← Environmental Defense Fund
EPANonrulemakingEPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190

Evaluation of Existing Regulations

RIN
—
Last modified
Apr 9, 2022
Comment window
closed 3361d ago
Environmental Defense Fund filings
6

Activity

Environmental Defense Fund filed 6 comments on this docket between May 22, 2017 and May 31, 2017. 481 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 3361d ago.

What Environmental Defense Fund filed (6)

May 31, 2017· Mass comment campaign sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund (Web) sample attached· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-38733

To Whom It May Concern: I previously submitted a document containing the signatures of 42,366 Environmental Defense Fund supporters from across the country who have submitted electronic comments regarding EPA's Evaluation of Existing Regulations. Since that time, we have received an additional 7,017 comments from EDF supporters (attached). The comment they each submitted reads: "Americans have the right to know that the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat doesn't put ourselves or our families at risk. The EPA has a legal and moral obligation to protect that right. I am writing today to ask you to keep our public health safeguards intact. Rolling back protections would only put the profits of a select few above both the health of Americans, and American ingenuity as the EPA's protections have sparked innovation that can lead us to a clean energy future. We can have a strong economy while also ensuring that the public is protected from dangerous pollution, but only with a strong EPA that enforces the crucial safeguards put into place by previous administrations. The EPA's right to protect the public was affirmed decades ago by Congress, under the Clean Air Act. But the law is only as strong as its implementation. As you consider your response to Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13783, I ask that you keep EPA's existing safeguards in place, and do not put American lives at risk." Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns about this submission. Thank you for your consideration, Heather Shelby Manager, Grassroots Organizing & Activism Environmental Defense Fund hshelby@edf.org

View on regulations.gov →
May 31, 2017· Comment submitted by Mandy Warner et al., Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-38579

Please see attached comments from Environmental Defense Fund on the Environmental Protection Agency's request for public input related to the Agency's implementation of Executive Order 13,777, "Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda," 82 Fed. Reg. 12,285 (Mar. 1, 2017). Sincerely yours, Martha Roberts

View on regulations.gov →
May 24, 2017· Comment submitted by Richard A. Denison, Lead Senior Scientist et al., Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-34721

Please find attached Environmental Defense Fund's comments regarding Executive Order 13777 as it relates to Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

View on regulations.gov →
May 23, 2017· Mass Comment Campaign sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (web)· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-33871

To Whom It May Concern: Attached is a document containing the signatures of 42,366 Environmental Defense Fund supporters from across the country who have submitted electronic comments regarding EPA's Evaluation of Existing Regulations. The comment they each submitted reads: "Americans have the right to know that the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat doesn't put ourselves or our families at risk. The EPA has a legal and moral obligation to protect that right. I am writing today to ask you to keep our public health safeguards intact. Rolling back protections would only put the profits of a select few above both the health of Americans, and American ingenuity as the EPA's protections have sparked innovation that can lead us to a clean energy future. We can have a strong economy while also ensuring that the public is protected from dangerous pollution, but only with a strong EPA that enforces the crucial safeguards put into place by previous administrations. The EPA's right to protect the public was affirmed decades ago by Congress, under the Clean Air Act. But the law is only as strong as its implementation. As you consider your response to Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13783, I ask that you keep EPA's existing safeguards in place, and do not put American lives at risk." Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns about this submission. Thank you for your consideration, Heather Shelby Manager, Grassroots Organizing & Activism Environmental Defense Fund hshelby@edf.org

View on regulations.gov →
May 23, 2017· Mass comment campaign sponsored by Environmental Defense Fund (web)· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-32641

To Whom It May Concern: Attached is a document containing the signatures of 24,922 Environmental Defense Fund supporters from across the country who have submitted electronic comments regarding EPA's Evaluation of Existing Regulations, specific to regulations issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This is in addition to our previously-submitted 49,383 comments generally related to EPA regulations. The comment each of these 24,922 people submitted reads: "I'm writing today to strongly urge EPA to finalize its rules to ban high-risk uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (DCM), and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These chemicals are extremely toxic. TCE is carcinogenic and can cause heart defects in the developing fetus. DCM is a very lethal chemical over the past few decades, dozens of workers have died from using DCM-based paint stripping products. NMP is often used as a substitute for DCM in paint stripping products, yet it also presents major health risks ranging from developmental and reproductive toxicity to neurotoxicity to liver and kidney damage. EPA had not successfully banned a chemical under the original TSCA in nearly three decades. Now, with its greater authority under the new TSCA as amended by the Lautenberg Act, EPA can score an early public health victory by banning these toxic chemicals for these high-risk uses. But the chemical industry is complaining and pressuring EPA to back off, delay, or weaken these much needed rules. Some in industry are suggesting that measures like putting a simple label on these deadly products or requiring workers to wear protective gear would suffice. But labels, personal protective equipment, and concentration limits are not enough to protect my family and community. I strongly urge the Agency to stay on track and promptly ban TCE used as a spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning, as an aerosol spray degreaser in commercial and consumer settings, and as a vapor degreaser in commercial settings, and both DCM and NMP used for commercial and consumer paint stripping. Safer alternatives are already widely available. There is simply no excuse to continue putting my family's and my community's health at risk by delaying or weakening these rules." Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns about this submission. Thank you for your consideration, Heather Shelby Manager, Grassroots Organizing & Activism Environmental Defense Fund hshelby@edf.org

View on regulations.gov →
May 22, 2017· Comment submitted by Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director , Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)· EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-32181

Environmental Defense Fund's Comments on Lead-Based Rules Authorized by Title IV of TSCA.

View on regulations.gov →

Abstract

Executive Order 13777, issued 2/24/17, directs agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to oversee the evaluation of existing regulations to make recommendations about potential repeal, replacement, or modification.

View on regulations.gov →

Co-filers (481)

See everyone who commented →