Increasing Consistency and Transparency in EPA's Benefit Cost Analysis

July 17, 2018

Download this Public Interest Comment (PDF)


In this ANPRM, EPA seeks comment on the appropriate role for regulatory analysis in decisions authorized by the different statutes EPA administers. It explicitly does not seek comment on “how best to conduct the underlying analysis of regulatory actions."

The notice recognizes that:

Most statutory provisions require or allow some consideration of cost and benefits when setting regulatory standards to achieve public health and environmental benefits, but there can be a significant variation in terminology and specificity provided in each law regarding the nature and scope of cost and benefit considerations.

For example, some statutes direct EPA to set standards that are “appropriate,” “reasonable,” “practicable,” “achievable,” “feasible,” etc, and others refer to available technologies. Even different sections of the same statute can use different terminology, leading to consideration of “a variety of concepts of ‘costs’.”

The ANPRM seeks comment on the “perceived inconsistency and lack of transparency in how the Agency considers costs and benefits in rulemaking, potential approaches for addressing these concerns, and the scope for issuing regulations to govern EPA’s approach in future rulemakings.”6 This comment focuses largely on the first two issues, citing extensively to a recent article authored by 19 regulatory analysis experts, “Consumer’s Guide to Regulatory Impact Analysis: Ten Tips for Being an Informed Policymaker” (“Consumer’s Guide”), attached herein.