Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
To the Editor:
"Reining In the Regulators" (editorial, July 6), which criticized the bipartisan Independent Agency Regulatory Analysis Act sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, Mark Warner and me, claims that extending to independent regulatory agencies the same rule-making principles that apply to executive agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency will hinder these agencies in their mission to craft and apply necessary regulations.
This concern is unfounded.
Our legislation would help ensure that new regulations undergo a complete, quantified cost-benefit analysis, while imposing no undue burdens on the regulatory process. It requires review of only those rules with a yearly effect exceeding $100 million: a dozen or so regulations a year.
Moreover, the maximum period for review is 90 days for a proposed or final rule, the same limited review period that applies to executive agency rules. In addition to being timely and limited in scope, this assessment is also public.
Applying this uniform standard to all government agencies has been advocated by organizations across the political spectrum, including President Obama's Jobs Council. Smart regulation is critical to a well-functioning economy. Our bill will make regulatory agencies smarter, better and more likely to accomplish their mission.
ROB PORTMAN
United States Senator from Ohio
Washington, July 10, 2013
To the Editor:
In objecting to a Senate proposal to require review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or OIRA, for rules promulgated by independent agencies, you write that "making independent agencies less independent is a bad idea."
The bill does not threaten agencies' policy independence, only their "independence" to cut analytical corners. Allowing agencies like mine to avoid rigorous analysis of costs and benefits of their proposals (economic and otherwise) — including a second look at such analyses by OIRA — shortchanges the American people.
As the American Bar Association and the Administrative Conference of the United States agree, agencies shouldn't be the only ones checking their work: OIRA's review fixes that. Rules buttressed by OIRA review are stronger as matters of policy and of judicial review. Requirements that get OIRA's stamp of approval are also more likely to be the least burdensome way to address a risk.
Finally, the American people benefit when one central office ensures that the federal government as a whole is working together. OIRA review would make independent agencies more responsive to the taxpayers and more skillful in their work, just as it has with executive agencies.
NANCY A. NORD
Bethesda, Md., July 9, 2013
The writer has served as a commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission since 2005.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Letters: Rules for Agencies: The Senator and the Commissioner
Dengan url
http://opinimasyarakota.blogspot.com/2013/07/letters-rules-for-agencies-senator-and.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Letters: Rules for Agencies: The Senator and the Commissioner
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Letters: Rules for Agencies: The Senator and the Commissioner
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar