Another reason why judicial review of EPA rules needs revamping.
Greenwire reports,
The federal appeals court handling challenges to U.S. EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations said Friday it would not consider as part of its deliberations a recent report by the agency’s inspector general that questioned how the agency handled some of the scientific data involved…
The inspector general report found that the scientific assessment backing the endangerment finding did not go through sufficient peer review for a document of its importance (Greenwire, Sept. 28, 2011).
The report examined only federal requirements for EPA’s “technical support document” and not the accuracy of the scientific studies included within it.
In the one-sentence order issued Friday, the three-judge panel hearing the cases simply said the court had denied the motion for judicial notice.
Related Reading:
If the instpector general’s report is simply irrelevant, why was it conducted in the first place? While I agree that it did not address the studies, at the very least, and official 3rd-party review of the data would give the court a starting point much more qualified that appelate judges to judge the quality of the report.