Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 12929 

1See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps 

for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 81 

FR 636 (Jan. 6, 2016). 

2See Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps 

for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants– 

Cross-Border Application of the Margin 

Requirements, 81 FR 34818 (May 31, 2016). 

3See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 

Stat. 1376, at section 752 (2010). 

4See Restatement (Third) of The Foreign 

Relations Law in the United States, section 101 

(1987) (Am. Law Inst. 2019); https://

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comity. 

posed by uncleared swaps to swap dealers, 

major swap participants, and the overall U.S. 

financial system.1 In this regard, the CFTC 

Margin Rules—and other rules around the 

world requiring margin for uncleared 

swaps—are a fundamental component of the 

regulatory reforms adopted in the wake of the 

2008 financial crisis. 

In 2016, the CFTC adopted its cross-border 

margin rule to permit swap dealers and major 

swap participants located in non-U.S. 

jurisdictions to comply with the CFTC’s 

Margin Rules by meeting the similar rules of 

their home jurisdiction if the Commission 

has deemed those rules comparable.2 This 

framework for ‘‘substituted compliance’’ 

supports the global nature of the swaps 

market and conforms to the directive in the 

Dodd-Frank Act for the Commission to 

consult and coordinate with international 

regulators to establish consistent 

international standards for the regulation of 

swaps entities and activities.3 The 

substituted compliance framework helps 

reduce duplicative and overlapping 

regulatory requirements where effective 

comparable regulation exists, facilitates the 

ability of U.S. market participants to compete 

in foreign jurisdictions, and is consistent 

with the principle of international comity. 

The CFTC’s cross-border margin rule 

establishes an outcomes-based approach that 

considers a number of factors and does not 

require strict conformity with the CFTC 

Margin Rules. As I have said before, a 

comparability determination should not be 

based solely on the home country’s written 

laws and regulations, but also consider the 

country’s broader system of regulation, 

including oversight and enforcement. In 

addition, the nature of the other country’s 

relevant markets may be taken into account. 

Finally, in considering these issues, the 

Commission should keep in mind the 

principle of comity: The reciprocal 

recognition of the legislative, executive, and 

judicial acts of another jurisdiction.4

The Australia Determination finds the 

margin requirements for uncleared swaps 

under Australian laws, regulations, 

standards, and other materials comparable in 

outcome to the CFTC’s Margin Rules. The 

CFTC staff engaged with staff of the 

Australian Prudential Regulation Authority 

(‘‘APRA’’), and evaluated prudential 

standards and other materials provided by 

APRA to develop an understanding of 

APRA’s regulatory objectives, the products 

and entities subject to margin requirements, 

the treatment of inter-affiliate swaps, and 

other aspects of APRA’s margin rules. The indepth analysis outlined in today’s Australia 

Determination reflects a holistic 

understanding by the Commission of APRA’s 

margin rules and its prudential oversight 

practices. The analysis also observes that the 

CFTC Margin Rules and APRA’s margin 

requirements for uncleared swaps are not 

identical. In a number of instances, APRA’s 

specific requirements are not as 

comprehensive as the CFTC’s Margin Rules. 

However, the determination explains how 

mitigating factors—such as certain of APRA’s 

risk management requirements and 

differences in the size of the two countries’ 

swap markets and of the market participants 

in them—support a determination that the 

two systems of regulation have similar 

outcomes. 

For example, unlike the CFTC Margin 

Rule, APRA only requires that variation 

margin be exchanged between counterparties 

whose average notional amount of uncleared 

swaps exceeds a certain threshold. However, 

as noted in the determination, Australia’s 

non-centrally cleared swaps market is highly 

concentrated in large entities that exceed that 

threshold, and the large majority of 

transactions would therefore be subject to 

variation margin. Furthermore, as noted in 

the determination, if an Australian entity that 

would otherwise be subject to the CFTC 

Margin Rules, but for substituted compliance, 

enters into swaps with any U.S. entity 

covered by the CFTC Margin Rules, then both 

entities are required to exchange margin 

under our rules. This reduces the potential 

for risks from swap activities overseas 

finding their way to the United States. 

As with other jurisdictions where the legal 

and regulatory structure does not mirror our 

own, and the substituted compliance 

determinations are based on the overall 

outcome of the regulatory system, subsequent 

monitoring may be appropriate to confirm 

that our initial understanding of the 

regulatory structure and the expected 

outcomes is accurate. Accordingly, I 

encourage the CFTC staff to periodically 

assess the implementation of this 

determination to confirm our expectations 

are accurate. 

I thank the CFTC staff for their thorough 

work on this determination and appreciate 

their responsiveness to our comments and 

suggestions. I would also like to thank my 

fellow Commissioners for their collaboration 

in helping us reach this positive outcome. 

[FR Doc. 2019–06319 Filed 4–2–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

31 CFR Part 34 

RIN 1505–AC55 

Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund 

AGENCY: Office of the Fiscal Assistant 

Secretary, Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) is issuing a final 

rule to revise the method by which the 

statutory three percent limitation on 

administrative costs (referred to 

throughout this notice as the ‘‘three 

percent administrative cost cap’’) is 

applied under the Direct Component, 

Comprehensive Plan Component, and 

Spill Impact Component under the 

Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, 

Tourist Opportunities, and Revived 

Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act 

of 2012, (RESTORE Act or Act). This 

revision will help ensure that the Gulf 

Coast States and localities have the 

necessary funding to efficiently and 

effectively oversee and manage projects 

and programs for ecological and 

economic restoration of the Gulf Coast 

Region while ensuring compliance with 

the statutory three percent 

administrative cost cap. 

DATES: Effective May 3, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Office of Gulf Coast Restoration at 

restoreact@treasury.gov, or Laurie 

McGilvray, Program Director, at 202– 

622–7340. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The RESTORE Act makes funds 

available for the ecological and 

economic restoration of the Gulf Coast 

Region, and certain programs with 

respect to the Gulf of Mexico, through 

a trust fund in the Treasury of the 

United States known as the Gulf Coast 

Restoration Trust Fund (trust fund). The 

trust fund holds 80 percent of the 

administrative and civil penalties paid 

under the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act after July 6, 2012, in 

connection with the Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill. 

Treasury administers two of the five 

components established by the Act, the 

Direct Component and Centers of 

Excellence Research Grants Program. 

The Act also established an 

independent Federal entity, the Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council 

(Council), to administer two 

components of the Act, the 

Comprehensive Plan Component and 

the Spill Impact Component. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) administers 

one component, the NOAA RESTORE 

Act Science Program. This final rule 

only affects grants under the Direct 

Component, Comprehensive Plan 

Component, and Spill Impact 

Component of the Act, which are 

collectively referred to throughout this 

notice as the three ‘‘components.’’ 

On December 14, 2015, Treasury 

promulgated final regulations 

concerning the RESTORE Act, codified 

at 31 CFR part 34, which became 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
12930 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 

1Subpart E provides that when a recipient has 

never had a NICRA and receives $35 million or less 

in direct federal funding, a de minimis rate of 10 

percent of modified total direct costs may be used 

to calculate its allowable indirect costs in lieu of 

establishing a NICRA. 2 CFR 200.414(f), 2 CFR part 

200, Appendix VII(D)(1)(b). 

2BP Exploration & Production Inc. began making 

annual civil penalty payments in April 2017, and 

is expected to continue to make annual payments 

through mid-2031 pursuant to a consent decree 

entered on April 4, 2016 under the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), of which 

eighty percent of the total will be deposited into the 

Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and invested. 

The annual payments into the trust fund through 

2031 are expected to total $4.4 billion. In 2032, BP 

will make a final payment in the form of penalty 

interest. 

effective on February 12, 2016 (the 

‘‘regulations’’). 80 FR 77239. They 

contain two relevant limitations on the 

amount of grant funds that may be used 

for administrative costs. 

First, the regulations subject grants to 

government-wide cost principles. They 

define ‘‘administrative costs’’ as 

‘‘indirect costs for administration’’ and 

provide that such ‘‘[c]osts must comply 

with administrative requirements and 

cost principles in applicable federal 

laws and policies on grants.’’ 31 CFR 

34.2, 34.200(a)(1). They exclude 

‘‘indirect costs that are identified 

specifically with, or readily assignable 

to, facilities’’ from the definition of 

‘‘administrative costs.’’ 

Indirect cost principles are contained 

in the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) ‘‘Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal 

Awards’’ (the Uniform Guidance) in 2 

CFR part 200, which Treasury has 

adopted. 2 CFR 1000.10. Indirect costs 

are defined in 2 CFR 200.56 and are 

allowable subject to Subpart E of 2 CFR 

part 200 and Appendix VII. 

Under Subpart E, a grant recipient’s 

negotiated indirect cost rate agreement 

(NICRA) with its cognizant agency 

determines the allowable indirect cost 

rate for the recipient’s grants, taking into 

account the unique circumstances and 

cost structure of the recipient. The 

NICRA, or a de minimis rate if elected, 

must be used across all of the recipient’s 

federal grants.1 2 CFR 200.414(c)(1). In 

accordance with the Uniform Guidance, 

Appendix VII—State and Local 

Government and Indian Tribe Indirect 

Cost Proposals, these allowable indirect 

costs are computed on each individual 

Federal award. 

The second limitation on the amount 

of RESTORE Act grant funds that can be 

used for administrative costs under the 

three components is a three percent 

administrative cost cap. The Act 

provides that ‘‘[o]f the amounts received 

by a Gulf Coast State . . ., not more 

than 3 percent may be used for 

administrative costs . . . .’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1321(t)(1)(B)(iii)(I). The Act does not 

specify the method by which this three 

percent administrative cost cap is to be 

applied. Treasury’s regulations, 

however, currently provide that the 

three percent administrative cost cap is 

to be applied on a grant-by-grant basis: 

‘‘The three percent limit is applied to 

the total amount of funds received by a 

recipient under each grant.’’ 31 CFR 

34.204(a). In other words, under the 

current regulations, the administrative 

costs associated with each particular 

grant may not exceed three percent of 

the total amount of that grant. 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

On June 20, 2018, Treasury published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) proposing to provide a 

recipient the option to apply the three 

percent administrative cost cap, within 

each component, on either a grant-bygrant basis or on an aggregate basis. 83 

FR 28563. The NPRM proposed that the 

three percent administrative cost cap 

may be applied, for each component, to 

a Gulf Coast State, coastal political 

subdivision, or coastal zone parish’s 

trust fund allocation, i.e., to the 

aggregate of (1) all grants received by it 

under that component and (2) the 

amount in the trust fund for the same 

component that is allocated to, but not 

yet received by it. Amounts ‘‘allocated 

to, but not yet received’’ refer only to 

funds presently in the trust fund and 

not to future deposits into the trust 

fund 2 and include the following 

amounts with respect to each 

component: (1) With respect to the 

Direct Component, amounts made 

available in equal shares for the Gulf 

Coast States in accordance with 31 CFR 

34.302; (2) with respect to the 

Comprehensive Plan Component, the 

estimated aggregate cost of all projects 

approved for funding included in all 

approved Funded Priorities Lists; and 

(3) with respect to the Spill Impact 

Component, amounts allocated to the 

Gulf Coast States in accordance with 31 

CFR 34.502 and 40 CFR 1800.500. 

The Act does not require that 

Treasury administer the administrative 

cost cap on a grant-by-grant basis, and 

because Treasury’s regulations allocate 

precise sums to specific entities based 

on criteria in the Act, it is possible to 

administer it on an aggregate basis. In 

the NPRM, Treasury proposed 

permitting recipients, if they so choose, 

to allocate administrative costs by 

component from their ‘‘pool’’ in the 

trust fund toward the indirect costs in 

their grants to recover the maximum 

amount of indirect costs allowed under 

the Act, and to more efficiently and 

effectively oversee and manage projects 

and programs. Under the proposal, if a 

recipient’s allowable indirect costs for 

administration for one grant are less 

than three percent of the total amount 

of that grant, the difference would be 

available to cover allowable indirect 

costs for administration exceeding three 

percent on other grants. However, at no 

time would the total amount of 

administrative costs of a Gulf Coast 

State, coastal political subdivision, or 

coastal zone parish be permitted to 

exceed three percent of the aggregate of 

(1) all grants received by it under one of 

the three components, and (2) the 

amount in the trust fund for the same 

component that is allocated to, but not 

yet received by such Gulf Coast State, 

coastal political subdivision, or coastal 

zone parish. Also, at no time would a 

recipient be able to recover more in 

indirect costs under an individual 

award than it would receive under its 

NICRA or its de minimis rate. Treasury 

will address a recipient’s selection of its 

method for calculating administrative 

indirect costs during the application 

submission and review process or in 

reviewing a request to amend a prior 

award. At least annually, Treasury will 

post publicly the amounts available in 

the administrative cost ‘‘pool’’ by 

component, simultaneously with its 

updates to the trust fund allocations. 

In § 34.204(a)(1)(ii) of the proposed 

rule, Treasury also added ‘‘recipient 

and’’ before ‘‘subrecipient’’ in the last 

sentence to clarify that Federal grant 

law and policies apply to recipient costs 

as well as to subrecipient costs. (As 

discussed below, this addition is located 

at section 34.204(a)(2) in the final rule.) 

Treasury also stated in the proposed 

rule that it would conduct a 

retrospective analysis of the aggregate 

method no later than seven years after 

the date this final rule becomes 

effective, to ‘‘consider whether the 

revision ensures that the Gulf Coast 

states, coastal political subdivisions, 

and coastal zone parishes have the 

necessary funding to efficiently and 

effectively oversee and manage projects 

and programs for ecological and 

economic restoration of the Gulf Coast 

Region while ensuring compliance with 

the statutory three percent 

administrative cost cap, and whether it 

helps them to administer RESTORE Act 

grant projects effectively and 

efficiently.’’ NPRM § 34.204(a)(2). 

Treasury has removed the second use of 

‘‘effectively and efficiently’’ as 

redundant with the first use of it in the 

sentence. (As explained below, Treasury 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 12931 

3Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana. 

4Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Alabama Gulf Coast Recovery Council, and 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 

5Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

6Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Alabama Gulf Coast Recovery Council, Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality, and Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. 

7Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

8Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

9Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

and Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. 10 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council. 

has also moved the language in 

§ 34.204(a)(2) of the proposed rule to 

§ 34.204(a)(3) of the final rule.) 

III. Public Comments and Changes 

From the Proposed Rule 

The NPRM invited public comments 

on all aspects of the proposed revision 

for 30 days. Nine commenters submitted 

written responses to the NPRM, all of 

which Treasury has reviewed. The 

following is a discussion of relevant 

comments and Treasury’s responses. 

Treasury is adopting the rule as 

proposed with only two changes, as 

discussed below. 

One commenter asked whether the 

three percent for administrative costs 

may be used by a grantee together with 

the de minimis ten percent for indirect 

cost limits.3 Under Treasury’s 

regulations, administrative costs are 

defined as ‘‘indirect costs for 

administration’’ (i.e., not direct costs for 

administration). If a recipient has a de 

minimis rate of ten percent of modified 

total direct costs, the recipient may be 

reimbursed for indirect costs for 

administration up to three percent of the 

total award amount. This calculation 

currently is applied to each grant. Under 

this final rule, a recipient eligible to use 

the de minimis rate may be able to be 

reimbursed for indirect costs for 

administration that exceed the three 

percent cap for a particular grant, up to 

ten percent of the modified total direct 

costs, if that recipient has received less 

than three percent of the total award 

amount for indirect costs for 

administration on the total of the 

aggregate of (1) all grants received by it 

under that component and (2) the 

amount in the trust fund for the same 

component that is allocated to, but not 

yet received by it. 

Three commenters expressed support 

for the aggregate method because it 

would allow greater reimbursement for 

indirect costs incurred.4 One 

commenter expressed support for the 

greater flexibility the proposed rule 

would provide to recipients in applying 

the three percent administrative cost 

cap.5

Four commenters requested 

clarification as to whether the proposed 

rule would apply to previously awarded 

grants.6 This final rule does not require 

that recipients change the method by 

which they calculate their 

administrative costs. It provides an 

alternative to the grant-by-grant method 

required under Treasury’s current 

regulation. Indirect costs on previously 

awarded grants under each of the three 

components may be reimbursed using 

the aggregate method, up to the amount 

of the recipient’s NICRA or de minimis 

rate, provided sufficient funds are 

available in the recipient’s 

administrative cost pool. A Direct 

Component, Comprehensive Plan 

Component or Spill Impact Component 

recipient with sufficient funds available 

in its administrative cost pool wishing 

to recover indirect costs in an amount 

up to its NICRA or de minimis rate on 

a prior award may request a grant 

amendment. Treasury and the Council 

will provide guidance to their respective 

recipients to assist them in applying the 

aggregate method to calculate 

administrative costs and to keep track of 

the amount available for administrative 

costs in their administrative cost pool 

for each component. 

Treasury also solicited information 

from eligible recipients as to how they 

would manage and track administrative 

indirect costs under each method. One 

eligible recipient explained that under 

the aggregate method, for each 

component, it will update the 

calculations of its administrative cost 

pools at least annually and reconcile its 

calculations with Treasury’s 

calculations.7 Treasury and the Council 

will provide technical assistance to their 

respective recipients to help ensure that 

administrative indirect costs are 

accurately tracked across grants. 

Treasury also asked eligible recipients 

in the NPRM whether there was any 

additional burden associated with 

managing the administrative indirect 

cost cap using the aggregate method. 

One eligible recipient responded that 

the use of the aggregate method would 

impose an ‘‘additional burden’’ under 

all three components, but added that the 

additional burden would be less than 

the burden currently imposed under the 

grant-by-grant method, so that the net 

effect would be less of a burden upon 

recipients.8

Two commenters suggested that the 

language in § 34.204(a)(1)(ii) of the 

proposed rule be reorganized for 

clarity.9 Specifically, they pointed out 

that the final two sentences of 

§ 34.204(a)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule 

differ in subject matter from the rest of 

the paragraph and should therefore be 

in a different paragraph. Treasury agrees 

and has moved those sentences to 

§ 34.204(a)(2) of the final rule. Treasury 

also has moved the language in 

§ 34.204(a)(2) of the proposed rule to 

§ 34.204(a)(3) of the final rule. 

One commenter requested that 

Treasury clarify in the preamble that 

projects under the Comprehensive Plan 

Component that are under consideration 

by the Council but not yet approved for 

funding are not included in the 

aggregate three percent cost 

calculation.10 The clarification has been 

made to the reference to the 

Comprehensive Plan Component’s 

Funded Priorities List in Section II. 

Description of the Proposed Rule above. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. 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 

Procedures 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. 

Six of the 20 Louisiana parishes and 

six of the 23 Florida counties eligible to 

receive grants under the RESTORE Act 

have fewer than 50,000 residents. (2010 

U.S. Census) and thus qualify as small 

governmental jurisdictions under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. (5 U.S.C. 

601(5)). Treasury anticipates that this 

final rule will have no significant 

economic impact on these small entities 

because all recipients have the option to 

continue applying the three percent 

administrative cost cap on a grant-bygrant basis. Accordingly, Treasury 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities, and no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

B. Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

This final rule affects those entities in 

the five Gulf Coast States that are 

eligible to receive funding under the 

RESTORE Act, and is focused on the 

environmental restoration and economic 

recovery of the Gulf Coast Region in the 

aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil 

spill. The amounts made available from 

the trust fund will continue efforts that 

provide for the long-term health of the 

ecosystems and economy of this region. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
12932 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 

Because it increases recipients’ 

flexibility in how they apply the 

statutory three percent administrative 

cost cap, Treasury believes this final 

rule is an Executive Order 13771 

deregulatory action. In accordance with 

Executive Order 12866, as 

supplemented by Executive Order 

13563, OMB has designated this rule as 

a significant regulatory action and has 

reviewed this final rule. This final rule 

finalizes without significant change the 

proposed rule discussed above. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq.) generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) and will 

become effective 30 days after 

publication. 

D. Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance 

The affected program for Treasury is 

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance under 21.015, Resources and 

Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist 

Opportunities, and Revived Economies 

of the Gulf Coast States. The affected 

programs for the Council are listed 

under 87.051, and 87.052, for its 

Comprehensive Plan and Spill Impact 

Components, respectively. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions. In particular, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

addresses actions that may result in the 

expenditure by a state, local, or tribal 

government, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted 

for inflation) or more in any one year. 

Treasury believes that because this final 

rule will not result in an aggregate 

expenditure by a state, local, or tribal 

government, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act does not require 

an analysis of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 34 

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 herein, the 

Department of the Treasury amends 31 

CFR part 34 to read as follows: 

PART 34—RESOURCES AND 

ECOSYSTEMS SUSTAINABILITY, 

TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES, AND 

REVIVED ECONOMIES OF THE GULF 

COAST STATES 

■ 1. The authority citation continues to 

read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321; 

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 

■ 2. Amend § 34.204 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 34.204 Limitations on administrative 

costs and administrative expenses. 

(a)(1) Of the amounts received by a 

Gulf Coast State, coastal political 

subdivision, or coastal zone parish from 

Treasury under the Direct Component, 

or from the Council under the 

Comprehensive Plan Component or 

Spill Impact Component, not more than 

three percent may be used for 

administrative costs. The three percent 

limit on administrative costs may be 

applied to the total amount of funds 

received by a recipient under each of 

the three components either on a grantby-grant basis or on an aggregate basis. 

For the latter method, amounts used for 

administrative costs under each of the 

three components may not at any time 

exceed three percent of the aggregate of: 

(i) The amounts received under a 

component by a recipient, beginning 

with the first grant through the most 

recent grant, and 

(ii) The amounts in the Trust Fund 

that are allocated to, but not yet 

received under such component by a 

Gulf Coast State, coastal political 

subdivision, or coastal zone parish 

under § 34.103, consistent with the 

definition of administrative costs in 

§ 34.2. 

(2) The three percent limit does not 

apply to the administrative costs of 

subrecipients. All recipient and 

subrecipient costs are subject to the cost 

principles in Federal laws and policies 

on grants. 

(3) Treasury will conduct a 

retrospective analysis of this provision 

no later than seven years after the date 

it becomes effective. This review will 

consider whether the revision ensures 

that the Gulf Coast States, coastal 

political subdivisions, and coastal zone 

parishes have the necessary funding to 

efficiently and effectively oversee and 

manage projects and programs for 

ecological and economic restoration of 

the Gulf Coast Region while ensuring 

compliance with the statutory three 

percent administrative cost cap. 

* * * * * 

David A. Lebryk, 

Fiscal Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2019–06404 Filed 4–2–19; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 54 

[Docket ID: DOD–2017–OS–0045] 

RIN 0790–AJ98 

Allotments for Child and Spousal 

Support 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Comptroller), DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule removes DoD’s 

regulation that relates to allotments for 

child and spousal support because it 

duplicates DoD’s internal policy on 

statutorily required child or child and 

spousal support allotments that cover 

members of the Military Services on 

extended active duty. This internal 

policy is located in the DoD Financial 

Management Regulation, Volume 7A, 

Chapter 41 ‘‘Garnishments and Other 

Involuntary Allotments.’’ 

DATES: This rule is effective on April 3, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kellie Allison at 703–614–0410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been 

determined that publication of this CFR 

part removal for public comment is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to public interest since it is 

based on removing DoD internal 

policies and procedures that are 

publically available on the Department’s 

website. 

DoD internal guidance will continue 

to be published in DoD’s Financial 

Management Regulation, Volume 7A, 

Chapter 41, available at http://

comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/ 

documents/fmr/archive/07aarch/07a_

41_Dec10.pdf. 

Removal of this part does not reduce 

burden or costs to the public as it will 

not change how notification is provided 

under Volume 7A, Chapter 41. This rule 

is not significant, therefore the 

requirements of Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ do not apply. 


khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES