Mr. Hockstad: I appreciate this opportunity to provide comments1 to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the proposed rule “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process.”
The consideration of costs and benefits are critical when deciding whether to promulgate air regulations. Congress recognized this by including language throughout the Clean Air Act (CAA) that requires such considerations. In Michigan v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court, when discussing agency regulatory practice in general, explained “[c]onsideration of cost reflects the understanding that reasonable regulation ordinarily requires paying attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of agency decisions.”2 The importance that benefit-cost analysis (BCA) plays within the CAA and in general agency regulatory practice makes this proposed rule way past due.