Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49027 

(See section VI for more details.) To the 

extent that the conditions for the 

hearing as described in this document 

conflict with any provisions set out in 

part 15, this notice acts as a waiver of 

those provisions as specified in 

§ 15.30(h). 

V. Request for Comments 

Regardless of attendance at the public 

hearing, interested persons may submit 

either electronic comments to http://

www.regulations.gov or written 

comments to the Division of Dockets 

Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only 

necessary to send one set of comments. 

Identify comments with the docket 

number found in brackets in the 

heading of this document. To ensure 

consideration, submit comments by (see 

DATES). Received comments may be seen 

in the Division of Dockets Management 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, and will be posted to 

the docket at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

VI. Transcripts 

Please be advised that as soon as a 

transcript is available, it will be 

accessible at http://

www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed 

at the Division of Dockets Management 

(see ADDRESSES). A transcript will also 

be available in either hard copy or on 

CD–ROM, after submission of a 

Freedom of Information request. Written 

requests are to be sent to the Division 

of Freedom of Information (ELEM– 

1029), Food and Drug Administration, 

12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., 

Rockville, MD 20857. 

Dated: August 14, 2014. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19632 Filed 8–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

30 CFR Parts 550, 551, 556, 581, 582 

and 585 

[Docket ID: BOEM–2013–0058; 

MMAA104000] 

RIN 1010–AD83 

Risk Management, Financial 

Assurance and Loss Prevention 

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM), Interior. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR). 

SUMMARY: BOEM is seeking comments 

and information regarding its effort to 

update its regulations and program 

oversight for Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) financial assurance requirements. 

When BOEM’s existing bonding 

regulations were originally drafted and 

first implemented, the principal risks 

associated with OCS leases were nonpayment of rents and royalties, 

noncompliance with laws and 

regulations, and potential problems due 

to bankruptcy. While potentially 

significant, such risks were generally 

well-known and of limited complexity, 

size and scope. 

Due to increasingly complex business, 

functional, organizational and financial 

issues and vast differences in costs 

associated with expanded and varied 

offshore activities, BOEM has 

recognized the need to develop a 

comprehensive program to assist in 

identifying, prioritizing, and managing 

the risks associated with industry 

activities on the OCS. BOEM intends to 

design and implement a more robust 

and comprehensive risk management, 

financial assurance and loss prevention 

program to address these complex 

issues and cost differences associated 

with offshore operations. To do so, 

BOEM is seeking stakeholder comments 

regarding various risk management and 

monitoring activities pertaining to 

financial risks to taxpayers that may 

result from activities on the OCS. This 

notice specifically discusses the 

bonding and financial assurance 

program for BOEM’s offshore oil and gas 

program. However, we also welcome the 

submission of comments on the 

analogous bonding and financial 

assurance program for BOEM’s offshore 

renewable energy and hard minerals 

programs. 

BOEM currently requires lessees to 

provide performance bonds and/or one 

of various alternative forms of financial 

assurance to ensure compliance with 

the terms and conditions of leases, 

Rights-of-Use and Easements (RUEs) 

and Pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROWs). 

BOEM is seeking comments on who is 

best suited to mitigate risks and whether 

the correct parties are providing 

guarantees and other forms of financial 

assurance, as well as whether, or to 

what extent, the current forms of 

financial assurance are adequate and 

appropriate. 

Because costs and damages associated 

with oil spill financial responsibility 

(OSFR) are covered separately in the 

regulations, which is the subject of other 

proposed rulemakings on BOEM’s 

regulatory agenda, BOEM is not 

soliciting comments on those 

regulations and their associated risk 

mitigation measures at this time. 

DATES: BOEM will consider all 

comments received by midnight of 

October 20, 2014. BOEM cannot commit 

to considering comments received after 

midnight on October 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this ANPR using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions on the Web site for 

submitting comments. Please use 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1010–AD83 as an identifier in your 

message. See also the ‘‘Public Comment 

Policy’’ paragraph under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding BOEM’s 

comprehensive risk management, 

financial assurance, and loss prevention 

program or the major topics of this 

ANPR, contact Terry Scholten at 

terry.scholten@boem.gov (504–810– 

2078) or Donna Dixon at Donna.Dixon@

boem.gov (504–731–1527), or by mail at 

1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., GM364D, 

New Orleans, LA 70123. For issues 

related to the rulemaking process or 

timetable, contact Peter Meffert at 

peter.meffert@boem.gov (703–787– 

1610), or by mail at 381 Elden St., 

Herndon, VA 20170. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Availability of Comments: 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you may ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so under Federal law. 

Background: BOEM has program 

oversight for Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) financial assurance requirements 

set forth in 30 CFR parts 550, 556 

(subpart I), 581 (subpart C), 582 (subpart 

D), 585 (subpart E), and in § 551.7, all 

of which are promulgated pursuant to 

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.). Section 

5(a) of OCSLA authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to promulgate rules and 

regulations necessary to administer the 

OCS leasing program, including 

regulations concerning financial 

assurance. Section 8(p)(6) of OCSLA 

requires the Secretary to obtain financial 

security for OCS leases, easements and 

rights-of-way issued for purposes other 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49028 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

than the development and production of 

oil and gas. 

Within DOI, BOEM is the bureau with 

primary authority to manage the 

financial risks to the government 

associated with the development of 

energy and mineral resources on the 

OCS. BOEM is in the process of 

updating regulations at 30 CFR part 556 

to exercise this authority, as well as 

other regulations pertaining to financial 

assurance mentioned in the Summary 

above. BOEM is also reexamining the 

assumptions underlying its existing 

financial assurance and bonding 

program, as well as considering how to 

address risks and loss prevention more 

comprehensively. BOEM is enhancing 

its existing financial assurance and 

bonding program by incorporating a risk 

management approach to identifying, 

defining, quantifying, and treating all of 

the commercial, functional, 

organizational/business risks facing 

entities operating on the OCS in order 

to implement loss prevention measures. 

BOEM intends to apply this same 

approach to evaluating how OCS 

business entities can best meet their 

financial and contractual obligations. 

Such an approach would deal with all 

types of risk, such as mitigating 

financial risks resulting from fiscal, 

commercial and business risks, credit 

risk, functional and organizational risks, 

and hazard or event risks. Loss 

prevention procedures involve all of the 

efforts undertaken, including the 

regulations, processes, audits and 

financial controls, which are designed 

to minimize the government’s exposure 

to financial risk. 

Program and Regulation 

Development: BOEM is developing a 

comprehensive risk management, 

financial assurance, and loss prevention 

program to address the financial, 

commercial, functional, organizational/

business risks facing entities operating 

on the OCS in order to implement loss 

prevention measures. BOEM intends to 

reduce contingent liabilities, minimize 

governmental and taxpayer financial 

exposure to financial loss, and provide 

a fair, equitable and transparent 

approach to risk management that is 

understood by stakeholders and assists 

in the effective implementation of 

appropriate and cost-effective risk 

management and loss prevention 

techniques. 

BOEM is committed to engaging all 

interested stakeholders in this 

regulatory process. It will coordinate 

and consult with other Federal agencies, 

including the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) and 

the Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

(ONRR). To facilitate comment 

submission, BOEM has identified four 

major topics. Each topic includes 

questions designed to provide 

respondents with a general framework 

for commenting. Please note that these 

topics and questions are not intended to 

be all-inclusive; other comments, 

questions, or suggestions of topics, are 

encouraged. Note BSEE is also 

conducting a separate comprehensive 

risk assessment related to safety of 

operations on the OCS, which will 

include a development and analysis of 

decommissioning cost estimates. 

Major Topics: 

I. Identification of Pertinent Risks/Liabilities 

II. Risk Monitoring and Risk Management 

III. Demonstrating Financial Assurance Over 

Project Lifecycles 

IV. Financial Assurance, Bonding Levels and 

Requirements 

Topic I: Identification of Pertinent 

Risks/Liabilities 

Description: BOEM recognizes the 

need to develop a comprehensive risk 

management, financial assurance and 

loss prevention program that can assist 

in identifying, prioritizing, and 

managing the risks associated with OCS 

financial, commercial, functional, and 

business activities. Along with 

evaluating and assessing the risks 

associated with ongoing activities, such 

a program would also include, but is not 

limited to, evaluating and assessing the 

business, fiscal and commercial risks 

associated with transfers of ownership 

of leases, operating rights, RUEs, ROWs, 

and facilities as well as the transfer of 

ownership of all forms of interests in 

any OCS leases, RUEs, ROWs, and 

facilities. Such interests could include 

record title interests, operating rights 

interests, operating and/or working 

interests, economic interests or future 

participating or financial interests, 

among others. 

BOEM is specifically interested in 

comments regarding the financial risks 

and liabilities associated with aging 

offshore infrastructure, deepwater 

decommissioning, subsea 

decommissioning, pipeline 

abandonment, Arctic operations, and 

new technologies designed to address 

deepwater development or exploration 

and/or development of energy or 

mineral resources in locations with 

unusually adverse conditions. BOEM 

also needs to address business risks 

associated with the changing 

characteristics of entities operating on 

the OCS (e.g., smaller companies), 

underperformance, non-performance or 

default on financial or legal obligations, 

and underpayment or non-payment of 

rentals and royalties. Finally, BOEM is 

seeking information regarding best 

practices in managing the financial, 

commercial, functional, organizational/

business risks facing entities operating 

on the OCS in order to implement loss 

prevention measures associated with 

catastrophic damage caused by natural 

events (e.g., hurricanes, ice floes, 

earthquakes), engineering failure, or 

other causes. Questions for respondents 

regarding identification of pertinent 

risks/liabilities: 

1. In addition to the examples 

provided in this ANPR, are there other 

risks (monetary and nonmonetary) that 

BOEM should consider in developing its 

comprehensive operational risk 

management, financial assurance, and 

loss prevention program? What are 

they? Please describe any other risks 

noted. 

2. What measures should BOEM 

consider to reduce the risk and 

magnitude of identified outcomes? 

3. What information should BOEM 

consider in estimating the appropriate 

financial assurance to cover each of the 

identified risks? 

4. How should BOEM obtain the 

information needed to estimate the 

appropriate financial assurance to cover 

each of the identified risks? 

5. What information should BOEM 

consider in establishing appropriate 

levels and types of financial assurance? 

6. How should BOEM obtain the 

information needed to establish 

appropriate levels and types of financial 

assurance associated with each of the 

identified risks? 

7. How should BOEM evaluate risk 

levels and priorities to responsibly 

manage current and future liabilities? 

8. What information should BOEM 

consider in addressing financial 

assurance needed to cover catastrophic 

damage caused by natural events, 

engineering failure, or other causes? 

9. Should BOEM require proof of 

insurance/financial assurance for 

catastrophic events? 

Topic II: Risk Monitoring and Risk 

Management 

Description: BOEM is interested in 

understanding and defining the 

necessary elements of a comprehensive 

operational risk management, financial 

assurance, and loss prevention program 

and believes that monitoring its 

business risk and recognizing necessary 

risk transfer strategies are central to this 

effort. This effort includes risk 

management processes and evaluations 

that are systematic, are capable of being 

replicated, and that utilize best 

practices. In order to improve 

communication and better inform 

BOEM’s decision-making processes, 

BOEM seeks information regarding its 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49029 

risk monitoring and risk management 

practices. Questions for respondents 

regarding risk monitoring and risk 

management: 

10. What should BOEM’s risk 

management, financial assurance and 

loss prevention program include? 

11. What measures should BOEM 

consider in managing risk transference? 

12. How should BOEM monitor an 

entity’s financial health in order to 

assess the risk to taxpayers? How often 

should this be done? 

13. How should BOEM monitor an 

entity’s organizational strength and any 

associated risk to taxpayers? 

14. What measures could/should 

BOEM use to reduce taxpayer risk (e.g., 

insurance, contractual indemnity 

clauses, contractual risk transference 

strategies, bonding)? 

15. What risk transfer mechanisms 

should BOEM consider to mitigate risks 

associated with catastrophic events? 

16. Given the complex business 

arrangements involved in OCS projects, 

which operational business partners 

should BOEM consider when assessing 

and monitoring overall financial risks 

(e.g., lessees, operating rights owners, 

contractors, subcontractors)? 

17. Should BOEM consider using 

individualized company-specific or 

project-specific risk management, 

financial assurance and loss prevention 

plans? If so, what should they entail and 

should they be optional or required? 

18. Should BOEM require prior 

approval of all types of assignments 

between companies and/or lenders, 

including, but not limited to, 

assignments of overriding interests, 

royalty interests, net profits, production 

payments, or other types of lease 

interests? 

19. Should BOEM monitor and 

approve the total percentage of 

assignments of rights and obligations 

between companies and/or lenders? 

20. Even if BOEM does not approve 

all transfers of all types of rights and 

obligations between companies and/or 

lenders, should BOEM require evidence 

of all such transfers to be filed with 

BOEM in order to maintain an accurate 

repository of records of all transfers? 

21. To what extent should BOEM 

monitor debt obligations? 

22. Should BOEM require the 

recording and/or approval of all 

transfers of purely ‘‘economic’’ 

interests? 

Topic III: Demonstrating Financial 

Assurance Over Project Lifecycles 

Description: The 40- to 50-year (or 

more) life of some OCS projects injects 

further uncertainty in the attempt to 

define, manage, and reduce financial 

risks. Technological and financial 

challenges, which are not evident at the 

inception of a project, may arise as time 

goes by, and consequently, the amount 

of financial assurance needed may vary 

over time. In order to deal with ongoing 

commercial issues and difficult business 

challenges resulting in complex and farreaching business impacts, BOEM plans 

to implement financial assurance and 

loss prevention practices designed to 

better define financial metrics, reduce 

data collection barriers, and help 

prepare and plan for business incidents 

that could compound risks to U.S. 

taxpayers. 

BOEM’s current regulations utilize 

bonding as the primary form of financial 

assurance. In addition, lessees may 

submit the following alternative forms 

of security to fulfill financial assurance 

requirements: treasury securities and 

other types of security instruments 

approved by the Regional Director, 

lease-specific abandonment accounts, 

third-party guarantees, demonstration of 

financial strength and reliability, 

indemnity obligations, treasury notes, 

and trust agreements. BOEM is seeking 

information to assist in managing 

problems that are difficult to predict 

and in creating strategies that reduce 

response barriers and foster appropriate 

business planning measures. 

Questions for respondents regarding 

demonstration of financial assurance 

over project lifecycles: 

23. What criteria demonstrate a 

company’s ability to remain financially 

viable (i.e., solvent) over the long term? 

24. What criteria demonstrate a 

company’s ability to pay specific costs 

associated with lease obligations on the 

OCS (e.g., decommissioning)? 

25. In assessing financial assurance, 

how should BOEM consider the value of 

proved producing reserves (i.e., metrics 

and methodologies) in determining the 

amount of financial assurance necessary 

to protect taxpayer interests? 

26. What factors should BOEM 

consider in assessing corporate structure 

and offshore business performance and 

history to help ensure that taxpayers are 

protected from liability risks for costs 

accrued by offshore operations? 

27. How should BOEM consider the 

financial and technical qualifications of 

a company before the company is 

allowed to conduct business on the 

OCS? 

28. To protect U.S. taxpayers, should 

BOEM treat significant financial or legal 

changes as events that would require 

offshore companies or operators to 

provide notice of such events and that 

would trigger BOEM’s reassessment of 

the companies’ or operators’ existing 

financial assurances? If so, what 

significant financial or legal changes 

should be used? 

29. Should BOEM tailor the amounts/ 

levels and types of financial assurance 

requirements for OCS operations on a 

case-by-case basis (e.g., by individual 

project, individual lease, unit, and/or 

company)? 

30. Should BOEM consider allowing 

companies to set up a decommissioning 

trust that is funded from a percentage of 

production? If so, would such a trust 

apply to a single well or many wells, a 

single lease or more than one lease, a 

unit, one company, or some 

combination of these, or some other 

formulation? 

31. There are multiple levels of 

business entity risk, including: (1) Risk 

by type of entity (whether a corporation, 

LLC, trust, partnership, etc.), 

particularly as new types of entities are 

being created whose control may be 

exercised from outside the organization; 

(2) risk by level of entity (where one 

company or entity owns another that 

may own a third entity, etc.); (3) risk 

created by shared ownership 

(particularly of a lease or facility, or 

where there are many entities involved 

in the ownership of the same interest); 

(4) risk created by subdivided interests 

in a lease such that different companies 

own distinct, severed interests in the 

same lease (whether divided by depth or 

aliquot or by function or by operating/ 

non-operating ownership rights); (5) 

risks created by asset transfers from one 

entity to another or from one 

organization’s domestic accounts or 

affiliates to some offshore accounts, 

operations or affiliates; or (6) other risks 

associated with unique or complex 

business entities or combinations 

thereof. How should BOEM deal with 

the complexity of multiple business 

entities in assessing financial assurance 

and managing taxpayer risk? 

32. Should the levels/amounts of 

financial assurance and the types of 

allowable security demonstrating that 

financial assurance (e.g., insurance, 

bonds) vary by the type of risk and/or 

the project lifecycle? And, if so, how? 

33. Termination or cancellation of 

leases and/or RUEs may be necessitated 

by a lessee’s or operator’s failure to meet 

its financial obligations related to 

bonding or financial assurance. What 

factors do you believe BOEM should 

consider before making the 

determination that a lessee’s or 

operator’s failures with regard to 

meeting its financial assurance 

obligations are so significant that BOEM 

should terminate or cancel a lease or 

RUE on that basis? 

34. What financial assurance and/or 

bonding provisions should be 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

established and maintained to deal with 

the outstanding liabilities that remain 

after a lease, RUE or ROW has been 

terminated or cancelled? How can these 

be administered and enforced if the 

affected party has no remaining active 

operations on the OCS? 

35. BOEM is considering assessing the 

financial strength of individual 

companies with active operations on the 

OCS more than once per year. How 

often should BOEM make a 

determination of financial strength (e.g., 

monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, etc.)? 

36. Overall, how should BOEM use 

standard financial metrics, such as net 

worth, debt to equity ratio, cash flow, 

loss, capitalization, liquidity, etc., to 

determine financial assurance (i.e., the 

amount/level and/or types of financial 

assurance needed)? 

37. Besides the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE’s) 

decommissioning cost estimates, and 

amounts identified by ONRR for 

potential non-payment of financial 

obligations, and potential noncompliance with legal obligations, what 

other factors should BOEM consider 

when determining the appropriate 

amount of supplemental financial 

assurance? 

Topic IV: Financial Assurance, Bonding 

Levels and Requirements 

Description: BOEM currently relies 

primarily upon surety bonds to provide 

basic protection against risks associated 

with a lessee’s or operator’s failure to 

meet regulatory and lease requirements. 

Initial (i.e., general) lease bonds, 

required for all leases, are determined 

by the level of activity on the lease. This 

may take the form of a lease-specific 

bond or an area-wide bond: 

Lease activity Lease-specific bond 

amount Area-wide bond amount 

No approved operational activity ............................................................................................. $50,000 $300,000 

Exploration Plan ....................................................................................................................... 200,000 1,000,000 

Development Production Plan ................................................................................................. 500,000 3,000,000 

ROW ........................................................................................................................................ N/A 300,000 

(See 30 CFR 556.52–556.59, subpart I, Bonding.) 

If these amounts are deemed 

insufficient to cover decommissioning 

liability and other lease obligations, 

BOEM may require additional assurance 

in the form of additional (i.e., 

supplemental) bonding or other 

additional security. BOEM now may 

determine that an additional bond or 

supplemental financial assurance is not 

necessary for a lease if at least one 

record title owner meets the financial 

strength and reliability criteria detailed 

in the Notice to Lessees and Operators 

No. 2008–N07, ‘‘Supplemental Bond 

Procedures,’’ available at http://

www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-ToLessees/Notices-to-Lessees-andOperators.aspx. Currently, 

approximately 90 percent of leases do 

not require an additional bond or 

supplemental financial assurance 

because at least one record title owner 

has been determined to meet these 

criteria (i.e., the financial assurance 

instrument is self-insurance). 

Additional bonding and supplemental 

financial assurance practices utilize 

decommissioning cost estimates and 

analyses provided by the BSEE and also 

consider potential underpayment of 

rentals and royalties. Questions for 

respondents regarding bonding or 

supplemental financial assurance levels, 

amounts, and requirements: 

38. Is BOEM’s two-tiered bonding 

structure (i.e., initial bond followed by 

additional bond) the best means of 

protecting the taxpayers’ interests? 

39. If BOEM continues to use bonds, 

should BOEM do away with the two-tier 

bonding approach, and just require one 

bond? Or, should additional bonds be 

required in certain circumstances, and if 

so, what key criteria should be used to 

determine when additional bonding 

would, or would not, be necessary? 

40. Should BOEM continue to allow 

self-insurance for those companies who 

demonstrate the requisite financial 

strength, or should BOEM eliminate 

self-insurance? And, either way, why? 

41. What are the benefits and 

drawbacks to utilizing lease-specific 

abandonment accounts, surety bonds, 

treasury notes, third party guarantees, 

indemnity agreements, escrow accounts, 

certificates of deposit, insurance, and 

trust agreements? Are there any other 

financial assurance arrangements BOEM 

should consider? If so, what are they 

and how do they work? 

42. What are the benefits and 

drawbacks to utilizing combinations of 

the instruments discussed in the 

previous question? 

43. In addition to inflation, what other 

factors should be considered in 

establishing and revising bond and/or 

supplemental financial assurance 

amounts? 

44. What bond and/or supplemental 

financial assurance amounts would 

provide realistic coverage in today’s 

business environment? 

45. The current regulations (30 CFR 

556.52) allow business entities to use 

area-wide bonds in lieu of posting 

individual bonds within an OCS area. 

The areas are: 1) the Gulf of Mexico and 

the area offshore the Atlantic Coast; 2) 

the area offshore the Pacific Coast States 

of California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Hawaii; and 3) the area offshore the 

Coast of Alaska. Should BOEM continue 

to allow area-wide bonds? If so, under 

what circumstances should they be 

allowed? 

46. Do you have any other suggestions 

regarding how BOEM’s financial 

assurance program can be made more 

viable and robust? 

47. Should BOEM address (or vary) 

additional bonding and/or supplemental 

financial assurance requirements over 

the phases of a project lifecycle (e.g., 

should bonding and/or supplemental 

financial assurance be required today in 

order to decommission a structure in 20 

years)? If so, how? Should such 

variations in requirements be automatic, 

or determined on a case-by-case basis? 

48. How should BOEM best address 

the individual risks identified or 

associated with a specific project or 

lease? 

49. Given the high costs associated 

with offshore decommissioning, and if 

BOEM continues to allow selfinsurance, how should the financial 

strength and reliability criteria in NTL 

No. 2008–N07 be updated? What are the 

most important factors to consider and/ 

or evaluate? 

50. In the case of trust agreements, 

how and when in the project lifecycle 

should the accounts be funded? What 

are the benefits and drawbacks of 

different trust funding methods? 

51. Should BOEM consider a fee-perbarrel produced approach as a means of 

funding an insufficient lease-specific 

decommissioning account? What would 

be the benefits and drawbacks of this 

approach? 

52. In addition to bonding, should 

acceptable insurance coverage 

(including tail insurance or a projectVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:49 Aug 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19AUP1.SGM 19AUP1

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 49031 

specific insurance policy) be utilized to 

fund or guarantee lease, operating, or 

regulatory responsibilities? 

53. Under what circumstances should 

bonds or other forms of financial 

assurance be released? 

54. What are typical costs for current 

forms of financial assurance (e.g., 

performance bonds, payment bonds, 

captives, trusts, treasury notes, third 

party indemnity agreements, insurance) 

available on the market and identify 

whether these are for an individual site 

or overall costs? What variables are 

associated with these costs? If collateral 

is required, how much must be posted? 

BOEM seeks responses to the above 

questions, and seeks other relevant 

input regarding the development of a 

comprehensive risk management, 

financial assurance, and loss prevention 

program. BOEM encourages all 

interested parties to respond to these 

questions and to provide comments and 

information relevant to the development 

of such a program. BOEM will 

determine how to proceed after 

analyzing the comments received as a 

result of this ANPR. 

Dated: July 21, 2014. 

Janice M. Schneider, 

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19380 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 49 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151; FRL–9915–39– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR98 

General Permits and Permits by Rule 

for the Federal Minor New Source 

Review Program in Indian Country 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is announcing that the 

period for providing public comments 

on the July 17, 2014, notice of proposed 

rulemaking for ‘‘General Permits and 

Permits by Rule for the Federal Minor 

New Source Review Program in Indian 

Country’’ is being extended by 30 days. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

published July 17, 2014 (79 FR 41846), 

is being extended by 30 days to 

September 17, 2014, in order to provide 

the public additional time to submit 

comments. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

notice of proposed rulemaking may be 

submitted to the EPA electronically, by 

mail, by facsimile or through hand 

delivery/courier. Please refer to the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 

41846) for the addresses and detailed 

instructions. Publicly available 

documents relevant to this action are 

available for public inspection either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. The EPA has 

established the official public docket 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0151. 

A copy of this document will be 

posted in the regulations and standards 

section of our new source review (NSR) 

home page located at http://

www.epa.gov/nsr and on the tribal NSR 

page at http://www.epa.gov/air/tribal/

tribalnsr.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Christopher Stoneman, Outreach and 

Information Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, (C304– 

01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

0823, facsimile number (919) 541–0072; 

email address: stoneman.chris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA 

received two requests to extend the 

comment period on the July 17, 2014, 

notice of proposed rulemaking for 

‘‘General Permits and Permits by Rule 

for the Federal Minor New Source 

Review Program in Indian Country.’’ 

Based on the evaluation of those 

requests and the level of interest in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

is extending the public comment period 

for an additional 30 days. The public 

comment period will end on September 

17, 2014, rather than August 18, 2014. 

This will ensure that the public has 

sufficient time to review and comment 

on all of the information available, 

including the notice of proposed 

rulemaking and other materials in the 

docket. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Indians, Indianslaw, Indians-tribal government, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 8, 2014. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19553 Filed 8–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0439; FRL–9914–74– 

Region–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District, Negative 

Declarations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern negative declarations 

for volatile organic compound (VOC) 

source categories for the PCAPCD. We 

are proposing to approve these negative 

declarations under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by September 18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0439, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS