Thanks
With regards

The EPA (and the rest of the scientific community) already relies on a valid and transparent scientific process to make its decisions - peer review. This proposed rule will not improve this process. Instead, it would allow the agency to potentially ignore critical studies that show the relationship between our health and the environment because they are politically inconvenient . We cannot limit the information used to protect the health and safety of American citizens and our environment.

The effects of air pollution and other environmental risks are documented by research that has already undergone a long-established, transparent peer review process. Many of these studies contain confidential patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be made public. This is no reason to exclude those studies’ critically important, well-vetted findings. I am deeply concerned that EPA’s proposal would allow the agency to ignore these important health studies in the interest of rolling back regulations on companies or entire industries that have been reliably shown to pollute the environment and threaten public health and safety.

Communities across the United States (and indeed, around the world) depend on the EPA to use the best available scientific evidence in making policy decisions, and to act as an exemplar and leader in the cause of protecting the environment. All people deserve clean air and water and ask that you adhere to the EPA mandate to protect our health and environment. The EPA must rely on the best available science to protect our future - this proposal makes that impossible. We only have one planet to live on, and ignoring scientific findings that you find politically or financially inconvenient threatens the long-term survival of the human race.

Please withdraw this proposal and send a message that the EPA will bring back non-biased, science-based policies to protect our planet, free of partisan politics and ideological influence.

The EPA already relies on transparent science to make its decisions. The proposal will not improve this process. Instead, it would allow the agency to ignore critical studies that show the relationship between our health and the environment. We cannot limit the information used to protect our health and environment.

The effects of air pollution and other environmental risks are documented by research that has already undergone a long-established, transparent peer review process. Many of these studies contain confidential patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be made public. This is no reason to exclude those studies’ critically important, well-vetted findings. I am deeply concerned that EPA’s proposal would allow the agency to ignore these important health studies.

Our communities depend on the EPA to use the best available scientific evidence in making policy decisions. We deserve clean air and water and ask that you adhere to the EPA mandate to protect our health and environment. The EPA must rely on the best available science to protect our future - this proposal makes that impossible.

Please withdraw this proposal and send a message that your time as head of the EPA will bring back science-based policies to protect our planet.