{"id":7453,"date":"2018-02-12T12:51:35","date_gmt":"2018-02-12T17:51:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7453"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:06","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:06","slug":"edf-requests-extension-of-illegally-and-unreasonably-short-comment-period-on-proposed-rule-with-incomplete-docket","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2018\/02\/12\/edf-requests-extension-of-illegally-and-unreasonably-short-comment-period-on-proposed-rule-with-incomplete-docket\/","title":{"rendered":"EDF requests extension of illegally and unreasonably short comment period on proposed rule with incomplete docket"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today submitted a request<\/a>\u00a0to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend the mere 15-day period EPA has provided for public comments on a proposed modification to a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR).\u00a0 The proposed SNUR modification was published in the Federal Register just last Thursday<\/a> (February 8), and stated that comments must be received by February 23.[pullquote]EPA must comply with its own requirements and provide electronic access to a public file containing all relevant documents prior to commencing at a minimum a 30-day comment period on this proposed rule.<\/em><\/strong>[\/pullquote]<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s own regulations require EPA to provide the public with at least 30 days<\/em> to comment on SNURs, see 40 CFR 721.160(c)(4)<\/a> and 721.170(d)(4)<\/a>, making EPA\u2019s 15-day comment period illegally short.<\/p>\n

EDF requested that EPA provide at least 30 days for public comment \u2013 with that period to commence only after a complete public docket of relevant materials is made available by EPA<\/em>.\u00a0 As our request details, the docket EPA has provided for this proposed SNUR<\/a> is woefully incomplete, missing even basic documents that preclude the public from being able to provide meaningful comments on the proposal.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s proposed modification of the SNUR is based on its review of a Significant New Use Notification (SNUN) it received in 2017 pursuant to the original SNUR it had promulgated in 2012.\u00a0 Among the many documents missing from the docket is that 2017 SNUN.\u00a0 It also appears that more than one SNUN may have been received by EPA:\u00a0 A consent order in the docket indicates the SNUN was received on January 13, 2017.\u00a0 In contrast, the proposed modified SNUR indicates the SNUN was received on April 12, 2017.\u00a0 All SNUNs or versions of the SNUN need to be added to the docket prior to commencement of the minimum 30-day comment period.<\/p>\n

The modified SNUR apparently follows on the consent order EPA issued last October<\/a>.\u00a0 That consent order refers to numerous documents that are also missing from the docket \u2013 including health and safety studies that are not eligible for protection from disclosure under section 14(b)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)<\/a>.\u00a0 Among these documents are:<\/p>\n