The following statement was just made in the Scientific American:
Nor does the preamble to the rule describe precisely how the proposal builds on previous efforts to promote transparency such as the Information Quality Act and EPA’s Information Quality Guidelines.
Compare the above with this earlier statement by CRE:
CRE is not supportive of the EPA science initiative at this time because it creates a new regulatory regime without first exploiting to the fullest the existing regulatory regime which consists of the Data Access Act and the Data Quality Act.
CRE has paid its dues on this topic in that initiated action on the topics of data access and data quality some two decades ago. Consequently it is understandable that the CRE position will be read by many whether or not the readers agree with it.
Fortunately CRE is not regulated by federal regulators and as a nationally acclaimed regulatory watchdog is free to express its opinions. Although CRE always speaks in its own name and never in the name of its sponsors we are appreciative of the continued encouragement we receive from our sponsors to, on occasion, take positions which sometime might not be acceptable to all.
N. B. The University of California concludes:
The EPA’s proposal to demand that underlying data and models be publicly accessible as a condition of its regulatory decision-making can already be satisfied under the current version of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In 1999, a rider, often called the Shelby Amendment or Data Access Act, mandated that Circular A-110 be amended to ensure that all published data from federally sponsored research used for policy and rulemaking be made available through procedures established under the FOIA. This process accomplishes EPA’s goal of allowing the public to verify the soundness of science underlying policy decisions. A Congressional bill similar in intent to the EPA’s proposed rule – the HONEST Act – was offered and defeated last year because of serious concerns raised by members of Congress about the negative impact the bill would have by significantly reducing the amount of scientific evidence that EPA can consider when adopting regulatory standards to protect public health and the environment.