Scientific transparency

As we turn to social mingling once again, those of us blessed with 20-20 hindsight are increasingly angry at the models used by policymakers in locking us down. It is time to speak of the misuse of tools and regret.
We wrote a little over a month ago about the large number of institutions not reporting study results, as required on Now, Stat reports that a federal court has ruled that those reports must be filed, although the timeframe for compliance remains ambiguous.
In criticizing the journal Science, when it rains it pours.
In 1997, the BMJ reported that GlaxoSmithKline had withheld data in a clinical trial, specifically, that Paxil was ineffective in adolescents and often caused suicidal thoughts. From the subsequent justifiable uproar rose, a registry for clinical trials requiring the posting of their results when the study was completed. A new study shows that this regulation is routinely ignored. And like a labradoodle, is all bark and no bite. 
One of the significant concerns surrounding the proposed "science transparency" changes at the EPA has to do with revisiting older "pivotal regulatory" science. For example, consider this study, which set the stage for air pollution standards. That paper is now more than 25 years old; you have to wonder how it has withstood the test of time. Let's take a look. 
The “pivotal regulatory science” used in setting air pollution standards are epidemiological studies measuring the effects of particulate matter on our health. The recently proposed changes to improve the transparency of regulatory science at the EPA have brought these studies to the fore.
A revised proposal, regarding scientific transparency in the EPA's regulatory decisions, has raised concerns about casting more shade than light. What exactly is being proposed, and why the concern?