Legalectric

Many thanks to the “little birdie” who brought this decades old report to my attention:

Rulemaking – Legislative Auditor-93-04-1

Yes, this is a report from the Minnesota Legislative Auditor from 1993, and if you read it, you’ll see little has changed is so many years…  The issues raised are issues we’ve been raising in the Public Utilities Commission rulemaking for Minn. R. Ch. 7849 and 7850 (Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing).  AAAAAAAAAAAACK!

For example, from the Summary:

• Encouraging agencies to negotiate rules before formally proposing them has made the formal public notice-and-comment process mandated by the APA less meaningful; and

• Since there are no requirements or guidelines governing the negotiation process, those people selected to help an agency draft rules have an unfair advantage over those who are not asked to participate.

One unintended consequence of negotiated rulemaking is that the public participation process mandated by the APA has become less important because the content of rules is largely decided during the negotiation phase. As a result, by the time a rule is formally published in the State Register with a request for public comments, an informal agreement between an agency and parties to the negotiation may already have been reached. Those groups and individuals not consulted often are left out. Nearly 70 percent of the affected parties who responded to our survey said they hear about rules too late for their input to make a difference. People who live outside the Twin Cities area were much more likely to feel unable to influence the rulemaking process and to express dissatisfaction with agency rulemaking performance generally.

For example, in the PUC Rulemaking for 7849 and 7850 (PUC Docket 12-1246), it’s been an over two-year-long process, and few are showing up anymore.  We weigh in, some things are taken into account in the drafts, and then that disappears from the next draft.  How can it feel like anything but a colossal waste of time?  Yet if we weren’t there, the utilities would get everything they want.  And as with the utility Certificate of Need and Siting/Routing processes, rulemaking has the same notice and public participation problems.  It’s all the same, deja vu all over again.

… and also from the report …

Furthermore, the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources. In the absence of formal guidelines or standards, agency practices vary, and some agencies are better than others at obtaining broad-based input.

We also conclude that:

• The formal public notice mechanisms may be inadequate to ensure timely notice and meaningful participation in rulemaking; and

• The prohibition of “substantial changes” after rules are proposed is often misunderstood by agency staff and may inhibit them from incorporating public comments made through official mechanisms.

Does this sound familiar?

Once more with feeling:  … the rule negotiation process is not part of the official rulemaking record nor subject to statutory controls or legal review that would guarantee equal access. Therefore, it can easily be dominated by those groups and organizations with more resources.

So what is the bottom line of this report?

Therefore, we recommend that:

The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that a “notice of regulatory action” be published in the State Register and mailed to all affected parties when an agency begins drafting a rule.

We also recommend that:

• The Legislature should consider amending the Administrative Procedure Act to require that agencies maintain a “rulemaking docket” that contains an up-to-date listing of the status of existing rules and impending rulemaking actions, to be submitted annually to the Legislature.

The recommendations we make are designed to revitalize the formal rulemaking process, ensure more equitable access to agencies at a time when comments can reasonably be considered, and strengthen public accountability over agency rules. We think that replacing the current “notice to solicit outside opinion,” which is published for 62 percent of all rules, with a mandatory “notice of regulatory action” will not represent an undue burden on agencies. The current notice is not widely distributed and does not contain enough information to enable interested parties to respond. Therefore, we recommend that the new notice should contain more information about the rule and the process to be used in drafting it, and that it should receive wider distribution than the current notice. A mandatory rulemaking docket, to be submitted to the Legislature and made available to the public upon request, should help the Legislature monitor rulemaking and provide better oversight.

Also, we recommend the following additional changes to the Administrative Procedure Act:

• Rules not adopted within 18 months of their authorizing legislation should require reauthorization, which would replace the current requirement that new rules be published within 180 days;

• A single definition of “substantial change” should be incorporated into the APA;

• “Regulatory analyses” should be done on rules if requested by the Governor, the Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules, a political subdivision, another state agency, or 300 persons; and the current special rule justification requirements relating to agricultural land, small business, and fiscal impacts on local government should be eliminated;

• Agency efforts to notify all people potentially affected by a rule should be made part of the official rulemaking record and subject to external examination during the rules review process;

• Individuals requesting a public hearing should provide their address and phone number;

• Everyone who has requested a hearing should be notified when agencies negotiate to secure withdrawal of hearing requests, and agreements made in negotiations should be made a matter of public record and included in the official rulemaking record;

• Exempt rules should be reviewed for form, statutory authority, need and reasonableness, and consistency with legislative intent; and

• All rules should be reviewed by the Office of Administrative Hearings, thereby eliminating the Attorney General’s role in rules review.

… and …

In addition to changing the APA and other statutes that govern agency rulemaking, we recommend that:

• State agencies involved in rulemaking should make more efforts to broaden public participation in rulemaking.

For example, they should make a greater effort to educate the public about how to receive direct information about rulemaking actions and make greater use of agency-held public hearings or widely publicized public meetings early in the rulemaking process. They should also include circulation of rule drafts and “statements of need and reasonableness” earlier and more widely among all parties affected by rules. Finally, agencies should terminate the negotiation process when it fails to make progress toward resolving issues and either proceed more quickly to an official public hearing, employ the services of a professional negotiator or mediator, or return to the Legislature for guidance.

Adopting these recommendations should shorten the informal process, broaden public input in the early stages of rulemaking, and make rules more responsive to the Legislature.

Air Permits at the MPCA!  Time to sit right down and write a Comment to the MPCA about the Titan Lansing sand processing and loading facility in North Branch.  Scroll down for the primary documents.

Send Comments, by Friday, August 28, 2015, to:

Andrew Luberda   
      email: andrew.lubera@state.mn.us
Air Quality Permits Section Industrial Division 
MN Pollution Control Agency  
520 Lafeyette Road North
St Paul MN 55155

The notice does not list an email for Luberda or a MPCA comment url, so I called him up to get his email.  I asked if they’d correct this omission, and got a non-responsive response.

Tiller Sand transloading facility… If you recall, this was that Tiller Sand facility that they built and started operating WITHOUT ANY PERMITS, just went ahead and did it.  That said, their history isn’t exactly as pristine as… well… as pristine as frac sand!

January 25, 2013 – Tiller Corp. is penalized for air-quality violations

November 20, 2014 – Tiller Corporation penalized for air-quality violations

Then it was sold to Titan Lansing in November 2014 (see comments about air quality and permits in this article).

In the Chisago County Press here’s the poop about the MPCA Air Permit and info on how to file a Comment, great info about various Comment and administrative options (not that the MPCA ever does contested cases):

Comments sought to amend air quality permit

Here’s the scoop from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

Intent to Issue Air Emission Permit to Titan Lansing Transloading LLC – Notice Fulltext

• Draft Air Emission Permit

• Technical Support Document

Today was the Save the Bluffs sponsored “Conference for Frac Sand Activists: Networking, Learning, Advocating.”  Katie Himanga did a tremendous job organizing this, great turnout, and I came back energized!

Here’s my presentation on “Opportunities for Legal Intervention” (as opposed to not so legal??? hmmmmm):

Overland Handout

LOBBYISTS ‘R’ US (this is OLD!)

People were VERY interested in both Intervention in a permitting and proceeding and in Application for a change in Zoning Ordinance.  Both of these are important because they put “the people” in the driver’s seat, through becoming a party in the proceeding, or through becoming the applicant.

INTERVENTION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITTING PROCEEDING

Intervention in a permitting proceeding is authorized under Minn. Stat. 116B.09, Subd. 1.  This is useful where a project has been proposed and applied for, because it gives you a seat at the table:

Here’s an example where a party has intervened, in this case in a City of Minneapolis permitting proceeding:

Friends of the Riverfront, et al., Relators, vs. DeLaSalle High School, Respondent, City of Minneapolis, Respondent

Here’s an example of a simple Petition (I’d recommend adding more narrative and supporting documents):

City of Scandia – Notice of Intervention (Final – 7-21-09)

APPLICATION FOR ZONING CHANGE

Pretty much anyone can apply for a Zoning Ordinance change.  It was done to get the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance moving, and got a county Wind Study Committee started under the Planning Advisory Committee to put the Ordinance together.  The same thing happened with Silica Sand mining, a Silica Sand study committee was formed, but it wasn’t utilized in this instance nearly as much as it was for the Wind Ordinance.

Here’s the Application for Goodhue County, which also explains how the process works, what to do, etc.  It’s pretty simple, apply and the process begins slowly grinding forward.  Most Counties will have their application online:

Goodhue County_2015 Change of Zone_201501090914372783

Here’s the Save the Bluff’s Petition for a Goodhue County Zoning change that got StB a seat at the table:

Binder-Zoning Change Application-FINAL

Here are a few of posts from PAC and County Board meetings during that time as it slowly went through the county process:

Overland_Comments_3-10-2015

And what are the Comments about?  Here’s the Plan:

Draft MN State Rail Plan

Why does it take as long for media to pick up an explosion and long burning waste disposal site near Williston, ND as it does for a train derailment in Ontairo?

Here’s the poop on yesterday’s (3:20 a.m.) explosion in Williston:

KXNEWS, ND: Waste Disposal Ste near Williston Explodes

Valley News: Dangerous Fire Breakes Out at Waste Disposal Site South of Williston

Bakken.com: Explosion razes waste disposal site near Alexandria , which has the most details:

A fire so massive that it could not be approached by firefighters erupted after an explosion at an oil waste disposal site north of Alexander, North Dakota. According to KXNews, McKenzie County Emergency Manager Karlin Rockvoy said the only thing to do at first was watch the fire burn itself out.

The explosion occurred at approximately 3:30 a.m. Emergency responders from both Williston and Alexander established a perimeter around the site to ensure the safety of anyone in the area. Five employees at the facility escaped unharmed, one of whom reported jumping out of the way just in time.

Firefighters were able to get the flames under control by midmorning, though the cause of the explosion is still unknown.

The complex, which undertook the treatment and disposal of oilfield waste, was completely destroyed during the incident. According to the Bismarck Tribune, Rockvoy reported that any damage caused by the explosion was contained by a surrounding embankment.

The waste disposal site was owned by Tervita, a company which specializes in dealing with industrial waste while focusing on environmentally conscious solutions. The facility was operated by Republic Services, which recently acquired Tervita, LLC, a subsidiary of Tervita Corporation. The merger heightened Republic Services’ presence in the oil and gas waste sector.

Bismarck Tribune: Explosion at oil and gas waste disposal site contained

Google this and find all of five media posts…