Bloomberg Environment – The EPA’s clean air advisers launched a review of whether federal caps on smog and haze-forming pollutants protect public health.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Phys.org – The editors-in-chief of six major scientific review journals denounced a pending US regulation that would limit the scientific process for developing environmental and public health policies.
The Washington Post – A coalition of international automakers announced an effort to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration in its ongoing fight with California over how fuel-efficient the nation’s auto fleet must be in coming years.
The Washington Post – Toyota backed the Trump administration in trying to strip California of its ability to set more stringent fuel-efficiency standards in an effort to combat climate change.
Science – Critics are blasting a revised Trump administration plan to give the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) broad power to ignore research results when setting public health rules if officials decide the underlying data are not adequately accessible to the public.
The Washington Post – “Vague appeals to transparency do not warrant the agency impairing its use of quality science," one critic says.
The New York Times – The Trump administration is preparing to significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations.
The Conversation – Scientists on a panel that advised the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee on particulate matter standards learned that the EPA had abruptly disbanded them, leaving the review to move forward without relevant scientific expertise.
The Washington Post – The Environmental Protection Agency plans to relax rules that govern how power plants store waste from burning coal and release water containing toxic metals into nearby waterways, according to agency officials.
The Hill – A federal appeals court has dismissed challenges brought by the state of California against a Trump administration rule on tailpipe pollution standards, arguing the case has no merit because the rule has not yet been finalized.