Trump will roll back more environmental regulations if reelected, says EPA chief

President Donald Trump will move to weaken more environmental regulations on industries if reelected in November, while work to complete Superfund cleanup projects, according to Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler. The Trump administration in a second term would establish a cost-benefit analysis of any new regulation and expand the use of “science transparency” in order to justify the science behind implementing new regulations, Wheeler said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. The EPA also plans to continue working on cleanup efforts at Superfund sites that have gotten delayed.“We need to make sure we are speaking to people where they live and we’re addressing the problems they see on a daily basis,” Wheeler told the Journal. After three years in office, the Trump administration has moved to reverse more than 100 major climate and environmental rules that it has deemed burdensome to the fossil fuel industry, even as climate change accelerates and global greenhouse gas emissions rise. Analysts say many of the administration’s rollbacks could increase emissions and lead to thousands of additional deaths from bad air quality.  Among many rollbacks to rules that protect air, water and land, the administration repealed and replaced the Obama-era emissions rules for power plants and vehicles, weakened the country’s landmark environmental law, cut protections for most of the country’s wetlands and weakened regulations on methane, a potent climate-changing gas..Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has released a plan to put $2 trillion into green infrastructure and energy over four years to curb climate change and spur economic growth, which the Trump campaign has argued would hurt the oil and gas industry...MORE 

Can't help but notice how the CNBC writer sets this up. Everything Trump does has a negative connotation: it puts things in "reverse", it "rolls back" it "weakens", and the only thing it "increases" is something bad (emissions). Whereas what Biden proposes would "spur" something good (economic growth) and would only "curb" something that is bad (climate change).  All this in a supposedly objective news article.

Union files unfair labor practice charge against EPA

A union representing thousands of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees has filed an unfair labor practices charge against the agency, formally accusing it of violating employee rights. In the charge, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union says that Associate Deputy Administrator Douglas Benevento “falsely disparaged and threatened the union and employees” in May and that Administrator Andrew Wheeler made false statements about bargaining in July during meetings with regional staff. AFGE said that Benevento implied the EPA was unwilling to deal with the union because it shared agency communication with the media “despite the fact that such activity is protected by law.” The charge further stated that Wheeler falsely claimed that during contract negotiations, the union refused telework flexibility because it wanted more benefits for its leadership...In a statement to The Hill, the EPA said that its “offer of increased telework flexibility during negotiations in return for AFGE’s agreement on Official Time and the Negotiated Grievance Procedure is very well documented.” “Additionally, after Doug Benevento spoke with AFGE leadership on April 22, EPA received press inquiry almost immediately afterwards asking for comment on the matters in that briefing. When contacted by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, EPA will provide all requested documentation to FLRA and will comply with their investigation,” an EPA spokesperson said...MORE

EPA loses case seeking modeling behind Obama mileage rollback

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong to withhold information about how it devised its new fuel efficiency standards, a panel of judges ruled just a day after the Trump administration rolled back Obama-era mileage standards. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday sided with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund, which sued the EPA to gain insight into a controversial modeling technique that many said oversold the benefits for rolling back the Obama administration’s policy. The new standards unveiled by the Trump administration Tuesday require automakers to produce a fleet averaging 40 mpg by 2026, rather than the previous requirement under the Obama administration to reach 55 mpg by 2025. Environmental groups have vowed to sue over Tuesday’s regulation, but the controversial rule has faced numerous suits throughout its development, including the case from the NRDC. At issue in Wednesday's decision is the OMEGA modeling used to determine various outcomes from reducing mileage standards. Part of the modeling attempted to forecast consumer behavior, assuming people would resist buying as many new cars given the tougher Obama-era fuel standards would likely make them more expensive. If true, used cars would likely stay on the road longer...MORE

EPA Science Could Torpedo Roundup Lawsuits

Paul Driessen

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a finding that could – and certainly should – undermine some of the most outrageous lawsuits and jury awards in American history.
Bolstered by San Francisco area juries that have given multi-multi-million-dollar awards to clients who claim glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller) caused their cancer, jackpot justice lawyers have recruited some 20,000 additional “corporate victims” who hope to reap their own fortunes.
Their cases are based on the assertion that: (a) Bayer-Monsanto negligently or deliberately failed to warn consumers that the glyphosate it manufactures is carcinogenic; (b) the plaintiffs used Roundup at some point in their lives; and (c) their short or long-term use of the chemical caused their Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancer. Those claims are dependent on several essential factors.
First and foremost, a 2015 determination by the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) that glyphosate is a Group 2A probable human carcinogen. Second, a 2017 decision by the State of California to add the chemical to its Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) official list of carcinogens, based on the IARC decision. Third, the state’s requirement that all Roundup labels must therefore carry prominent warnings that the product “probably” causes cancer.
...There are numerous fundamental, even monumental, problems with this strained reasoning – and they are likely to be exacerbated by the August 7, 2019 EPA decision and strongly worded guidance letter.
IARC is virtually the only organization in the world to conclude that glyphosate is carcinogenic – and it based its conclusions on examining just eight studies. Far worse, subsequent reviews by epidemiologist Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, National Cancer Institute statistician Dr. Robert Tarone, investigative journalist Kate Kelland and “RiskMonger” Dr. David Zaruk demonstrated that the IARC decision resulted from bias, improper revision of study data and/or results, and collusion between glyphosate trial lawyers and the IARC consultant who led the agency’s investigation and was paid handsomely by the trial lawyers.

Equally outrageous and illuminating, IARC classifies red meat, very hot beverages, emissions from frying food, even doing shift work as “probable” human carcinogens – in the same category as glyphosate. It lists pickled vegetables and caffeic acid in coffee, tea and broccoli as “possible” human carcinogens. It even admitted that its glyphosate decision was based on only “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals. IARC seems to say everything causes cancer...

READ ENTIRE COLUMN 

EPA appeals board is unconstitutional without reform

Michael Poon

The idea that high government officials must be accountable to the people should be uncontroversial. Democratic accountability is a cardinal principle in a constitutional republic. Requiring government actors to be answerable to the people protects the public from arbitrary and tyrannical governance. In practice, this means significant government decisions, especially those that regulate private conduct, must be made only by elected officials or those who are accountable to the people in other clear and direct ways. Such accountability is an essential means by which the government retains the consent of the governed.
The Framers codified these principles throughout the Constitution, including in a pivotal provision called the Appointments Clause. The clause requires unelected federal officials who exercise significant government power to be appointed with particular democratic controls. Usually, that means these officials, called “Officers of the United States,” must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, though Congress may through statute permit less powerful, “inferior” officers to be appointed by the president, a court, or a head of a department. This system varies the degree of accountability with an officer’s power, but it always ensures that it is an officer, not just any government employee, who makes the final decisions that affect the public.
Unfortunately, these safeguards have been ignored in recent decades, enabling a growing regulatory state to bestow significant authority upon myriad unaccountable bureaucrats. This not only results in a less responsive government, but it also threatens to render unconstitutional many past government actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a prime example. The agency’s exercise of discretion under various environmental statutes has weighty consequences, ranging from halting a development project to fining individuals as much as $75,000 per day for an alleged regulatory violation. Consistent with the Appointments Clause, Congress vested these responsibilities in the EPA administrator, who is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Voters could, in turn, hold the president and senators responsible for their choices.
Notwithstanding these constitutional and practical principles, Administrator William Reilly in 1992 abandoned a large portion of his statutory responsibilities. He unilaterally created an office within EPA called the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB), and charged it with deciding on his behalf all administrative appeals of permitting decisions and civil enforcement actions. Moreover, he made EAB decisions final in the vast majority of cases so that they cannot be appealed even to himself or future EPA administrators. This structure endures to this day.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

EPA Backs Off Plan for Science Transparency Rules

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew a regulatory reform it proposed in April 2018 to limit the agency’s ability to craft major new regulations with studies for which the underlying data is not available for “independent validation,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced at a September congressional hearing. The so-called “secret science” reform was proposed by Scott Pruitt, Wheeler’s predecessor at EPA. The science EPA used to develop many of its most costly air quality regulations could not be verified because its data was kept secret, despite being funded by taxpayers, says Steve Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, which publishes Environment & Climate News. “The underlying data from the scientific studies of air quality has been kept secret for 25 years, not only by EPA, but by researchers EPA paid to produce them, so it amounts to taxpayer-funded studies using secret data,” Milloy said. “Scott Pruitt proposed this rule in 2018 to keep the EPA from regulating based on secret science, and of course during the comment period opponents of the Trump EPA went nuts, making all sorts of false claims about the rule. “This is very disappointing,” Milloy said. “The idea that next year EPA will issue a supplementary rule is simply dodging the issue for now, the coward’s way out, since Wheeler knows what the problem is and he knows how it needs to be fixed but he didn’t want to do it.” EPA’s action is another example of the “deep state” working to undermine reasonable regulatory reforms, Milloy says. “There is a huge disconnect between what the president wants and what is being implemented at EPA,” Milloy said. “The government is full of swampy people, making it quite challenging to make substantial reforms at EPA, which has at most a handful of Trump people in an agency of 13,000 people, many likely in the ‘Resistance.’...MORE

EPA bulldog stares down agency watchdog

Jackson

An escalating fight between the Environmental Protection Agency's top political aide and its internal watchdog has forced a behind-the-scenes Washington operator into the spotlight. Ryan Jackson, a native Oklahoman who worked for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) for more than a decade and a half, has maintained a relatively low profile since becoming EPA's chief of staff in the early days of the Trump administration. He weathered the headline-grabbing scandals that brought down former Administrator Scott Pruitt and helped transition Pruitt's replacement, Andrew Wheeler, into the job. Now Jackson finds himself facing off with EPA's acting inspector general, who took the rare step last week of publicly accusing Jackson of stonewalling investigations into allegations made against him. Jackson has not yet agreed to an interview with the inspector general's office, which is investigating numerous allegations against the chief of staff, including that he attempted to pressure an independent scientist to change her testimony to Congress and that he oversaw destruction of documents related to probes of Pruitt's travel and other matters. EPA has defended Jackson and accused the inspector general's office of overstepping its authority. The agency declined to make Jackson available for an interview. The episode represents the latest run-in between the Trump administration's political appointees and the inspectors general who are meant to serve as a check on waste, fraud and abuse. And it shows that the EPA is still dealing with the aftereffects of Pruitt's tenure, nearly 18 months after he stepped down amid a series of investigations into his dealings with lobbyists and his personal use of agency resources. It also illustrates that Jackson doesn’t necessarily care about being seen as playing nice with the IG's office, said one former top EPA official who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "He doesn’t worry about getting himself in the middle of a fight like this,” the former official said. “Other chiefs of staff would be mortified, terrified of this happening around and about them. He’s not as worried about that as other people."...MORE

EPA 'exceeds' goals on cutting back environmental regulations, according to internal watchdog

The Environmental Protection Agency "exceeded" its goals in cutting back environmental regulations during the first two years of the Trump administration, according to an internal watchdog report.The EPA's inspector general evaluated how the agency responded to an executive order from President Donald Trump issued in January 2017 mandating federal agencies control costs by cutting regulations. The EO asked that for every one regulation an agency issued, two regulations be cut. The EPA cut 26 regulations, saving the agency more than $96 million, and created four new regulations -- far more than the 2-to-1 ratio the White House had requested, according to the report. The agency saved roughly $6 million more than the Office of Management and budget requested. In the administration's first year, "the EPA had the highest number of deregulatory actions of any federal agency," according to the report. These actions include rollbacks of environmental regulations that govern water, air and greenhouse gas emission levels. In the past two years, the EPA changed what waters are protected under the Clean Water Act, rolled back an Obama-era plan that would have reduced carbon emission from coal-fired power plants, and proposed a rule that would allow fewer restrictions on hazardous air pollutants, among other changes. The inspector general's report gives a fuller picture of how aggressively the agency has been in slashing regulations; the data shows the EPA has been the most successful in this goal...MORE

EPA wins new chance to argue against pesticide ban

The Trump administration has persuaded a U.S. appeals court to reconsider its recent decision ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the widely-used pesticide chlorpyrifos, which critics say can harm children and farmers. Wednesday’s order means an 11-judge appeals court panel will reconsider the case. Chlorpyrifos, developed as a nerve gas in World War Two, has been used commercially in the United States since 1965. Groups that challenged Pruitt’s ruling included the Natural Resources Defense Council and the United Farm Workers. If the 9th Circuit upholds Pruitt’s original ruling, it will be a win for President Donald Trump, who along with other Republicans has long criticized what is widely viewed as one of the more liberal federal appeals courts. In seeking a rehearing, the EPA said the appeals court lacked jurisdiction to review Pruitt’s ruling, and otherwise should have simply directed him to reconsider the evidence rather than order a ban. The EPA is now overseen by acting administrator Andrew Wheeler. A spokeswoman said the agency is pleased the case will be reheard, and that federal rules allowing the pesticide’s use “can continue, as permitted by state law,” during the appeals process...MORE

Watchdog files ethics complaint against EPA head

A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler on Tuesday over meetings held with past fossil fuel clients after he took over the agency. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in a letter to the EPA's acting inspector general, asked the office to investigate whether Wheeler, a former energy lobbyist, violated his ethics pledge. Specifically, the group asked the office to look into two 2018 meetings with former clients Darling Ingredients, Inc., Growth Energy, and the Archer Daniels Midland Company, during his two-year recusal period. CREW also questioned whether Wheeler was right to participate in the rulemaking process for several EPA standards over which he had previously lobbied the agency. Those regulations include the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. “Mr. Wheeler’s involvement in these matters also gives rise to the appearance of a lack of impartiality, which critically undermines the agency’s integrity in carrying out these programs and operations," the CREW letter read. "As a result, unless he was authorized to participate, his involvement violated his ethical obligations under the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (“Standards of Conduct”).”...MORE

Scott Pruitt’s Environmental Rollbacks Stumbled in Court. His Successor Is More Thorough.

Before resigning as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency this year, Scott Pruitt delighted President Trump with his zeal for proclaiming sweeping regulatory rollbacks, even though he left behind a trail of courtroom setbacks. Andrew R. Wheeler, a former energy lobbyist whom Mr. Trump plans to nominate to lead the E.P.A., has been quietly cleaning up the mess. Where virtually all of Mr. Pruitt’s hastily written rollbacks and suspensions have been blocked by the courts, Mr. Wheeler has taken a far more deliberative approach, immersing himself in the legal intricacies — a strategy that could make Mr. Wheeler one of the most effective drivers of the Trump administration’s ambitious plan to rewrite the nation’s rule book on the environment and climate. “He’s done a fantastic job,” Mr. Trump said Friday of Mr. Wheeler, who has served as the E.P.A.’s acting administrator since Mr. Pruitt stepped down in July amid a wave of ethics scandals. Supporters say the White House sees in Mr. Wheeler the anti-Pruitt: drama-free, low-key, and, most importantly, able to get the proposed rollbacks through the courts...MORE

Trump administration withdraws Obama rule on uranium milling

The Trump administration announced Friday it would withdraw an Obama-era proposal aimed at regulating how waste from uranium milling is disposed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the proposed rule for uranium and thorium mill tailings, or waste byproducts. The Obama administration had submitted the proposed rule the day before President Trump took office in January 2017. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler called the now-scrapped proposal a “rush to regulate during the waning hours of the previous administration.” Share to Google+ Trump administration withdraws Obama rule on uranium milling © Getty Images The Trump administration announced Friday it would withdraw an Obama-era proposal aimed at regulating how waste from uranium milling is disposed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew the proposed rule for uranium and thorium mill tailings, or waste byproducts. The Obama administration had submitted the proposed rule the day before President Trump took office in January 2017. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler called the now-scrapped proposal a “rush to regulate during the waning hours of the previous administration.” “Today’s action is an important step in rebalancing EPA’s role with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s with respect to protecting public health and the environment alongside supporting modern methods of uranium extraction,” Wheeler said in a statement on Friday. Wheeler said that the Obama-era rule “would have imposed significant burdens on uranium miners and the communities they support.” A key point of the regulation was reducing the spread of radon, a cancer-causing radioactive gas byproduct of uranium...MORE

EPA Signals Andrew Wheeler Could Stay In Place Until 2020 Without Senate Confirmation

When Andrew Wheeler hit his 100th day at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency this week, the press office put out what seemed to be two humdrum updates on the trip “Administrator Wheeler” took to Louisiana. But the press releases’ subject lines contained a small, almost unnoticeable tweak with significant implications: He still hasn’t been nominated or confirmed to serve as the agency’s permanent chief. He’s not the EPA administrator; he’s the acting EPA administrator. The agency had been noting the distinction ― until this week. The change could easily be chalked up to a mistake or an attempt to condense a clunky title in a tight space. But former EPA officials say it raises questions about the administration’s plans to keep Wheeler in place indefinitely, making him the longest-serving acting administrator in the agency’s nearly 48-year history. With 101 days under his belt, Wheeler ranks fifth in tenure out of the agency’s 17 acting administrators since 1970. By Dec. 9, he’ll surpass Bob Perciasepe’s roughly five-month stint as acting administrator in 2013...MORE

EPA Waivers Could Rob $20 Billion From Ethanol Demand

 Sonja Begemann

Over the next six years, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refinery exemptions could steal 4.6 billion gallons of domestic ethanol demand—resulting in nearly $20 billion in potential sales lost, according to a recent analysis by the University of Missouri Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)...MORE

Notice the title says "rob" and the column says "steal".

If there is any theft here, it was the government-coerced purchase of the 4.6 billion gallons of ethanol, robbing the consumer of choosing the product of their choice. If the government forced you to give 10 percent of your labor to a neighbor, and then removed that requirement, would you be "stealing" from your neighbor?

Taming the EPA Regulatory Hydra: An Essential First Step

Bill Kovacs

...The almost fifty-year history of the EPA regulatory process is like the mythological “Hydra,” a monster with many heads; when one was cut-off, two more grew back. Such an aggressive regulatory process crowned EPA as the most aggressive regulator in history. EPA alone has published over 25% of all the pages of regulations issued by all the agencies of the Federal Government, and almost twice as many as the much-derided IRS. Of the 28 most costly regulations issued in eight years by the Obama administration, EPA issued 13 of them. This situation places those seeking a long-term, rational regulatory process at EPA in a quandary. Determining what can be done to tame this monster is a complex undertaking, because stopping new regulations in one administration does not prevent many more regulations from being issued in another. However, considering EPA administrators of the past, the first change must be to ensure that no single person in the United States government can exercise the massive powers wielded by those past bosses. Such powers determine who gets a permit to operate, and who does not; what technologies a business must use; what lightbulbs are available for your homes; what gas we can buy; what chemicals can be used; where companies can mine; what local land use decisions will survive; and even where a pond can be built on private property. While the president of the United States has massive powers over war and peace, and sets the operating philosophy of federal agencies, the EPA administrator has direct power over the business operations … and thus the economy … of the entire nation. EPA makes the environmental rules we live under. It is the fact finder who determines if we are breaking the rules, the prosecutor of all alleged violations – and the administrative judge who makes the findings of fact, interprets the law, and permits or punishes our actions. It’s frightening when you think about how much power one person can have over our lives. Yet, we don’t think about it until the agency wants to “get us.” How should we restructure EPA to ensure the agency can still protect our environment – while controlling the massive amount of power exercised by one individual?...MORE

EPA watchdog announces new probe into Pruitt's emails

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inspector general said it is investigating EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s use of nonpublic email accounts, the latest in a series of federal investigations into the agency chief. The inspector general, an independent office within the EPA, will look into whether Pruitt is keeping a record of his emails, as he is mandated to by federal law, and whether the EPA is searching all his accounts when fulfilling public records requests. Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — released a letter dated May 2 that confirmed the investigation. Past EPA administrators also used nonpublic email accounts for everyday communication, according to Politico. The latest probe comes as Pruitt faces scrutiny over ethical and spending controversies. It also ups the total number of federal investigations into the administrator’s behavior to a dozen...MORE

2 top Pruitt aides leave EPA amid ethics investigations

Two top aides have resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency amid a growing series of federal ethics investigations, EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced Tuesday. In statements, Pruitt gave no immediate reasons why the aides — security chief Pasquale "Nino" Perrotta and Superfund manager Albert Kelly — were leaving. EPA spokespeople Jahan Wilcox and Liz Bowman did not immediately respond to questions about whether the departures were related to ongoing federal investigations...MORE

Ending Secret Science at EPA

Paul Driessen

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has proposed to end the longstanding EPA practice of using secretive, often questionable, questionable, even deceptive science to support agency policy and regulatory initiatives. His proposed rules will ensure that any science underlying agency actions is transparent and publicly available for independent experts to examine and validate – or point out its flaws. It also responds to growing concerns that extensive scientific research in environmental, medical and other arenas cannot be replicated by other scientists, or is compromised by cherry-picked data, poor research design, sloppy analysis or biased researchers. The situation has led to calls for increased sharing of data and methodologies, more independent peer review and other actions to weed out problems. The situation has been especially acute at EPA. As Mr. Pruitt observed, “The ability to test, authenticate and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.” That is particularly true for regulations that exact millions or billions in compliance costs, affect thousands of jobs, target industries and coal-fired electricity generators that regulators want to close down, or seek to replace all fossil fuel use with “renewable” energy. With the cumulative economic impact of federal regulations reaching nearly $2 trillion per year, research reform is absolutely essential. We need regulation and pollution control – but it must be based on solid, replicable, honest science...MORE

Pruitt dodges blame

Scott Pruitt may have handled his daylong congressional grilling well enough to salvage his job for now — but only after he blamed his torrent of scandals on staff, disavowed one of his top advisers and raised new questions about what he knew about massive raises awarded to some of his closest aides. The Environmental Protection Agency administrator shrugged off responsibility Thursday for a $43,000 privacy booth and more than $100,000 in first-class flights, and even said he has no idea whether his chief policy adviser showed up for work at all during a three-month stretch. But the former Oklahoma attorney general stayed calm throughout the nearly six hours of questioning. And his televised performance brought no immediate complaints from the one person whose opinion matters — the media-obsessed president who has so far stuck with Pruitt despite a multitude of investigations and the exasperation of key White House staff. “Let me be very clear: I have nothing to hide as its relates to how I’ve run the agency for the past 16 months,” Pruitt told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, the first of two panels to subject him to hours of questioning Thursday. But he also didn’t offer enough specifics to satisfy Democratic lawmakers — and a few Republicans — who criticized the lavish spending, cozy relations with lobbyists and other controversies that have taken root on his watch. He pointedly refused to apologize, instead accusing his critics of trying to “derail” President Donald Trump’s policies...MORE

EPA's Pruitt unveils controversial limits to scientific research

Embattled EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a new rule Tuesday that he said will make the Environmental Protection Agency more "transparent." His announcement, however, was made only to invited guests. The proposal would allow the agency to use only scientific studies where the underlying data is publicly available. Pruitt said the change would expand the ability of scientists and the public to "comment on the veracity, the authenticity" of data behind EPA decisions. But environmental groups say the public disclosure requirement will limit the EPA's access to health studies, which are subject to patient confidentiality requirements. The plan would blacklist air quality studies that have linked pollution and health issues, for example, they argue. "They are ordering EPA employees to put on blinders and only see the science that they want them to see," said Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The EPA did not publicly announce the event, but posted on social media a video stream about 20 minutes before the event began. Pruitt has been under a growing cloud of ethics investigations, with questions about whether he can retain support from Congress and the White House. The event did include an audience, which could be heard clapping after Pruitt spoke, and Sen. Mike Rounds and Rep. Lamar Smith, Republicans who spoke in favor of the proposal...MORE