Questions after rulemaking is adopted by the EQC

1.  Depending on the level of controversy of the rulemaking, addressing the public comments received can be very time consuming. Any recommendations on how to organize and respond to public comments more effectively?

This was not very controversial and we were able to thoroughly respond to public comments.

2.  Did you incorporate changes due to a public comment? How was the decision to make those changes determined? Who was involved in that discussion resulting in changing the proposed rules?

Yes, we try to be as responsive as possible to public comments. We value our stakeholders who participate in rulemaking and when possible want to let them know we are listening and reward their commitment of time and energy. In this rulemaking we were most likely to make changes based on well-informed detailed comments that supported the goals of the rulemaking and were not contrary to federal requirements, agency policies or economic realities. The rule writer, SPPIT rulemaking team and Program Operations manager were involved in discussions about how to respond to comments.

3.  Developing the staff report is a major task. What assistance or information would have made writing the staff report easier, quicker?

I can't think of anything we should have done differently. However there was confusion about the key issues. The format prompts us to list and discuss key issues but these were edited out in the review process at OD. I can understand not wanting many key issues, but it did not make sense to leave them out when in reality there were several. Maybe the template could advise us when to exclude key issues if that is at times preferred.

4.  Was an external advisory committee used for this rulemaking? If so, did the advisory committee serve its purpose? Would you have organized or managed the advisory committee differently if you were to do the rulemaking again?

There was no external advisory committee but we met with stakeholders 5-6 times in the year leading up to adoption. Because of early stakeholder feedback, we deferred several more substantive proposals.

5.  How long was your entire rulemaking process from Start Rulemaking Proposal until adoption by the EQC?

11/29/2005 - 10/17/2007. The project was shelved for a year because of staff and management turnover and other work priorities. When we picked it back up in 8/2007, it took about 14 months.

What changes, if any, would have made this rulemaking process more successful in terms of a better final product or less effort to get to the same final product?

The draft and final review cycles seemed redundant - there are too many dates to track and too many versions circulating. This could be simplified in cases where there is good internal agreement on the proposals.

6.  Any other recommendations, suggestions or comments?

Looking forward to a simplified, clearer rulemaking process, or at least one where the level of process matches our internal communication needs.