Recommendations

The main statutory function of ACUS is to bring together the public and private sectors to recommend improvements to administrative and regulatory processes.

ACUS’s Office of the Chairman, with the approval of the Council, engages consultants to study administrative processes or procedures that may need improvement. Consultants or in-house staff then prepare a comprehensive research report proposing recommendations.  An ACUS committee discusses this report, preparing a draft Recommendation to submit to the Council and, with approval, to the Assembly.  Following a debate the Assembly adopts the final Recommendation, which ACUS undertakes to implement.

                                                                               ACUS Recommendation Process

On occasion, the ACUS membership has acted to adopt a “Statement” to express its views on a particular matter without making a formal recommendation on the subject.  ACUS statements are typically the product of the same process that leads to recommendations, but may set forth issues, conclusions from a study, or comments, rather than recommendations.  ACUS has adopted 19 such statements, which are included in the searchable database of recommendations.

  • Recommendation number: 68-1
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-1

 

Administrative hearings of the Federal Government should be conducted in dignified, efficient hearing rooms, appropriate as to size, arrangement, and furnishings. At the present time no central body is responsible for providing or planning the needed facilities. As a particular consequence, administrative hearings often...

  • Recommendation number: 68-2
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-2

 

The manual at present falls short of its goal because the narrative text submitted by some of the agencies is outdated, unrevealing, cumbersome, or otherwise deficient. The text should be rewritten at a high level of competence.

Recommendation

1. Each agency covered by 5 U.S.C. 552 should assign the writing...

  • Recommendation number: 68-3
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-3 

 

The Parallel Table of Statutory Authorities and Rules (2 CFR ch. I) should be an accurate and complete listing of United States Code provisions cited as rulemaking authority in executive agency documents which prescribe general and permanent rules. The present Parallel Table is deficient. Agencies have not given...

  • Recommendation number: 68-4
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-4

 

Most Americans are probably unaware of the multitude of day-to-day Federal activities reflected in proposed, revised, and recently promulgated rules, regulations, or determinations which substantially affect the price, quantity, quality, labeling, safety, and other aspects of products and services available to the public...

  • Recommendation number: 68-5
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-5

 

A. Agency Efforts

1. Federal agencies should engage more extensively in affirmative, self-initiated efforts to ascertain directly from the poor their views with respect to rulemaking that may affect them substantially. For this purpose, agencies should make strong efforts, by use of existing as well as newly...

  • Recommendation number: 68-6
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-6 

 

Recommendation

1. In order to make more efficient use of the time and energies of agency members and their staffs, to improve the quality of decision without sacrificing procedural fairness, and to help eliminate delay in the administrative process, every agency having a substantial caseload of formal...

  • Recommendation number: 68-7
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-7

 

Title 28 of the United States Code should be amended to eliminate any requirement of a minimum jurisdictional amount before U.S. district courts may exercise original jurisdiction over any action in which the plaintiff alleges that he has been injured or threatened with injury by an officer or employee of the United...

  • Recommendation number: 68-8
  • Adopted on: December 11, 1968

For the project report click here: https://www.acus.gov/report/project-report-recommendation-68-8

 

Judicial review of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission in cases where at present a special three-judge District court is used under 28 U.S.C. 2325 should be by petition to review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the same general manner as review of agency orders under the Judicial Review Act of 1950, 28 U.S.C. (...