Committee on House Administration: Comments Received on Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance – October 3, 2003
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The Committee on House Administration is pleased to submit the following comments and suggestions regarding the proposed amendments to the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance.
Introduction
On September 4, 2003, the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance (“Executive Director”) submitted for publication in the Congressional Record, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Proposed Amendments to the Office of Compliance’s Procedural 9ules (“Proposed Amendments ).1 According to the Executive Director, the Proposed Amendments, which span a wide variety of issues regarding the administrative processes established by the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), are the result of “the experience of the Office in processing disputes under the CAA during the period since the original adoption of the [Procedural Rules) in 1995. 2
In his introductory statement to the Proposed Amendments, the Executive Director states that the Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules are promulgated in accordance with Section 303 of the CAA.’ several of the Proposed Amendments create efficient solutions and alternatives to the current practices of the Office of Compliance (“the Office”). Yet, although some of these rules may be intended to streamline internal procedures concerning the operation of the Office itself, several of the Proposed Amendments vest various officials of the Office with unappealable decision-making authority not contemplated by the CAA, Such Amendments go beyond “retaining latitude in organizing [the Office’s] internal operations” and affect the substantive rights of the parties. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 174 F.3d 206, 211 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Batterton v. Marshall. 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
The CAA provides that regulations affecting substantive rights are properly promulgated under Section 304,4 using a different approval method than that of the procedural rules issued under Section 303. A regulation is characterized as substantive if it ”grant[s] rights, impose[s] obligations or produce[s] other significant effects on private interests.” Chamber of Commerce. 174 F,3d at 211 (quoting American Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation omitted).
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
Home Rules & Regulations Procedural Rules
Committee on House Administration: Comments Received on Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance – October 3, 2003
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The Committee on House Administration is pleased to submit the following comments and suggestions regarding the proposed amendments to the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance.
Introduction
On September 4, 2003, the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance (“Executive Director”) submitted for publication in the Congressional Record, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Proposed Amendments to the Office of Compliance’s Procedural 9ules (“Proposed Amendments ).1 According to the Executive Director, the Proposed Amendments, which span a wide variety of issues regarding the administrative processes established by the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA” or “the Act”), are the result of “the experience of the Office in processing disputes under the CAA during the period since the original adoption of the [Procedural Rules) in 1995. 2
In his introductory statement to the Proposed Amendments, the Executive Director states that the Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules are promulgated in accordance with Section 303 of the CAA.’ several of the Proposed Amendments create efficient solutions and alternatives to the current practices of the Office of Compliance (“the Office”). Yet, although some of these rules may be intended to streamline internal procedures concerning the operation of the Office itself, several of the Proposed Amendments vest various officials of the Office with unappealable decision-making authority not contemplated by the CAA, Such Amendments go beyond “retaining latitude in organizing [the Office’s] internal operations” and affect the substantive rights of the parties. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 174 F.3d 206, 211 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Batterton v. Marshall. 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
The CAA provides that regulations affecting substantive rights are properly promulgated under Section 304,4 using a different approval method than that of the procedural rules issued under Section 303. A regulation is characterized as substantive if it ”grant[s] rights, impose[s] obligations or produce[s] other significant effects on private interests.” Chamber of Commerce. 174 F,3d at 211 (quoting American Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation omitted).
Learn more and continue to read by downloading the following document(s).
Committee on House Administration: Comments Received on Proposed Amendments to the Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance - October 3, 2003
Download ›
CATEGORIES: Comments Procedural Rules
TAGS: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
Recent News