[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4711-S4712]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                     Amendment No. 415, as Modified

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may modify 
amendment No. 415, which was previously agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, No. 415, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 13, beginning on line 1, strike all through line 22 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(2) Significant rule.--The term ``significant rule''--
       (A) means any final rule, issued after November 9, 1994, 
     that the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget 
     finds--
       (i) has an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or 
     more or adversely affects in a material way the economy, a 
     sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
     environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
     tribal governments or communities;
       (ii) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
     interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency;
       (iii) materially alters the budgetary impact of 
     entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
     rights and obligations or recipients thereof; or
       (iv) raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of 
     legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles 
     set forth in Executive Order 12866.
       (B) does not include any agency action that establishes, 
     modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for 
     a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity relating 
     to hunting, fishing, or camping.''

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I might mention, this modification is 
just changing paragraph and page in the amendment that has already been 
agreed upon.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I have a question about the effect of the Nickles-Reid 
substitute on a regulation by the Department of Transportation to 
reduce the liability limit of deepwater ports like the Louisiana 
Offshore Oil Port [LOOP]. As the Senator may be aware, the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 established a new Federal regime governing 
liability for oilspill damages and cleanup. As part of that regime, 
liability limits were established for different types of vessels and 
facilities and, in the case of deepwater ports, the liability limit was 
established at $350 million. Recognizing that this limit might 
[[Page S4712]] be inordinately high, however, the Oil Pollution Act 
required that the Department of Transportation undertake a study and 
propose a lower limit if appropriate. The Coast Guard study was 
completed in October 1993. It concluded that the use of deepwater ports 
is the least risky means of importing crude oil to the United States 
and that a lower liability limit is appropriate. The rulemaking to 
lower LOOP's liability limit was initiated on February 8, 1995. It 
could reduce the liability limit from its present level at $350 million 
to $50 million--a $300 million difference. yet the economic impact of 
this change, as I think the committee intended it to be measured, will 
be much more limited, consisting primarily of the lower annual 
insurance costs LOOP will incur which reflect the lower risk associated 
with deepwater ports such as LOOP. Am I correct in understanding that 
the proposed rule to lower LOOP's liability limit would not be 
considered a significant rule under the substitute, and therefore would 
take effect without a 45-day delay?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator has an excellent point. Although our 
substitute provides that the administrator of the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs makes the determinations of what will qualify as 
``significant rules,'' it appears clear on its face that in this case, 
the measurement of the economic impact of the regulation would be the 
cost savings to LOOP, not the dollar amount by which its liability 
limit is reduced, and therefore in my opinion, it probably would not be 
considered a significant rule by OIRA for purposes of this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator for his interpretation of the 
standard of measurement for economic impact and its application to the 
rule reducing LOOP's liability limit.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 417 to Amendment No. 410

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     Glenn, proposes an amendment numbered 417 to amendment No. 
     410.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 14 of the amendment, line 2, strike the period and 
     insert: ``, except that such term does not include any rule 
     of particular applicability including a rule that approves or 
     prescribes for the future rates, wages, prices, services, or 
     allowances therefor, corporate or financial structures, 
     reorganizations, mergers, or acquisitions thereof, or 
     accounting practices or disclosures bearing on any of the 
     foregoing or any rule of agency organization, personnel, 
     procedure, practice or any routine matters.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, agencies issue probably thousands of rules 
each year that pertain only to one person or business. These are rules 
that are issued on a routine basis--opening a bridge, changing a flight 
path, exempting a person from meeting general standards that do not 
apply to that person's particular situations. I do not think these 
rules are included in that 4,000 count that we sometimes use as the 
rules that would be covered by this legislative review provision.
  These are the rules of specific, particular applicability that have 
no general applicability, and that it is not our intent, I believe--I 
should not say that, but I do not believe it is the intent of the 
makers of the substitute here--to cover by the substitute.
  So this amendment makes it clear that these rules of particular 
applicability and these routine rules are not covered by this 
legislative review substitute.
  I believe the amendment has been cleared by the managers of the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's amendment. We 
have worked with him and his staff on this amendment. We have no 
objections and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Michigan for 
his work on this. He has worked long and hard on rules and regulations 
in the Governmental Affairs Committee. This is one example of how 
thorough he is in these areas.
  Even though we can pass laws--we can pass rules and regulations--
there are coincidences that apply in particular cases or places, or 
things are found to be unfair with the local people. And, where that 
can be corrected, it should be corrected.
  This provides for that kind of a correction where otherwise people 
would be dealt with very unfairly by their government. We are trying to 
make this as fair as possible for everybody.
  That is what the Senator from Michigan is doing. I compliment him and 
am glad to cosponsor his amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. President, I do not know of any further debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment (No. 417) is 
agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.

                          ____________________