[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27324-27325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12591]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Proposed Criteria for Reviewing and Making Recommendations on
Federal Mandates
ACTION: Notice of proposed criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR)
is soliciting public comments on its proposed criteria for
investigating and reviewing existing federal mandates and formulating
recommendations to modify, suspend, or terminate specific mandates on
State, local, or Tribal governments.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Philip M. Dearborn, Director,
Government Finance Research, ACIR, 800 K Street NW., Suite 450 South,
Washington, DC 20575.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dearborn at 202/653-5538.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations (ACIR, 42 U.S.C. 4271) is charged in Sec. 302 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 67) with
investigating and reviewing the role of Federal mandates in
intergovernmental relations and formulating recommendations to modify,
suspend, or terminate specific mandates on State, local, or Tribal
governments.
Section 302 defines ``Federal mandate'' very broadly for the
purposes of the ACIR review as ``any provision in statute or regulation
or any Federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty on State,
local, or Tribal governments including a condition of Federal
assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program.''
ACIR will select for in-depth review those Federal mandates
generally recognized as creating significant concerns within the
intergovernmental system. In accordance with Public Law 104-4, ACIR
will give review priority to mandates that are subject to judicial
proceedings in Federal courts. To formulate its recommendations, ACIR
will evaluate each mandate to determine the specific conditions causing
concern.
The Commission will make the final decisions about which mandates
it will review based on two types of criteria:
(1) Those that provide a basis for identifying mandates of
significant concern; and
(2) Those that provide a basis for formulating recommendations to
modify, suspend, or terminate specific mandates that are of concern.
Criteria for Identifying Mandates of Significant Concern
In general, Federal mandates will be selected for intensive review
if they have one or more of the following characteristics:
1. The mandate requires State, local, or Tribal governments to
expend substantial amounts to their own resources in a manner that
significantly distorts their spending priorities. This addresses
mandates that require more than incidental amounts of spending. It will
not include all Federal mandates that require governments to spend
money.
2. The mandate establishes terms or conditions for Federal
assistance in a program or activity in which State, local, or Tribal
governments have little discretion over whether or not to participate.
This will include mandates in entitlements and discretionary programs.
It will exclude conditions of grants in small categorical programs that
are distributed on the basis of annual or periodic applications and
that are received only by a limited number of governments.
3. The mandates abridges historic powers of State, local, or Tribal
governments, the exercise of which would not adversely affect other
jurisdictions. This will include mandates that have an impact on
internal State, local, and Tribal government affairs related to issues
not widely acknowledged as being of national concern and for which the
absence of the mandate would not create adverse spillover effects.
4. The mandate imposes compliance requirements that make it
difficult or impossible for State, local, and Tribal governments to
implement. Implementation delays, issuance of court orders, or
assessment of fines may be indicative of mandate requirements that go
beyond State, local, or Tribal fiscal resources, or administrative or
technological capacity, after reasonable efforts at compliance have
been made.
5. The mandate has been the subject of widespread objections and
complaints by State and local governments and their representatives.
This will include mandates that are based on problems of national
scope, but are not federally funded.
Criteria for Formulating Recommendations
ACIR will investigate the specific characteristics of each mandate
causing significant concern in order to formulate a recommendation to
modify, suspend, or terminate the mandate. For purposes of formulating
such recommendations, ACIR will focus on specific provisions in laws,
regulations, or court orders.
When a mandate affects a State or local program that directly
competes with a comparable private sector activity, ACIR will consider
the effects on both the government and private sector in making its
recommendation. ACIR also will consider (1) impacts of mandates on
working men and women and (2) mandates for utilization of metric
systems.
ACIR will investigate each mandate selected for intensive review to
determine whether or not they have one or more of the following
characteristics:
1. Federal Intrusion
Requirements are not based on demonstrated national needs.
Requirements are related to issues not widely recognized
as national concerns or as being within the appropriate scope of
Federal activities.
Requirements are based on problems of national scope, but
which State, local, or Tribal governments have been able or willing to
solve effectively, either independently or through voluntary
cooperation.
Requirements are based on problems of national scope, but
are not federally funded.
These mandates should be terminated or modified to express non-
binding national guidelines. In some instances, the basis provision
could be retained in Federal law, but compliance could be made
voluntary.
2. Unnecessarily Rigid
Provisions do not permit adjustments to the circumstances
or needs of individual jurisdictions.
Provisions restrict flexibility to use less costly or less
onerous alternative procedures to achieve the goal of the mandate.
Provisions do not allow governments to set implementation
or compliance priorities and schedules, taking into account risk
analysis, greatest benefit, or other factors.
These mandates should be modified to provide options, waivers, or
exemptions, or be terminated. [[Page 27325]]
3. Unnecessarily Complex
Requirements are unnecessarily detailed and difficult to
understand.
Provisions are too process specific rather than results
oriented.
These mandates should be simplified, clarified, or otherwise
revised to facilitate understanding and implementation, or be
terminated.
4. Unclear Goals or Standards
Goals or standards are too vague, confusing, or poorly
written to permit clear or consistent implementation of requirements or
measurement of results.
These goals or standards should be rewritten or the mandate should
be terminated.
5. Contradictory or Inconsistent
Provisions in one mandate may make it difficult or
impossible to comply with other provisions in the same or other
Federal, State, local, or Tribal laws.
Requirements use conflicting and confusing definitions and
standards. These mandates should be modified to bring conflicting
requirements into conformance. In some instances, it may be appropriate
to terminate one or all of the requirements. Where possible, common
definitions and standards should be used, especially in planning and
reporting requirements.
6. Duplicative
Provisions in two or more Federal mandates may have the
same general goals but require different actions for compliance.
These mandates could be terminated, consolidated, to modified or
facilitate compliance.
7. Obsolete
Provisions were enacted when conditions or needs were
different or before existing technologies were available.
Provisions have been superseded by later requirements.
These mandates should be modified to reflect current conditions or
existing technology. If a mandate is no longer necessary or has been
superseded, it should be terminated.
8. Inadequate Scientific Basis
Provisions were enacted based on inadequate or
inconclusive scientific research or knowledge.
Provisions are not based on current, peer-reviewed
scientific research.
Provisions are not justified by risk assessment or cost-
benefit.
These mandates should be terminated or modified to reflect current
science. In some cases, suspension of the mandate may be appropriate to
provide time for additional research.
9. Lacking in Practical Value
Requirements do not achieve the intended results.
Requirements are perceived by citizens as unnecessary,
insignificant, or ineffective, thereby producing credibility problems
for governments.
Requirements have high costs relative to the importance of
the issue.
These mandates should be evaluated to determine whether or not they
are effective. If they cannot be shown to be effective and worthy of
public support, they should be terminated. If they are effective, it
still may be appropriate to suspend the mandates to allow time for
public education and consensus building on their value.
10. Resource Demands Exceed Capacity
Requirements for compliance exceed State, local, and
Tribal governments' fiscal, administrative, and/or technological
capacity.
These mandates should be terminated or modified to reduce
compliance problems, or assistance could be provided to upgrade
capacity. In some instances, compliance schedule extensions or
exemptions may be appropriate.
11. Compounds Fiscal Difficulties
Compliance with the requirements of any one mandate or
with multiple mandates compounds fiscal difficulties of governmental
jurisdictions that are experiencing fiscal stress.
In these situations, certain of the mandates affecting the
jurisdictions--exclusive of those that are vital to public health or
safety--should be considered for partial or total suspension until the
government experiencing fiscal stress is able to comply. The conditions
triggering consideration of such suspensions should include:
a. Governments faced with costs dramatically out of line with their
revenue bases, as determined by comparisons with other similar
governments that are complying; or
b. Governments that are experiencing severe fiscal distress for
reasons not immediately within their control. There should be some
definitive evidence of severe problems, such as State receivership,
State declaration of distress, Chapter 9 bankruptcy, or a debt rating
below investment grade. This should not include annual budget balancing
problems.
Dated: May 18, 1995.
William E. Davis III,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-12591 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5500-01-M