Debate Over EPA’s ‘Transparency’ Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule to only use scientific studies with “publicly available” data when it develops regulations. This has sparked a debate in Congress on whether the proposal would prevent the EPA from considering studies that analyze private health information, including those that underpin air pollution standards.

During congressional hearings on April 26, critics of the rule claimed it would force the agency to exclude important studies because releasing data publicly would violate confidentiality agreements between study participants and researchers. Proponents maintained it wouldn’t exclude important studies because confidential information can be redacted.

Who’s right? We find fault with both characterizations of the proposed rule.

Studies that use confidential health information might still be considered by the EPA under the new rule — but not because private data can simply be redacted. Sometimes it can’t, including in the case of a 1993 Harvard study used to craft air pollution standards — a study cited by critics to support their argument.

Still, the rule includes a provision that would allow the EPA administrator to exempt regulations if releasing study data publicly conflicts with protecting privacy. The rule also allows for alternatives to full-on public release in cases where the data include confidential information.

Here we will detail the EPA proposal, what was said about it at the April 26 hearings, and use the 1993 Harvard study on air quality to explain why protecting confidential health information is not always