27524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

procedure replaces the hybrid 

approach’s proxy incremental costs with 

actual estimation of the incremental 

costs of international products. Id. at 7. 

The Postal Service comments that 

‘‘[t]his alone constitute[s] a clear 

improvement over past practice.’’ Id. at 

6. Furthermore, the Postal Service notes 

that the change will allow ‘‘the 

incremental cost model to directly 

estimate the costs of producing all 

competitive products simultaneously, 

and thus provide exactly the 

information needed to fully conduct the 

cross-subsidy test as intended.’’ Id. at 7. 

The Postal Service estimates that the 

impact of procedure one would be to 

raise competitive product incremental 

costs by 0.2 percent. Id. at 7–8. The 

Postal Service estimates that amount to 

be approximately $25 million. Id. 

The Postal Service argues that 

procedure two’s proposed thresholds 

are appropriate because its testing 

suggests that NSAs ‘‘have no 

appreciable inframarginal costs’’ below 

these thresholds. Id. at 11. The Postal 

Service argues that ‘‘when a product has 

a very small volume relative to the other 

products handled in the activity or cost 

pool, the product’s volume variable cost 

and incremental cost will virtually be 

the same.’’ Id. at 9. For that reason, the 

Postal Service avers that ‘‘the 

calculation of incremental costs for the 

hundreds of domestic NSA’s with 

minimal volumes would require a 

material amount of scarce Postal Service 

resources, and the resulting incremental 

cost estimates for those products would 

not be practically different from their 

volume variable costs.’’ Id. at 12. The 

Postal Service concludes that it and the 

Commission ‘‘are better served when the 

Postal Service expends those resources 

on other, critical, costing issues.’’ Id. 

With regard to procedure two’s 

proposed cost driver change, the Postal 

Service states that it ‘‘is not possible 

. . . to generate the required cost driver 

proportions for specific NSA products.’’ 

Id. at 13. For this reason, the Postal 

Service proposes to use ‘‘the volume 

variable cost ratio as a proxy for the 

unknown true variable, the ratio of the 

cost drivers.’’ Id. at 17. In the Postal 

Service’s view ‘‘the approximation used 

for the missing driver ratios should 

reflect the characteristics of the missing 

information as well as possible.’’ Id. at 

13. 

The Postal Service states that the 

impacts associated with procedure two 

are ‘‘less clear cut’’ than procedure one 

because ‘‘there is no intuitive baseline 

against which to compare [results].’’ Id. 

at 20. The Postal Service explains that 

‘‘[i]n theory, the logical baseline would 

be actual inframarginal costs calculated 

using actual data at the cost pool level.’’ 

Id. However, ‘‘since the very reason we 

must rely on the approximation is 

because such actual data at that level do 

not exist, that theoretical baseline does 

not exist either.’’ Id. 

III. Notice and Comment 

The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–6 for consideration of 

matters raised by the Petition. More 

information on the Petition may be 

accessed via the Commission’s website 

at http://www.prc.gov. Interested 

persons may submit comments on the 

Petition and Proposal Three no later 

than June 29, 2018. Pursuant to 39 

U.S.C. 505, Katalin K. Clendenin is 

designated as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

IV. Ordering Paragraphs 

It is ordered: 

1. The Commission establishes Docket 

No. RM2018–6 for consideration of the 

matters raised by the Petition of the 

United States Postal Service for the 

Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider 

Proposed Changes in Analytical 

Principles (Proposal Three), filed June 1, 

2018. 

2. Comments by interested persons in 

this proceeding are due no later than 

June 29, 2018. 

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the 

Commission appoints Katalin K. 

Clendenin to serve as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this docket. 

4. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12646 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Ch. I 

[EPA–HQ–OA–2018–0107; FRL–9979–41– 

OP] 

RIN 2010–AA12 

Increasing Consistency and 

Transparency in Considering Costs 

and Benefits in the Rulemaking 

Process 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA promulgates regulations 

under authority provided in the federal 

environmental statutes such as the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act 

(CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), and many others. Most 

statutory provisions require or allow 

some consideration of cost and benefits 

when setting pollution standards, but 

there is variation in terminology and 

specificity provided in each law 

regarding the nature and scope of the 

cost and benefit considerations. In this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM), EPA is soliciting comment on 

whether and how EPA should 

promulgate regulations that provide a 

consistent and transparent 

interpretation relating to the 

consideration of weighing costs and 

benefits in making regulatory decisions 

in a manner consistent with applicable 

authorizing statutes. EPA is also 

soliciting comment on whether and how 

these regulations, if promulgated, could 

also prescribe specific analytic 

approaches to quantifying the costs and 

benefits of EPA regulations. This 

ANPRM does not propose any 

regulatory requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OA–2018–0107 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this document, 

please contact Elizabeth Kopits, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27525 

1This became more formalized in 1981 with 

Executive Order 12291 which required executive 

agencies to perform a cost-benefit analysis for all 

major rules and centralized the regulatory review 

process by directing the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to serve as a central clearinghouse 

for the review of agency regulations. 

2Over the past decade, the estimated costs and 

benefits resulting from EPA regulations have been 

the highest within the federal government. See 

Table 1–1 of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs’ (OIRA) 2017 Draft Report to 

Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal 

Regulations and Agency Compliance with 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

3https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. 

4https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/ 

guidelines-preparing-economic-analyses. 

5All chapters undergo an external peer review 

prior to finalization, either through the EPA’s 

Science Advisory Board Environmental Economics 

Advisory Committee or through independent 

reviews by external experts. OMB’s Circular A4 also 

underwent extensive review before being finalized. 

Circular A–4 was subject to public comment, 

interagency review and external expert peer review. 

6FIFRA section 6(b) elaborates on the costs to be 

taken into account in cancellation of agricultural 

pesticide registrations by making clear that ‘‘the 

Administrator shall include among those factors to 

be taken into account the impact of the action 

proposed in such notice on production and prices 

of agricultural commodities, retail food prices, and 

otherwise on the agricultural economy.’’ (Emphasis 

added.) 

7CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. 

1314(b)(2)(B), states that ‘‘Factors relating to the 

assessment of best available technology shall take 

into account the age of equipment and facilities 

involved, the process employed, the engineering 

aspects of the application of various types of control 

techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving 

such effluent reduction, non-water quality 

environmental impact (including energy 

requirements), and such other factors as the 

Administrator deems appropriate.’’ (Emphasis 

added.) CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

7411(b)(1)B), requires EPA to set standards of 

performance for certain categories of new stationary 

sources, where Section 111(a)(1), id. § 7411(a)(1), 

defines ‘‘standard of performance’’ as ‘‘a standard 

for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the 

degree of emission limitation achievable through 

the application of the best system of emission 

reduction which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality 

health and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator determines has 

been adequately demonstrated.’’ (Emphasis added.) 

National Center for Environmental 

Economics, Office of Policy, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 

1809T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 

(202) 566–2299; kopits.elizabeth@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Topics for Which EPA Is Seeking Input 

A. The Nature of Potential Problems of 

Inconsistency and Lack of Transparency 

B. Possible Approaches for Increasing 

Consistency and Transparency in 

Considering Costs and Benefits in the 

Rulemaking Process 

C. Potential for Issuing Regulations To 

Govern EPA’s Approach in Future 

Rulemakings 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. Background 

EPA promulgates regulations to 

protect public health and the 

environment under authority provided 

in the federal environmental statutes 

that it implements, such as the CAA, 

CWA, SDWA, and many others. The 

specific authorities given to the 

Administrator are established in various 

sections and subsections of each statute, 

which range from broad authority (e.g., 

to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety) to detailed 

requirements that specify standards or 

require that standards be at least as 

stringent as the best controlled similar 

source. In addition to legislative 

direction, regulatory agencies also take 

direction from the President and the 

Office of Management and Budget 

within the Executive Office of the 

President regarding what type of formal 

regulatory evaluation should be 

performed during rulemaking. For 

decades, Presidents have issued orders 

providing instruction to agencies 

concerning the consideration of benefits 

and costs in regulatory analysis.1

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, requires an 

assessment of benefits and costs for all 

significant regulatory actions—with 

benefits and costs expressed in 

quantitative terms to the extent 

feasible—and instructs agencies that, to 

the extent permitted by law, regulatory 

actions should have benefits that justify 

their costs (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993).2

OMB’s Circular A–4 3 and EPA’s 

Guidelines for Preparing Economic 

Analyses 4 provides the Agency with 

peer-reviewed guidance on how to 

conduct the analysis of regulatory 

actions to comply with E.O. 12866 and 

other executive orders and statutory 

requirements (e.g., Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 considerations). EPA’s Guidelines 

establish a scientific framework for 

analyzing the benefits, costs, and 

economic impacts of regulations and 

policies, including assessing the 

distribution of costs and benefits among 

various segments of the population. 

They incorporate recent advances in 

theoretical and applied work in the field 

of environmental economics.5 In this 

ANPRM, EPA is taking comment on the 

role that regulatory analysis or aspects 

of that analysis play in decision making 

consistent with statutory direction, not 

what these existing guidance documents 

recommend about how best to conduct 

the underlying analysis of regulatory 

actions. 

Most statutory provisions require or 

allow some consideration of cost and 

benefits when setting regulatory 

standards to achieve public health and 

environmental benefits, but there can be 

a significant variation in terminology 

and specificity provided in each law 

regarding the nature and scope of cost 

and benefit considerations. For 

example, Section 301 of the CWA 

instructs the Administrator to select the 

‘‘best available technology economically 

achievable’’ (33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A)), 

and then requires EPA to take into 

account the cost of achieving effluent 

reductions when assessing best 

available technology (33 U.S.C. 

1314(b)(2)(B)). Section 111 of the CAA, 

however, requires the Administrator to 

set ‘‘standards of performance’’ for 

reducing air pollution (42 U.S.C. 7411), 

defined as ‘‘the best system of emission 

reduction which (taking into account 

the cost of achieving such reduction and 

any non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated’’ (42 U.S.C. 111(a)(1)). 

Other provisions may only implicitly 

direct EPA to consider costs, alone or in 

conjunction with benefits and other 

factors, or be silent on whether costs 

should or may be considered. 

Virtually all environmental statutes 

leave the specifics on how costs and 

benefits are to be considered to EPA. 

The Agency interprets the terms used in 

the relevant statute and decides how 

best to weigh costs against benefits and 

other factors in making regulatory 

decisions. A few statutory provisions 

require that specific metrics (e.g., 

particular price changes) be included 

among the ‘‘costs’’ to be considered (see 

e.g., Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 

6(b)),6 but in most provisions ‘‘costs’’, 

‘‘economic factors’’, and similar terms 

remain undefined and are included as 

one item of unspecified weight among a 

list of multiple factors that EPA is 

required to consider (e.g., CWA, 33 

U.S.C. 304(b)(2)(B); CWA, 33 U.S.C. 

1314(b)(2)(B); CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

111(b)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) 7). 

Even when Congress does include 

statutory language to indicate how EPA 

should weigh cost considerations 

against benefits and other relevant 

factors, there is considerable variation 

in the language used and the statutory 

instruction provides little, if any, 

direction on what constitutes 

‘‘appropriate consideration’’, 

‘‘reasonableness’’, ‘‘practicable’’, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27526 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

8Many previous administrations have 

periodically undertaken programs of retrospective 

review or issued executive orders urging agencies 

to reassess existing regulations and eliminate, 

modify, or strengthen those regulations that have 

become outmoded in light of changed 

circumstances. Agencies are also subject to some 

limited regulatory lookback requirements mandated 

by statute, but for the most part retrospective review 

has not become institutionalized practice within 

EPA nor other regulatory agencies as has 

prospective review (such as ex ante benefit-cost 

analysis conducted under Executive Order 12866). 

9See Federal Register notice: Evaluation of 

Existing Regulations (82 FR 17793). The comment 

period closed on May 15, 2017 and EPA received 

over 460,000 comments. All public comments are 

accessible online in our docket on the 

Regulations.gov website identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OA–2017–0190. 

10OMB Circular A–4 defines ancillary benefit as 

‘‘a favorable impact of the rule that is typically 

unrelated or secondary to the statutory purpose of 

the rulemaking (e.g., reduced refinery emissions 

due to more stringent fuel economy standards for 

light trucks) while a countervailing risk is an 

adverse economic, health, safety, or environmental 

consequence that occurs due to a rule and is not 

already accounted for in the direct cost of the rule 

(e.g., adverse safety impacts from more stringent 

fuel-economy standards for light trucks). You 

should begin by considering and perhaps listing the 

possible ancillary benefits and countervailing risks 

. . . . Analytic priority should be given to those 

ancillary benefits and countervailing risks that are 

important enough to potentially change the rank 

ordering of the main alternatives in the analysis. In 

some cases the mere consideration of these 

secondary effects may help in the generation of a 

superior regulatory alternative with strong ancillary 

benefits and fewer countervailing risks . . . . Like 

other benefits and costs, an effort should be made 

to quantify and monetize ancillary benefits and 

countervailing risks.’’ (OMB 2003). 

‘‘achievable’’, a ‘‘feasible’’ threshold, 

and related terms. 

This has resulted in a variety of 

concepts of ‘costs’ that may be 

considered across statutes and even 

under the same statute. These concepts 

include many different metrics that 

estimate financial impacts to the 

regulated entity, e.g., direct costs for 

compliance activities incurred by a 

regulated entity, compliance cost per 

ton of pollutant reduced, the number of 

regulated facilities that may go out of 

business as a result of the proposed 

regulation, or compliance cost as a 

percent of firm revenues. EPA’s 

Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs), as 

guided by its Economic Guidelines, 

typically also quantify the standard 

economic measure of cost used in 

benefit-cost analysis –i.e., the broader 

concept of the ‘‘social cost’’ of the 

regulation (the sum of all opportunity 

costs incurred as a result of a 

regulation)—and ultimately reach an 

estimate of ‘‘net benefits’’ (social 

benefits minus social costs). 

For many of EPA’s regulatory 

programs, the courts have weighed in on 

the scope of costs to be considered 

during the development of a regulation. 

For example, in Michigan v. EPA, 135 

S. Ct. 2699, 192 L.Ed.2d 674 (2015), the 

Supreme Court held that EPA is 

required to consider costs when 

determining whether it is ‘‘appropriate 

and necessary’’ to regulate power plants 

under CAA section 112 (42 U.S.C. 

7412(n)(1)(A)), and indicated that ‘‘cost’’ 

can extend well beyond financial 

outlays by regulated entities to include 

all of the negative repercussions of this 

action, whether economic or otherwise 

(135 S. Ct. at 2707). Many court rulings 

acknowledge the discretion provided to 

the agency in how relevant factors are 

measured and weighed. For example, in 

2009, the US Supreme Court ruled in 

Entergy Corporation et al. v. 

Riverkeeper, Inc. that EPA may use costbenefit analysis in setting standards and 

issuing permits under Section 316(b) of 

the CWA. 

Many technical and practical factors 

play a role in how EPA implements 

statutory instruction related to cost 

considerations in regulatory decisions. 

Any assessment of costs (and benefits) 

is limited by the state of scientific and 

economic modeling, quantification 

methods, and available data—all of 

which change over time and across 

industries and sectors of the economy. 

Similarly, statutory authority to collect 

information from regulated industries 

varies, and in some cases EPA may 

choose not to exercise that authority in 

order to reduce the costs of data 

collection to the regulated entity 

(relying instead on voluntary provision 

of information or publicly-available 

data, or simply doing without data 

where the burden appears to outweigh 

the data’s anticipated utility). In these 

instances, EPA may be limited in what 

cost metrics can be used for a specific 

regulatory decision and may not be able 

to use identical cost considerations 

across rules. A lack of data and a lack 

of a regular process for ongoing or 

retrospective review after rules have 

been implemented 8 also inhibits EPA’s 

ability to gain insights about the 

realized costs and benefits of actions 

that may help inform how it considers 

costs and other factors in future 

rulemakings. Finally, industry or sector 

specific factors may play a role, as some 

metrics may be more or less relevant to 

the affected industries, sectors, or 

question at hand. For example, potential 

plant closures is a metric sometimes 

used to measure a potential impact and 

inform stakeholders about regulatory 

actions on some industries (e.g., 

manufacturing industries dominated by 

privately-owned businesses), but this 

may not be an appropriate or viable 

measure of a potential financial impact 

for other types of regulated entities (e.g., 

some wastewater treatment plants, or 

electric power plants that are not 

otherwise economical must still operate 

to ensure adequate reliability of the 

system). 

EPA regularly receives much public 

comment related to how costs and 

benefits are considered in decision 

making. On April 13, 2017, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13777, 

‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 

Agenda,’’ EPA issued a request for 

comment on regulations that may be 

appropriate for repeal, replacement, or 

modification.9 While that solicitation 

was broad in scope and generated 

comments on a myriad of regulatory 

reform issues, one common theme in 

many industry comments related to how 

the Agency considers cost in developing 

its regulations. For example, some 

commenters argued that the approach of 

considering compliance cost divided by 

the total emission reductions (i.e., 

summing across pollutants) resulted in 

controls that appear cost-effective that 

may not have been deemed costeffective if each pollutant was 

considered separately. Such a situation 

arose in in consideration of the best 

system of emissions reductions (BSER) 

for the Oil and Natural Gas NSPS (81 FR 

35823, June 3, 2016). Other commenters 

argued in past rulemakings the Agency 

has justified the stringency of a standard 

based on the estimated benefits from 

reductions in pollutants not directly 

regulated by the action (i.e., ‘‘ancillary 

benefits’’ or ‘‘co-benefits’’).10 For 

example, in the Mercury and Air Toxics 

Standards (MATS) rule (77 FR 9304, 

February 16, 2012), the monetized 

benefits from one of the pollutants being 

directly regulated (i.e., mercury) were 

significantly lower than the estimated 

costs of the rule, and the quantified 

benefits in the regulatory impact 

analysis outweighed the costs because 

of the benefits from reductions in 

ambient fine particulate matter (82 FR 

16736, April 6, 2017). Similar criticisms 

have been made regarding the extent to 

which EPA has considered key 

uncertainties, baseline assumptions, and 

other analytical factors in quantifying 

both benefits and costs relevant to 

decision making. 

The purpose of this ANPRM is to 

request more information about the 

nature and extent of issues raised by 

stakeholders regarding EPA practices in 

considering costs and benefits in the 

rulemaking process, and to solicit 

comment on potential approaches that 

would provide improved consistency 

and transparency. EPA specifically 

seeks comment on whether, and if so, 

how EPA should promulgate regulations 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 27527 

11https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessmentguidelines. 

12https://www.epa.gov/environmentaleconomics/guidelines-preparing-economicanalyses. 

13 It would also supplement existing statutory 

requirements for periodic review of the adequacy of 

standards or guidelines (e.g., CAA 42 U.S.C. 

§ 109(d)(1); CWA 33 U.S.C. § 304(b)). 

that specify how the Agency will 

approach its consideration of costs and 

benefits in setting pollution standards, 

consistent with statutory direction. 

II. Topics for Which EPA Is Seeking 

Input 

EPA is requesting comments 

regarding perceived inconsistency and 

lack of transparency in how the Agency 

considers costs and benefits in 

rulemaking, potential approaches for 

addressing these concerns, and the 

scope for issuing regulations to govern 

EPA’s approach in future rulemakings. 

Questions pertaining to each of these 

topics are provided below. EPA invites 

comments on all aspects of this 

ANPRM. Comments should provide 

enough detail and contain sufficient 

supporting information (e.g., citations to 

published studies and or data related to 

your comments) in order for the Agency 

to understand the issues raised and give 

them the fullest consideration. 

A. The Nature of Potential Concerns 

Regarding Perceived Inconsistency and 

Lack of Transparency 

EPA requests more information about 

the nature and extent of the concerns 

relating to possible inconsistency and 

lack of transparency in considering 

costs and benefits in the rulemaking 

process. The most helpful comments 

would provide specific examples with 

context and specify relevant statutory 

provisions. What impact could greater 

consistency or transparency have on 

regulated entities, states, tribes, and 

localities, and the public? 

B. Potential Approaches for Increasing 

Consistency and Transparency in 

Considering Costs and Benefits in the 

Rulemaking Process 

EPA requests comment on approaches 

for increasing consistency and 

transparency when and how EPA 

considers cost and benefits in setting 

pollution standards, consistent with 

statutory direction. 

1. What would increased consistency look 

like? 

a. Given statutory constraints, how could 

EPA more consistently adhere to existing 

guidance on benefit-cost analysis principles, 

definitions and analytical techniques 

whether across the entire agency or specific 

programs? For example, to what extent, if 

any, should EPA develop a regulatory action 

that commits the Agency to following its 

existing peer-reviewed guidance documents 

on risk assessment 11 and Guidelines for 

Preparing Economic Analysis 12 when 

developing future rulemakings? 

b. Should EPA consider adopting uniform 

definitions of specific terms used in 

statutes—e.g., ‘‘cost,’’ ‘‘benefit,’’ ‘‘economic 

factors,’’ ‘‘reasonable,’’ ‘‘appropriate,’’ and 

‘‘weight of scientific evidence’’—and 

specifying ex ante how they will be factored 

into subsequent regulatory decisions?’’ How 

should EPA approach the scope of the 

uniformity of these definitions (e.g., within a 

particular regulatory program; within statute; 

across statutes)? 

c. To what extent should standard benefitcost analysis principles (e.g., setting a 

standard to maximize net benefits) guide the 

selection of specific statutorily required 

metrics and thresholds (e.g., 

‘‘reasonableness’’) against which to measure 

the effects of a proposed regulation? 

d. What improvements would result from 

a general rule that specifies how the Agency 

will factor the outcomes or key elements of 

the benefit-cost analysis into future decision 

making? For example, to what extent should 

EPA develop a general rule on how the 

Agency will weigh the benefits from 

reductions in pollutants that were not 

directly regulated (often called ‘‘co-benefits’’ 

or ‘‘ancillary benefits’’) or how it will weigh 

key analytical issues (e.g., uncertainty, 

baseline assumptions, limited environmental 

modeling, treatment of regulating multiple 

pollutants within one regulatory action) 

when deciding the stringency of future 

regulations? In addition, frequently scientific 

understanding is not adequate either to 

quantify or to monetize the effects of some 

pollutants or other impacts. How should 

these potentially important but nonquantified and/or non-monetized effects be 

included in decision making? 

e. To what extent would it be helpful for 

EPA to require consideration of cumulative 

regulatory costs and benefits of multiple 

regulations during the rulemaking process, 

including how such consideration may affect 

the design or implementation of a regulation 

(i.e., longer or different compliance 

timeframes)? 

2. What would improved transparency look 

like? 

a. How might the documentation of how 

EPA considered costs and benefits in a 

regulatory decision be improved from current 

practices? 

b. In what ways can EPA increase 

transparency about the decision-making 

process in cases where the decision was 

based on information that is barred from 

release by law? 

3. To what extent would requiring a 

systematic retrospective review element in 

new regulations help to provide ongoing 

consistency and transparency in how 

regulatory decision making will adapt over 

time to new information? Such a requirement 

might provide a more regular and systematic 

approach to ex-post (i.e. after regulations 

have been promulgated and become effective) 

evaluation of the costs and benefits of EPA 

regulations, as compared with the periodic 

regulatory reviews the EPA has historically 

conducted.13 This might help identify 

needed revisions, inform future regulatory 

approaches, and improve methods of ex ante 

analysis. 

a. What are the opportunities and 

challenges associated with issuing 

regulations to require retrospective analysis 

and the concomitant need to collect data in 

order to conduct a meaningful retrospective 

analysis? Would it be more challenging 

under some provisions of key environmental 

statutes? If so, which ones? 

b. What criteria should EPA use to 

determine when retrospective review is 

needed? For example, should selection 

criteria be tied to the estimated impacts of 

the regulation, the degree of uncertainty at 

the time of ex ante analysis, the extent to 

which retrospective analysis will be feasible/ 

successful? 

c. How specific should prospective plans 

for such a review be? For example, should 

plans specify the methodology that will be 

used, the coverage or scope of the analysis, 

the data that will be used and data collection 

plans? 

C. Potential for Issuing Regulations To 

Govern EPA’s Approach in Future 

Rulemakings 

EPA requests comment on 

opportunities and challenges associated 

with promulgating regulations to govern 

EPA’s approach to cost and benefit 

considerations in future rulemakings. 

EPA is soliciting comment on whether 

and how best to develop such 

regulations. 

1. What are the most pressing economic or 

legal considerations that should be taken into 

account when deciding the appropriate level 

of specificity (all activities, by statute, by 

specific statutory provision) at which to 

formulate regulations? 

2. What are the opportunities and 

challenges with issuing regulations to govern 

EPA’s practice when statutory provisions do 

not mention costs or imply these are factors 

to be considered alongside benefits and other 

factors when setting pollution standards? 

3. How can EPA best promote more 

consistency and predictability while still 

leaving room for consideration of regulatory 

context and for flexibility to adapt to new 

information and methodological advances? 

4. In cases where current EPA practice 

reflects prior judicial decisions, a change in 

course may come with significant burden to 

the Agency. Is there a way to address this 

concern in regulations governing the 

consideration of costs and benefits? 

5. Are there ways to improve consistency 

and transparency using methods other than 

a regulatory approach (e.g., additional 

guidance)? What are the opportunities and 

challenges associated with these approaches? 

6. Are any of the opportunities and 

challenges identified above specific to a 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
27528 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

particular statute or statutes? If so, please 

provide examples. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because the action raises novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA has 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for the agency to consider in 

possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various statutes and 

Executive Orders that normally apply to 

rulemaking do not apply in this case. 

Should EPA subsequently determine to 

pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address 

the statues and Executive Orders as 

applicable to that rulemaking. 

Dated: June 7, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12707 Filed 6–12–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 18–143, 10–90, 14–58; FCC 

18–57] 

The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and 

the Connect USVI Fund, Connect 

America Fund, ETC Annual Reports 

and Certifications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on how 

best to structure the second stage of the 

Uniendo a Puerto Rico and Connect 

USVI Funds to speed longer-term efforts 

to rebuild fixed and mobile voice and 

broadband networks in the territories 

and harden them against future natural 

disasters. The Commission intends to 

target high-cost support over the next 

several years in a tailored and costeffective manner, using competitive 

processes where appropriate. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

July 5, 2018 and reply comments are 

due on or before July 18, 2018. If you 

anticipate that you will be submitting 

comments, but find it difficult to do so 

within the period of time allowed by 

this document, you should advise the 

contact listed in the following as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WC Docket Nos. 18–143, 

10–90 and 14–58, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Minard, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in WC 

Docket Nos. 18–143, 10–90, 14–58; FCC 

18–57, adopted on May 8, 2018 and 

released on May 29, 2018. The full text 

of this document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th St. SW, 

Washington, DC 20554 or at the 

following internet address: https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC18-57A1.pdf. The Order that was 

adopted concurrently with the Notice is 

published elsewhere in the Federal 

Register. 

I. Introduction 

1. Through the Uniendo a Puerto Rico 

Fund, the Commission will make 

available up to $750 million of funding 

to carriers in Puerto Rico, including an 

immediate infusion of $51.2 million for 

restoration efforts in 2018. Of the 

remainder, the Commission proposes 

that about $444.5 million would be 

made available over a 10-year term for 

fixed voice and broadband (an $84 

million increase over current funding 

levels) and that about $254 million 

would be made available over a 3-year 

term for 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) 

mobile voice and broadband (a $16.8 

million increase). 

2. Through the Connect USVI Fund, 

the Commission will make available up 

to $204 million of funding to carriers in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands, including an 

immediate infusion of $13 million for 

restoration efforts in 2018. Of the 

remainder, the Commission proposes 

that about $186.5 million would be 

made available over a 10-year term for 

fixed broadband (a $21 million increase) 

and that about $4.4 million would be 

made available over a 3-year term for 4G 

LTE mobile voice and broadband (a $4.2 

million increase). 

3. As a result of these Funds, as well 

as the Commission’s decision not to 

offset more than $65 million in advance 

payments it made to carriers last year, 

it will make available up to $256 

million in additional high-cost support 

for rebuilding, improving, and 

expanding broadband-capable networks 

in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

how best to structure the second stage 

of these Funds to speed longer-term 

efforts to rebuild fixed and mobile voice 

and broadband networks in the 

territories and harden them against 

future natural disasters. The 

Commission intends to target high-cost 

support over the next several years in a 

tailored and cost-effective manner, 

using competitive processes where 

appropriate. 

II. Notice: Stage 2 Funding for LongTerm Rebuilding 

4. The Commission recognizes that a 

longer-term solution is needed to 

rebuild, improve, and expand service in 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

given the widespread devastation to 

communications networks caused by 

the hurricanes. In this Notice, the 

Commission proposes to establish 

second stages for the Uniendo a Puerto 

Rico Fund and the Connect USVI 

Fund—one that would make available 

about $699 million through the Uniendo 

a Puerto Rico Fund and about $191 

million through the Connect USVI 

Fund. 

5. As background, the USF currently 

directs approximately $36 million each 

year to fixed services in Puerto Rico and 

$16 million each year to fixed services 

in the U.S. Virgin Islands, along with 

$79.2 million each year to mobile 

services in Puerto Rico and only 

$67,000 each year to mobile services in 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, none 

of this funding is tied to specific, 

accountable build-out targets. The 

Commission now seeks comment on 

revisiting that spending to ensure there 

is sufficient support for the long-term 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1