4 ms·

I appreciate the time you took to craft this argument but would like to add the many laws that have been struck down for being 'overly broad'. If a reasonable

I appreciate the time you took to craft this argument but would like to add the many laws that have been struck down for being 'overly broad'. If a reasonable person can't read the law and determine how not to be a BongoBoomBah then...

tw04 3y ago
> If a reasonable person can't read the law and determine how not to be a BongoBoomBah then... You haven’t spent much time reviewing actual laws in the US if you think the common person should be able to easily decipher the meaning. They are generally incredibly difficult to decipher if you’re trying to read them based strictly on your understanding of the layman definition of a word. You almost always have to read the full thing to get context and even then will have to cross reference multiple times to figure out the legal definition of the language in use. It frequently deviates from how those words are used in common speech.
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  Fair enough. I still don't understand how an existing use can be redefined as a "significant new use" based solely on the discretion of the EPA Administrator. They were presumably making buckets using a specific method before it was determined that it may have health consequences and is therefore a "significant new use" based on this knowledge instead of, say, they created a novel method to make buckets. Maybe tomorrow they discover pulping paper with water harms sea turtles therefore pulping paper with water is a significant new use of trees.
  - dmvdoug 3y ago
    Here's what I said in a different comment: As for the rest, I think what's tripping everyone up is that "use" isn't just any old use out in the world. The Code of Federal Regulations defines in great and painful detail what kinds of uses are subject to regulation: see 40 CFR Part 721, subpart B (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B). Manufacturers have to submit a notice of the uses they are putting the chemicals to. That gets reviewed by EPA. If EPA approves, that use (or the corresponding part in 40 CFR 720) is added to the chemical's listing in subpart E (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E). But if EPA finds out that a chemical is being used in practice in a way that matches subpart B, but isn't listed in subpart E because no one sent the required notifications, they can take various actions to force compliance (under various penalties). When the manufacturer complies and submits the appropriate notifications, the use gets added to the chemical listing in subpart E.

tw04 3y ago

> If a reasonable person can't read the law and determine how not to be a BongoBoomBah then... You haven’t spent much time reviewing actual laws in the US if you think the common person should be able to easily decipher the meaning. They are generally incredibly difficult to decipher if you’re trying to read them based strictly on your understanding of the layman definition of a word. You almost always have to read the full thing to get context and even then will have to cross reference multiple times to figure out the legal definition of the language in use. It frequently deviates from how those words are used in common speech.

UncleEntity 3y ago
Fair enough. I still don't understand how an existing use can be redefined as a "significant new use" based solely on the discretion of the EPA Administrator. They were presumably making buckets using a specific method before it was determined that it may have health consequences and is therefore a "significant new use" based on this knowledge instead of, say, they created a novel method to make buckets. Maybe tomorrow they discover pulping paper with water harms sea turtles therefore pulping paper with water is a significant new use of trees.
- dmvdoug 3y ago
  Here's what I said in a different comment: As for the rest, I think what's tripping everyone up is that "use" isn't just any old use out in the world. The Code of Federal Regulations defines in great and painful detail what kinds of uses are subject to regulation: see 40 CFR Part 721, subpart B (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-B). Manufacturers have to submit a notice of the uses they are putting the chemicals to. That gets reviewed by EPA. If EPA approves, that use (or the corresponding part in 40 CFR 720) is added to the chemical's listing in subpart E (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-721/subpart-E). But if EPA finds out that a chemical is being used in practice in a way that matches subpart B, but isn't listed in subpart E because no one sent the required notifications, they can take various actions to force compliance (under various penalties). When the manufacturer complies and submits the appropriate notifications, the use gets added to the chemical listing in subpart E.