!00 Wiltshire Drive
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

September 29, 1997

The Honorable Fred Thompson
523 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20010

Dear Senator Thompson:

I have read your bill S. 981 - Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 with great interest. I believe it speaks to many of the problems in the existing regulatory system. However, I would like to make one suggestion: the term 'plausible' is too subjective to leave to some regulators to interpret and I suggest adding the following definition and its use:

1) To the numbered list in Sec. 621 - Definitions, add a new item:

'13) the term 'plausible', when applied to risk assessment and cost-benefit and other quantitative measures, shall mean: based, when possible, upon a realistic, unbiased model using data, or equivalent assumptions, that are accurate, unbiased and characteristic of the central values of appropriate unbiased distributions or reasonable percentiles of those distributions.

2) In Sec. 623 - Regulatory analysis, paragraph (b) (2) (A) insert "plausible" between "a" and "cost-benefit".

3) In Sec. 624 - Principles for risk assessment, paragraph (a) (1) insert "plausible" between "conduct" and "risk assessment".

Without such a definition and its use, I believe that Agencies will continue to use the "always safe error" assumption that, in the past, has led to the extreme values that have been so controversial and obstructive of progress.

The above suggestion is compatible to my earlier suggestions for word changes to S. 8 - Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act of 1997 and is intended to strengthen S. 981 in the same manner. I would appreciate hearing if you believe that this suggestion has any merit and can be used.

4) I believe there is a typo in Sec 628, (b): insert "risk" between "and" and "assessment".

I have attached text showing the detailed location of each suggested insertion.

If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please let me know.

Respectfully yours,

_____________________
Alfred A. Brooks

Attachment: Locations of <<insertions>>

1) ============================
`(12) the term `substitution risk' means an increased risk to health, safety, or the environment reasonably likely to result from a regulatory option.

<< Definition 13 >>

`Sec. 622. Applicability `Except as provided in section 623(e), this subchapter shall

2) ============================
`(2) Each initial regulatory analysis shall contain-- `(A) a <<plausible>> cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule that shall contain-- `(i) an analysis of the benefits of the proposed rule,

3) ========================
`Sec. 624. Principles for risk assessments `(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), each agency shall design and conduct <<plausible>> risk assessments in accordance with this subchapter for each proposed and final major rule the primary purpose of which is

4) =======================
of the guidelines shall not be subject to judicial review, except in accordance with section 706(1) of this title. `(b) To promote the use of cost-benefit analysis and <<risk>> assessment in a consistent manner and to identify agency research and training needs, the Director, in consultation with the
============================

NOTE: See John Graham, Risk Reform: Have You Read the Levin-Thompson Bill, Risk In Perspective, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Vol. 5, Issue 8, Aug. 1997

Dr. Graham's suggestion to read the Bill for yourself is well taken. I found it to be other than it was represented by one of its opponents.

The following are Dr. Graham's conclusions:

"The 105th Congress is taking a fresh, bipartisan approach to regulatory reform based on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The comprehensive bill (S.981) recently introduced by Senators Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Carl Levin (D-MI) is an important and exciting step toward a more thoughtful approach to regulation of risks to public health, safety, and the environment. It is already apparent that a variety of special interest groups are seeking to exercise 'spin control' over what this bill would and would not do. Under these circumstances, it is recommended that anyone seriously interested in this issue obtain a copy of the bill, study it, and form his or her own opinion on the matter. The fate of legislation in Congress is notoriously difficult to predict, but there is a persistence to the regulatory reform movement that is encouraging to those of us committed to better use of science and economic analysis at regulatory agencies."