; (2) assessed the significance of the problem the regulatory action is designed to address; (3) examined whether existing regulations or laws have created or contributed to the problem that the regulatory action is designed to correct and whether those regulations or laws should be modified to achieve the intended goal more effectively; (4) identified and assessed available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage desired behaviors, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public; (5) considered, to the extent reasonable, the degree and nature of the risks posed by various substances or activities within the jurisdiction of the agency; (6) designed the regulatory action to be the most cost-effective manner to achieve the regulatory objective; (7) considered incentives for innovation, consistency, predictability, flexibility, distributive impacts, equity, and the costs of enforcement and compliance by the Government, regulated entities, and the public; (8) assessed costs and benefits of the regulatory action and made a reasoned determination that the benefits justify the costs; (9) used the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for and consequences of the regulatory action; (10) identified and assessed alternative forms of regulation and, to the extent feasible, specified performance objectives rather than behavior or manner of compliance; (11) sought comments and suggestions from appropriate State, local, and tribal officials on any aspect of the regulatory action that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities