If the regulatory agency is in data gathering mode, a single public comment
can halt a rulemaking. After reading my public comment on obtrusive space
advertising <
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Miscellaneous_Changes_to_Commercial_Space_Transportation.pdf>.
provided
in response to an AST Request For Comments, AST concluded that the
statutory prohibition provided the necessary authority and a rulemaking was
not required.
-R
On Saturday, September 10, 2016, Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[1] at some point proposed laws are usually sent out for public comment
to potentially interested parties... in practice, I have never seen a
publicly suggested change of any sort actually happen for an EU proposal,
and almost never for a UK proposal.
On this side of the pond, based on limited watching of the regulatory
process, my impression is that once in a while a proposal will be dropped
because of concerted opposition or somebody pointing out a disastrous flaw,
and sometimes minor tweaks (adjustments to numbers, etc.) will be made
based on comments, but substantial changes based on public comment are rare.
By the time a draft goes out for public comment, it has a lot of inertia.
To actually affect the shape of new rules, you have to get input into the
process much earlier. Sometimes there are organized channels for this,
e.g. industry consultative groups; sometimes it's informal and ad-hoc.
Either way, you have to be pro-active, investing time and effort in making
connections to the people who write the rules; waiting for them to come to
you does not work.
(This is one reason why the rules so often seem to be stacked in favor of
large companies: they're the ones who can dedicate people to this easily.
Smaller outfits often have trouble finding the resources for it, or don't
think it's important enough.)
The same comments apply to consensus standards processes (and here I have
had some inside experience): actually participating in the process is a
lot of work but also gives much more leverage. Standards groups are more
receptive to final-draft comments -- typically they are *required* to pay
attention to all inputs, if they want to avoid problems with anti-trust
laws, whereas the government has less incentive -- but even there, the
later you get involved, the poorer your chances.
Henry
