of them did so in varying degrees. Failure to permit judicial review in a legislative program for determination of regulatory cost-benefit would undoubtedly have the same effect. Agency rulemaking is of course subject to judicial review under the terms of either the Administrative Procedure Act or the particular statute authorizing adoption of the regulations. Because the cost-benefit assessment would be integrated into the rulemaking process, judicial review would be available under the same standards and procedures that would otherwise apply to the rulemaking in question. In this way duplicative litigation would be avoided, and the cost-benefit program could be assimilated into existing agency and judicial procedures. With the knowledge that its compliance with the regulatory costbenefit assessment program is required by statute and subject to judicial review, most agencies would be expected to comply, without the need for extended litigation and judicial review. In short, a clear statutory obligation to comply, together with the availability of judicial review, should in themselves make such review necessary only in a very few cases where legitimate issues are raised as to the degree of compliance with the Act's directives. 9. The Effective Date. One of the most troublesome aspects of the National Environmental Policy Act was its failure to include a clear effective date provision. A substantial portion of the early NEPA litigation concerned the question of how the Act should be applied to federal actions in process at the time of enactment. In view of the varying types and stages of federal action, it is not sufficient merely to provide that the Act will take effect immediately, or on the 90th day after enactment. The bill should go further and prescribe precisely how its requirements should be applied to administrative action in process at the time of enactment or on the effective date. Certainly the bill should not hold up agency action in process, but at the same time a reasonable attempt should be made to make the cost-benefit assessment program operational and effective as soon as practicable. 10. Exemptions for Emergency Action. The bill should include a provision for the taking of emergency regulatory action without a cost-benefit assessment. Situations will arise on occasion where federal agencies must move promptly and effectively without delay, and courts should not be required to establish judge-made exemptions to the Act. The best approach to an emergency provision, in our view, would be to authorize emergency action without compliance, but to require after-the-fact compliance, with appropriate modification of the regulations on the basis of the cost-benefit determination. 11. Administrative Guidelines. Although respons ibility for complying with the Act would rest upon each federal agency, it might nevertheless be desirable to provide for the adoption of general guidelines for the implementation of the Act, to be promulgated under Presidential authority or by some identified agency, such as the Council on Wage and Price Stability. Such guidelines themselves could be subject to public participation and judicial review. They would provide a substantial degree of uniformity and would materially assist agencies in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. 12. Review of Existing Regulations. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a mechanism for review of existing regulations in terms of the relationship between the benefits provided and their economic impact. We recognize that a wholesale review of existing regulations would be totally impossible and that even review of the most important regulatory controls could bog down agencies in extensive administrative procedures. On the other hand, the public should not be required to bear the adverse economic effect of existing regulations if they have no reasonable relationship to the benefits provided. A reasoned approach could be established for considering existing regulations on a petition basis, with appropriate safeguards that would enable agencies to act on such petitions without crippling on-going programs. 13. Applicability to Congress. Finally, the Committee will want to consider to what extent the Act should be made applicable to legislation under consideration by Congress. It may be that the best approach in this regard would be the amendment of the Rules, such as the recent amendment sponsored by Senator Talmadge to the Senate Rules. There can be no doubt that the determination of the economic impact of legislation is far more difficult and speculative than for more detailed regulations. That does not mean, however, that there should be no attention given to the potential economic effect of pending legislation.• Conclusion The National Canners Association urges that the Committee give prompt consideration to proposals for agency assessment of regulatory cost-benefit, and that it recommend adoption of effective legislation establishing such a program. We also favor the continuation of the Council on Wage and Price Stability on the condition that it be given no authority to control wages and prices in the economy. Telephone 202/331-5900 May 10, 1977 Mr. Peter Gould Council of Economic Advisors Re: Proposal of the National Canners Association Dear Mr. Gould: Last week, in a phone conversation with Mr. Timothy Burns of our legislative affairs staff you told him that you were in the preparatory stages of working up President Carter's Cost/Benefit, or Economic Impact Statement Program. As Mr. Burns pointed out, the National Canners Association has a deep interest in this program and has done considerable work in the field. Enclosed with this letter is a statement of the National Canners Association proposing substantial revision and improvement of the Economic Impact Statement Program initiated under Executive Order 11821 and continued pursuant to Executive Order 11949. The NCA statement sets forth the basis for our view that the Inflation Impact Statement Program initiated under Executive Order 11821 was a promising approach to the growing problems created by unduly burdensome federal régulation, but that the Program has fallen far short of its potential because of certain deficiencies in the Executive Order and the implementing OMB circular, the apathy or outright hostility of many federal agencies toward the Program and its goals, and the devastating effect of a decision by a federal court of appeals which characterized the Executive Order as only a "managerial tool for implementing the President's personal economic policy," and as not creating any right of judicial review for failure of an agency to comply with the Order. In our view the Economic Impact Statement Program should be retained and improved by the issuance of a new executive order under the authority and as an implementation of the National Productivity and Quality of Working Life Act (Pub. L. 94-136, 15 U.S.C. @ 2401), which was enacted by Congress in November of |