[Federal Register: June 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 113)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28163-28165]
[DOCID:fr15jn09-9]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0462]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Marinette Marine Vessel Launch, Marinette, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Menominee River near Marinette, Wisconsin. This zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of the Menominee River during a vessel
launching. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the
surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the
vessel launching.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:45 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on June
26, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0462 and are available Online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0462
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 S. Lincoln Memorial Drive,
Milwaukee, WI 53110, between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact Petty Officer Kraft, U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when an agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because
it is in the best interest of the public to ensure, to the extent
practicable, the safety of vessels and spectators from the hazards
associated with the launch of the Marinette.
    For those same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure, to the extent
practicable, the safety of the public and vessels from the hazards
associated with the vessel launching. The Captain of the Port Sector
Lake Michigan has determined that the launching of the vessel does pose
significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination
of small recreational boaters and the large wake created by the vessel
launch could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities.

Discussion of Rule

    The temporary safety zone will encompass all water of the Menominee
River surrounding the Marinette Marine Corporation piers and bounded by
a line with a point of origin at 45[deg]05'57'' N, 087[deg]36'0.3'' W;
then northeast to 45[deg]06'00'' N, 087[deg]36'48.3'' W; then northwest
to 45[deg]06'04.4'' N, 087[deg]37'09.2'' W; then west to
45[deg]06'04.5'' N, 087[deg]37'14'' W; then southwest to
45[deg]06'02.8'' N, 087[deg]37'15'' W; then southeast following the
shoreline back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative. Entry
into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or
his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the minimal time that vessels will
be restricted from the zone and the zone is an area where the Coast
Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the zones'
activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of the Menominee River, Marinette WI
between 10:45 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. on June 26, 2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will only be enforced while unsafe conditions exist. In the event
that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels
may request permission from the Captain of The Port Sector Lake
Michigan to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give
notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is
in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so they may better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small
businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and
the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman
evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness
to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of
the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
Federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate

tribal concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing
rights protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined
that this Rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian
Tribes that have questions concerning the provisions of this Rule or
options for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g) because this rule is for the establishment of a safety zone.
    The final environmental analysis check list and categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. A add temporary Sec.  165.T09-0462 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0462  Safety Zone; Marinette Marine Vessel Launch,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

    (a) Location. All water of the Menominee River surrounding the
Marinette Marine Corporation piers and bounded by a line with a point
of origin at 45[deg]05'57'' N, 087[deg]36'50.3'' W; then northeast to
45[deg]06'00'' N, 087[deg]36'48.3'' W; then northwest to
45[deg]06'04.4'' N, 087[deg]37'09.2'' W; then west to 45[deg]06'04.5''
N, 087[deg]37'14'' W; then southwest to 45[deg]06'02.8'' N,
087[deg]37'15'' W; then southeast following the shoreline back to the
point of origin. (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced from 10:45
a.m. until 12:15 p.m. on June 26, 2009. The Captain of the Port Sector
Lake Michigan or the on-scene Patrol Commander may terminate this
operation at anytime.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative. Any person in a safety zone who has notice of a
lawful order or direction shall obey the order or direction of the
Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or his
on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of
the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: June 1, 2009.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. E9-13888 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Federal Agency Benefit-Cost Analysis Principles and Standards for Social
Programs

1.0 Introduction

When conducting benefit-cost analysis (BCA), federal agencies must
comply with federal guidelines outlined by various regulations and
guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget, White House, and
Congress. The main guidelines include OMB Circulars A-4, A-11, A-94, as
well as the White House’s Executive Order 12866. In this section, we
summarize each of these documents and present the relevant components
necessary for BCA. The complete OMB circulars, the Executive Order and
other documents referred to in this document can be found on the
Benefit-Cost Center website at    HYPERLINK
"http://www.evans.washington.edu/research/centers/benefit-cost-analysis/
related-search" \t "_blank"
http://www.evans.washington.edu/research/centers/benefit-cost-analysis/r
elated-search .

Within the guidelines of the OMB circulars and the White House Executive
Order, federal agencies are free to develop departmental for BCA
guidelines. In section 2, we summarize BCA guidelines for social
programs and explore departments and agency principles and standards for
BCA. Because not all federal agencies provide social programs (and by
extension BCA of social programs), we limit our analysis of federal
agencies to the following:

U.S. Department of Justice

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Education

1.1 OMB Circular A-4

The most recent OMB Circular A-4 was released on September 17, 2003 with
intent to provide guidance to analysts in regulatory agencies as
required under Section 6(a)(3)(c) of Executive Order 12866, as well as
the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999 and the “Regulatory Planning
and Review”. Circular A-4 replaces previous OMB “best practices”
document of 1996 as well as OMB Memorandum M-00-08. It also is meant to
provide a standardized measure and report costs and benefits for Federal
regulatory analysis.

OMB Circular A-4 provides the following guidelines for conducting BCA
for Federal regulatory agencies:

Explain how the actions required by the rule are linked to the expected
benefits. For example, indicate how additional safety equipment will
reduce safety risks. A similar analysis should be done for each of the
alternatives.

Identify a baseline. Benefits and costs are defined in comparison with a
clearly stated alternative. This normally will be a “no action”
baseline: what the world will be like if the proposed rule is not
adopted. Comparisons to a “next best” alternative are also
especially useful.

Identify the expected undesirable side-effects and ancillary benefits of
the proposed regulatory action and the alternatives. These should be
added to the direct benefits and costs as appropriate (OMB Circular A-4
p. 2).

Specifically pertaining to non-monetized benefits and costs, OMB
Circular A-4 states that:

…the most efficient alternative will not necessarily be the one with
the largest quantified and monetized net-benefit estimate. In such
cases, you should exercise professional judgment in determining how
important the non-quantified benefits or costs may be in the context of
the overall analysis. If the non-quantified benefits and costs are
likely to be important, you should carry out a “threshold” analysis
to evaluate their significance. Threshold or a “break-even” analysis
answers the question, “How small could the value of the non-quantified
benefits be (or how large would the value of the non-quantified costs
need to be) before the rule would yield zero net benefits?” In
addition to threshold analysis you should indicate, where possible,
which non-quantified effects are most important and why (OMB Circular
1-4 p. 2).

On discount rates, the OMB Circular refers to OMB Circular A-94 noting
that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a
“base-case” for regulatory analysis (p. 33). It also notes that the
7 percent discount rate “is an estimate of the average before-tax rate
of return for private capital in the U.S. economy” (p. 33).
Furthermore, the circular states that when regulation directly
influences private consumption it is pertinent to use a 3 percent
discount rate (i.e., the social rate of time preference). When
discounting intergenerationally, the circular states that the discount
rate should be between 1 to 3 percent, and when pertinent, a sensitivity
analysis should be conducted using discount rates of 3 to 7 percent.
More information on OMB Circular A-94 can be found in section 1.3 below.

Further information on specific guidelines for conducting BCA can be
found in the Circular from pages 14-42.

1.2 OMB Circular A-11

OMB Circular A-11 includes exhibit 300 which requires federal agencies
to keep track of costs through various accounting methods. In
particular, exhibit 300 use is summarized as the following:

The exhibit 300 is one component of your agency’s total performance
budget justification (see section 51.2). OMB uses the exhibit 300 to
make both quantitative decisions about budgetary resources consistent
with the Administration’s program priorities, and qualitative
assessments about whether the agency’s programming processes are
consistent with OMB policy and guidance. OMB will be evaluating all
elements of the business cases and will communicate the results of these
evaluations in the course of the budget process. If additional
supporting information is necessary, OMB will request from agencies the
supporting evidence used to produce the exhibit 300. All information
necessary to complete an exhibit 300 should already exist as part of the
agency's overall Information Resources Management activities and within
project specific documentation. The materials used to produce the
exhibit 300 should be readily available to OMB upon request (OMB
Circular A-11 p. 581).

Exhibit 300 is pertinent because these costs will be used when
conducting BCA for a program.

Another section of A-11 that is pertinent to BCA is the Earned Value
Management (EVM) project management tool. Regarding EVM, OMB Circular
A-11 states:

Earned value management (EVM) is a project (investment) management tool
effectively integrating the investment scope of work with schedule and
cost elements for optimum investment planning and control. The qualities
and operating characteristics of earned value management systems (EVMS)
are described in American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Electronic
Industries Alliance (EIA) Standard –748–1998, Earned Value
Management Systems, approved May 19, 1998. It was reaffirmed on August
28, 2002.

In evaluation work, EVM estimated costs are used, and again, is
pertinent to BCA in this regard.

1.3 OMB Circular A-94

OMB Circular A-94 establishes guidelines and discount rates for benefit
cost analysis within federal agencies.  This document replaces OMB
Circular A-94 (from 1972) and A-104 (from 1986) and draws authority from
the Budget Accounting Act of 1921.  The states purpose is to “promote
efficient resource allocation through well informed decision making by
the Federal Government”.

Broadly, this document outlines the technique to use in BCA.   The
sections most pertinent to social programs are 5-10 and are summarized
below.

Section 5 identifies the general concept of CBA and discusses the
difference between Net Present Value (NPV), Cost Effectiveness Analysis
(CEA), and the elements within NPV and CEA.  These elements are: policy
rational, explicit assumptions, evaluation of alternatives and
verification.

Section 6 presents federal policy on how to identify and enumerate
benefits and costs.

Section 7 discusses how to treat inflation and outlines the differences
between real and nominal values.

Section 8 discusses the difference between real and nominal discount
rates.  This section identifies which type of discount rate should be
used with the types of analysis in Section 5.

Section 9 discusses the role of uncertainty in CBA modeling assumptions.
 Guidelines are given for characterizing uncertainty, expected values
and sensitivity analysis.

Section 10 discusses incidence and distributional effects.  The process
of targeting recipients of benefits leads to a discussion of how to
measure impacts across diverse groups.  Effectiveness should be measured
in terms of the target group receiving benefits.

1.4 Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 is the original executive order to mandate that
federal agencies conduct cost benefit analysis for significant
regulatory actions.  The preamble identifies the philosophy and methods
of the order:

EO. 12866 is designed to “maximize health, safety, environment and
well-being and improve the performance of the economy without imposing
unacceptable or unreasonable costs on society”.  The goals of EO 12866
are operationalized by “enhancing planning and coordination with
respect to both new and existing regulations”.

The body of the order is organized into 11 sections.  Of these sections
1-3 address social issues inherent in cost benefit analysis and are
summarized below.  Section 4 outlines the planning mechanism of the
order.  Sections 5 and 6 outline exemptions and review.  Sections 7
establishes protocols for resolving conflicts.  Sections 8-11 address
publication, agency authority, judicial review and revocations.

Section 1 identifies the goals, procedures and the population to be
included in cost benefit analysis. “In deciding whether and how to
regulation, agencies should assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.”
The definition of costs and benefits include social values and costs
difficult to quantify. “Costs and benefits shall be understood to
include both quantifiable measures and qualitative measures of costs and
benefits that are difficult to quantify”

When conducing cost benefit analysis the agency must include (Sec 1. B.
4) “risks posed” (Sec 1. B. 5) “distributive impacts, and
equity” by regulator options.

Section 2 states that review of compliance with E.O. 12866 shall be
conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Section 3 limits the type of regulations subject to E.O. 12866 to only
“significant regulatory actions”. These actions are defined as (Sec
3. F. 1) “having an annual effect on the economy of $100 millon
more… or adversely affect the environment, public health or safety”.

1.5 Table Summary

Table 1 below presents a brief summary of the pertinent OMB circulars
and White House Executive Order 12866, while table 2 provides a summary
of other laws and regulations that pertain to BCA or components of BCA.

Table 1: Baseline Federal Agency BCA Principles and Standards

White House Office of Management and Budget

Circular A-4	Provides guidelines and requirements for conducting BCA for
analysts in regulatory agencies

Refers to OMB Circular A-94 for specific discount rates

Circular A-11	Requires federal agencies to train staff in Earned Value
Management (EVM) for estimating costs

Exhibit 300 pertinent for accounting methods

Circular A-94	Establishes guidelines and discount rates for benefit cost
analysis within federal agencies.

Reviews CBA methods

Establishes discount rates

Identifies uncertainty

Discusses distributional effects

		White House

Executive Order 12866	The organic order

Establishes philosophy motivating use of BCA

Defines “significant regulatory actions”

Defines the population to be considered for costs and benefits

Table 2: Other pertinent laws and regulations

Law or regulation	Summary

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996	Requires that federal agencies purchase
technology as a private enterprise and that all acquisition, planning
and management of technology be treated as a “capital investment”

All facets of capital planning are used just as in private industry, and
these include:

Cost/benefit ratio

Expected life of technology

Flexibility and possibility of multiple uses

Regulatory Right-to-Know Act of 1999	Requires the OMB to provide an
annual report to Congress on the total benefits and costs of federal
regulatory programs, as well as recommendations for improving them.

Requires the OMB to report on the possible impact of federal regulations
on small business, the private sector, the government, wages, and
economic growth.

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980	Federal agencies proposing rules or
regulations that would have a “significant” economic impact on small
businesses, small nonprofits, and small governmental organizations are
required to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Agencies must try to find a simpler and less burdensome method for small
organizations to comply with federal requirements

Budget and Accounting Act of 1921	Sec. 1111. 1. A.  Improving economy
and efficiency: To improve economy and efficiency in the United States
Government, the President shall make a study of each agency to decide,
and may send Congress recommendations, on changes that should be made in
the organization, activities, and business methods of agencies;

2.0 Federal Departments

2.1 U.S. Department of Justice

When conducting BCA, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has
departmental set of guidelines for different projects. For instance,
when conducting BCA for a feasibility study for the department’s
System Development Life Cycle Guidance Document (SDLC), the DOJ is
required to include a statement of assumptions that are made regarding
the present and future environments that the analysis is based on, as
well as constraints, nonrecurring and recurring costs, and an analysis
of tangible and intangible costs (U.S. DOJ p. 28).

More broadly, the department provides the following precautions for
studies conducting BCA:

Identifying and measuring all program costs and benefits. When important
benefits are disregarded because they cannot be measured or monetized,
the project may appear less efficient than it is; if certain costs are
omitted, the project will seem more efficient than it is, resulting in
misleading estimates.

Expressing costs and benefits in terms of monetary values. Expressing
all costs and benefits in terms of a common denominator, such as a
monetary value, may not capture the essence of the outcome. For example,
what value should be placed on providing treatment to child sexual abuse
(CSA) victims (NIH 2004 p. A-2)?

Regarding discount rates, the DOJ recommends for land valuation that
discount rates should be derived from and supported by direct market
data and cites the Federal Land Exchanges and Acquisitions: Appraisal
Issues and Applications (Uniform Appraisal). In general, however, the
USDOJ allows each department little guidance into specific discount
rates, and suggests that when conducting BCA researchers use the
“appropriate rate”.

2.2 Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development provides some guidance
when conducting BCA. For instance, citing Hausman 1979, the department
recommends discount rates of approximately 25 for air conditioners. Of
course varying projects will use different discount rates, and further
information on discount rates can be found in the Housing Impact
Analysis (also available on the BCAC website). When looking at discount
rates for energy policy, HUD recommends the following considerations
when determining a discount rate:

The discount rate is a crucial parameter for projecting technology
investment levels or household adoption of new technologies such as
those involved in energy conservation. For example, discount rates
higher than prevailing interest rates in the credit market indicate
reluctance on the part of the consumer to invest in new technology.

The discount rate is an indicator of real estate market efficiency. In a
perfectly competitive market where technology is produced to match
buyer’s preferences, homebuyers should be willing to invest in new
technologies until the marginal value of the benefits equals the
marginal cost of the innovation. According to financial theory, the
appropriate rate of return would be the homebuyers’ opportunity cost
of capital. In thermal technologies if the lifetimes match that of the
house (such as insulation) and the benefit is net of taxes, the
appropriate opportunity interest rate may be equal to the after-tax
mortgage interest rate.

Household discount rates that are substantially higher than the
prevailing interest rate (e.g., after-tax mortgage rate), indicates
uncertainty due to: insufficient information for the homeowner,
appraiser, or lender; limitations of homeowner income; or other
imperfections in the real estate market. These imperfections could help
justify some modification of behavior or intervention such as
communication and education by the private sector acting alone, public
and quasi-public agencies, or interested non-profit associations.

Conversely, discount rates lower than opportunity cost might indicate
that homebuyers are viewing the added expenditures on new technology as
“consumers” rather than as pure investors. They might find that
additional functional or non-quantifiable benefit in attributes of a
technology, such as improved appearance or health, outweighs higher
price (U.S. HUD 2001 p. 12).

HUD uses their internal System of Development Methodology that includes
a CBA template as well as a CBA checklist (links to these documents can
be found on the BCAC website). Further information on HUD’s internal
System of Development Methodology can be found on their website, and a
link is also available on the BCAC website. In general, however, HUD
provides those conducting BCA in the agency leeway in deciding the most
appropriate discount rate given the analysis.

2.3 Department of Health and Human Services

The Department of Health and Human Service (DHHS) refers to E.O. 12866
and Cir. A-4 in their online guidelines for BCA and CEA analysis.   DHHS
identifies when to conduct BCA and CEA given the nature of the federal
rulemaking.  From the A-4 the DHHS quotes:

"You should prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the
primary benefits are improved public health and safety to the extent
that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed to represent
expected health and safety outcomes.

You should also perform a BCA for major health and safety rulemakings to
the extent that valid monetary values can be assigned to the primary
expected health and safety outcomes. In undertaking these analyses, it
is important to keep in mind the larger objective of analytical
consistency in estimating benefits and costs across regulations and
agencies, subject to statutory limitations. Failure to maintain such
consistency may prevent achievement of the most risk reduction for a
given level of resource expenditure.

For all other major rulemakings, you should carry out a BCA. If some of
the primary benefit categories cannot be expressed in monetary units,
you should also conduct a CEA. In unusual cases where no quantified
information on benefits, costs and effectiveness can be produced, the
regulatory analysis should present a qualitative discussion of the
issues and evidence."

Two other sources are identified to guide CBA and CEA in the DHSS. The
first of these is a study the OMB commissioned from the Institute of
Medicine (IOM).  The IOM study provides the agencies and OMB “useful
insight into how to improve the measurement of effectiveness of public
health and safety regulations”.

The second source is a workshop the OMB commissioned from Resources for
the Future (RFF).  The RFF workshop explored the implications of using
cost-effectiveness versus cost-benefit analysis in regulatory impact
analyses.  The RFF workshop included Cost-Utility Analyis (CUA) as a
tool to consider the appropriateness of alternative medical
interventions as well as to analyze health policy.

2.4 Department of Education

It appears the Department of Education has no internal guidelines but
does follow the guidelines set forth by the OMB. Further it appears that
outside contractors do not necessary conform to the OMB guidelines,
though this is not firmly established by us yet.

7.0 Summary

Across federal agencies that conduct BCA it is evident that all follow
the OMB A-4, A-11, A-94, as well as E.O. 12866. Within each agency it
appears that there are loose recommendations for conducting BCA, and in
some instances, specific information such as discount rates are provided
for certain types of resources. It appears that when federal agencies
contract out BCA projects, they do not necessarily require that the BCA
follow the OMB and EO guidelines. Instead, it seems that the federal
agencies prefer that the contractors rely on the available literature on
certain types of BCA projects.  Within the confines of OMB A-4, A-11,
A-94 and E.O. 12866 federal agencies may use principals and standards
more appropriate to their agency.  These include choosing between BCA,
CUA and CEA.

References

Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-4: Regulatory
Analysis. Washington, DC.

Office of Management and Budget. (2008). Circular A-11: Preparation,
Submission, and Execution of the Budget. Washington, DC.

Office of Management and Budget. (1992). Circular A-94: Guidelines and
Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs.
Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy
Development and Research. (2006). Housing Impact Analysis. Washington,
DC.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, NAHB Research Center,
Inc.. (2001). Housing Innovation and the Appraisal Process. Washington,
DC.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Uniform Appraisal Standards for
Federal Land Acquisitions. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit
Division. (2007). Audit of the Department of Justice Information
Technology Studies, Plans, and Evaluations. Washington, DC.

National Institute of Justice. (2004). A Resource for Evaluating Child
Advocacy Centers, Appendix A. Washington, DC.

White House. (1993). Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and
Review. Washington, DC.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

Social Program BCA Guidelines

Running head: Social Program BCA Guidelines


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 184 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58538-58539]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23286]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274; FRL-9522-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for the Wood Building
Products Surface Coating Industry (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 22,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0274, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0274, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating
Industry (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2034.05, OMB Control Number 2060-0510.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
QQQQ.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 109
hours per response. ``Burden'' means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of wood building
products surface coating facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 232.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 75,771.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $7,554,577, which includes $7,276,177
in labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $278,400 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the burden hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the industry is very low, negative
or non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall
burden.
    There is an increase in costs for both the respondents and the
Agency from the most recently approved ICR. The increase in burden cost
is due to an increase in labor rates. This ICR uses updated labor rates
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-23286 Filed 9-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57732-57734]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24339]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0427; FRL-9934-68-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Missouri; Control of Mercury Emissions From
Electric Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Missouri State Plan received
May 7, 2013. This revision rescinds the state rule and associated state
plan controlling mercury emissions from electric generating units. This
rule is being rescinded because the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule,
which is the basis for this rule and associated plan, has been vacated
and removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. This action will make
Missouri's State Plan consistent with Federal regulations.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 24, 2015,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October
26, 2015.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0427, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
205-0427. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a Section 111(d) plan
revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Missouri State Plan received May 7, 2013. This revision rescinds
Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-6.368, Control of Mercury Emissions from
Electric Generating Units, and associated state plan. The state rule
and plan was originally incorporated into the Missouri State

Plan on January 7, 2008, (73 FR 3194) following the March 15, 2005,
promulgation of the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) which
permanently capped and reduced mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants through a regional mercury trading program (70 FR 28606). On
February 8, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated EPA's rule removing
power plants from the Clean Air Act (CAA) list of sources of hazardous
air pollutants, and at the same time, the Court vacated the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
February 16, 2012, EPA replaced CAMR with the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS rule) (77 FR 9304). Missouri has accepted delegation of
this standard (80 FR 10596). Therefore, this rule and associated plan
is being rescinded and removed from the Missouri State Plan to make the
plan consistent with Federal regulations.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a Section 111(d) plan
revision been met?

    The Missouri Air Conservation Commission adopted the rescission of
10 CSR 10-6.368 on February 5, 2013. No comments were received on this
state action. The Missouri Air Conservation Commission has full legal
authority to develop rules pursuant to section 643.050 of the Missouri
Air Conservation Law. The State followed all applicable administrative
procedures in proposing and adopting the rule actions. After
publication by the Missouri Secretary of State in the Code of State
Regulations, the rescission of the rule became effective May 30, 2013.
The State of Missouri submitted the rule and rescission to us for
approval pursuant to section 111(d). We have evaluated the state plan
rescission against criteria in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B ``Adoption and
Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities.'' The state plan
rescission meets all of the applicable requirements.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Missouri State Plan to rescind Missouri state rule 10 CSR 10-6.368,
Control of Mercury Emissions from Electric Generating Units, and
associated state plan.
    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposed rule to approve the State Plan revision if adverse
comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information about
commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 24, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this direct final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 14, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62
as set forth below:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

Sec.  62.6362  [Removed]

0
2. Section 62.6362 is removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 2015-24339 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P