| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project
The Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project (the Project) is a bipartisan undertaking of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. It consists of a comprehensive study of the state of administrative law, process and procedure in the United States. A description of the Project was included in the Judiciary Committee's Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress, as approved by the Committee on January 26, 2005.〔("Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress, Committee on the Judiciary" ) at 5, (January 26, 2005).〕 The Project will culminate with the preparation of a detailed report with recommendations for legislative proposals and suggested areas for further research and analysis to be considered by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI) requested the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to assist Representative Chris Cannon (R-UT), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL), in conducting the Project, which is anticipated to be completed by September 2006.
== Relationship between the project and ACUS ==
(詳細はAmerican Bar Ass'n Administrative Procedure Database Site Specific Digital Texts: Recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United States );''see'' Toni Fine, ''A Legislative Analysis of the Demise of the Administrative Conference of the United States'', 30 ARIZONA ST. L. J. 19, 46 n. 102 (1998) (noting that "it has been estimated that 75% of ACUS' legislative proposals were adopted in whole or in part).〕 and they, in turn, helped save taxpayers many millions of dollars. ACUS was considered to be "an invaluable mechanism set into place by Congress to improve federal administrative law."〔''ABA Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice Program: The Administrative Conference of the U.S. - Where Do We Go From Here?'', 8 THOMAS M. COOLEY L. REV. 147, 148 (1991) (quoting Michael P. Cox, Dean and Professor of Law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School).〕 A commentator observed that "()s long as there is a need for regulatory reform, there is a need for something like the Administrative Conference."〔''Reauthorization of the Administrative Conference of the United States: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary'', 104th Cong. 31 (1995) (statement of C. Boyden Gray).〕 ACUS is credited with playing an important role in improving the nation's legal system by issuing recommendations designed "to eliminate excessive litigation costs and long delays."〔''Id.'' at 44 (statement of Richard E. Wiley).〕 For example, Congress, in response to an ACUS recommendation, passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in 1990, which established a framework for agencies to resolve administrative litigation through alternative dispute resolution.〔Pub. L. No. 101-552, 104 Stat. 2736 (1990).〕 Among its "most influential government-wide recommendations" were ACUS's proposals facilitating judicial review of agency decisions and eliminating various technical impediments to such review.〔Gary J. Edles, ''Lessons from the Administrative Conference of the United States'', 2 EUROPEAN PUB. L. 571, 584 (1996).〕 It also issued proposals leading to the enactment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act,〔5 U.S.C. Sections 561-70.〕 which encourages consensual resolution through a process that takes into account the needs of various affected interests.〔''See'' Gary J. Edles, ''Lessons from the Administrative Conference of the United States'', 2 EUROPEAN PUB.L. 584, 590-591 (1996).〕 ACUS, in addition, recommended a model administrative civil penalty statute that has served as the basis for "numerous pieces of legislation."〔ACUS Recommendation 72-6 and defunct webpage http://acus.gov/org_mission/acus_org_mission.cfm〕
From a systemic perspective, ACUS also helped to focus attention on the need for the federal government to be made more efficient, less big, and more accountable. It was viewed as one of the leading federal proponents of encouraging practical ways to reduce administrative litigation. In this regard, ACUS actively promoted information-technology initiatives, such as developing methods by which the public could participate electronically in agency rulemaking proceedings to increase public access to government information and foster greater openness in government operations.〔''See, e.g.'', 305.69-3 Publication of a "Guide to Federal Reporting Requirements" (Recommendation No. 69-3); 305.69-6 Compilation of Statistics on Administrative Proceedings by Federal Departments and Agencies (Recommendation No. 69-6); 305.71-6 Public Participation in Administrative Hearings (Recommendation No. 71-6); 305.74-4 Preenforcement Judicial Review of Rules of General Applicability (Recommendation No. 74-4); 305.76-2 Strengthening the Informational and Notice-Giving Functions of the "Federal Register" (Recommendation No. 76-2); 305.76-3 Procedures in Addition to Notice and the Opportunity for Comment in Informal Rulemaking (Recommendation No. 76-3); 305.78-4 Federal agency interaction with private standard-setting organizations in health and safety regulation (Recommendation No. 78-4); 305.79-4 Public Disclosure Concerning the use of Cost-Benefit and Similar Analyses in Regulation (Recommendation No. 79-4); 305.80-6 Intragovernmental Communications in Informal Rulemaking Proceedings (Recommendation No. 80-6); 305.82-4 Procedures for Negotiating Proposed Regulations (Recommendation No. 82-4); 305.82-7 Judicial Review of Rules in Enforcement Proceedings (Recommendation No. 82-7); 305.84-5 Preemption of State Regulation by Federal Agencies (Recommendation No. 84-5); 305.85-1 Legislative Preclusion of cost/benefit analysis (Recommendation No. 85-1); 305.85-2 Agency procedures for performing regulatory analysis of rules (Recommendation No. 85-2); 305.88-7 Valuation of Human Life in Regulatory Decisionmaking (Recommendation No. 88-7); 305.90-2 The Ombudsman in Federal Agencies (Recommendation No. 90-2); 305.93-4 Improving the Environment for Agency Rulemaking (Recommendation No. 93-4); 305.94-1 Use of Audited Self-Regulation as a Regulatory Technique (Recommendation No. 94-1); 305.95-4 Procedures for Noncontroversial and Expedited Rulemaking (Recommendation 95-4).〕
During the course of his testimony on the reauthorization of ACUS in 2004, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a former ACUS Chair, described ACUS as “a worthwhile organization” that offered “a unique combination of talents from the academic world, from within the executive branch . . . and, thirdly, from the private bar, especially lawyers particularly familiar with administrative law.”〔''Reauthorization of the Administrative Conference of the United States Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary'', 108th Cong. 15-16 (2004).〕 He observed, “I did not know another organization that so effectively combined the best talent from each of those areas.” In addition, he said that the Conference was “an enormous bargain.”〔''Id.'' at 36.〕 Likewise, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer cited the “huge” savings to the public as a result of ACUS’s recommendations.〔''Id.'' at 38.〕 Noting that ACUS was “a matter of good Government,” he stated, “I very much hope you reauthorize the Administrative Conference.”〔''Id.'' at 22-23.〕 Both Justices agreed that there were various matters that a reauthorized ACUS could examine. These included assessing the value of having agencies use teleconferencing facilities and the need to create a regulatory process that promotes sound science.〔''Id.'' at 46.〕 Through Representative Cannon's leadership, ACUS was reauthorized in the 108th Congress.〔Federal Regulatory Improvement Act of 2004, Pub.L.No. 108-401 (2004).〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Administrative Law, Process and Procedure Project」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|