Press Releases

Congressman Larry Bucshon (IN-08) has introduced his first bill as a Member of Congress.  H.R. 2371, “The Transparency in Rulemaking when Using Scientific Testing (TRUST) Act of 2011” was placed in the hopper on Friday, June 24, 2011.

Congressman Larry Bucshon (IN-08) states:

           “I am excited to introduce my first bill to the U.S. House of Representatives. Over the past year, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has promulgated a rule regarding coal dust and respirators that miners would be required to wear.  Much of the rule was based on a study done in 1995 by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).   Although they released the final rule on Monday of last week, there is additional data from NIOSH that MSHA has not released, because the agencies claim it is irrelevant.

This is why I authored the TRUST Act – to prevent agencies from making rules and regulations, while claiming they are scientifically sound, and then refusing to release the scientific data.  This is the antithesis of transparency and all rulemaking bodies should be held accountable to the American people.

Federal agencies are promulgating more rules each year that control greater aspects of our personal and professional lives.  Often these rules are hundreds of pages long, instituted with little or no congressional input, and can have a devastating effect on job creation and our economy.

These onerous and burdensome regulations affect anything from the air we breathe, to the food we eat and the water we drink.  It is important for all federal agencies to provide the science and research behind proposed rules to the public.  Not only does this level of transparency provide accountability for the agencies to put forth rules that make common sense, but it enables the scientific community and the general public to scrutinize how unelected bureaucrats are writing rules that increase costs for businesses and hurt our economy.”

Background:

During the June 24, 2011 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Hearing of the U.S. House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, “Running Roughshod Over States and Stakeholders:  EPA’s Nutrients Policies” the following testified:

Mr. Richard Budell, Director, Office of Agricultural Water Policy, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services:

           “The takeover of Florida’s efforts was further aggravated by EPA’s rulemaking process.  Florida stakeholders were not accustomed to the manner in which EPA develops rules.  Under State law, rulemaking provides much more opportunity for input, discussion and dialogue.  While the State convenes Technical Advisory Committee meetings and public workshops open to public dialogue and interaction, EPA holds public hearings where the public can make comments to silent, nodding representatives while a giant fine minute timer counts down.  While Florida’s sunshine laws make all data and information available to the public throughout the rulemaking process, EPA restricts the amount of information available to the public and doesn’t make all relevant analyses available for comment.  Finally, many stakeholders invested significant time and money providing detailed comments regarding the technical basis for the EPA draft rule only to receive an unsatisfactory and vague response akin to, ‘EPA’s criteria are based on sound science.’”

Ms. Bethany Card, Director of Water Quality Programs, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC):

            “While EPA has argued that single number criteria approaches should be used, no such uniformity of condition exists in the natural world.”

Federal agencies typically issue more than 3,000 final rules each year.

In the notice for proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), currently only three things are required.

1)      The time, place and nature of the public rulemaking proceedings

2)      Reference to the  legal authority under which the rule is proposed

3)      Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.

Persons are then allowed to comment on the proposed rules, but if science is used to formulate the rule, there is no opportunity to review it.  The TRUST Act would change that.  It adds a fourth requirement to the APA; when a scientific study is used to formulate a rule, the study must be included in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Scientific study is defined as it previously is in U.S. Code.  It encompasses methodology, data, conclusions, and requires the study be peer reviewed.