行政机关如何回应公众意见?——美国行政规则制定的经验

How Administrative Agencies Respond to Public Comments:the US Experience in Administrative Rule-making

行政机关将规则草案公开征求意见后,应当如何回应公众意见,这在我国尚未形成定型制度。美国联邦《行政程序法》对经过"通告—评论"程序的行政规则,仅要求行政机关在考虑公众意见之后,在其最终制定的规则之中对规则依据和目的予以"简明综述",其并没有明确行政机关是否应当或如何回应公众评论。实践中,美国行政机关对公众评论基本是予以回应的:在评论意见较少的时候会一一回应,但多数时候并非回应每一个评论,而是分类、整理、聚焦重要观点。行政机关的回应会提及重要评论、表明自己立场、说明所持立场的理由以及根据评论意见对拟议规则进行的修改等。行政机关如此详细回应公众评论,最主要推动力来自较为严格的司法审查。行政机关若不能合理回应重要观点,法院有可能裁判其构成"恣意武断和反复无常",而否认规则效力。这些对我国皆有借鉴意义。

How an administrative agency should respond to public comments after publishing a draft of administrative rules?Currently China has not yet established a mature system in this respect.The Administrative Procedure Act of the United States requires that the agency,after noticecomment rulemaking procedure and consideration of the relevant matters presented,shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose.It does not clearly say whether or how the agency should respond to the comments.In practice,the agency always responds to comments.In some cases where there are few comments,the agency would respond comment by comment.But in most cases the agency would categorize and focus on significant comments rather than answers every comment.The agency would,in the concise general statement,list the significant issues and comments,express its position and basis thereof,and indicate the changes(if any)to the proposed rule.The strongest incentive for the agency to give detailed response while the APA is silent is rigorous judicial review.If the agency fails to reasonably respond to significant comments,the court would hold the rule made in an arbitrary and capricious manner,and set aside it.The US experience is of reference value to China in exploring the system of agency response to public comments.