Federal regulators would have to calculate costs for all major rules they promulgate under a bill authored by Senators Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.). The Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997 is feared by environmentalists, while business groups think it's too weak.

Analysts say the bill is a sign, however, that Congress still remembers how to spell "regulatory reform."

• Regulators would be required to hire independent experts to compare costs and benefits in consistent ways, and provide justification for any rules for which the costs appear to outweigh the benefits.

• For regulations addressing health and safety issues, the regulators would have to explain who was at risk and to what degree.

• If there were several possible means to the same end -- for example, a choice of mandated technological fixes or market-based financial incentives -- agencies would have to explain the alternatives and the reason for favoring one over another.

In the past, Congress has formally prohibited cost considerations on expensive health and safety laws -- notably the Clean Air Act. The Thompson-Levin bill would presumably change that. It's one reason why environmental groups fear the change, because they have an inside track on influencing policy at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: Peter Passell, "A New Move to Cut the Costs of Federal Regulations," New York Times, July 17, 1997.