Request for Comments on Proposed Guidance for Assessing Changes in Environmental and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis, 50912-50914 [2023-16272]
Download as PDF
50912
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 2, 2023 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OMB Number 1105–0NEW]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed eCollection
eComments Requested; New
Collection; Crime Victims’ Rights Act
Complaint Form
Executive Office for United
States Attorneys, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.
AGENCY:
The Office of the Victims’
Rights Ombuds, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys (EOUSA),
Department of Justice (DOJ), will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments are encouraged and
will be accepted for 60 days until
October 2, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have additional comments
especially on the estimated public
burden or associated response time,
suggestions, or need a copy of the
proposed information collection
instrument with instructions or
additional information, please contact
Ellen FitzGerald, Victims’ Rights
Ombudsman, Executive Office for
United States Attorneys, 950
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 2261,
Washington, DC 20530 (Email:
USAEO.RegulatoryComments@
usdoj.gov or telephone: 202–252–1010).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written
comments and suggestions from the
public and affected agencies concerning
the proposed collection of information
SUMMARY:
are encouraged. Your comments should
address one or more of the following
four points:
—Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
—Evaluate whether and if so how the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected can be
enhanced; and
—Minimize the burden of the collection
of information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Abstract: The Crime Victims’ Rights
Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. 3771 (CVRA), sets
forth the rights of a Federal crime victim
to file a complaint against any
Department of Justice employee who
violated or failed to provide rights
established under the CVRA. The
Department of Justice has created the
Office of the Victims’ Rights
Ombudsman to receive and investigate
complaints filed by Federal crime
victims against its employees and has
implemented ‘‘Procedures to Promote
Compliance with Crime Victims’ Rights
Obligations,’’ 28 CFR 45.10. The
complaint process is not designed for
the correction of specific victims’ rights
violations but is instead used to request
corrective or disciplinary action against
Department of Justice employees who
may have failed to provide rights to
crime victims. The Department of
Justice will investigate the allegations in
the complaint to determine whether the
employee used his or her ‘‘best efforts’’
to provide crime victim rights. The
Office of the Crime Victims Rights
Ombudsman does not administer crime
victim funds or provide services.
Overview of This Information
Collection
1. Type of Information Collection:
New information collection request.
2. The Title of the Form/Collection:
Crime Victims’ Rights Act Complaint
Form.
3. The agency form number, if any,
and the applicable component of the
Department sponsoring the collection:
Not applicable.
4. Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as the
obligation to respond: The affected
public are individuals. The obligation to
respond is voluntary.
5. An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond: It is estimated that 100
respondents will complete the form
annually. The time to complete the form
is approximately 45 minutes.
6. An estimate of the total annual
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: The total annual burden
hours for this collection is 75 hours.
7. An estimate of the total annual cost
burden associated with the collection, if
applicable:
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS
Number of
respondents
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Activity
Frequency
Total annual
responses
Time per
response
(min.)
Total annual
burden
(hours)
Complaint Form (completed by individuals) .....................
100
Annually ............
100
45
75
Unduplicated Totals ...................................................
100
...........................
100
........................
75
If additional information is required
contact: Darwin Arceo, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Two Constitution
Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W–218,
Washington, DC.
Dated: July 25, 2023.
Darwin Arceo,
Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 2023–16432 Filed 8–1–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–07–P
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
Request for Comments on Proposed
Guidance for Assessing Changes in
Environmental and Ecosystem
Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis
AGENCY:
Office of Management and
Budget.
Notice of availability and
request for comments.
ACTION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Aug 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 2, 2023 / Notices
The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) is requesting
comments on proposed guidance for
assessing changes in environmental and
ecosystem services in benefit-cost
analysis.
SUMMARY:
Comments are requested on the
proposed Circular on or before
September 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The proposed Guidance is
available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/08/DraftESGuidance.pdf.
Please submit comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, a Federal website
that allows the public to find, review,
and submit comments on documents
that agencies have published in the
Federal Register and that are open for
comment. Simply type ‘‘OMB–2022–
0016’’ in the search box, click ‘‘Search,’’
click the ‘‘Comment’’ button underneath
‘‘Request for Comments on Proposed
Guidance for Assessing Changes in
Environmental and Ecosystem Services
in Benefit-Cost Analysis,’’ and follow
the instructions for submitting
comments. All comments received will
be posted to https://www.regulations.gov,
so commenters should not include
information they do not wish to be
posted (e.g., personal or confidential
business information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, at
MBX.OMB.OIRA.ESGuidancePCQ@
omb.eop.gov.
DATES:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: In the process of
designing appropriate regulations,
agencies prepare regulatory impact
analyses (RIAs) for certain rules—
consistent with Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A–4—that
sometimes involve environmental and
ecosystem services (collectively
‘‘ecosystem services’’). Agencies also
prepare benefit-cost analyses of public
investments—consistent with OMB
Circular A–94—that can involve
ecosystem services, which are all
relevant contributions to human welfare
from the environment or ecosystems. In
order to encourage continued
improvements in valuing changes to
ecosystem services in benefit-cost
analyses of regulations or public
investments, OMB’s Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) is releasing proposed Guidance
for Assessing Changes in Environmental
and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost
Analysis (Guidance). OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy as well as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Aug 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
relevant agencies and Executive Office
of the President components, has
drafted and proposes this Guidance.
OMB now invites public comment on
this proposed Guidance and is
simultaneously initiating a peer review
process with respect to it.
OMB believes that the benefits of this
proposed Guidance will be substantial.
Many benefit-cost analyses involve
ecosystem services, and standardized
guidance on how to assess relevant
changes and how to value such services
will help promote consistency and
predictability in these analyses. The
Guidance also aims to make
incorporating ecosystem-service
considerations easier for agencies
conducting these analyses, resulting in
lower analytic burdens for agencies and
more sound analysis. While there are
costs associated with performing more
robust analyses of ecosystem-service
effects—as well as with drafting and
transitioning to new guidance—OMB
believes that the benefits of better
analysis and better-informed public
discourse resulting from this proposed
Guidance are likely to well exceed those
costs.
Some of the motivations for the
proposed Guidance, and some
considerations that OMB would like to
highlight, are elaborated below. OMB
requests comments on all aspects of the
proposed Guidance. And OMB
specifically requests comment on
various aspects of the proposed
Guidance as detailed later in this
Notice.
Origins of, and Reasons for, the
Proposed Guidance: To manage
resources optimally, agencies should
assess the full suite of important
impacts their actions have on the
nation’s natural assets, including
benefits and costs to both the assets that
an agency manages directly and to those
managed by others, including, for
example, other agencies; State, Tribal,
Territorial, and local governments; and
private resource managers. Interest in
thoughtfully managing natural assets
has a long history in the United States,
from the recent Executive Order (E.O.)
14072 1 to similar calls dating back well
over a century.2 This interest has
resulted in a variety of agency efforts
over the years to better analyze effects
on natural assets and on the ecosystem
1 Executive Order No. 14072, Strengthening the
Nation’s Forests, Communities, and Local
Economies, 87 FR 24,851 (Apr. 27, 2022).
2 See, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Message to the
Senate and House of Representatives (Dec. 8, 1908),
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/
frus1908/message-of-the-president.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50913
services that they deliver.3 These efforts
are generally consistent with one
another, but sometimes differ with
respect to scope and focus, highlighting
the need for government-wide guidance
to help facilitate interagency
consistency and coordination on
ecosystem service analyses in the
context of benefit-cost analysis. Given
that certain agencies have developed
their own ecosystem-service guidance
documents—based on their own
programs and statutory authorities—but
others have not, a government-wide
guidance will also help additional
agencies develop their own expertise
more quickly, so that they too can
engage on ecosystem-service questions
when relevant.
The importance of standardized
guidance for ecosystem-service analyses
is reflected in E.O. 14072, which calls
for OMB to ‘‘issue guidance related to
the valuation of ecosystem and
environmental services and natural
assets in Federal regulatory decisionmaking, consistent with the efforts to
modernize regulatory review required
by my Presidential Memorandum of
January 20, 2021 (Modernizing
Regulatory Review).’’ 4 That Presidential
Memorandum, in turn, ‘‘reaffirms the
basic principles set forth in’’ E.O. 12866
and E.O. 13563.5 These longstanding
principles include assessing
environmental costs and benefits,
including ecosystem service effects.6
Since then, E.O. 14094 again
3 See, e.g., Env’t Prot. Agency, Metrics for
National and Regional Assessment of Aquatic,
Marine, and Terrestrial Final Ecosystem Goods and
Services (2020), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZyPDF.cgi/P1010Y7B.PDF?Dockey=P1010Y7B.PDF;
U.S. Forest Serv., Integrating Ecosystem Services
into National Forest Service Policy and Operations
(2017), https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/
treesearch/53358; U.S. Army Corp of Engrs., Using
Information on Ecosystem Goods and Services in
Corps Planning: An Examination on Authorities,
Policies, Guidance, and Practices (2013), https://
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/portals/70/docs/
iwrreports/egs_policy_review_2013-r-07.pdf.
4 Id. § 4(b), 87 FR at 24,854.
5 Memorandum of January 20, 2021, Modernizing
Regulatory Review § 1, 86 FR 7223, 7223 (Jan. 26,
2021).
6 Executive Order No. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review § 1, 58 FR 51,735, 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993)
(‘‘[I]n choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, agencies should select those
approaches that maximize net benefits (including
. . . environmental . . . advantages . . .), unless a
statute requires another regulatory approach.’’);
Executive Order No. 13563, Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review § 1(b), 76 FR 3821, 3821
(Jan. 21, 2011) (reaffirming the same); see also
Memorandum of January 20, 2021 § 2(a), 86 FR at
7223 (listing ‘‘environmental stewardship’’ as one
of the values that the regulatory review process
should promote).
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
50914
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 2, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
emphasized a commitment to these
principles.7
The Presidential Memorandum and
these executive orders all emphasize
considering impacts on the environment
when assessing benefits and costs, but
they do not provide detailed direction to
agencies regarding how they should
incorporate ecosystem service impacts
into benefit-cost analyses. Actions
affecting a natural asset or an associated
ecosystem service often interact with
natural, built, and social systems to
yield benefits, costs, and transfers.
Agencies currently vary in how they
consider these dynamics and how they
define, analyze, and report the resulting
impacts. The call for additional
guidance regarding ecosystem services
from E.O. 14072 section 4(b) 8 follows
other, recent calls for similar guidance
to address these questions.9 The
proposed Guidance seeks to clarify the
existing guidance provided in Circulars
A–4 and A–94, with the goal of yielding
more predictable, robust, and consistent
treatment of ecosystem services in
benefit-cost analyses. Through
harmonized guidance, it also aims to
achieve: improved consistency and
predictability in benefit-cost analyses
that involve ecosystem services, lower
burdens to incorporating ecosystemservice considerations into analyses,
and better information to help guide
agency decisions when ecosystem
services are involved.
Relationship with Other Guidance:
The proposed Guidance is intended to
be fully consistent with—and a faithful
application of—the principles and
guidelines in Circulars A–4 and A–94.
Much in the proposed Guidance crossreferences applicable sections in
Circular A–4—and, per a paragraph on
page 1, analogous sections of Circular
A–94 10—to address certain analytical
steps.
Many analytical steps that are
important for assessing impacts on
ecosystem services are covered within
Circulars A–4 and A–94. Therefore,
what this Guidance covers in the
greatest depth is not necessarily what is
7 Executive Order No. 14094, Modernizing
Regulatory Review § 1(a), 88 FR 21,879, 21,879
(Apr. 11, 2023).
8 Executive Order No. 14072 § 4(b), 87 FR at
24,854.
9 See Shaun Donovan, Christina Goldfuss & John
Holdren, M–16–01: Incorporating Ecosystem
Services into Federal Decision Making (Oct. 7,
2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/
2016/m-16-01.pdf.
10 For example, where the proposed Guidance
references the Circular A–4 section ‘‘Discount
Rates,’’ readers performing analyses consistent with
Circular A–94 should refer to the Circular A–94
section ‘‘Discount Rate Policy.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Aug 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
most important for ecosystem-service
analysis. For example, deciding on
appropriate valuation methods—such as
stated-preference or revealed-preference
methods—is often a challenging step
when valuing ecosystem services. To
avoid duplication, this proposed
Guidance generally directs readers to
Circulars A–4 and A–94 on this topic,
as valuation techniques are discussed
there. The proposed Guidance instead
focuses on highlighting examples of
such methodologies that may be applied
to analyses of ecosystem services.
Similarly, choosing a discount rate or
analytical time horizon is important to
valuing ecosystem services, but most
pertinent considerations to make such
decisions are in Circulars A–4 and A–
94; the proposed Guidance devotes little
space to discussing those topics, instead
referencing those circulars.
As noted above, the proposed
Guidance explains that it references
sections in Circular A–4; agencies
conducting analyses consistent with
Circular A–94 instead of Circular A–4
should reference analogous sections
within the applicable circular. OMB
proposes this arrangement for brevity
and to avoid undue repetition by
avoiding references to two documents
every time the proposed Guidance
mentions one. OMB welcomes comment
on whether that arrangement is
sufficiently clear for practitioners
preparing analyses consistent with
Circular A–94. OMB also welcomes
comment on opportunities for tailoring
the proposed Guidance more carefully
to the context of such analyses. For
example, are there issues that are
particularly relevant to valuing
ecosystem services in the publicinvestment context that would benefit
from additional detail in the proposed
Guidance?
On April 6, 2023, OMB separately
released proposed revisions to Circulars
A–4 and A–94 and called for public
comment on them. The proposed
Guidance is intended to be consistent
with current versions of those Circulars
as well as the proposed updates to them.
Stated differently, nothing in the
proposed Guidance is meant to depend
on any of the proposed changes to either
Circular A–4 or Circular A–94. The
proposed updates to both Circulars
cross-reference the final version of this
proposed Guidance for further guidance
on valuing ecosystem services.
In addition to Circulars A–4 and A–
94, as noted above and in the proposed
Guidance, many agencies also have
internal guidelines for analyzing
ecosystem services. The proposed
Guidance represents OMB’s
recommended best practices for such
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
analyses in benefit-cost analysis and
should be generally consistent with
more specific agency guidance. Insofar
as this Guidance, when finalized,
conflicts with any internal guidance,
agencies should consult with OMB.
Moreover, agencies should always refer
to their operative statutory authorities
and, if their authorities are inconsistent
with the proposed Guidance, should
defer to the relevant statute.
Requests for Comment: While OMB
invites comment on any aspect of the
proposed Guidance, OMB specifically
solicits comment on the following
aspects:
(1) whether addressing any further topics
related to ecosystem services would be
useful;
(2) whether the material could be
presented more clearly for affected public
stakeholders, including how the proposed
Guidance discusses its preference for
monetization when feasible, and when not,
then quantification when feasible, and when
not, then qualitive description;
(3) whether the discussion of especially
difficult-to-quantify and difficult-to-monetize
ecosystem services, such as cultural services
and existence value, is appropriate and
sufficient;
(4) whether methodologies to quantify or
describe ecosystem services that cannot be
monetized are sufficiently described;
(5) whether integration with and references
to Circulars A–4 and A–94 efficiently crossreference the relevant details in the related
documents;
(6) whether and how the proposed
Guidance conflicts with other related
guidance documents from OMB or agencies;
(7) whether to refine guidance on potential
double-counting of effects; and
(8) whether to refine guidance on
accounting for stocks versus flows.
Richard L. Revesz,
Administrator, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023–16272 Filed 8–1–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110–01–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 23–078]
Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive,
Co-Exclusive or Partially Exclusive
Patent License
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of intent to grant
exclusive, co-exclusive or partially
exclusive patent license.
AGENCY:
NASA hereby gives notice of
its intent to grant an exclusive, coexclusive or partially exclusive patent
license to practice the inventions
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50912-50914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16272]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Request for Comments on Proposed Guidance for Assessing Changes
in Environmental and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50913]]
SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is requesting
comments on proposed guidance for assessing changes in environmental
and ecosystem services in benefit-cost analysis.
DATES: Comments are requested on the proposed Circular on or before
September 18, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The proposed Guidance is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/DraftESGuidance.pdf.
Please submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, a Federal
website that allows the public to find, review, and submit comments on
documents that agencies have published in the Federal Register and that
are open for comment. Simply type ``OMB-2022-0016'' in the search box,
click ``Search,'' click the ``Comment'' button underneath ``Request for
Comments on Proposed Guidance for Assessing Changes in Environmental
and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis,'' and follow the
instructions for submitting comments. All comments received will be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov, so commenters should not include
information they do not wish to be posted (e.g., personal or
confidential business information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: In the process of designing appropriate regulations,
agencies prepare regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) for certain rules--
consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4--
that sometimes involve environmental and ecosystem services
(collectively ``ecosystem services''). Agencies also prepare benefit-
cost analyses of public investments--consistent with OMB Circular A-
94--that can involve ecosystem services, which are all relevant
contributions to human welfare from the environment or ecosystems. In
order to encourage continued improvements in valuing changes to
ecosystem services in benefit-cost analyses of regulations or public
investments, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
is releasing proposed Guidance for Assessing Changes in Environmental
and Ecosystem Services in Benefit-Cost Analysis (Guidance). OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy as well
as relevant agencies and Executive Office of the President components,
has drafted and proposes this Guidance. OMB now invites public comment
on this proposed Guidance and is simultaneously initiating a peer
review process with respect to it.
OMB believes that the benefits of this proposed Guidance will be
substantial. Many benefit-cost analyses involve ecosystem services, and
standardized guidance on how to assess relevant changes and how to
value such services will help promote consistency and predictability in
these analyses. The Guidance also aims to make incorporating ecosystem-
service considerations easier for agencies conducting these analyses,
resulting in lower analytic burdens for agencies and more sound
analysis. While there are costs associated with performing more robust
analyses of ecosystem-service effects--as well as with drafting and
transitioning to new guidance--OMB believes that the benefits of better
analysis and better-informed public discourse resulting from this
proposed Guidance are likely to well exceed those costs.
Some of the motivations for the proposed Guidance, and some
considerations that OMB would like to highlight, are elaborated below.
OMB requests comments on all aspects of the proposed Guidance. And OMB
specifically requests comment on various aspects of the proposed
Guidance as detailed later in this Notice.
Origins of, and Reasons for, the Proposed Guidance: To manage
resources optimally, agencies should assess the full suite of important
impacts their actions have on the nation's natural assets, including
benefits and costs to both the assets that an agency manages directly
and to those managed by others, including, for example, other agencies;
State, Tribal, Territorial, and local governments; and private resource
managers. Interest in thoughtfully managing natural assets has a long
history in the United States, from the recent Executive Order (E.O.)
14072 \1\ to similar calls dating back well over a century.\2\ This
interest has resulted in a variety of agency efforts over the years to
better analyze effects on natural assets and on the ecosystem services
that they deliver.\3\ These efforts are generally consistent with one
another, but sometimes differ with respect to scope and focus,
highlighting the need for government-wide guidance to help facilitate
interagency consistency and coordination on ecosystem service analyses
in the context of benefit-cost analysis. Given that certain agencies
have developed their own ecosystem-service guidance documents--based on
their own programs and statutory authorities--but others have not, a
government-wide guidance will also help additional agencies develop
their own expertise more quickly, so that they too can engage on
ecosystem-service questions when relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Executive Order No. 14072, Strengthening the Nation's
Forests, Communities, and Local Economies, 87 FR 24,851 (Apr. 27,
2022).
\2\ See, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Message to the Senate and
House of Representatives (Dec. 8, 1908), https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1908/message-of-the-president.
\3\ See, e.g., Env't Prot. Agency, Metrics for National and
Regional Assessment of Aquatic, Marine, and Terrestrial Final
Ecosystem Goods and Services (2020), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1010Y7B.PDF?Dockey=P1010Y7B.PDF; U.S. Forest Serv.,
Integrating Ecosystem Services into National Forest Service Policy
and Operations (2017), https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/53358; U.S. Army Corp of Engrs., Using Information on Ecosystem
Goods and Services in Corps Planning: An Examination on Authorities,
Policies, Guidance, and Practices (2013), https://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/portals/70/docs/iwrreports/egs_policy_review_2013-r-07.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The importance of standardized guidance for ecosystem-service
analyses is reflected in E.O. 14072, which calls for OMB to ``issue
guidance related to the valuation of ecosystem and environmental
services and natural assets in Federal regulatory decision-making,
consistent with the efforts to modernize regulatory review required by
my Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory
Review).'' \4\ That Presidential Memorandum, in turn, ``reaffirms the
basic principles set forth in'' E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563.\5\ These
longstanding principles include assessing environmental costs and
benefits, including ecosystem service effects.\6\ Since then, E.O.
14094 again
[[Page 50914]]
emphasized a commitment to these principles.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. Sec. 4(b), 87 FR at 24,854.
\5\ Memorandum of January 20, 2021, Modernizing Regulatory
Review Sec. 1, 86 FR 7223, 7223 (Jan. 26, 2021).
\6\ Executive Order No. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Sec. 1, 58 FR 51,735, 51,735 (Oct. 4, 1993) (``[I]n choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those
approaches that maximize net benefits (including . . . environmental
. . . advantages . . .), unless a statute requires another
regulatory approach.''); Executive Order No. 13563, Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review Sec. 1(b), 76 FR 3821, 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) (reaffirming the same); see also Memorandum of January 20,
2021 Sec. 2(a), 86 FR at 7223 (listing ``environmental
stewardship'' as one of the values that the regulatory review
process should promote).
\7\ Executive Order No. 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review
Sec. 1(a), 88 FR 21,879, 21,879 (Apr. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presidential Memorandum and these executive orders all
emphasize considering impacts on the environment when assessing
benefits and costs, but they do not provide detailed direction to
agencies regarding how they should incorporate ecosystem service
impacts into benefit-cost analyses. Actions affecting a natural asset
or an associated ecosystem service often interact with natural, built,
and social systems to yield benefits, costs, and transfers. Agencies
currently vary in how they consider these dynamics and how they define,
analyze, and report the resulting impacts. The call for additional
guidance regarding ecosystem services from E.O. 14072 section 4(b) \8\
follows other, recent calls for similar guidance to address these
questions.\9\ The proposed Guidance seeks to clarify the existing
guidance provided in Circulars A-4 and A-94, with the goal of yielding
more predictable, robust, and consistent treatment of ecosystem
services in benefit-cost analyses. Through harmonized guidance, it also
aims to achieve: improved consistency and predictability in benefit-
cost analyses that involve ecosystem services, lower burdens to
incorporating ecosystem-service considerations into analyses, and
better information to help guide agency decisions when ecosystem
services are involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Executive Order No. 14072 Sec. 4(b), 87 FR at 24,854.
\9\ See Shaun Donovan, Christina Goldfuss & John Holdren, M-16-
01: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Federal Decision Making
(Oct. 7, 2015), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relationship with Other Guidance: The proposed Guidance is intended
to be fully consistent with--and a faithful application of--the
principles and guidelines in Circulars A-4 and A-94. Much in the
proposed Guidance cross-references applicable sections in Circular A-
4--and, per a paragraph on page 1, analogous sections of Circular A-94
\10\--to address certain analytical steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, where the proposed Guidance references the
Circular A-4 section ``Discount Rates,'' readers performing analyses
consistent with Circular A-94 should refer to the Circular A-94
section ``Discount Rate Policy.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many analytical steps that are important for assessing impacts on
ecosystem services are covered within Circulars A-4 and A-94.
Therefore, what this Guidance covers in the greatest depth is not
necessarily what is most important for ecosystem-service analysis. For
example, deciding on appropriate valuation methods--such as stated-
preference or revealed-preference methods--is often a challenging step
when valuing ecosystem services. To avoid duplication, this proposed
Guidance generally directs readers to Circulars A-4 and A-94 on this
topic, as valuation techniques are discussed there. The proposed
Guidance instead focuses on highlighting examples of such methodologies
that may be applied to analyses of ecosystem services. Similarly,
choosing a discount rate or analytical time horizon is important to
valuing ecosystem services, but most pertinent considerations to make
such decisions are in Circulars A-4 and A-94; the proposed Guidance
devotes little space to discussing those topics, instead referencing
those circulars.
As noted above, the proposed Guidance explains that it references
sections in Circular A-4; agencies conducting analyses consistent with
Circular A-94 instead of Circular A-4 should reference analogous
sections within the applicable circular. OMB proposes this arrangement
for brevity and to avoid undue repetition by avoiding references to two
documents every time the proposed Guidance mentions one. OMB welcomes
comment on whether that arrangement is sufficiently clear for
practitioners preparing analyses consistent with Circular A-94. OMB
also welcomes comment on opportunities for tailoring the proposed
Guidance more carefully to the context of such analyses. For example,
are there issues that are particularly relevant to valuing ecosystem
services in the public-investment context that would benefit from
additional detail in the proposed Guidance?
On April 6, 2023, OMB separately released proposed revisions to
Circulars A-4 and A-94 and called for public comment on them. The
proposed Guidance is intended to be consistent with current versions of
those Circulars as well as the proposed updates to them. Stated
differently, nothing in the proposed Guidance is meant to depend on any
of the proposed changes to either Circular A-4 or Circular A-94. The
proposed updates to both Circulars cross-reference the final version of
this proposed Guidance for further guidance on valuing ecosystem
services.
In addition to Circulars A-4 and A-94, as noted above and in the
proposed Guidance, many agencies also have internal guidelines for
analyzing ecosystem services. The proposed Guidance represents OMB's
recommended best practices for such analyses in benefit-cost analysis
and should be generally consistent with more specific agency guidance.
Insofar as this Guidance, when finalized, conflicts with any internal
guidance, agencies should consult with OMB. Moreover, agencies should
always refer to their operative statutory authorities and, if their
authorities are inconsistent with the proposed Guidance, should defer
to the relevant statute.
Requests for Comment: While OMB invites comment on any aspect of
the proposed Guidance, OMB specifically solicits comment on the
following aspects:
(1) whether addressing any further topics related to ecosystem
services would be useful;
(2) whether the material could be presented more clearly for
affected public stakeholders, including how the proposed Guidance
discusses its preference for monetization when feasible, and when
not, then quantification when feasible, and when not, then qualitive
description;
(3) whether the discussion of especially difficult-to-quantify
and difficult-to-monetize ecosystem services, such as cultural
services and existence value, is appropriate and sufficient;
(4) whether methodologies to quantify or describe ecosystem
services that cannot be monetized are sufficiently described;
(5) whether integration with and references to Circulars A-4 and
A-94 efficiently cross-reference the relevant details in the related
documents;
(6) whether and how the proposed Guidance conflicts with other
related guidance documents from OMB or agencies;
(7) whether to refine guidance on potential double-counting of
effects; and
(8) whether to refine guidance on accounting for stocks versus
flows.
Richard L. Revesz,
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2023-16272 Filed 8-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P