Since I recently attended a hearing on fracking disclosure in Denver, I got curious about the process of informing the public about proposed rules, and how the public is involved in the rulemaking. This curiosity stemmed from my observation that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission didn’t seem to take comments from the public very seriously at the hearing I attended. Of all the comments made, only one agreed with the industry’s position, yet it appeared that the Commission was mostly made up of people who had been captured by the industry.

So, here’s the scoop, Betty Boop:

The process is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. (linked below)

Regulators are cautioned to consider both the public interest and the economic impact of all rules.

The rules in the Administrative Procedure Act don’t apply to the legislative branch of government, the judicial branch, educational institutes, or the National Guard.

If the agency proposing the rule thinks that it might have a negative impact on a small business, defined as having fewer than 500 employees, they must commence a cost benefit analysis at least 20 days prior to the hearing date. The analysis must be completed at least 5 days prior to the hearing and be made available to the public.

Notice of the hearing must be made public at least 20 days prior to the scheduled date.

The agency is required to consider all comments made regarding the proposed rule.  Any proposed amendments must be made public at least five days prior to the hearing.

A rule can only be approved if the hearing demonstrates that the rule is necessary; statutory authority exists for the rule; the rule is stated in a manner that makes it easy for anyone to understand; the rule is not inconsistent with other laws; and any duplication of rules must be explained by the agency.

The agency has 180 days after a rule-making hearing to either adopt a new rule or reject the proposed rule.

Any person can request an analysis of the proposed rule at least 15 days prior to the hearing. The analysis should contain a description of who would benefit and who would pay the costs of any proposed rule; the costs to the agency for enforcement of the rule; the costs and benefits of not approving the rule; and a discussion of less costly courses of action. This analysis must be available to the public at least 5 days prior to the hearing.

An approved rule becomes effective 20 days after publication.

No rule can be finalized without it being first submitted to the Attorney General for his/her review.

The agency must maintain records of the rule making process.

There is an appeal process for parties who have “standing” in the rule making process.

Homework

Colorado Hearing Rules

Sign Up to get Notices of All Rulemaking in Colorado

The Los Angeles Times published an article this week, which bore the title “Too Dirty to Fail.” The lead sentence is attention grabbing: “Since the beginning of this year, Republicans in the House have averaged roughly a vote every day the chamber has been in session to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency and our nation's environmental laws.”

Politicians ran on a platform of “Jobs Now,” which seems to mean do everything possible to ensure that corporations have no regulations and citizens have no rights. Anything that multinational corporations don’t like is described as job killing.  We constantly see that argument in reader’s comments to online versions of the Sentinel and letters to the editor. Citizens believe the story they’ve been told by captains of industry.

 Herman Cain said that Blacks have been brainwashed into voting for Democrats. Reality is that workers, especially here in Happy Valley, have been brainwashed into voting against their own best interests. People are convinced that we can’t have jobs and a vibrant economy if we regulate industries that pollute the air we breathe, the soil that grows our food, and the water we drink. Reality is that without regulations this High Desert that we call home would be uninhabitable. Without regulations the cost to clean up any environmental disaster falls to taxpayers, not the industrial polluters. Regulations protect human health against the excesses of corporate greed.

Today the Denver Post is reporting that the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling paving the way to enforce Clinton’s roadless rules pertaining to 49 million acres of roadless forests and grasslands. In Colorado the ruling protects 4.4 million acres of National Forest, which represents about a third of Colorado’s National Forests. There are some exceptions incorporated in the ruling, including an exemption if fire danger is high.

This ruling will irritate the oil and gas industry in Colorado, and they will send their attack dogs out to bark about jobs. Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Environment Group's U.S. public lands program said, "Without the roadless rule, protection of these national forests would be left to a patchwork management system that in the past resulted in millions of acres lost to logging, drilling and other industrial development.” A “patchwork management system” is exactly what the industry wants, and why they were working on a separate Colorado roadless rule that allowed mining and drilling on public lands.

In the GOP war on the environment, a battle was lost in federal court yesterday. But the environment hasn’t yet won the war. When you hear about getting rid of regulations because they kill jobs, ask which jobs are going to be lost and which pockets are going to be lined. You may find that the jobs being protected are jobs that have been outsourced to foreign soil.

Homework

Too Dirty to Fail ßread this! It debunks the theory that regulations cost jobs.

Denver Post Story About Reinstatement of Roadless Rules

Pew Charitable Trust's Environmental program