Los Angeles joined a 23-member coalition of states, counties and cities in calling on acting Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler to withdraw his predecessor’s “harmful and deeply flawed” proposal to censor science at the agency.

The call is part of detailed legal and technical comments submitted by the coalition on former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule.

The proposed rule would exclude from EPA decision making any scientific studies, models and other important information that have been validated by peer review simply because not all underlying data are available to the public.

The coalition charges that, in addition to making “little sense as a matter of science,” the proposal is “arbitrary and capricious, violates controlling federal law and contains clear errors in reasoning.” The coalition affirms that they stand ready to pursue legal remedies should EPA persist in this misguided effort.

“This so-called ‘transparency’ rule is yet another Trump administration effort to silence voices that get in the way – this time, of the administration’s relentless attacks on environmental and public health protections,” said Mike Feuer, Los Angeles city attorney. “From catastrophic wildfires burning across California to devastating flooding on the East Coast, climate change is upon us. On this and other crucial issues, so much is riding on the EPA’s ability to use the best science and most-supported information as it makes fateful decisions affecting all of us. Future generations are counting on us to protect the world they will inherit. This proposal is a giant step backwards.”

In the comments, the coalition argues that the EPA is legally prohibited from adopting the proposed rule because it directly conflicts with statutory requirements regarding the EPA’s consideration of scientific information. No federal environmental statute directly allows or suggests that the EPA can ignore the “latest” or “best” or “appropriately designed and conducted” scientific studies whenever the underlying data are not public.

As prominent scientific organizations have noted, peer review of scientific evidence is routinely performed despite the underlying data not being publicly available, as there are often very good reasons – such as the protection of personal privacy and confidentiality, and proprietary interests and property rights – why some research data simply cannot be made fully available.

For information, visit ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/multistate_comments.pdf.