Summary: GAO strongly supports the general thrust of H.R. 746 which states that regulatory agencies should carefully and comprehensively evaluate the effects of proposed and existing rules as had been required of executive agencies. The Senate is already required to specify the regulatory impact of all reported legislation. This results in substantial administrative costs when preparing regulatory impact analyses because of the amounts of information which must be collected and analyzed. Caution must be exercised not to end up with a system in which every agency action is accompanied by a lengthy and expensive analysis. GAO suggests that, if a specific dollar criterion for impact analyses is to be included in the bill, it should be defined as the incremental cost of compliance to directly regulated industries or other entities. Congress should clearly set forth its criteria for when a regulatory analysis is required. GAO supports the guidelines for the initial and final regulatory analyses set forth in the bill. The guidelines for a preliminary analysis require an explanation of the relative advantages and disadvantages of using performance rather than design standards. This provision may be needlessly confusing and redundant. The bill requires a review of significant regulatory requirements within a 10-year period. GAO believes that statutory enactment of a mandatory review is warranted because of historically weak agency initiatives in the area. The current effects of existing rules should also be evaluated in light of experience and changing circumstances. The two-House veto contemplated by the bill is preferable to a one-House veto. GAO agrees with the provision which requires periodic review of agency compliance with the bill by the Comptroller General. It is important for Congress to monitor not just the regulatory rulemaking procedures but also the new, expanded Office of Management and Budget role in the regulatory process.
