She also said, however, that the executive order had “created a more open and accountable review process” and that she had heard “no complaints about accountability and transparency.”
We believe that these public disclosure requirements in the executive order, combined with the administration’s assertion of their effectiveness, have resulted in a public perception that changes made to a regulation while at OIRA and by OIRA are readily identifiable. There have been several previous requirements by both Congress and previous presidents that federal agencies review their existing regulations. According to the order, the purpose of the review was to make the agencies’ regulatory programs more effective, less burdensome, or better aligned with the President’s priorities and the principles in the order. Lessening the frequency with which this information must be submitted should reduce the paperwork burden imposed on the states. Regulatory Analysis

Although both S. 981 and Executive Order 12866 require agencies to conduct cost-benefit analyses for major rules and to make the results available to the public, the bill goes farther than the order in requiring disclosure of how those analyses are conducted. For example, one of the bill’s “findings” states that cost-benefit analyses and risk assessments “should be presented with a clear statement of the analytical assumptions and uncertainties including an explanation of what is known and not known and what the implications of alternative assumptions might be.” Section 623 of the bill requires agencies to include an executive summary of the regulatory analyses, including the benefits and costs of reasonable alternatives and “the key assumptions and scientific or economic information upon which the agency relied.”
In January 1996, OMB issued guidance to executive agencies on preparing the economic analyses called for in Executive Order 12866. Conclusions

S. 981 contains a number of provisions to improve regulatory management. Peer reviews of those analyses can help ensure that regulatory proposals are scientifically grounded. Passage of S. 981 would provide a statutory foundation for such principles as openness, accountability, and sound science in rulemaking. Enactment of S. 981 would provide a sound basis for that oversight. Additional copies are $2 each.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO addressed issues in regulatory management as part of consideration of S. 981, the proposed Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) S. 981 represents a continuation of efforts that have been made by both the legislative and executive branches to improve the rulemaking process and, as a result, produce better regulations; (2) during the past 20 years, Congress has enacted a series of statutory requirements intended to, among other things, reduce paperwork, lessen regulatory burden on small entities, and curb mandates imposed on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector; (3) in the same vein, each of the last six presidents has issued executive orders or taken other actions intended to improve the regulatory process; (4) Executive Order 12866, issued in September 1993, is the Clinton administration's statement of policy on regulatory planning and review; (5) the executive order makes the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) responsible for carrying out regulatory reviews and, to the extent permitted by law, for providing guidance to agencies; (6) S. 981 addresses many of the same issues as Executive Order 12866, including cost benefit analysis, agency reviews of existing regulations, interagency coordination, and transparency in the regulatory review process; (7) the bill goes beyond the order's requirements on these issues and adds some new elements to the rulemaking process; (8) GAO's work indicates that some of the executive order's requirements have not always been met; and (9) enactment of S. 981 would help ensure that the underlying purposes of the order's requirements are more consistently achieved by OMB and regulatory agencies and provide a sound basis for congressional oversight of regulatory management issues.