Environmental Defense Fund filed 9 comments on this docket between Jun 30, 2020 and Jun 15, 2021. 77 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 1870d ago.
Attached please find a comment supporting EPA's rescission of the Clean Air Act Benefit-Cost Rule from Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Institute for Policy Integrity, League of Conservation Voters, Moms Clean Air Force, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists hereby submit the attached comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Please contact Ben Levitan at blevitan@edf.org with any questions.
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submit the attached documents to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 in support of our public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Part 1 of 5
Attached please find a comment from 15 public health, environmental justice, racial justice, and environmental organizations strongly urging EPA to withdraw the proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Please contact Ben Levitan at blevitan@edf.org with any questions.
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submit the attached documents to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 in support of our public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Part 2 of 5
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submit the attached documents to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 in support of our public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Part 3 of 5
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submit the attached documents to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 in support of our public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Part 4 of 5
Environmental and public health organizations Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Union of Concerned Scientists submit the attached documents to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-00044 in support of our public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process," 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020). Part 5 of 5
Attached please find a request to immediately halt and withdraw EPA's Clean Air Act cost-benefit rulemaking action, and extend the deadline for public comments on EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 Fed. Reg. 35,612 (June 11, 2020), submitted on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Environmental Protection Network, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club.
This action proposes a regulation intended to increase consistency and transparency relating to EPA’s consideration of benefits and costs in making regulatory decisions in a manner consistent with applicable authorizing statutes in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed rule addresses issues raised in the June 13, 2018 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process” (83 FR 27524), and proposes how its concepts will be implemented in rulemakings conducted by EPA using its authorities under the CAA. In addition, this proposed rule codifies the Agency’s internal procedural requirements governing the development, presentation, and use of benefit-cost analyses in significant rulemakings conducted under the CAA.
View on regulations.gov →