Category: Public Comment

Overall we commend the proposed themes and framework
for NCA5, and offer additional recommendations to strengthen the reception and
utilization of the information provided by this assessment.

In this comment, we show that transparency, best available science, and
meaningful public participation are not the goal of this rule. Rather, the goal is to
reduce the range of evidence that is used in regulatory decision-making and to
make it harder to use scientific evidence that shows harm caused by chemical
exposures. This rule will prevent deeper understanding by scientists, regulators,
and the public of the risks of chemical exposures and, ultimately, will delay action
to protect environmental and public health.

This comment and a related oral comment were delivered to the FOIA Advisory Committee. The comment urges the FOIA Advisory Committee to guide agencies to preserve key features of FOIAonline as agencies launch independent FOIA portals, particularly: (1) the public posting of completed requests, (2) the ability to search for completed requests, including across multiple agencies, and (3) the preservation of public access to the records that have already been made public through FOIAonline.

This comment and a related oral comment were delivered to the Chief FOIA Officers Council. The comment petitions the Chief FOIA Officers Council to maintain and improve the public accessibility of records released through FOIAonline when agencies launch independent FOIA portals, especially through (1) maintaining the public availability of all previously released documents, (2) enhancing the search functionality to support discovery of already released records, and (3) developing a browser-based viewing system to view records prior to download.

Comment Title: “Comments by the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative on Broadening Public Engagement in the Federal Regulatory Process.” This comment urges the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to address information policy gaps that will undermine efforts to broaden public engagement in regulatory affairs, particularly the lack of requirements for regulatory and related information to be shared through agency websites.

This comment supports the themes and framework proposed for the NCA5, and recommends enhancing the overall framework with a
climate justice lens, more substantial discussion of mitigation strategies and potential
effects, and using language commensurate with the climate crisis we are facing. We also recommend including more regional and sub-regional analyses in order to provide information that is resonant and actionable for diverse audiences.

EDGI’s comment addresses the dissonance between the anticipated impacts of three proposed action alternatives and the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) assignment of Alternative A–codifying the interpretation in the DOI Solicitor Opinion M-37050 that the MBTA does not prohibit incidental take–as the agency’s proposed action. EDGI urges the agency to promulgate Alternative B, rescinding M-37050 and codifying the long-standing interpretation represented in M-37041 that the MBTA prohibits incidental take, and then pursue a permit structure to better regulate incidental take. EDGI also urges the agency to make informational resources regarding migratory birds and incidental take publicly accessible through the FWS website and to restore previously removed resources.

While this Supplemental Notice resolves some of the ambiguities of the original proposal (See Public Comment 2 below) , EDGI recommends its rejection. The notice vastly expands the scope of the proposed rule, actively dissuades public input, makes agency decision-making vulnerable to political persuasion, exploits the concept of transparency, and provides an avenue for unwarranted dismissal of high quality science.

EDGI’s comment points to the substantial amount of information relevant to the Clean Power Plan and its proposed repeal that was removed from the EPA website over the course of the previous year. For the public and regulated bodies to understand the feasibility of implementing the CPP, they must have continued access to comprehensive information about the purpose and scope of the Plan, the basis for calculating its costs and benefits, technological considerations, and proposed implementation strategies. March 12, 2020 Comment Title: “Public Comments on the Proposed Changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. ” Submitted by the Environmental History Action Collaborative (EHAC) and members of the Website Monitoring Team, EDGI’s comments finds that the majority of the proposed rule changes are at cross-purposes with the original intent of NEPA, and urges rejection of proposals that: (a) minimize the substantive elements of NEPA; (b) arbitrarily limit the scope and length of EIS review; (c) reduce public participation in the NEPA process; (d) expand categorical exclusions; (e) limit the consideration of indirect and cumulative effects, and (f) restrict judicial review.