Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22041

1This report uses the terms ‘‘rule’’ and

‘‘regulation’’ interchangeably.

2See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

memoranda/m00–08.pdf

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Draft Report to Congress on the Costs

and Benefits of Federal Regulations

AGENCY: Office of Management and

Budget, Executive Office of the

President.

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: OMB requests comments on

the attached Draft Report to Congress on

the Costs and Benefits of Federal

Regulation. The Draft Report is divided

into an Introduction and three chapters.

The Introduction sets the context and

provides the background for the next

three chapters. Chapter I discusses the

various types of regulations and the

problems we have encountered in our

past attempts to estimate the total costs

and benefits of Federal regulations,

especially in the aggregate and by

regulatory program. The chapter also

proposes several new approaches to

produce better estimates and asks for

comments on these proposals as well as

other suggestions to improve our

estimates. Chapter II provides data on

the costs and benefits of each of the

major regulations reviewed by OMB

under Executive Order 12866 from April

1, 1999 through March 31, 2000 as well

as information on the costs and benefits

of the major regulations issued by the

independent agencies during this

period. Chapter III discusses last year’s

recommendation to improve the

regulatory information provided by the

agencies. It also asks for comments on

that proposal as well as for suggestions

that would improve the transparency

and the public’s understanding of the

regulatory analyses provided by the

agencies.

DATES: To ensure consideration of

comments as OMB prepares this Draft

Report for submission to Congress,

comments must be in writing and

received by OMB no later than July 2,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this Draft

Report should be addressed to John F.

Morrall III, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, NEOB, Room

10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments by

facsimile to (202) 395–6974, or by

electronic mail to

jmorrall@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

F. Morrall III, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, NEOB, Room

10235, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503. Telephone:

(202) 395–7316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress

directed the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) to prepare a Report to

Congress on the Costs and Benefits of

Federal Regulations. Specifically,

Section 628 of the FY2000 Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act (the Act) requires OMB to submit a

report on the costs and benefits of

Federal regulations together with

recommendation for reform. The Act

says that the report should contain

estimates of the costs and benefits of

regulations in the aggregate, by agency

and agency program, and by major rule,

as well as an analysis of impacts of

Federal regulation on State, local, and

tribal government, small business,

wages, and economic growth. The Act

also states that the report should go

through notice and comment and peer

review.

Donald R. Arbuckle,

Acting Administrator, Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs.

Draft Report to Congress on the Costs

and Benefits of Federal Regulations

Introduction

This is a draft for public comment of

the Office of Management and Budget’s

fourth report to Congress on the costs

and benefits of Federal regulation.1 This

report is required by Section 628(a) of

the FY2000 Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act (the

Act). The Act requires OMB to submit

‘‘an accounting statement and

associated report’’ containing:

‘‘(1) an estimate of the total annual

costs and benefits (including

quantifiable and nonquantifiable effects)

of Federal rules and paperwork, to the

extent feasible:

‘‘(A) in the aggregate;

‘‘(B) by agency and agency program;

and

‘‘(C) by major rule;

‘‘(2) an analysis of impacts of Federal

regulation on State, local, and tribal

government, small business, wages, and

economic growth; and

‘‘(3) recommendations for reform.

The Act at Section 628 (b), (c), and (d)

also specifies how we are to produce the

report. We must:

‘‘(b) * * * provide public notice and

an opportunity to comment on the

statement and report,

‘‘(c) * * * issue guidelines to

agencies to standardize (1) measures of

costs and benefits and (2) the format of

accounting statements, and

‘‘(d) * * * provide for independent

and external review of the guidelines

and each accounting statement and

associated report under this section.’’

This draft report provides the public

with an opportunity to comment on the

‘‘statement and report’’ before we

submit it to Congress. We are also

asking independent and external experts

in the economics of Federal regulation

to review this draft report. After taking

the public comments and peer reviews

into account, we will submit the final

report to Congress.

In early October 1999, we drafted

‘‘Guidelines to Standardize Measures of

Costs and Benefits and the Format of

Accounting Statements’’ (Guidelines).

We circulated them for ‘‘independent

and external review’’ by nine experts in

the field of benefit cost analysis. Based

on these comments we finalized the

Guidelines and issued them as a

Memorandum for the Heads of

Departments and Agencies (M–00–08)

on March 22, 2000.2 On August 7, 2000,

we asked the Departments and Agencies

to use the Guidelines to provide the

‘‘accounting statements’’ on the benefits

and costs of regulations that we would

use to prepare the report to Congress on

the costs and benefits of Federal

regulations. Using this information as

well as other information from the

agencies and published literature on the

costs, benefits, and impacts of Federal

regulation, we prepared this draft

report.

This draft report is OMB’s fourth

report to Congress on the costs and

benefits of Federal regulation required

by a series of appropriations’ riders that

ask for substantially the same regulatory

information. Starting next year, Section

624 of the Consolidated Appropriations

Act of 2001 requires us to update this

report and deliver it to Congress with

the Budget on an annual basis. This

requirement gives us an opportunity to

develop a longer run and permanent

strategy to produce more comprehensive

and higher quality reports. In addition,

we are aware of only a limited amount

of additional information on aggregate

effects that has become available since

the third report was issued on June 2,

2000. The new information we present

in this draft report for comment are the

benefit and cost estimates, both

quantitative and qualitative, of the

major regulations issued between April

1, 1999, and March 31, 2000. This

information was not included in the

2000 report. We are also taking this

opportunity to ask for comments on the

2000 final report and for citations to any

22042 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

3The June 2000 report may be found on OMB’s

home page at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg/2000fedreg-report.pdf. The charts are in a

separate file at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

inforeg/2000fedreg-charts.pdf.

4See Chapter I of last year’s report, which

presents a discussion of the peer reviewers’ and

public’s comments on last year’s draft report (OMB

2000).

5See the detailed discussions of the various

problems encountered in estimating aggregate costs

and benefits that caveated the estimates in the

previous reports (OMB 1997, 1998, and 2000).

These reports are on our home page at http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/index.html.

pertinent articles of information left out

of that report. Finally, we are asking for

recommendations for regulatory reform,

including areas where the public

interest would be served by updating,

revising, or rescinding Federal

regulations.

Chapter I discusses the 2000 report’s

estimates of total annual costs and

benefits of Federal regulation and

paperwork in the aggregate, and by

agency and agency program, and asks

for comments on them. It also asks for

comments and discusses our analysis of

the impacts of Federal regulation on

State, local, and tribal government,

small business, wages, and economic

growth.

Chapter II uses agency regulatory

impact analyses to present new

quantitative estimates and qualitative

descriptions of the benefits and costs of

the 31 major rules issued by Federal

agencies for which we concluded

review during the 12-month period

between April 1, 1999 and March 31,

2000. It also discusses cost and benefit

information for the ten major rules

issued during this period by the

independent agencies. This ‘‘regulatory

year’’ is the same period we used for the

first three reports.

Chapter III discusses general

recommendations for reform aimed at

improving the agencies’ estimates of

costs and benefits and the quality of

regulations that we included in last

year’s report. It also solicits suggestions

and recommendations for reforms for

existing regulations and regulatory

programs and provides a format to

summarize the recommendations.

Finally, Chapter III asks for suggestions

that would improve the regulatory

development and oversight process.

Chapter I: Estimating the Total Annual

Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of Federal

Regulations and Paperwork

I. Overview

This chapter discusses the estimates

of the total annual costs and benefits of

Federal rules and paperwork in the

aggregate and by agency and agency

program presented in Chapter II of last

year’s Report, Report to Congress On the

Costs and Benefits of Federal

Regulations (OMB, 2000).3 After

discussing some of the problems we

have encountered in estimating their

costs and benefits, we explain why we

decided to take a fresh and thorough

look at our approach to aggregating

these estimates. We then propose

various new approaches to estimation

and ask for comments on them and any

other suggestions on how to improve

our estimates.

Last year’s estimates represented our

third estimation attempt. Each

successive report added new

information, both on new and existing

regulations, as it became available

during the intervening period. The new

information significantly affected our

estimates. Because of uncertainty, we

characterized the estimates with wide

ranges. Even then, we pointed out that

wide gaps remained in both the cost and

benefit estimates due to our inability to

quantify and monetize many types of

costs and benefits. Many commenters

including the peer reviewers expressed

doubts about the accuracy of the

estimates and suggested ways to

improve the estimates, but few offered

alternative estimates.4

Given the concerns with our

estimates, the relatively short time that

has passed since we issued our last

report on June 2, 2000, and new

statutory requirements to do this report

on an annual basis, we are taking this

opportunity to step back and take a

more careful look at both the

methodologies and assumptions behind

the hundred or so individual studies

upon which our estimates are based and

our approach to aggregating them.

On March 22, 2000, we issued

‘‘Guidelines to Standardize Measures of

Costs and Benefits and the Formats of

Accounting Statements’’ (OMB

Memorandum M–00–08), which dealt

with many of the problems that analysts

face in estimating the costs and benefits

of individual regulations. Most analyses

of the impacts of regulations are not

simple or clear cut.

Clearly we cannot identify fully the

aggregate estimates of the costs and

benefits of all Federal regulation. In

particular, we are most uncertain about

the costs and benefits of regulations

issued before 1990. At that time, OMB

and others began systematically keeping

track of the total costs and benefits of

major regulations by using estimates

from agency regulatory impact analyses.

Before that time, the aggregate estimates

were a combination of studies from

academics, agencies, and industry using

a variety of methods and assumptions.

Moreover, some of the studies were

retrospective, others prospective.

In addition, using the standards of our

new Guidelines, it is apparent that

many of the regulatory estimates for

regulations issued since 1990 are also

not fully satisfactory. Thus, for the

reasons discussed above, we have

decided this year to reassess the

approach and methodology we have

used to estimate the aggregate costs and

benefits of Federal regulation. To do

this, we are asking for advice and

guidance from the public and peer

reviewers on ways to improve our past

estimates and implementation of the

Act.

II. Developing Aggregate Estimates of

the Benefits and Costs of Regulation

Although we expressed significant

methodological concerns with aggregate

estimates of the benefits and costs of

regulation in our previous three reports,

we did present estimates of the total

benefits and costs of Federal rules and

paperwork in the three reports.5 We are

not aware of new information that

would provide the basis for a major

revision to these estimates. We are

interested, though, in identifying

appropriate next steps in supporting a

major overhaul of these estimates. To

this end, we are considering several

possibilities.

Should We Assess Older Regulations?

One possibility would be to drop the

benefits and costs of Federal regulatory

action for regulations issued prior to

1990. Several peers and commenters on

the draft of last year’s report expressed

concern with the methodology used to

estimate the costs and benefits of some

of the most important regulations issued

before 1990. Also, in a dynamic

economy changes in product mix,

consumer taste, per capita income,

production technologies, etc., all

operate to change the effect of

regulations adopted two or three

decades ago. Over time, these

requirements become absorbed in a

broader economic milieu and the merits

of identifying independent benefit and

cost estimates for these older rules is at

least arguable.

Should We Focus on Specific Statutes

or Categories of Regulations? A second

possibility would be to focus efforts on

developing estimates of the benefits and

costs of specific programs—for example,

regulation of automobile safety or

drinking water systems. This approach

could yield estimates of benefits and

costs associated with a specific program

and at the same time offer some insight

into specific areas where the program is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22043

6See council review closure letter to EPA

Administrator Browner, p. 1, EPA–SAB–Council–

ADV–00–003, Nov. 19, 1999.

effective and, perhaps, areas where the

program is less effective.

This approach is similar to the

approach adopted by EPA in its Report

to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. In

this case, EPA identified a well-defined

baseline—the Clean Air Act prior to

adoption of the 1990 amendments.

However, we believe a review of this

type ought to go beyond just providing

estimates of total benefits and costs to

assess the specific regulatory provisions

that make up the regulatory program.

This approach, of course, will not

yield aggregate estimates of the benefits

and costs of Federal regulations unless

all regulatory programs are evaluated.

However, it may help to bring into focus

the effects of specific programs and help

to identify what elements of the

program are working—and what

elements are not working and need to be

over-hauled.

Should We Seek to Develop A Better

Way to Estimate the Aggregate Cost of

Federal Regulation?

Rather than using the bottom up

approach of adding up individual

estimates of regulatory programs and

regulations, a top down approach could

be used to estimate the costs of all

regulation. At least for some regulations,

survey techniques could be used to ask

firms and other entities what

expenditures they make to comply with

Federal regulation. In this regard, the

Department of Commerce has recently

reinstated (after a five year lapse) its

national survey for pollution abatement

costs and expenditures (know as the

PACE survey for short). This approach

could be expanded for other regulations.

How Should We Estimate Effects on

State, Local, and Tribal Government,

Small Business, Wages, and Economic

Growth?

Last year we presented a general

theoretical discussion of the effects of

regulation on State, Local, and Tribal

Government, Small Business, Wages,

and Economic Growth without any

empirical estimates. We received several

comments on last year’s report asking

for empirical estimates. We have asked

agencies to provide this information in

their reports and accounting statements

to us. We would also appreciate

receiving any additional information

that commenters would like to provide

us.

How Can We Improve the Estimates of

Costs and Benefits of Major

Regulations?

In our previous reports, we relied

heavily on agency estimates for major

regulations. Our approach has been to

work with the agencies as we reviewed

their regulatory impact analyses to help

them improve their estimates. As

mentioned, we also issued Guidance to

help them standardize and improve

their estimates of costs and benefits of

regulations. And in some instances we

monetize agency estimates where they

had provided quantified information,

but for whatever reason had not

monetized themselves. We also made

attempts to use consistent discount

rates. Still, many commenters continue

to ask us to do a better job of assuring

consistency in the methodologies and

assumptions used by the agencies in

their estimates. We will continue to

emphasize to the agencies the

importance of complying with the

Guidelines.

Some commenters have also urged us

to provide our own independent

estimates of costs and benefits in the

place of agency estimates. We of course

will continue to work with the agencies

to improve the agency estimates at the

time we review their regulations. But

the question arises whether we should

include the agency estimates in our

report if, with the passage of time and

the addition of new information in the

course of preparing the Report to

Congress, we find that revised estimates

would be more accurate.

How Should We Treat EPA’s Aggregate

Estimates of the Benefits of the Clean

Air Act?

The aggregate estimate of the benefits

of Federal Regulations reported in the

last two Reports is dominated by EPA’s

estimates of the benefits of regulations

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA)

from their two Reports to Congress on

the Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air

Act. The magnitude and importance of

these estimates demand careful

attention to their derivation and

accuracy.

These Reports were developed

through an EPA Science Advisory Board

(SAB) peer review process. In both

cases, the SAB panels reviewing these

two Reports concluded review by

stating that these Reports were serious,

careful studies employing sound

methods and data. The SAB panel also

stated that ‘‘While we do not endorse all

details of the study, we believe that the

study’s conclusions are generally

consistent with the weight of available

evidence.’’ 6

Public commenters on both of those

reports criticized the methodology and

several of the key assumptions in those

reports. We share some of those

concerns and spent considerable time in

our last two reports discussing them.

II. Summary

In order to improve our estimates of

the total annual costs and benefits of

Federal rules and paperwork in the

aggregate and by agency and agency

program presented in last year’s Report,

we are asking for comments and

suggestions on those estimates, as well

as for comments and suggestions on

how to improve the ongoing estimation

of the costs and benefits of agency rules.

In addition to the questions and issues

raised above, we also invite comments

on any other aspect of last year’s report

(see Chapter II) that commenters feel

would improve future reports.

Chapter II: Estimates of Benefits and

Costs of This Year’s ‘‘Major’’ Rules

In this chapter, we examine the

benefits and costs of each ‘‘major rule,’’

as required by section 628(a)(1)(C). We

have included in our review those final

regulations on which OMB concluded

review during the 12-month period

April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000.

This ‘‘regulatory year’’ is the same

calendar period we have used for our

three previous reports.

For purposes of section 628(a)(1)(C),

we have interpreted ‘‘major rule’’ to

include all final rules promulgated by

an Executive branch agency that meet

any one of the following three measures:

• Rules designated as ‘‘economically

significant’’ under section 3(f)(1) of

Executive Order 12866.

• Rules designated as ‘‘major’’ under

5 U.S.C. 804(2) (Congressional Review

Act).

• Rules designated as meeting the

threshold under Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531–

1538).

We also include a discussion of major

rules issued by independent regulatory

agencies, although OMB does not

review these rules under Executive

Order 12866. This discussion is based

on data provided by these agencies to

the General Accounting Office (GAO)

under the Congressional Review Act.

During the regulatory year, OMB

reviewed 31 final rules that met the

criteria noted above. Of these final rules,

HHS submitted eight; EPA six; USDA

six; DOT three; DOI three; and DOC,

HUD, FEMA, and the Emergency Oil

and Gas Guarantee Loan Board and the

Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Board,

one each. These 31 rules represent about

16 percent of the 190 final rules

reviewed by OMB between April 1,

1999, and March 31, 2000, and less than

22044 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

7The other 19 are ‘‘transfer’’ rules that set terms

for monetary payments from one group to another

that do not directly affect total resources available

to society. 8Note that all dollar figures Table 1 are in 1996

dollars unless otherwise noted.

one percent of the 4,679 final rule

documents published in the Federal

Register during this period.

Nevertheless, because of their scale and

scope, we believe that they represent the

vast majority of the costs and benefits of

new Federal regulations issued during

this period.

I. Overview

We found that the benefit cost

analyses accompanying the 31 final

rules listed in Table 1 vary substantially

in type, form, and format of the

estimates the agencies generated and

presented. For example, agencies

developed estimates of benefits, costs,

and transfers that were sometimes

monetized, sometimes quantified but

not monetized, sometimes qualitative,

and, most often, some combination of

the three.

II. Benefits and Costs of Economically

Significant/Major Final Rules (April

1999 to March 2000)

A. Social Regulation

Of the 31 rules reviewed by OMB, 12

are regulations requiring substantial

additional private expenditures and/or

providing new social benefits,7 as

described in Table 1.8 EPA issued six of

these rules; DOI two; and USDA, DOC,

HUD, and DOT one each. Agency

estimates and discussion are presented

in a variety of ways, ranging from a

purely qualitative discussion, for

example, the benefits of USDA’s

irradiation rule, to a more complete

benefit-cost analysis, for example, EPA’s

storm water discharges rule.

1. Benefits Analysis

Agencies monetized at least some

benefit estimates for seven of the 12

rules including: (1) HUD’s estimate of

$715.6 million over the first five years

from reduced lead exposure; (2) DOI’s

estimate of $50 million to $192 million

per year in benefits from it’s migratory

bird hunting regulations; and (3) EPA’s

$800 million to $19.3 billion per year in

human health and visibility

improvements from its regional haze

rule. In one case, the agency provided

some of the benefit estimates in

monetized and quantified form, but did

not monetize other, important

quantified components of benefits.

EPA’s analysis of its handheld engines

rule monetized the projected fuel

savings, but not the estimated

hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide

emission reductions.

In three cases, agencies did not report

any quantified (or monetized) benefit

estimates. In one case, the agency

provided a qualitative description of

benefits. USDA’s irradiation rule

discusses the benefits associated with

the reductions in diseases associated

with reduced pathogen exposure.

BILLING CODE 3110–10–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22045

22046 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22047

22048 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22049

22050 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22051

22052 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

BILLING CODE 3110–10–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22053

2. Cost Analysis

For eight of the 12 rules, agencies

provided monetized cost estimates.

These include such items as USDA’s

estimate of $35 million to $105 million

per year as the cost of its irradiation rule

and EPA’s estimate of $5.3 billion in the

year 2030 as the cost of its Tier 2 rule.

For the remaining four rules, the

agencies did not estimate costs. These

rules included DOI’s two migratory bird

hunting rules, DOC’s endangered

species rule and NHTSA’s light truck

fuel economy rule.

3. Net Monetized Benefits

Six of the 12 rules provided at least

some monetized estimates of both

benefits and costs. Of those, three have

positive net monetized benefits, that is,

estimated monetized benefits that

unambiguously exceed the estimated

monetized costs of the rules. For

example, HUD’s lead-based paint rule

will generate an estimated net benefit of

about $150 million (present value) over

its first five years. EPA’s tier 2 rule will

result in an estimated net benefit of

between $8.4 billion and $19.9 billion

in 2030. One, EPA’s handheld engines

rule, has negative net monetized

benefits.

Two EPA rules yielded estimates that

included the possibility of both positive

or negative net benefits. For example,

EPA’s storm water rule was estimated to

generate between $671.5 million and

$1.63 billion in benefits and between

$848 million and $981 million in costs.

The monetized benefit and cost

estimates for EPA’s Section 126 rule are

essentially equal.

4. Rules Without Quantified Effects

Two of the rules in Table 1 are

classified as economically significant

even though the agency did not provide

any quantified estimates of their effects.

DOC—Threatened Status for Two

Chinook Salmon ESUs: Based upon

publicly available information, OMB

determined that rules covering these

species were major. Citing the

Conference Report on the 1982

amendments to the Endangered Species

Act, the agency did not perform a

benefit-cost analysis of the final rules.

DOT—Light Truck CAFE: For each

model year, DOT must establish a

corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)

standard for light trucks, including

sport-utility vehicles and minivans.

(DOT also sets a separate standard for

passenger cars, but is not required to

revisit the standard each year.) For the

past five years, however, appropriations

language has prohibited NHTSA from

spending any funds to change the

standards. In effect, it has frozen the

light truck standard at its existing level

of 20.7 miles per gallon (mpg) and has

prohibited NHTSA from analyzing

effects at either 20.7 mpg or alternative

levels. Although DOT did not estimate

the benefits and costs of the standards,

the agency’s experience in previous

years indicates that they may be

substantial. Over 5 million new light

trucks are subject to these standards

each year, and the standard, at 20.7

mpg, is binding on several

manufacturers. In view of these likely,

substantial effects, we designated the

rule as economically significant.

B. Transfer Regulations

Of the 31 rules listed in Table 1, 19

implement Federal budgetary programs.

The budget outlays associated with

these rules are ‘‘transfers’’ to program

beneficiaries. Of the 19, three are USDA

rules implementing Federal

appropriations language regarding

disaster aid for farmers; one deals with

the food stamp program; five are HHS

rules implementing Medicare and

Medicaid policy; three deal with social

security eligibility; two are DOT rules

regarding grants to states to pay for

highway projects and reduce intoxicated

driving; one is a BIA rule regarding

funding for road-building on Indian

reservations; two are loan guarantees

(oil and gas, and steel); and one is a

FEMA rule providing assistance to the

victims of Hurricane Floyd.

III. Major Rules for Independent

Agencies

The Congressional review provisions

of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

require the General Accounting Office

(GAO) to submit reports on major rules

to the Committees of jurisdiction in both

Houses of Congress, including rules

issued by agencies not subject to

Executive Order 12866 (the

‘‘independent’’ agencies). We reviewed

the information on the costs and

benefits of major rules contained in

GAO reports for the period of April 1,

1999 to March 31, 2000. GAO reported

that four independent agencies issued

ten major rules during this period. GAO

reported that the agencies said they

were not required to do benefit-cost

analysis for the ten rules. We list the

agencies and the type of information

provided by them (as summarized by

GAO) in Table 2.

In comparison to the agencies subject

to E.O. 12866, the independent agencies

provided relatively little quantitative

information on the costs and benefits of

the major rules. As Table 2 indicates,

seven of the ten rules included some

discussion of benefits and costs. None of

the ten regulations had any monetized

cost information; one regulation

monetized the benefits associated with

the regulation.

The one rule that estimated benefits

was ‘‘Regional Transmission

Organizations (RTO)’’ by the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission. The

rule cited an estimate that EPA

produced in connection with the

environmental assessment that RTO

formation would result in annual

benefits of $2.4 billion.

TABLE 2.—BENEFIT AND COST INFORMATION ON INDEPENDENT AGENCY RULES

Agency Total rules

Rules with

some

information on

costs or

benefits

Monetized

information on

costs

Monetized

information on

benefits

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ................................................. 5 2 0 0

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ................................................. 3 3 0 0

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) .......................................................... 1 1 0 0

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ........................................... 1 1 0 1

Total .......................................................................................................... 10 7 0 1

22054 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices

Chapter III: Recommendations for

Reform

Section 628(a)(3) of the FY2000

Treasury and General Government

Appropriations Act (the Act) requires

OMB to submit ‘‘recommendations for

reform’’ with its report on the costs and

benefits of Federal regulations. As we

have pointed out in our previous

reports, much of OMB’s job in reviewing

regulations and regulatory impact

analyses submitted by the agencies is to

suggest regulatory reforms and

improvements.

Last year we issued guidelines for the

agencies to use in preparing the

regulatory impact analyses that

accompany major regulatory actions. We

hoped that The Guidelines to

Standardize Measures of Costs and

Benefits and the Format of Accounting

Statements, issued in final form as

Memorandum M–00–08 on March 22,

2000, would improve the quality of the

data and analyses underlying major

regulations, thereby leading to

improvements in Federal regulation. In

order to improve transparency and

understanding of regulatory impacts by

the public, we asked the agencies last

year to use the format of the accounting

statements to summarize regulatory

impacts in the preambles to the Federal

Register notices announcing their rules.

We believe these guidelines and the

accounting statement provide a sound

foundation for estimating and

presenting the benefits and costs of

Federal regulation. OMB expects

agencies to use the guidelines and the

format of the accounting statements as

they prepare regulatory impact analyses

in the coming months. We are interested

in suggestions on further actions we

should take to improve the overall

performance of the agencies in their

responsibility to provide transparent

and understandable regulatory analyses

to the public.

In addition, in our previous reports to

Congress, we highlighted some of the

individual and incremental reforms that

were underway by drawing from the key

entries in the Regulatory Plan that is

published in the Federal Register each

Fall. With the change in

Administrations, we are now in the

process of reviewing a variety of

existing regulations and regulatory

programs in an effort to identify areas

where sensible changes will yield

greater benefits for the public at lower

costs. At this point in the process, we

do not have enough information to

present a set of recommendations for the

reform of specific regulations or

regulatory programs. To help us in this

effort, we are asking for

recommendations and comments on

regulations and regulatory programs that

may be of concern to the public.

Specifically, we would like to receive

suggestions on specific regulations that

could be rescinded or changed that

would increase net benefits to the

public by either reducing costs and/or

increasing benefits. We would

appreciate if commenters identified

regulations that are obsolete or

outmoded, and could be rescinded or

updated. If possible we would

appreciate commenters being as specific

as possible in their suggested reforms

including whether the reform could be

accomplished by agencies through

rulemaking or would require statutory

changes. In addition to supplying

whatever documentation and

supporting materials (including

citations to published studies) you feel

is appropriate, we would appreciate it if

you used the following suggested format

to summarize the recommendations.

Format for Suggested Regulatory

Reform Improvements

Name of Regulation:

Agency Regulating: (Include any

subagency).

Citation: (Code of Federal

Regulations).

Authority: (Statute).

Description of Problem: (Harmful

impact and on whom).

Proposed Solution: (Both the fix and

the procedure to fix it).

Estimate of Economic Impacts

(Quantified benefits and costs if

possible).

Finally, we also invite commenters to

suggest any other reforms to the

regulatory development and oversight

processes that would improve

regulatory outcomes.

[FR Doc. 01–11006 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT

CORPORATION

Submission for OMB review; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment

Corporation.

ACTION: Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35), agencies are required to

publish a Notice in the Federal Register

notifying the public that the Agency is

preparing an information collection

request for OMB review and approval

and to request public review and

comment on the submission. Comments

are being solicited on the need for the

information, its practical utility, the

accuracy of the Agency’s burden

estimate, and on ways to minimize the

reporting burden, including automated

collection techniques and uses of other

forms of technology. The proposed form

under review is summarized below.

DATES: Comments msut be received on

or before July 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form

and the request for review prepared for

submission to OMB may be obtained

from the Agency Submitting Officer.

Comments on the form should be

submitted to the Agency Submitting

Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Carol

Brock, Records Manager, Overseas

Private Investment Corporation, 1100

New York Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20527; 202/336–8563.

Summary of Form Under Review

Type of Request: Form Renewal.

Title: Request for Registration for

Political Risk Investment Insurance.

Form Number: OPIC–50.

Frequency of USE: Once per investor,

per project.

Type of Respondents: Business or

other institutions.

Standard Industrial Classification

Codes: All.

Description of Affected Public: U.S.

companies investing overseas.

Reporting Hours: 1⁄2 hour per project.

Number of Responses: 850 per year.

Federal Cost: $1,600 per year.

Authority for Information Collection:

Sections 231 and 234(a) of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.

Abstract (Needs and Uses): The OPIC

50 form is submitted by eligible

investors to register their intent to make

international investments, and

ultimately, to seek OPIC insurance. By

submitting Form 50 to OPIC prior to

making an irrevocable commitment, the

incentive effect of OPIC is

demonstrated.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Rumu Sarkar,

Assistant General Counsel, Administrative

Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs.

[FR Doc. 01–10956 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3210–-1–M