The rebates, which consist in granting a lump sum discount to the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

compelling public need; the first step of the RIA model foresees that the proposing agency drafts apreliminary RIA form, assessing all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, includingthe alternative of not regulating and an indication of the relevance of the expected impact of theproposed regulation. The agency have to choose those approaches that maximize net benefits.In the framework designed by the Order, the federal agencies became the only responsible fordeveloping regulations. In fact they are considered the repositories of significant substantiveexpertise and experience and for this reason able to assure that the regulations are consistent withapplicable law, the President's priorities, and the principles set forth in this Executive order.The RIA form is subjected to a 60-day notice and comment period. In this period the interestedparties can file their comments and suggestions regarding the regulatory option chosen by theagency. After that the notice and comment period has expired, the OIRA has 90 days to approve orreject the proposal assessing the quality of cost-benefit analysis performed by the agency. If theproposal is approved by the OIRA the proceedings go forward; if it is rejected were agreednegotiations between OIRA and proponent agency.The review function is assigned to the Office of Management and Budged. The order stated that“Within OMB, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is the repository ofexpertise concerning regulatory issues, including methodologies and procedures that affect morethan one agency, this Executive order, and the President's regulatory policies. To the extentpermitted by law, OMB shall provide guidance to agencies and assist the President, the VicePresident, and other regulatory policy advisors to the President in regulatory planning and shall bethe entity that reviews individual regulations, as provided by this Executive order”.In 1996 the Congressional Review Act prescribed that all sponsoring agencies were obliged to sendtheir proposal to the Congress for an evaluation. The US Congressional Budget Office can repealany draft regulation within 60 days.56
2. The Development of RIA: the UK ExperienceThe development of EU Impact Assessment was strongly influenced by the UK experience. For thisreason it is important to inform about the development of UK RIA, in order to better understand thefeatures of UE RIA.The introduction of RIA in the UK institutional context differs from the US experience and thisgives to the UK models the peculiarity that subsequently will be absorbed by the European RIA.First of all, as we show in this section, the UK RIA procedure was introduced gradually in theinstitutional context, and at the beginning the procedure was focused mainly on the compliance costborne by target firms and on the impact of regulation on small and medium-sized firms. Anotherimportant difference with respect the US model was the kind of regulation subjected to Regulatoryimpact analysis that was the draft bills presented in the Parliament 48 .The first sample of analysis of the possible impact of the draft-bill discussed by the Parliament wentback to the Thacher Administration, in 1985. It was focused only on the analysis of businesscompliance costs and did not take in account neither the cost for the whole society nor thecomparison of the cost with the benefit deriving from the proposed regulation. The principal andonly goal of the Cost Compliance Analysis (CCA)was in to reduce the administrative burden on thefirm in order to promote the economic growth. CCA represent in fact an answer to the critiquesraised to the government about the excessive burden that regulation placed in particular on themedium and small sized firms, that did not permit the development of a more entrepreneur businessenvironment. 49The following step of the regulatory reform was the creation of a central agency, the Enterprise andDeregulation Unit, within the Department of Employment, with the task to oversee and co-ordinate48 Renda A., Impact Assessment in UE, the State of the Art and the Art of the State, Centre for European Policy study,Brussels 200649 The initiative was realized within the broad project aimed to address the negative effect of over-regulation onbusiness, as showed in the White Paper Lifting the Burden, Cmnd 9751, 1985. In this first document the department wasnot required to make a complete cost-benefit analysis but only a cost-effectiveness analysis57
Page 1 and 2:
LUISS GUIDO CARLIDOTTORATO DI RICER
Page 5 and 6: a form-based approach 4 . In partic
Page 7: Guidance Paper is the result of a r
Page 10 and 11: In the following section are analyz
Page 12: The rebate schemes were individuali
Page 15 and 16: The analysis takes into considerati
Page 17 and 18: documents or data that the dominant
Page 19 and 20: which apply only to some type of cu
Page 21 and 22: to capture. Then it compares these
Page 23 and 24: References:DG Competition, DG Compe
Page 25 and 26: Secondo quanto stabilito dalla giur
Page 27 and 28: L’autonomia di fattispecie abusiv
Page 29 and 30: Difatti DT era soggetta a specifici
Page 31 and 32: L’applicazione dei criteri sopra
Page 33 and 34: 1.3 La sentenza TeliaSonera: un sal
Page 35 and 36: A parere dunque dell’avvocato gen
Page 37 and 38: Le pronunce comunitarie hanno accre
Page 39 and 40: profitmargins 30 ”. Medesime conc
Page 41 and 42: BIBLIOGRAFIACase C-52/09, Konkurren
Page 44 and 45: REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTELE
Page 46 and 47: IntroductionRegulatory Impact Asses
Page 48 and 49: technical nature of RIA tool was pr
Page 50 and 51: correct evaluation of the costs and
Page 52 and 53: counter political development that
Page 54 and 55: each "major rule" pending, subject
Page 58 and 59: the effort of the other department
Page 60 and 61: 3. The Development of RIA: the Euro
Page 62 and 63: Commission initiatives included in
Page 64 and 65: But there is another aspect of the
Page 66 and 67: SECTION BAn Empirical Analysis of T
Page 68 and 69: With the adoption of New Regulatory
Page 70 and 71: The Commission evaluates the impact
Page 72 and 73: The document of Commission gives ve
Page 74 and 75: following are summarized the main p
Page 76 and 77: The electronic communications secto
Page 78 and 79: In order to reach this objective th
Page 80 and 81: 2) this would have a positive impac
Page 82 and 83: Economicoperators' costsand benefit
Page 84 and 85: costs and benefits related to the e
Page 86 and 87: 3. Third Case Study - The Commissio
Page 88 and 89: According to the ERG Common Positio
Page 90 and 91: architecture implemented by an SMP
Page 92 and 93: same time Ofcom believes that this
Page 94 and 95: In order to understand how the RIA
Page 96 and 97: What is possible learned from the a
Page 98 and 99: - European Commission, Draft Recomm
show all

The rebates, which consist in granting a lump sum discount to the ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?