← American Chemistry Council
EPARulemakingEPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0044

Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process

RIN
—
Last modified
Aug 25, 2023
Comment window
closed 1870d ago
American Chemistry Council filings
1

Activity

American Chemistry Council filed 1 comment on this docket between Jun 15, 2021 and Jun 15, 2021. 77 other organizations filed here. The comment window closed 1870d ago.

What American Chemistry Council filed (1)

Jun 15, 2021· Comment submitted by American Chemistry Council (ACC) et al.· EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0044-0734

Attached are the comments of the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers & U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We call on EPA to maintain the Benefit Cost Rule, and if necessary, make certain modifications without fully rescinding the rule. EPA should have in place a regulatory process rule that lays out the economics, science and transparency principles and processes for analyzing a rule's benefits and costs. Stakeholders and the public deserve the transparency and consistency provided by the Benefit Cost Rule.

View on regulations.gov →

Abstract

This action proposes a regulation intended to increase consistency and transparency relating to EPA’s consideration of benefits and costs in making regulatory decisions in a manner consistent with applicable authorizing statutes in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This proposed rule addresses issues raised in the June 13, 2018 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process” (83 FR 27524), and proposes how its concepts will be implemented in rulemakings conducted by EPA using its authorities under the CAA. In addition, this proposed rule codifies the Agency’s internal procedural requirements governing the development, presentation, and use of benefit-cost analyses in significant rulemakings conducted under the CAA.

View on regulations.gov →

Co-filers (77)

See everyone who commented →