[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77580-77585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31433]


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

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL

40 CFR Part 1800

[Docket Number: 112152015-1111-10]


RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component Allocation

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule sets forth the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 
Council's (Council) regulation to implement the Spill Impact Component 
of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, 
and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE 
Act). This rule establishes the formula allocating funds made available 
from the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund among the Gulf Coast States 
of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas (``State'' or 
``States'') pursuant to Sec. 1603(3) of the RESTORE Act.

DATES: This rule will become effective on the date the Council 
publishes in the Federal Register a document confirming that the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has entered 
a consent decree (Consent Decree) among the United States, the States 
and BP with respect to the civil penalty and natural resource damages 
in case number MDL No. 2179.

ADDRESSES: The Council posted all comments on the proposed rule on its 
Web site, www.restorethegulf.gov, without change.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Spoon at (504) 239-9814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Gulf Coast region is vital to our nation and our economy, 
providing valuable energy resources, abundant seafood, extraordinary 
beaches and recreational activities, and a rich natural and cultural 
heritage. Its waters and coasts are home to one of the most diverse 
natural environments in the world--including over 15,000 species of sea 
life and millions of migratory birds. The Gulf has endured many 
catastrophes, including major hurricanes such as Katrina, Rita, Gustav 
and Ike in the last ten years alone. The region has also experienced 
the loss of critical wetland habitats, erosion of barrier islands, 
imperiled fisheries, water quality degradation and significant coastal 
land loss. More recently, the health of the region's ecosystem was 
significantly affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As a result 
of the oil spill, the Council has been given the great responsibility 
of helping to address ecosystem challenges across the Gulf.
    In 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused extensive damage to 
the Gulf Coast's natural resources, devastating the economies and 
communities that rely on it. In an effort to help the region rebuild in 
the wake of the spill, Congress passed and the President signed the 
RESTORE Act, Public Law 112-141 sections 1601-1608, 126 Stat. 588 (Jul. 
6, 2012), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note. The RESTORE Act 
created the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund) and 
dedicates to the Trust Fund 80% of all civil and administrative 
penalties paid under the Clean Water Act, after enactment of the 
RESTORE Act, by parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon oil 
spill.
    Under the RESTORE Act, these funds will be made available through 
five components. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has issued 
regulations (79 FR 48039 (Aug. 15, 2014)), adopting an interim final 
rule at 31 CFR part 34) (Treasury Regulations), applicable to all five 
components, that generally describe the responsibilities of the Federal 
and State entities that administer RESTORE Act programs and carry out 
restoration activities in the Gulf Coast region.
    Two of the five components, the Council-Selected Restoration 
Component and the Spill Impact Component, are administered by the 
Council, an independent Federal entity created by the RESTORE Act. 
Under the Spill Impact Component (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)), the subject of 
this rule, 30% of funds in the Trust Fund will be disbursed to the 
States based on allocation criteria set forth in the RESTORE Act.\1\ In 
order for funds to be disbursed to a State, the RESTORE Act requires 
each State to develop a State Expenditure Plan (SEP) and submit it to 
the Council for approval. The RESTORE Act specifies particular entities 
within the States to prepare these plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii). The Council previously 
promulgated a regulation permitting each State to access up to 5% of 
the total amount available in the Trust Fund under the Spill Impact 
Component (the statutory minimum guaranteed to each State). These 
funds could be used for planning purposes associated with developing 
a State Expenditure Plan. 80 FR 1584 (Jan. 13, 2015); 40 CFR 
1800.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SEPs must meet the following four criteria set forth in the RESTORE 
Act: (1) All projects, programs and activities (activities) included in 
the SEP are eligible activities under the RESTORE Act (33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(I)); (2) all activities included in the SEP contribute 
to the overall economic and ecological recovery of the Gulf Coast (33 
U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(II)); (3) the SEP takes the Council's 
Comprehensive Plan into consideration and is consistent with the goals 
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan (33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(B)(i)(III)); and (4) no more than 25% of the allotted funds 
are used for infrastructure projects unless the SEP contains certain 
certifications pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(ii) (33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(B)(ii)). If the Council determines that an SEP meets the 
four criteria listed above and otherwise complies with the RESTORE Act 
and the applicable Treasury Regulations, the Council must approve the 
SEP based upon such determination within 60 days after a State submits 
an SEP to the Council. 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(B)(iv).
    The funds the Council disburses to the States upon approval of an 
SEP will be in the form of grants. As required by Federal law, the 
Council will award a Federal grant or grants to each of the States and 
incorporate into the grant award(s) standard administrative terms

[[Page 77581]]

on such topics as recordkeeping, reporting and auditing. The Council 
will establish and implement a compliance program to ensure that the 
grants it issues comply with the terms of the grant agreement.
    The ultimate amount of administrative and civil penalties 
potentially available to the Trust Fund is not yet certain. On January 
3, 2013, the United States announced that Transocean Deepwater Inc. and 
related entities agreed to pay $1 billion in civil penalties for 
violating the Clean Water Act in relation to their conduct in the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The settlement was approved by the court 
in February 2013, and pursuant to the RESTORE Act approximately $816 
million (including interest) has been paid into the Trust Fund. On 
October 5, 2015, the United States announced that it had lodged a 
proposed Consent Decree among the United States, the States and BP with 
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 
providing for settlement of all civil claims against BP arising from 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If made final, the proposed Consent 
Decree would require BP to pay to the United States a civil penalty 
under the Clean Water Act of $5.5 billion, plus interest, payable in 
installments over fifteen years. Under the RESTORE Act 80% of those 
payments, or $4.4 billion plus interest, would be dedicated to the 
Trust Fund and allocated to the five components based on percentages 
defined in the RESTORE Act, including 30% to the Spill Impact 
Component, the subject of this rule. There are, however, additional 
steps that must be completed before such funds may become available. 
The Consent Decree will not become final until a public comment process 
has been completed and the court has approved and entered the Consent 
Decree. This rule will become effective on the date when and if notice 
is published in the Federal Register confirming that the Consent Decree 
has been approved and entered by the court.

This Rule

    This rule establishes the formula for allocating among the five 
States funds made available through the Spill Impact Component of the 
Trust Fund (Spill Impact Component), as required by the RESTORE Act, 
and supplements the Treasury Regulations. This rule, and the 
application of any determinations made hereunder, is limited to the 
Spill Impact Component and is promulgated solely for the purpose of 
establishing such allocation. The Council takes no position on what 
data or determinations may be appropriate for other uses, including for 
any other Component of the RESTORE Act or in connection with natural 
resource damage assessments, ongoing litigation, any other law or 
regulation or any rights or obligations in connection therewith.
    The RESTORE Act mandates that funds made available from the Trust 
Fund for the Spill Impact Component be disbursed to each State based on 
a formula established by the Council by a regulation based on a 
weighted average of the following three criteria: (1) 40% based on the 
proportionate number of miles of shoreline in each State that 
experienced oiling on or before April 10, 2011, compared to the total 
number of miles of shoreline throughout the Gulf Coast region that 
experienced oiling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; (2) 
40% based on the inverse proportion of the average distance from the 
mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon at the time of the 
explosion to the nearest and farthest point of the shoreline that 
experienced oiling of each State; and (3) 20% based on the average 
population in the 2010 Decennial Census of coastal counties bordering 
the Gulf of Mexico within each State. 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii).

Public Comments and Summary of Changes to Final Rule

    On September 29, 2015, the Council published a proposed rule (80 FR 
58417) establishing the formula for allocating among the five States 
funds made available through the Spill Impact Component, as required by 
the RESTORE Act. During the thirty-day comment period the Council 
received eleven written comments addressing the draft rule, from 
private citizens, other government entities (such as state, county and 
local entities), non-governmental organizations and others. All 
comments were reviewed and carefully considered by the Council before 
finalizing the rule. (The Council received fourteen additional comments 
not addressing the draft rule (for example, addressing specific 
restoration project preferences or addressing the Funded Priorities 
List) and did not respond to those comments herein.)
    The Council has made one clarifying edit to the final rule. In the 
first sentence of 40 CFR 1800.400, the phrase ``coastal political 
subdivisions'' has been replaced by ``coastal counties'' in conformance 
with the Act pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).

General Comments/Responses

    Comment: Several commenters suggested or encouraged the Council to 
allocate Spill Impact Component funds to specific projects, specific 
ecological or economic areas of concern, or specific geographic areas.
    Response: The Council appreciates these comments and the 
expressions of concern for the ecosystems and economies of the Gulf 
Coast region. However, the purpose of the rule as required by the 
RESTORE Act is only to establish a percentage formula for allocation of 
Spill Impact Component funds; the rule does not address implementation. 
The implementation of projects and programs under this Component will 
take place pursuant to other provisions of the RESTORE Act (e.g., the 
Council's State Expenditure Plan (SEP) Guidelines available at 
www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/SEP-Guidelines-final_0.pdf). 
Additional information related to the Council's restoration goals, 
objectives and activities can be found on our Web site at 
www.restorethegulf.gov. No change was made to the rule in response to 
this comment.
    Comment: Several commenters referred to the SEP Guidelines 
(available at www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/SEP-Guidelines-final_0.pdf) and suggested that they be included, or 
incorporated by reference, in the rule. One commenter also suggested 
specific policies that the Council follow in implementing the SEP 
Guidelines and approving SEPs and mentioned the Council's 
``discretion'' in evaluating SEPs.
    Response: The Council appreciates the comment and the thoughtful 
attention paid to the Council's Spill Impact Component processes. Under 
the RESTORE Act, each State will create an SEP setting forth the 
projects and programs on which the State will expend Spill Impact 
Component funds. However, the SEPs and their implementation are not the 
subject of this rule. The Council published the rule pursuant to the 
section of the RESTORE Act requiring a regulation to establish the 
Spill Impact Component allocation formula, see 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(A)(ii), and the Council limited the rule to that purpose.
    The Council's SEP Guidelines were carefully drafted to ensure 
effective and efficient implementation of the relevant requirements in 
the RESTORE Act. These Guidelines, which do not establish any Council 
discretion in evaluating or approving SEPs (see the ``Environmental 
Compliance'' section below), remain in effect regardless of whether or 
not they are incorporated into a Council rule or regulation. The 
Council may in the future issue further regulations as circumstances 
warrant.

[[Page 77582]]

No change was made to the rule in response to this comment.

Formula Criteria in General

    Comment: One commenter criticized the formula's 40%-40%-20% 
weighting of the three criteria (miles of oiled shoreline; inverse 
proportion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig distance from oiled 
shoreline; and average coastal county population) used to establish the 
Spill Impact Component funding allocation for each State. The commenter 
suggested using a 50%-40%-10% respective weighting, stating that the 
formula set forth in the draft rule gives too much weight to coastal 
county populations and not enough to miles of oiled shoreline.
    Response: The Council appreciates this comment and the analysis 
behind it. However, the formula's criteria percentage weightings of 
40%-40%-20% described above are specified by the RESTORE Act and cannot 
be changed by the Council. See 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii). No change 
was made to the rule in response to this comment.

Oiled Shoreline Criterion

    Comment: One commenter offered support for the Council's use of US 
Coast Guard (USCG) data in determining the miles of oiled shoreline in 
each Gulf State.
    Response: The Council appreciates the commenter's support for the 
Council's implementation of this rule criterion.
    Comment: One commenter criticized the Council's use of USCG Rapid 
Assessment Technique (RAT) data in determining the amount of oiled 
shoreline in Texas, while using USCG Shoreline Cleanup Assessment 
Technique (SCAT) data for determining miles of oiled shoreline in the 
other States. The commenter suggested that SCAT data is the only 
reliable method for determining the oiled shoreline resulting from the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill because RAT data is ``preliminary in 
nature'' and not guided by a ``prescribed and systematic'' methodology 
as is SCAT data. Since there is no SCAT data for Texas, the commenter 
suggested that there can be no determination of miles of oiled 
shoreline in Texas for purposes of the rule, and stated that the 
Council should therefore use a zero percentage for Texas under the 
first two criteria of the formula. The commenter also stated that the 
RAT method is not mentioned in either the USCG's Incident Management 
Handbook or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
(NOAA) Shoreline Assessment Manual.
    Response: The Council appreciates this comment and the analysis 
behind it. The Council has determined that it is prudent to consider 
the best available data in establishing the allocation in this rule. 
The location, magnitude, and persistence of exposure of nearshore 
habitats to Deepwater Horizon oil was documented through field surveys 
that included observations, measurements and collection and analysis of 
thousands of samples. Based on all data surveys, oil was observed on 
over 1300 miles of shoreline from Texas to Florida. Relying exclusively 
on SCAT data, thus excluding RAT data, would mean that Texas would 
appear to have had zero miles of oiled shoreline and (as the commenter 
concluded) result in a zero percentage for Texas under the first and 
second criteria of the rule formula. This is factually inaccurate. 
According to the available surveys and the USCG, Texas had at least 
36.0 miles of shoreline ``that experienced oiling as a result of the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.'' 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(I). To 
exclude this data because the RAT method was used instead of the SCAT 
method would not reflect this reality. While the RAT technique is not 
specifically named, the technique is described in the USCG Incident 
Management Handbook under the discussion of Field Observers, and in 
NOAA's Shoreline Assessment Manual in its discussion of rapid 
assessment teams (3rd Edition) or Field Observers (4th Edition). While 
RAT is not as prescribed or systematic as SCAT, it is nevertheless a 
commonly used assessment methodology. Additionally, the oil samples 
from the Texas shoreline were fingerprinted by the USCG and identified 
as originating from the Macondo well. Moreover, the use of RAT and SCAT 
data together is consistent with the use of both datasets by the United 
States in determining the injury to natural resources in its civil 
lawsuits against BP in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 
The Council thus determined that since the Texas shoreline did in fact 
experience oiling from the spill, it was more reasonable to consider 
all available data, including RAT data, in establishing the allocation 
formula. No change was made to the rule in response to this comment.

Inverse Proportion Criterion

    Comment: One commenter supported the Council's mathematical formula 
for determining the inverse proportion of the average distance of the 
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig from the nearest and farthest point of 
oiled shoreline in each State.
    Response: The Council appreciates the commenter's support for the 
Council's implementation of this criterion of the rule.

Population Criterion

    Comment: One commenter criticized the Council's calculation of the 
portion of the formula based on the third criterion, ``the average 
population . . . of coastal counties . . . within each Gulf Coast 
State,'' stating that the calculation in the rule gives too much weight 
to States with smaller total coastal populations. The commenter 
suggested calculating the total population of each State's coastal 
counties as a percentage of the total population of all of the Gulf 
States' coastal counties in calculating this part of the rule formula.
    Response: The Council appreciates this comment. However, the 
RESTORE Act requires using, for this criterion, the calculation of the 
``average population . . . of coastal counties . . . within each Gulf 
Coast State.'' See 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III). The Council 
interpreted this language to mean the average coastal county population 
within each State. This appears to be the plain meaning and intent of 
the term ``average'' in this provision. Using the total population of 
all coastal counties within each State, rather than the average 
population of each coastal county, would ignore the term ``average'' in 
the criterion and change the resulting allocation percentages in a way 
not permitted by the RESTORE Act.
    Thus the Council first determined which counties in each State are 
coastal counties, then used the 2010 Decennial Census data to determine 
the population of each of those counties, and finally calculated the 
average coastal county population within each State, compared to the 
respective averages of the other States, to arrive at the final 
percentage allocation for this criterion. No change was made to the 
rule in response to this comment.

Coastal Counties Definition

    Comment: Several commenters criticized the exclusion of Harris 
County in Texas from the definition of ``coastal counties'' in the rule 
formula. See 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III). One commenter mentioned 
that Hillsborough County in Florida, and Orleans Parish in Louisiana, 
appear to have geographic complexities similar to Harris County.
    One commenter supported the Council's definition of coastal 
counties in the rule formula.
    Response: The coastal counties for the State of Florida are 
determined by the RESTORE Act and the Treasury Regulations (see 31 CFR 
34.2). The

[[Page 77583]]

RESTORE Act does not specify the coastal counties for the States of 
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana or Texas, and the Council referred to a 
generally accessible geographic map in order to determine those States' 
coastal counties. With respect to Texas there was additional discussion 
within the Council regarding the State's geographic complexity; for 
example, there are several interconnected waterways that are 
geographically distinct from the Gulf of Mexico. The Council did not 
consider any other State to be as geographically complex as Texas. For 
Hillsborough County in Florida, geographic complexity was not relevant 
since the Florida coastal counties are specified by the RESTORE Act and 
the Treasury Regulations. The Council did not consider Orleans Parish 
in Louisiana to be geographically complex since it directly touches the 
Gulf of Mexico through Lake Borgne, a body of water contiguous with the 
Gulf of Mexico. Since only the Texas coast was so geographically 
complex, the Council looked at additional sources when considering the 
definition of coastal counties in Texas.
    The Council thus considered the list of coastal counties used by 
the State of Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) (http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/), the Texas state agency responsible for 
regulating exploration, production and transportation of oil and 
natural gas in Texas as well as related pollution prevention measures--
matters that are topically related to the purposes of the RESTORE Act. 
The TRC list is consistent with the Texas counties identified in the 
rule by using the generally accessible geographic map.
    The Council also consulted other Texas information sources. For 
example, the Council considered using the list used by the Texas 
Coastal Management Program (TX CMP) setting forth all or part of 
eighteen counties subject to the TX CMP. The Council found that the TX 
CMP does not contain a list of ``coastal counties,'' but rather tracks 
a ``coastal zone.'' The ``coastal zone'' area is defined by the Coastal 
Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451 et. seq.) based on 
hydrologic and geographic standards (see 16 U.S.C. 1453(1)) that are 
not meaningful for purposes of the Council defining ``coastal 
counties'' pursuant to the RESTORE Act at 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).
    The Council also considered the definition of ``coastal political 
subdivisions'' used in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1356a) and rejected it because it also in part uses the CZMA definition 
of ``coastal zone'' to define ``coastal political subdivisions.''
    After having thus considered the TRC list and other sources, the 
Council concludes that the list of Texas coastal counties provided in 
the rule is reasonable and appropriate in implementing the provisions 
of the Spill Impact Component of the RESTORE Act. No change was made to 
the rule in response to this comment.
    The Council is using the TRC list only for purposes of establishing 
the population criterion of the rule formula pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III); this use of the TRC list has no bearing on any 
other determination of coastal counties, areas, political subdivisions 
or jurisdictions, under Federal or state law or otherwise.
    Comment: Several commenters noted that Harris County was affected 
by the oil spill and therefore should have been included in the 
definition.
    Response: The Council appreciates that numerous Texas (and other 
Gulf States') counties were affected by the spill, including localities 
both on and more distant from the Gulf Coast. The Council interprets 
the RESTORE Act to require restricting the definition to a geographic 
determination of coastal counties; being affected by the spill is not a 
factor to be considered for this criterion of the rule formula, which 
is based solely on population. No change was made to the rule in 
response to this comment.
    It should be noted that the rule formula establishes only the 
allocation of Spill Impact Component funds to each State and has no 
bearing on where in a State such funds may be expended; for example, 
the State of Texas could elect to fund projects and/or programs within 
Harris County. Spending decisions will be made by each State in 
accordance with the State Expenditure Plan(s) to be created by each 
State under the RESTORE Act and the Treasury Regulations (including the 
limitation of programs to those carried out in the ``Gulf Coast 
Region,'' see 31 CFR 34.2 and 31 CFR 34.203(c)).

Changes to Final Rule

    The Council made one clarifying edit to the final rule. In the 
first sentence of 40 CFR 1800.400, the phrase ``coastal political 
subdivisions'' has been replaced by ``coastal counties'' in conformance 
with the Act pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III).

Environmental Compliance

    The Council did not receive any public comments addressing the 
application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to the 
promulgation of the rule or the Council's approval or funding of an 
SEP. The Council adopts the analysis detailed in the proposed rule (80 
FR 58417, 58419 (Sept. 29, 2015)) that NEPA review is not required to 
issue this rule and will not be required in connection with Council 
approval or funding of an SEP.
    NEPA review will apply to specific activities undertaken pursuant 
to Council-approved SEPs that require significant Federal action before 
they can commence. For example, an SEP project requiring a Federal 
permit would generally require NEPA review by the issuing Federal 
agency, and obtaining such a permit might also require other Federal 
environmental compliance. No SEP implementation funds for an activity 
will be disbursed by the Council to a State until all requisite permits 
and licenses have been obtained.
    After considering all public comments, the Council now issues the 
final rule. The rule will take effect on the date when and if the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 
approves and enters the Consent Decree.

Procedural Requirements

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    As an independent Federal entity that is composed of, in part, six 
Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, the Army, 
Commerce, and the Interior, and the Department in which the Coast Guard 
is operating, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the requirements 
of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 are inapplicable to this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally 
requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because the direct recipients of the funds allocated under this rule 
are the five States, and states are not small entities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Additionally, this rule does not place any 
economic burden on the ``coastal counties;'' rather those counties will 
receive funds from their respective

[[Page 77584]]

States' share of the allocated funds. Therefore, the Council has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this rule does not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not required and has not been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule is promulgated solely to establish an allocation formula 
and State allocation percentages. As such, there are no associated 
paperwork requirements. Any paperwork necessary to submit a SEP under 
the Spill Impact component of the RESTORE Act required by statute and 
not by this rule. See 31 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1800

    Coastal zone, Fisheries, Grant programs, Grants administration, 
Intergovernmental relations, Marine resources, Natural resources, Oil 
pollution, Research, Science and technology, Trusts and trustees, 
Wildlife.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem 
Restoration Council amends 40 CFR part 1800 as follows:

PART 1800--SPILL IMPACT COMPONENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 1800 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(t).

0
2. Amend section 1800.1 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for 
``Deepwater Horizon oil spill,'' ``Inverse proportion,'' ``Spill Impact 
Formula,'' ``Treasury, '' and ``Trust Fund'' to read as follows:


1800.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Deepwater Horizon oil spill means the blowout and explosion of the 
mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon that occurred on April 
20, 2010, and resulting hydrocarbon releases into the environment.
* * * * *
    Inverse proportion means a mathematical relation between two 
quantities such that one proportionally increases as the other 
decreases.
* * * * *
    Spill Impact Formula means the formula established by the Council 
in accordance with section 311(t)(3)(A)(ii) of the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as added by section 1603 thereof.
* * * * *
    Treasury means the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Secretary 
of the Treasury, or his/her designee.
    Trust Fund means the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund.

0
3. Add subpart C to read as follows:

Subpart C--Spill Impact Formula

Sec.
1800.100 Purpose.
1800.101 General formula.
1800.200 Oiled shoreline.
1800.201 Miles of shoreline that experienced oiling as a result of 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
1800.202 Proportionate number of miles of shoreline that experienced 
oiling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
1800.300 Inverse proportion of the average distance from Deepwater 
Horizon at the time of the explosion.
1800.301 Distances from the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the 
explosion.
1800.302 Inverse proportions.
1800.400 Coastal county populations.
1800.401 Decennial census data.
1800.402 Distribution based on average population.
1800.500 Allocation.


Sec.  1800.100  Purpose.

    This subpart establishes the formula applicable to the Spill Impact 
Component authorized under the RESTORE Act (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 
405, 588-607).


Sec.  1800.101  General formula.

    The RESTORE Act provides that thirty percent (30%) of the funds 
made available from the Trust Fund for the Oil Spill Impact Component 
be disbursed to each of the Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas based on a formula established by the 
Council (Spill Impact Formula), through a regulation, that is based on 
a weighted average of the following criteria:
    (a) Forty percent (40%) based on the proportionate number of miles 
of shoreline in each Gulf Coast State that experienced oiling on or 
before April 10, 2011, compared to the total number of miles of 
shoreline that experienced oiling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill;
    (b) Forty percent (40%) based on the inverse proportion of the 
average distance from the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
Horizon at the time of the explosion to the nearest and farthest point 
of the shoreline that experienced oiling of each Gulf Coast State; and
    (c) Twenty percent (20%) based on the average population in the 
2010 Decennial Census of coastal counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico 
within each Gulf Coast State.


Sec.  1800.200  Oiled shoreline.

    Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the 
following shall apply, rounded to one decimal place with respect to 
miles of shoreline:


Sec.  1800.201  Miles of shoreline that experienced oiling as a result 
of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

    According to Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique and Rapid 
Assessment Technique data provided by the United States Coast Guard, 
the miles of shoreline that experienced oiling on or before April 10, 
2011 for each Gulf Coast State are:
    (a) Alabama--89.8 miles.
    (b) Florida--174.6 miles.
    (c) Louisiana--658.3 miles.
    (d) Mississippi--158.6 miles.
    (e) Texas--36.0 miles.


Sec.  1800.202  Proportionate number of miles of shoreline that 
experienced oiling as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

    The proportionate number of miles for each Gulf Coast State is 
determined by dividing each Gulf Coast State's number of miles of oiled 
shoreline determined in Sec.  1800.201 by the total number of affected 
miles. This calculation yields the following:
    (a) Alabama--8.04%.
    (b) Florida--15.63%.
    (c) Louisiana--58.92%.
    (d) Mississippi--14.19%.
    (e) Texas--3.22%.


Sec.  1800.300  Inverse proportion of the average distance from 
Deepwater Horizon at the time of the explosion.

    Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the 
following shall apply, rounded to one decimal place with respect to 
distance:


Sec.  1800.301  Distances from the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the 
explosion.

    (a) Alabama--The distance from the nearest point of the Alabama 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 89.2 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Alabama 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 103.7 miles. The average of these two distances is 96.5 miles.
    (b) Florida--The distance from the nearest point of the Florida 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 102.3 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Florida 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 207.6 miles. The average of these two distances is 154.9 miles.
    (c) Louisiana--The distance from the nearest point of the Louisiana 
shoreline

[[Page 77585]]

that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 43.5 
miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Louisiana shoreline 
that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was 213.7 
miles. The average of these two distances is 128.6 miles.
    (d) Mississippi--The distance from the nearest point of the 
Mississippi shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill was 87.7 miles. The distance from the farthest point 
of the Mississippi shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill was 107.9 miles. The average of these two distances 
is 97.8 miles.
    (e) Texas--The distance from the nearest point of the Texas 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 306.2 miles. The distance from the farthest point of the Texas 
shoreline that experienced oiling from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
was 356.5 miles. The average of these two distances is 331.3 miles.


Sec.  1800.302  Inverse proportions.

    The inverse proportion for each Gulf Coast State is determined by 
summing the proportional average distances determined in Sec.  1800.301 
and taking the inverse. This calculation yields the following:
    (a) Alabama--27.39%.
    (b) Florida--17.06%.
    (c) Louisiana--20.55%.
    (d) Mississippi--27.02%.
    (e) Texas--7.98%.


Sec.  1800.400  Coastal county populations.

    Solely for the purpose of calculating the Spill Impact Formula, the 
coastal counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico within each Gulf Coast 
State are:
    (a) The Alabama Coastal Counties, consisting of Baldwin and Mobile 
counties;
    (b) The Florida Coastal Counties, consisting of Bay, Charlotte, 
Citrus, Collier, Dixie, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Hernando, 
Hillsborough, Jefferson, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Monroe, Okaloosa, Pasco, 
Pinellas, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Taylor, Wakulla, and Walton counties;
    (c) The Louisiana Coastal Parishes, consisting of Cameron, Iberia, 
Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, St. 
Tammany, Terrebonne, and Vermilion parishes;
    (d) The Mississippi Coastal Counties, consisting of Hancock, 
Harrison, and Jackson counties; and
    (e) The Texas Coastal Counties, consisting of Aransas, Brazoria, 
Calhoun, Cameron, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kennedy, Kleberg, 
Matagorda, Nueces, and Willacy counties.


Sec.  1800.401  Decennial census data.

    The average populations in the 2010 decennial census for each Gulf 
Coast State, rounded to the nearest whole number, are:
    (a) For the Alabama Coastal Counties, 297,629 persons;
    (b) For the Florida Coastal Counties, 252,459 persons;
    (c) For the Louisiana Coastal Parishes, 133,633 persons;
    (d) For the Mississippi Coastal Counties,123,567 persons; and
    (e) For the Texas Coastal Counties, 147,845 persons.


Sec.  1800.402  Distribution based on average population.

    The distribution of funds based on average populations for each 
Gulf Coast State is determined by dividing the average population 
determined in Sec.  1800.401 by the sum of those average populations. 
This calculation yields the following results:
    (a) Alabama--31.16%.
    (b) Florida--26.43%.
    (c) Louisiana--13.99%.
    (d) Mississippi--12.94%.
    (e) Texas--15.48%.


Sec.  1800.500  Allocation.

    Using the data from Sec. Sec.  1800.200 through 1800.402 of this 
subpart in the formula provided in Sec.  1800.101 of this subpart 
yields the following allocation for each Gulf Coast State:
    (a) Alabama--20.40%.
    (b) Florida--18.36%.
    (c) Louisiana--34.59%.
    (d) Mississippi--19.07%.
    (e) Texas--7.58%.

Justin R. Ehrenwerth,
Executive Director, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
[FR Doc. 2015-31433 Filed 12-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-58-P