ML20150B341
| ML20150B341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/02/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Martin B OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150B343 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811010200 | |
| Download: ML20150B341 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - -
f UNITED STATES of.g [kj k,4,( j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION QM M f,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.] D/2 b, October 2, 1978 CH AIR M AN Mr. Bernard H. Martin Assistant Director for Legislative Reference Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Martin:
You have requested the views of the Commission on H.R. 10257, a bill to amend the Administrative Procedure Act "to require the perfonnance and publication of economic impact analyses in the Federal Register for all proposed and final rules" subject to the Act.
In particular, you have asked for a comparison of the bill with Executive Order 12044, and whether the bill should apply only to independent regulatory agencies.
j Our view is that H.R.10257 is largely subsumed by Executive Order 12044.
Section 2 of the bill requires each agency to perfonn an economic analysis of proposed rules, and then enumerates certain factors to be considered by that analysis.
Section 3 of the Executive Order requires a " regulatory analysis" of "significant regulations", a category which includes both proposed and existing re A combination of the
" significance" factors of Section 2(e)gulations.
of the Order with the required contents of the analysis as set forth in Section 3(b) covers the factors listed in the bill.
Of course, the Order has a number of other provisions which go well beyond the bill, e.g., the " plain English" requirement.
A major distinction between the bill and the Order is that the Order specifically exempts independent regulatory agencies from its coverage
[Section 6(5)], while the bill appears to cover all Federal agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.
As you are aware, however, the President requested that independent agencies voluntarily comply with the Order, and in our own reply we have outlined our plan for compliance.
A copy of our response to the President is enclosed.
In light of our voluntary compliance with Executive Order 12044 -- and it is our understanding that other independent agencies have also co-operated with the President's program -- this bill would appear to be superfluous.
It does, however, appear to possess one significant drawback in comparison to the Order which could affect the Commission's compliance.
The Order explicitly gives each agency some discretion to establish criteria for which regulations are to be analyzed [Section 3(a)], subject only to the requirement that all regulations having a 79//C / D Z 2
Mr. Bernard H. Martin 2
net economic effect exceeding $100 million, or resulting in a " major increase" in costs and prices for industries or geographic regions
[Section3(a)(1)],mustbeanalyzed.
The literal language of the bill in its present form could be interpreted to require that an l
economic impact statement be prepared for evept proposed agency rule regardless of expected economic impact.
In view of the number of rules, many of minor economic effect, under development at any given time, this possible overinclusiveness could be both unnecessary and unreasonable.
On the question of applicability only to independent regulatory agencies, we have pointed out that in our own case we feel the bill to be un-necessary.
Should the bill be enacted, independent agencies would of course be legally bound to comply with it, and hence may have to modify existing programs designed to comply with the Order, to the extent that the two were inconsistent.
We appreciate this opportunity for comment.
Sincerely, X
WG Joseph M. Hendrie
Enclosure:
Cy ltr, 7/21/78, Hendrie to President l
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _