|
 |
INDUSTRY GROUP ISSUES PROPOSAL TO SUE AGENCIES
UNDER PAPERWORK ACT
_______________________________________________
Date: September 30, 2005 -
An industry-funded group is
recommending that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) be revised to make it easier
for outside parties to hold EPA and other federal agencies accountable under the
law, including suggestions for new legislation allowing judicial review of
decisions under the act, according to a new proposal issued by the
group.
The group argues that the law
should resemble the recent corporate accountability Sarbanes-Oxley Act by
allowing outside parties to sue federal agencies if information certification
requirements under the PRA are violated. The PRA requires agencies to minimize
the paperwork burdens they impose on the public and to maximize the utility of
the information they collect.
“The PRA requirements for
certification of a fair and independent compliance assessment parallel
requirements in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other securities laws,” says a new
proposal floated by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), an
industry-funded government watchdog group. “The PRA differs significantly from
Sarbanes-Oxley in that the PRA does not contain an explicit judicially
reviewable enforcement mechanism.” The proposal is available on
InsideEPA.com.
The industry push may attract the
attention of Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), chairman of the House Government Reform
regulatory affairs subcommittee, who has targeted reauthorization of the act as
a top legislative priority. In a Sept. 28 interview with Inside EPA, she
said she had intended to propose legislation on the issue in September, but in
the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricanes, the effort has been pushed back. She
offered no timeline for moving a bill, but said she does “intend to get to
it.”
Miller’s efforts are part of a
broader Republican regulatory reform agenda to make rules less burdensome on
industry and heighten accountability for EPA and other agencies’ regulatory
decisions. Critics decry the efforts as ways to slow down and thwart
regulations.
While the Senate has shown little
interest in the effort, observers say the House Republicans appear to be laying
the groundwork for a new regulatory reform push.
For instance, the House federal
workforce & agency organization subcommittee held a hearing this week on an
administration proposal to establish a commission to “sunset” ineffective
federal programs and agencies, and Miller’s subcommittee held a Sept. 28 hearing
to examine EPA rules that hamper manufacturing. Miller is also considering
whether to propose legislation that would widen the scope of the controversial
Information Quality Act, which allows outside groups to petition federal
agencies to correct information used in justifying policy
decisions.
Observers say the reauthorization
of the PRA could be a vehicle for these controversial proposals, which critics
say would hurt EPA’s ability to efficiently regulate industry.
Under the PRA, agencies must submit
all information collection proposals to the White House Office of Management
& Budget (OMB) for approval. The law needs to be reauthorized because the
authorization for funding OMB’s Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs,
which oversees PRA implementation, expired in 2001. Since then, lawmakers have
appropriated money for the office through the Transportation and Treasury
appropriations bills without reauthorizing new spending levels.
The CRE proposal, entitled The
Paperwork Reduction Act Certification Process: The Sarbanes-Oxley for the Public
Sector, says the PRA should have a stronger enforceable certification
requirement that resembles mandates in the corporate accountability law. The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that corporate financial reports be certified by a
company’s chief executive officer and chief financial officer.
The group says a June Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report boosts their argument that agencies are not
being held accountable for their alleged failure to comply with the law. The GAO
said that of 12 case studies, federal chief information officers (CIOs) provided
certifications “despite often missing or inadequate support. . . . Further,
although the law requires CIOs to provide support for certifications, agency
files contained little evidence that CIO reviewers had made efforts to improve
the support offered by program offices.”
For this reason, the CRE argues
that the act needs to permit judicial review of decisions made under the
PRA.
A source with the watchdog group
OMB Watch criticizes the proposal, saying the certification requirement would
bog down agency regulatory actions even further and could cripple the regulatory
process.
The Paperwork Reduction Act Certification Process: The Sarbanes-Oxley For The Public Sector
Source: Inside EPA via InsideEPA.com
Date: September 30, 2005
Issue: Vol. 26, No. 39
©
Inside Washington Publishers
INSIDEEPA-26-39-9