RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component Allocation, 58417-58421 [2015-24816]

Agencies

• GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 188 (Tuesday, September 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58417-58421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24816]


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

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL

40 CFR Part 1800

[Docket Number: 109002015-1111-08]


RESTORE Act Spill Impact Component Allocation

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) is 
publishing for public and Tribal comment proposed regulations 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). These regulations will 
establish the formula allocating funds made available from the Gulf 
Coast Restoration Trust Fund (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: Comments are due October 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through one of these methods:
    Electronic Submission of Comments: Interested persons may submit 
comments electronically by sending them to 
frcomments@restorethegulf.gov. Electronic submission of comments allows 
the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures 
timely receipt, and enables the Council to make them available to the 
public. In general, the Council will make such comments available for 
public inspection and copying on its Web site, www.restorethegulf.gov, 
without change, including any business or personal information 
provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone 
numbers. All comments received, including attachments and other 
supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to 
public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to 
make publicly available.
    Mail: Send to Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 500 Poydras 
Street, Suite 1117, New Orleans, LA 70130.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please send questions by email to 
frcomments@restorethegulf.gov, or contact Will Spoon at (504) 239-9814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Effective Date

    This proposed rule, if and when final, would become effective on 
the date that the court enters a consent decree among the United 
States, the Gulf Coast States and BP with respect to the civil penalty 
and natural resource damages in MDL No. 2179 (United States District 
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana).

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, Sec. 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 eighty percent (80%) of any civil and administrative 
penalties paid under the

[[Page 58418]]

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 48,039 (Aug. 15, 2014), adopting 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 percent 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 the States access to up to 5 
percent of the total amount available in the Trust Fund to each 
State 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 percent 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). 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 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 known. 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 July 
2, 2015, BP announced that it reached Agreements in Principle (AIPs) 
for settlement of civil claims arising from the Deepwater Horizon oil 
spill. According to the announcement, the AIPs provide for a payment to 
the United States of a civil penalty of $5.5 billion under the Clean 
Water Act, payable over 15 years. As discussed above, the RESTORE Act 
provides that 80% of civil penalties paid under the Clean Water Act 
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are dedicated to the 
Trust Fund. There are, however, additional steps that must be completed 
before those funds become available. The terms of the proposed 
settlements are subject to a confidentiality order and will not become 
final until, among other things, a consent decree is negotiated, is 
made available for public review and comment, and is approved and 
entered by the court.

This Proposed Rule

    This proposed 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 would supplement 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) Forty (40) 
percent 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) forty (40) percent 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) twenty (20) 
percent 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).
    For the first criterion, the Council used Shoreline Cleanup and 
Assessment Technique (SCAT) and Rapid Assessment Technique (RAT) data 
supplied by the United States Coast Guard. SCAT and RAT represent the 
U.S. Government's official dataset for tracking and responding to oil 
spills and thus represent the most consistent, clear and reasonable 
currently available dataset to use for determining the first criterion, 
which calls for a determination of 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.
    For the second criterion, the Council used the same SCAT and RAT 
data along with official latitude and longitudinal data supplied by the 
U.S. Coast Guard to determine the inverse proportion of the average 
distance from the location of the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore 
drilling unit at the time of the explosion to the nearest and farthest 
point of the shoreline that experienced oiling of each State.
    For the third criterion, the Council first had to determine what 
constituted ``coastal counties bordering the Gulf of

[[Page 58419]]

Mexico within each Gulf Coast State'' before it could determine the 
average population based on the 2010 Decennial Census. The RESTORE Act 
and Treasury's implementing regulations define the relevant counties 
for the State of Florida. 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(1)(C). The Treasury 
regulations implementing the RESTORE Act specify these counties as: 
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. 31 CFR 34.2. For the purposes of this draft rule, the Council 
proposes to define the Florida counties listed in the Treasury 
regulations as ``coastal counties.''
    However, the RESTORE Act does not specifically define the term 
``coastal counties,'' nor does it identify specific counties in the 
States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas that are ``coastal 
counties'' under the RESTORE Act. Nor does any other relevant Federal 
law or regulation define or identify these counties. Accordingly, the 
Council must itself determine which counties in those States qualify as 
``coastal counties'' for the purposes of the Spill Impact Component.
    For the States of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, the 
Council proposes to interpret the term ``coastal counties'' as those 
counties that, according to a generally accessible geographic map of 
the states, physically touch the Gulf of Mexico. Using this 
interpretation, the Council proposes identifying the following counties 
as ``coastal counties'' for the purposes of the rule: Baldwin and 
Mobile Counties for Alabama; Cameron, Iberia, Jefferson, Lafourche, 
Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Mary, St. Tammany, Terrebonne, 
and Vermilion Parishes for Louisiana; Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson 
Counties for Mississippi; and Aransas, Brazoria, Calhoun, Cameron, 
Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, Kenedy, Kleberg, Matagorda, Nueces, and 
Willacy Counties for Texas.
    Additionally, with respect to the State of Texas the Council 
considered the list of coastal counties used by the State of Texas 
Railroad Commission (TRC) (https://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 counties identified in the TRC 
list are the same as those identified for Texas above.\2\ The Council 
also considered other possible sources for determining the Texas 
coastal counties but has determined that they are insufficient for such 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Council proposes to use the TRC list only for purposes 
of the Spill Impact Component criterion set forth in 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(3)(A)(ii)(III). For the avoidance of doubt, the Council's 
use of this list has no bearing or effect on (i) any other provision 
of the RESTORE Act, the laws of Texas or any other Federal or state 
laws; (ii) any other determination of coastal counties, areas, 
jurisdictions or political subdivisions; or (iii) any other 
determination of legal rights or obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After determining the ``coastal counties,'' the RESTORE Act 
requires the Council to use the 2010 Decennial Census figures for those 
counties to determine the average population of the coastal counties 
bordering the Gulf of Mexico within each State.
    Using the figures calculated based on the above assumptions and 
applying the criteria specified in the RESTORE Act, the Council 
proposes that the final allocation among the five States be: Alabama--
20.40%; Florida--18.36%; Louisiana--34.59%; Mississippi--19.07%; and 
Texas--7.58%.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council notes that the calculations resulting in the 
above allocation involved rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of public comment on this proposed rule, the 
Council will respond to those comments and revise the rule as 
appropriate. Consistent with the requirements of the RESTORE Act, the 
Council will then publicly vote on whether to adopt a final rule and 
publish the final rule in the Federal Register. 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(2)(C)(vi). Approval of the rule requires the affirmative vote 
of the Chairperson and a majority of the five State members. 33 U.S.C. 
1321(t)(2)(C)(vi)(I).

Environmental Compliance

    The Council does not regard promulgating this proposed rule, 
including the allocation formula and State allocation percentages set 
forth herein, as requiring National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
review, because the Council has no discretion in either establishing 
such elements of the Spill Impact Component or weighting such elements, 
both of which are specified in the RESTORE Act.
    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.
    The Council invites public comment on whether the Council's 
approving and funding SEPs under the RESTORE Act will require NEPA 
review, as outlined in the following analysis:
    The Council does not anticipate that its review or approval of 
SEPs, or the issuance of related grants under the Spill Impact 
Component of the RESTORE Act, will require NEPA review. The Council has 
a limited statutory role in the review of SEPs and administration of 
Spill Impact Component grants, and a limited timeframe for Council SEP 
review under the RESTORE Act.
    Under the RESTORE Act the Council has no role in the creation of 
SEPs or the design or selection of Spill Impact Component activities; 
those activities are undertaken solely by the States. The RESTORE Act 
specifies the four criteria that SEPs must meet in order to be eligible 
for funding, and when an SEP meets these criteria the Council has no 
authority or discretion to reject an SEP, to select or designate 
alternative versions of an SEP, or to select or designate alternative 
activities within an SEP. Although the Council must determine whether 
an SEP has met these criteria, the RESTORE Act does not grant the 
Council discretion to separately consider external factors, such as 
environmental impacts, in its review.
    NEPA is designed to help Federal agencies consider environmental 
consequences during their decision-making process, and to consider 
alternatives to a proposed action. Since the Council has no role in 
creating SEPs and lacks the discretion to separately consider 
environmental consequences or SEP alternatives, a NEPA review would 
have no bearing on the Council's decision to either approve or reject 
an SEP.
    Moreover, under the RESTORE Act the Council is given 60 days after 
submission of an SEP to approve or disapprove it for funding. This 
timeframe would not allow the Council sufficient time to conduct 
meaningful NEPA review. NEPA reviews, even those concluding that 
environmental impacts are not significant, typically require several 
months at a minimum--certainly longer than the 60 days allowed for 
Council approval of an SEP. Nor could the Council require a completed 
NEPA analysis to accompany a proposed SEP before starting the 60-day 
review (e.g., as part of or prior to an

[[Page 58420]]

SEP submission); this would in effect impose an additional criterion 
for approval of an SEP, which is beyond Council authority under the 
RESTORE Act.
    NEPA would therefore not apply to Council approval or funding of an 
SEP.

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 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, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required and has not been prepared. The Council invites comments on the 
rule's impact on small entities.

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 is a statutory 
requirement unaffected by this rule. 31 U.S.C. 1321(t)(3).
    The Council requests public and Tribal comment on all aspects of 
this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1800

    Coastal zone, Fisheries, Grant programs, Grants administration, 
Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund, Gulf RESTORE Program, 
Intergovernmental relations, Marine resources, Natural resources, Oil 
pollution, Research, Science and technology, Trusts, Wildlife.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Gulf Coast Ecosystem 
Restoration Council proposes to amend 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 Sec.  1800.1 by adding in alphabetical order the definitions 
for Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Spill Impact Formula, Inverse 
proportion, Treasury, and Trust Fund to read as follows:


Sec.  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.
    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.
* * * * *
    Inverse proportion means a mathematical relation between two 
quantities such that one proportionally increases as the other 
decreases.
* * * * *
    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.

[[Page 58421]]

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 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 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 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 political subdivisions 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 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 sections 1800.200 through 1800.402 of this 
subpart in the formula provided in section 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. 2015-24816 Filed 9-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-58-P