Regulatory Impact Analysis agencies

EPA-Diesel RIA, Regulatory Impact Analysis—Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation EPA420-R, 99-023. 1999. December. 

The second area of activity has to do with studies being conducted by EPA to evaluate incinerator performance as part of the Agency s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of hazardous waste incineration regulations. As part of this analysis, several... 

EPA-Gasoline-RIA. Regulatory impact analysis—Control of Air pollution from new motor vehicles Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements. US Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation. EPA420-R-99-023, December 1999. 

Thus, the Executive Order requires that agencies affected by the order employ cost-benefit criteria in developing and issuing regulations. The tool to be applied for that purpose is the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

The nature of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is specified in Section 3 of the Executive Order. In general, such analyses are required only for rules which the issuing agency determines are major rules. The order defines a major rule as any regulation likely to result in... 

Some conclusions can nevertheless be drawn. It seems clear from the survey research data that the American public is concerned over the increase in social regulation, and that there is growing interest in introducing the cost factor into agency considerations. It can reasonably be concluded that, so long as Executive Order 12291 requires regulatory impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis will play that function. Nevertheless, the nature of the debate is very likely to change in ways not yet anticipated by the present participants. 

EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clean Air Mercury Peule. (2005). EPA-452/R-05-003. Washington, DC Office of Ar Quality Planning and Standards Environmental Ar Quality Strategies and Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Tier 2/ Sulfur Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420-R-99-023, December 22, 1999, Chapter IV Technology Feasibility, page 311). 

Second, there are major differences between the United States and Europe in the extent of pre-regulatory studies undertaken. Because of the U.S. requirement on agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a Regulatory Impact Analysis before taking action, substantially more information was available about the hoped-for benefits of U.S. policies. A further issue concerns the greater reliance on taxes for regulatory purposes in Europe compared to the United States. A number of European nations use such taxes—sometimes combined with incentive compatible rebate schemes—to achieve environmental objectives. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis. Washington DC USEPA, EPA 815-R-00-013, 2000. 

EPA-Diesel MA. Regulatory Impact Analysis Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. United States Enviromnental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation EPA420-R-00-026, December 2000. 

Schwartz, J. and Otto, D. (1987). Blood lead, hearing thresholds, and neurobehavioral development in children and youth. Arch. Environ. Health, 42, 153-160 Schwartz, J., Pitcher, H., Levin, R., Ostro, B. and Nichols, A.L. (1985). Costs and benefits of reducing lead in gasoline final regulatory impact analysis. Washington, DC US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation EPA report no. EPA-230/05-85-006. 

GibsonT. 1984. A market analysis of 2-butoxyethanol and 2-butoxyethyl acetate. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impacts Branch, under subcontract EPA 36-5 of ICF Inc., contract 68-02-4055. March 23, 1984. (as cited in Ghanayem et al 1987b.)... 

The Chemical Industry Position As this paper has shown, cost-benefit analysis has now been incorporated into the regulatory process of many, though not all, agencies dealing with health, safety and the environment. The American chemical industry is, of course, profoundly affected by those agencies, since their rules deal with its operations, its products, its wastes and its relation to the conmunities in which chemical plants are located. It is therefore worthwhile to examine what the position of the industry is toward cost-benefit analysis in regulatory impact determinations. 

In that policy, CMA has unequivocally stated that regulatory agencies should perform regulatory impact analyses to stake governmental decision-making processes more effective. The Association believes that improved analysis at the beginning of a regulatory proposal will allow workable and effective rules to be in place sooner. Economic, scientific and technical issues should be included in the analysis. 

In practice, therefore, the distinction between these first two types of statutory safety/risk standards has not only been blurred, but probably obliterated. Both focus on the safety/risk element of the issue. Both also consider the benefit/cost element, largely sub silentio, in a broad brush and common sense way. If regulatory action is simply absurd, and will make the agency look foolish, it will be cUoan-doned. But close analysis of costs and benefits has had no significant impact upon any of these regulatory decisions. 

---