Free Paper Example: University of Virginia Violates Human Cloning Act HCA

Introduction

The current issue involving the University of Virginia resulted in many questions regarding the regulation and authority of rules. The problem was about the definition of an educational institution in the Human Cloning Act HCA. The outcome was the scope of the administration by BORS established under the Act and granted authority to extend the protection of all people in society. The omission of the definition resulted in the University of Virginia going against Section 202 of the HCA. The mere omission of a small description could alter the entire intent of a regulation. All required steps need to be followed to ensure that there is no ambiguity in a rule. The powers vested on the Federal Government should be used to achieve clear legislation that has no words that may be misunderstood.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Cover Memorandum

NPRM Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act

According to the Administrative Procedure Act Section 553(b), the notice of proposed rule-making should include:

• A statement of time place and nature of public proceedings.
• Reference to the legal authority of the rule proposition
• Terms or substance or the proposed description or the subject/issue in question.
• Steps in Rule Making after Registration in the Federal Register
• Notice of re-opening or extension of the comment period

Using this stage, the BORS will manage to incorporate ideas from the public about the HCA and the current issue.

Additional Notices of Proposed Rule Making

This stage will be for reacting to the public about the legislation and give a chance for dialogue to enhance clarity in the HCA.

Final Rule and Preamble

The final rule is published in the Federal Register before the Code of Federal Regulations. The preamble of the federal law comes before the final rule text.

Trial Type Hearing to Promulgate Rules

For the crucial regulations, like that of human cloning, I think it is important to hear views from all perspectives. It is vital to incorporate something that will be considerate of all the opinions of people that are to use them. The notices and comment stage also are crucial, but many people are hardly aware of such notices. However, ringing the legislation issues in open discussions would bring a significant change, including adhering to the rules. People will be aware of what specific regulation says regarding the subject, such as hospitals and educational institutions, in our case. During such a hearing, people would be keen to ask questions. For example, some hospitals have education institutions that would happen to such kind of hospitals? The trial will ensure that the legislation has minimal ambiguity to help in easy enforcement of all the sections in the rule. Many would want to be involved in the trial hearing processes for legislation to be proud of their participation in making laws for their country.

Whether BORS has the authority to issue proposed regulations as substantive rules

BORS as an independent agency established under the HCA Section 100. Therefore, as stated in Section 102, BORS should only engage in the activities within its power after a hearing. Since BORS is an independent body, its capabilities should exclusively remain in issuing proposed regulations after trials. The authority of BORS has been limited under section 102. However, under section 101, BORS has the power to administer, interpret, define, and enforce the Act's provisions. The provisions of the Act are regulations that are yet to be discussed to be implemented as rules. The independent board BORS has limited powers. I think it is just like any other board. They are engaged in making the company's rules, yet there is also a threshold that should be met for the regulations to be implemented. They do not have the final say per se. The same case will also apply to the BORS, in the issuance of substantive rules. I think their role is to make propositions and then discuss them during the hearing before the regulations are passed.

Whether BORS should issue the rules as substantive rules

I think that BORS should only make propositions. As discussed earlier, BORS is an independent body. It would not be fair for an independent agency to issue regulations, especially without hearing. Considering that the rules have been ambiguous, yet there was a hearing process before the Act was passed. BORS should continue to issue regulations as proposed regulations for clarity and fairness, especially for public members. The hearing should also be encouraged with a longer duration to get views from reasonable men and other members of society.

Types of rule-making procedures in making substantive rules

Negotiated rule-making would enable BORS to make substantive rules. The process allows discussions with interested parties at the development stages. This category of rule-making increases administrative efficiency (Garvey, 2017). The process involves a lot of consultation and would be appropriate for BORS to apply.

Hybrid rule-making would also be appropriate because Congress directs the Agency to follow the guidelines and requirements (Garvey, 2017). With the Congress guiding BORS, all the processes will be adhered to strictly and ensure that the substantive rules are clear.

Notice/comment is the most common rule-making method that was already recommended for BORS to make substantive laws since a hearing process is involved.

The rule-making procedure that would result in invalid rule-making

Direct Final rule-making is when riles are passed hastily to finalize rules (Garvey, 2017). This method would not be appropriate for BORS. Since BORS is an independent board, making laws would only mean that they would be selfish with the rules and favor one side. Rule-making process should be fair.

Timeline

The date the final rules will be published will be in early October. It is because there are 30 days for public comment and the additional 30 days that should be before the rule comes into effect. Further, after the regulations come into effect, they are recorded in the Federal Register unless they fall under the category of exceptions (Congressional Research Service, 2019). In counting the days, the type of rule-making process is considered because the direct and final rule may take a shorter time.

References

Congressional Research Service (2019). An Overview of Federal Regulations and the Rulemaking Process. Available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10003

Garvey, T (2017). A Brief Overview of Rule-making and Judicial Review. Available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf