Helping to Make Better Rules

December 15, 2020 by Leave a comment

The United States government is examining better ways to support its rulemaking activities – specifically how best to ensure that rulemaking activities are supported by proper facts/evidence. It is seeking comments on a set of questions related to this process. This is an opportunity to (1) take aviation industry best practices and promote their use for other industries, and (2) generally improve the relationship between objective evidence and new regulations supported by such evidence.

Where Did This Come From?

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Public Law 115–435) requires federal agencies to modernize their data management practices to develop and support evidence-based development of policy. Under the Act, the term “evidence” is drawn from 44 U.S.C. 3561 and means “information produced as a result of statistical activities conducted for a statistical purpose.”

What Questions Need Answers?

An Advisory Committee will be providing advice on how to promote the use of data for evidence building. One of the goals is promoting transparency and facilitate public engagement with the evidence building process. As part of its evaluation, the Advisory Committee wishes to consider public comments. The government has asked for answers to the following question, and I have bolded the questions that I think are most important to the aviation industry:

Central Questions–

1. What are the main challenges faced by national, state/provincial, or local governments that are trying to build a basis for evidence-based policy? Briefly describe the bottlenecks and pain-points they face in the evidence-based decision-making process.

2. What are examples of high-impact data uses for evidence-based policy making that successfully effected change, reduced costs, or improved the welfare of citizens?

3. Which frameworks, policies, practices, or methods show promise in overcoming challenges experienced by governments in their evidence building?

4. The Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (See: www.cep.gov) recommended the creation of a National Secure Data Service (See Commission Report at www.cep.gov). Do you agree with this recommendation, and if so, what should be the essential features of a National Secure Data Service?

5. How can federal agencies protect individual and organizational privacy when using data for evidence building? Recommend specific actions the Office of Management and Budget and/or other federal agencies can take when using data for evidence building, as well as suggested changes to federal laws, policies, and procedures.

Secure Data Access Questions–

6. If created, how should a data service be structured to best facilitate (1) research and development of secure data access and confidentiality technologies and methods, (2) and agency adoption of those technologies and techniques?

7. Government agencies have argued that secure data access has value because it (1) improves service delivery, (2) improves efficiency (lowers costs), (3) produces metrics for performance measurement, and (4) produces new learnings/insights from the data. Which of these propositions do you agree holds value and why? Do you have examples that demonstrate these benefits? Do you have other examples of the value of secure data access?

Data Services to Federal, State, Local Agencies and the Public Questions–

8. What are the most pressing data needs of state and local decision makers and how would making data accessible from federal agencies help meet those needs? To share data, what guarantees do data owners (or data controllers) need regarding privacy, data stewardship, and retention?

9. What are the key problems and use cases where collaborative work between federal, state, and local authorities’ data analysis can inform decisions? What are key decision support tools? How would greater communication about data and tools benefit expanded evidence building?

Infrastructure for Meeting Public and Evidence Building Needs Questions–

10. What basic public data services are essential for a data service to address existing capacity gaps and needs? What infrastructure or incentives can the federal government create that locals and states cannot?

DATES

Comments to the docket must be received by Tuesday, February 9, 2021. Please proffer any member comments to ASA not later than Friday, January 8, 2020 so we can consider your comments in the Association’s response.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,

Canada Suggests that Sometimes There is a Better Way then Simply Making a New Rule

July 6, 2013 by Leave a comment

At the recent EASA/FAA Aviation Safety Conference, it was the Canadians who offered a glimpse of realism in their comments.

“Sometimes we over promise and underachieve,” admitted Nicole Girard of Transport Canada (the Canadian aviation regulatory authority).

Girard offered a refreshingly candid examination into the philosophy of rulemaking; and explained the importance of having clear goals throughout the rulemaking process.  Her discussion also helped to illustrate why harmonization is important to distributors involved in international markets.

Girard insisted that government regulators need to know what the drivers are for each regulatory plan. She explained that the reguators need to look at industry priorities and use these as drivers for the regulatory plan. “We can’t work in a silo,” she insisted.

“Part of what we are doing at Transport Canada is to scope our projects much earlier and better identify where industry needs government support [to maintain safety].”

“At the end, a rule is not always the best outcome.” She explained that guidance like ‘best practices’ and explanations about how to achieve effective methods of compliance are often preferable to a constraining rule.

Girard concluded by emphasizing the importance of a sound understanding of the intended outcome of each regulatory project.  SUch an understanding allows the government to examine the results of the rulemaking exercise and measure the rule’s affect against the government intent.  Careful elucidation of the intended result can also help government to identify when there are better solutions other than new than regulations.

How does this affect distributors? Girard’s conclusion also reminded the audience of the importance of international harmonization. She explained that a harmonized approach within regulations leads to better reciprocal acceptance of articles and products certified under those regulations, which makes it easier for exporters to get their articles and products accepted in the target importing nation.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , ,