Rather, the budget is built from ground zero when each spending request has to compete against all others and be justified by today's needs, not last year's. Zero-based regulating is similar. If the regulator cannot identify a clear benefit, then the regulation should be taken off the books, period. Or if there is a benefit but the regulator can find a less burdensome way of achieving the same goal, then the regulation should be modified through amendment. When there is a benefit clearly outweighing the regulatory burden, and nobody can come up with a less burdensome way of achieving that benefit, then the regulation should remain in force, and be enforced consistently.
Businesses can appreciate consistency and predictability in regulations.
The important thing is a periodic review, done with an open mind, constantly looking for ways to preserve needed benefits while reducing regulatory burdens. In OSM, we're taking advantage of an opportunity to start from scratch with the ownership and control rules, using the most wide-open process we can think of. I announced the new approach at a press conference in Washington last week. In addition to the news media, the conference was attended by representatives from the states, other federal agencies, the coal industry, citizen groups, and Congressional staffers all of whom expressed support for the ideas behind the public outreach strategies that we introduced. There's a reason why we decided to initiate the new concept with the redesign of OSM's ownership and control regulations the rules that form the basis of the agency's permit-block sanction against coal mine operators responsible for uncorrected surface mining violations.