 1335, 1345 (2020). Contrast that with mitigating climate change where, in the words of the Pogo Earth Day poster, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” Four years ago, then-new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt described the Superfund program as the “cornerstone” of EPA’s “core mission” of protecting the environment and human health. Memorandum on Prioritizing the Superfund Program (May 22, 2017). (To be sure, as things turned out, emphasizing Superfund may not really have been what the last administration was about.