EPA is issuing an NPRM to revamp its procedures for the use of benefit-cost analysis in evaluating its regulatory proposals.
OIRA alumnus Paul Noe states:
But one of the greatest yet most readily addressable impediments to smarter regulation is that regulatory agencies such as EPA too often have interpreted their statutes to limit their ability to fully engage in benefit-cost balancing and thus to comply with the presidential directives to do more good than harm. Yet, the actual text of the statutes typically does not prohibit benefit-cost balancing and thus does not require or authorize non-compliance with the presidential benefit-cost orders.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just taken a groundbreaking step to advance the eminently reasonable principle required by every president for over 37 years: