Adequate time for public review

[Sue Van Patten <svp01@health.state.ny.us>]

I already put in my thoughts about EPA distributing information locally and regionally but I'd like to also get people thinking about what EPA can do to ensure that there is adequate time for people to review information so that they can participate effectively in the decision-making process.  

Often EPA is mandated to allow 30, 60, 90 days for people to review and comment on a draft document.  However, people often feel rushed.  Why is that?  One reason may be because they were just brought into the process so they are playing catch-up, learning about the project and what has been going on.  One solution for this scenario would be having the public involved earlier in the process.  People would be getting basic information over a longer period of time and they would also be involved in the development of the document.  

What else could EPA do to make sure that the public has adequate time to review information?  Would distributing draft, draft documents help? People could see how the document was taking shape and get a sense of where it is going before the comment draft was distributed and the clock started ticking?  Or would people think that it was not worth their time to review a draft, draft?  

What are other people's thoughts?  Let's come up with some specific ways that EPA can use to ensure adequate review time for people who want to be involved.