8014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE TO § 165.506—Continued 

[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983] 

No. Date Location Regulated area 

7 ................... June—2nd Saturday; July 4th Pamlico River, Washington, 

NC, Safety Zone.

All waters of Pamlico River and Tar River within a 300 yard 

radius of latitude 35°32′25′′ N., longitude 077°03′42′′ W., a 

position located on the southwest shore of the Pamlico 

River, Washington, NC. 

8 ................... July 4th .................................... Neuse River, New Bern, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters of the Neuse River within a 360 yard radius of the 

fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 35°06′07.1′′ 

N., longitude 077°01′35.8′′ W; located 420 yards north of 

the New Bern, Twin Span, high-rise bridge. 

9 ................... July 4th .................................... Edenton Bay, Edenton, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters within a 300 yard radius of position latitude 

36°03′04′′ N., longitude 076°36′18′′ W., approximately 150 

yards south of the entrance to Queen Anne Creek, 

Edenton, NC. 

10 ................. July 4th. November—Saturday 

following Thanksgiving Day.

Motts Channel, Banks Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters of Motts Channel within a 500 yard radius of the 

fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 

34°12′29′′ N., longitude 077°48′27′′ W., approximately 560 

yards south of Sea Path Marina, Wrightsville Beach, NC. 

11 ................. July 4th .................................... Cape Fear River, Southport, 

NC, Safety Zone.

All waters of the Cape Fear River within a 600 yard radius of 

the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 

33°54′40′′ N., longitude 078°01′18′′ W., approximately 700 

yards south of the waterfront at Southport, NC. 

12 ................. July 4th .................................... Big Foot Slough, Ocracoke, 

NC, Safety Zone.

All waters of Big Foot Slough within a 300 yard radius of the 

fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 

35°06′54′′ N., longitude 075°59′24′′ W., approximately 100 

yards west of the Silver Lake Entrance Channel at 

Ocracoke, NC. 

13 ................. August—1st Tuesday .............. New River, Jacksonville, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of the 

fireworks launch site in approximate position latitude 

34°44′45′′ N., longitude 077°26′18′′ W., approximately one 

half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, North 

Carolina. 

14 ................. July 4th .................................... Pantego Creek, Belhaven, NC, 

Safety Zone.

All waters on the Pantego Creek within a 600 foot radius of 

the launch site on land at position 35°32′35′′ N., 076°37′46′′ 

W. 

15 ................. July 4th .................................... Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 

Swansboro, NC, Safety 

Zone.

All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300 

yard radius of approximate position latitude 34°41′02′′ N., 

longitude 077°07′04′′ W., located on Pelican Island. 

16 ................. September—4th or last Saturday.Shallowbag Bay, Manteo, NC; 

Safety Zone.

All waters of Shallowbag Bay within a 200 yard radius of a 

fireworks barge anchored at latitude 35°54′31′′ N., longitude 075°39′42′′ W. 

17 ................. May—3rd Saturday ................. Pasquotank River; Elizabeth 

City, NC; Safety Zone.

All waters of the Pasquotank River within a 300 yard radius 

of the fireworks barge at latitude 36°17′47′′ N., longitude 

076°12′17′ W., located north of Cottage Point at the shoreline of the Pasquotank River. 

18 ................. October—2nd Saturday .......... Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; 

Bogue Inlet, Swansboro, 

NC; Safety Zone.

All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within a 300 

yard radius of the fireworks launch site at latitude 

34°41′02′′ N., longitude 077°07′04′′ W., located at Bogue 

Inlet, near Swansboro, NC. 

Dated: February 2, 2015. 

Stephen P. Metruck, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02965 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 203 

Emergency Employment of Army and 

Other Resources, Natural Disaster 

Procedures 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) is issuing this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) to request public comment on 

potential revisions to its regulations. 

USACE is specifically requesting input 

on potential changes to policies related 

to disaster preparedness; eligibility 

criteria for rehabilitation assistance for 

flood control works; options to address 

complex natural resource challenges 

while mitigating impacts to threatened 

or endangered species; and nonstructural alternative projects. 

Consideration of Water Resources 

Reform and Development Act of 2014 

provisions regarding resiliency for 

hurricane or shore protection projects, 

Section 3022, and the inclusion of 

modifications for hurricane or shore 

protection projects, Section 3029, are 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8015 

not covered by this advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking and may be 

addressed at a later date. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE– 

2015–0004, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: 33CFR203@usace.army.mil 

and include the docket number, COE– 

2015–0004, in the subject line of the 

message. 

Mail: HQ, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, ATTN: 33CFR203/CECW– 

HS/3D64, 441 G Street NW., 

Washington DC 20314–1000. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2015–0004. All 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the commenter indicates that the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI, or otherwise 

protected, through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an anonymous access system, which 

means we will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email directly to the 

Corps without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the public docket and made available on 

the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, we recommend that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If we cannot read your 

comment because of technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, we may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic 

comments should avoid the use of any 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeffrey D. Jensen, Office of Homeland 

Security, Directorate of Contingency 

Operations, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, at (703) 428–9068 or 

Jeffrey.D.Jensen@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

A. Authority. Section 5 of the Flood 

Control Act of 1941, as amended, (33 

U.S.C. 701n), commonly and hereinafter 

referred to as Public Law 84–99, 

authorizes an emergency fund to be 

expended at the discretion of the Chief 

of Engineers for: Preparation for natural 

disasters; flood fighting and rescue 

operations; repair or restoration of flood 

control works threatened, damaged, or 

destroyed by flood, or nonstructural 

alternatives thereto; emergency 

protection of federally authorized 

hurricane or shore protection projects 

which are threatened, when such 

protection is warranted to protect 

against imminent and substantial loss to 

life and property; and repair and 

restoration of federally authorized 

hurricane and shore protection projects 

damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or 

water of other than ordinary nature. The 

law includes provision of emergency 

supplies of clean water when a 

contaminated source threatens the 

public health and welfare of a locality, 

and activities necessary to protect life 

and improved property from a threat 

resulting from a major flood or coastal 

storm. This law authorizes the Secretary 

of the Army (Secretary) to construct 

wells and to transport water within 

areas determined by the Secretary to be 

drought-distressed. The Secretary of the 

Army has delegated the authority vested 

in the Secretary under Public Law 84– 

99 through the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army (Civil Works) to the Chief of 

Engineers, subject to such further 

direction as the Secretary may provide. 

B. Need for Revision. The Code of 

Federal Regulations, 33 CFR part 203, 

details administrative policies, 

guidance, and operating procedures for 

the Public Law 84–99 program and was 

last revised in 2003, 68 FR 19357–01, 21 

April 2003. Since then, significant 

disasters, including Hurricane Sandy 

(2012), flooding on the Mississippi and 

Missouri Rivers (2008, 2011, and 2013) 

and Hurricane Katrina (2005), provided 

information regarding system 

performance and the need for improved 

system and community resilience that 

should be considered in formulating 

revised Pub. L. 84–99 rehabilitation 

policies. A more detailed understanding 

of the nature and severity of risk 

associated with flood control projects 

and the development of risk-informed 

decision making approaches and other 

technological advancements have 

influenced the outlook about how Pub. 

L. 84–99 activities could be 

implemented with a shift towards better 

alignment with USACE’s Levee Safety 

and National Flood Risk Management 

Programs as well as the National 

Preparedness and Response 

Frameworks. Both of these USACE 

programs work with non-federal 

sponsors and stakeholders to assess, 

communicate and manage the risks to 

people, property, and the environment 

associated with levee systems and flood 

risks. Additionally, significant input 

from state and federal agencies, 

stakeholders, and other interested 

parties regarding the challenges of 

satisfying USACE vegetation 

management guidelines in light of the 

needs of listed threatened and 

endangered species caused USACE to 

reevaluate using technical criteria to 

determine active status in the Public 

Law 84–99 Rehabilitation Program. 

II. References 

The following reference material is 

available on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov to 

assist the public in reviewing this ANPR 

and providing comments. 

• 33 CFR part 203 

• Engineer Regulation 500–1–1, ‘‘Civil 

Emergency Management Program’’, 

September 30, 2001 

• Engineer Pamphlet 500–1–1, ‘‘Civil 

Emergency Management Program 

Procedures’’, September 30, 2001 

• Engineering and Construction 

Bulletin, ‘‘Interim Risk Reduction 

Measures (IRRMs) for Levee Safety’’, 

March 5, 2014 

• HQUSACE memorandum, ‘‘Interim 

Policy Guidance for Eligibility 

Determinations’’, March 21, 2014 

• HQUSACE memorandum, ‘‘Policy for 

Development and Implementation of 

System-Wide Improvement 

Frameworks (SWIFs)’’, November 29, 

2011 

• Levee Owner’s Manual for NonFederal Flood Control Works, March 

2006 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

III. General Information for the 

Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public in 

general, but will be of particular interest 

to a wide variety of organizations, to 

include tribal, state, and local 

emergency management agencies, water 

resource agencies, environmental and 

fish and wildlife management agencies 

and organizations, floodplain and levee 

safety managers, and non-federal 

interests (this term should be 

understood to include ‘‘non-federal 

sponsors’’ as used in 33 U.S.C. 701n and 

as defined at 33 CFR 203.15) with flood 

control works and hurricane or shore 

protection projects. 

B. What Should I Consider As I 

Prepare My Comments for Submission? 

Commenters not familiar with current 

policy should review the references 

cited above available on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Comments should 

reference a specific paragraph or 

subparagraph of 33 CFR part 203 or one 

of the questions or issues in Section IV 

below. If the subject of the comment is 

not addressed in either the current CFR 

or the questions and issues below, then 

the commenter should clearly state the 

issue or concern, provide or reference 

any supporting documentation (e.g., 

reports, statistical data, and studies), 

and make a proposal or 

recommendation about how to improve 

the current policy. 

C. What Is the Intent of USACE in this 

Rulemaking Effort? The intent of 

USACE is to revise and update 33 CFR 

part 203 so that it incorporates new 

information from recent storm events 

and better aligns with the current 

strategy of the USACE National Flood 

Risk Management Program and Levee 

Safety Program, while following these 

guiding principles: 

1. Effective risk management and 

levee safety includes working with nonfederal sponsors and stakeholders to 

assess, communicate, and manage lifesafety risks. 

2. Federal assistance under authority 

of Pub. L. 84–99 supplements tribal, 

state, and local efforts, and does not 

replace them. 

3. Non-federal sponsors have primary 

responsibility for operations and 

maintenance (O&M) of flood control 

works and risk communication 

activities associated with their projects. 

4. USACE will promote the use of a 

risk-informed decision making process 

to guide non-federal sponsors O&M 

activities and inspection activities for 

flood control projects. 

5. USACE will encourage a 

collaborative approach to address 

complex natural resources issues, tribal 

treaty rights, and complex systemic 

deficiencies. 

6. USACE will work to develop 

policies and procedures that maintain 

the benefits of any federal investment(s). 

IV. Questions and Issues To Shape the 

Revision of 33 CFR Part 203. Summary 

of Intended Policy Changes and 

Questions on Specific Activities 

A. Preparedness 

1. Advance Measures. USACE may 

undertake emergency measures in 

advance of imminent threats of unusual 

flooding. The current eligibility criteria 

are listed in 33 CFR 203.72. 

(a) USACE may perform Advance 

Measures prior to flooding or flood 

fighting activities to protect against loss 

of life and significant damages to urban 

areas and public facilities due to an 

imminent threat of unusual flooding. 

Advance Measures assistance may be 

technical and/or direct assistance. 

Technical assistance may include: 

providing personnel to inspect projects 

to identify problems and solutions and 

requirements for additional flood 

protection; provide existing hydraulic, 

hydrologic, structural and/or 

geotechnical analysis; provide existing 

information to local entities for use in 

evacuation or contingency flood fight 

plans. Typically direct assistance will 

be temporary in nature, using temporary 

construction standard and methods, 

technically feasible, designed to deal 

effectively with the specific threat, and 

capable of construction in time to 

prevent projected damages. To be 

eligible for Advance Measures a public 

sponsor must agree to execute a 

cooperative agreement (CA), and, at no 

cost to USACE, when the operation is 

over, remove all temporary advance 

measures constructed by USACE or 

agree to upgrade the work to standards 

acceptable to USACE. In addition, the 

public sponsor is responsible for 

providing the traditional lands, 

easements, rights-of-way, relocations, 

and borrow and dredged or excavated 

materials disposal areas (LERRDs) 

necessary for the project, at its own 

expense, in accordance with the CA. 

• Question 1: What (if any) additional 

types of Advance Measures assistance 

should be considered? 

• Question 2: What (if any) additional 

eligibility or performance requirements 

should be considered generally for 

Advance Measures assistance? 

(b) Permanent structures constructed 

as Advance Measures are currently cost 

shared at 75 percent federal and 25 

percent local with the LERRDs 

necessary for the project provided at no 

cost to the federal government. 

However, flood control works 

constructed under other USACE 

authorities have a minimum cost share 

of 65 percent federal and 35 percent 

local with credit provided for the 

LERRDs necessary for the project. 

USACE is considering changing the cost 

share for permanent structures 

constructed as part of Advance 

Measures to be consistent with other 

authorities and to encourage non-federal 

interests to develop permanent 

structures through the standard USACE 

planning process for new projects so 

that full cost and benefit analyses can be 

conducted and appropriate public 

comments considered. 

Question 3: Would changing the cost 

share serve as an effective incentive for 

promotion of the standard USACE 

planning process? If not, what other 

incentives or requirements for using the 

standard USACE planning process for 

permanent construction should be 

considered? 

B. Rehabilitation 

1. Eligibility for Rehabilitation 

Assistance. USACE is considering 

changing the criteria used to determine 

eligibility for rehabilitation assistance 

(commonly known as Active status 

under 33 CFR 203.41) for flood control 

projects from a strict, condition-based 

overall inspection rating of the project 

to a broader set of actions by non-federal 

sponsors such as emergency 

preparedness planning, flood risk 

communication, and implementation of 

risk-prioritized O&M activities. USACE 

is considering these changes to: 1) 

promote risk-informed, cost effective 

prioritization of risk management 

activities; 2) encourage community 

awareness of risks and promote a broad 

set of flood risk management activities 

to manage risk; 3) encourage dialogue 

and problem solving between USACE 

and non-federal sponsors, and 4) 

provide flexibility to align flood risk 

management activities with 

requirements to protect and restore 

natural resources. 

Question 4: What should USACE 

evaluate to determine if a non-federal 

sponsor is adequately operating and 

maintaining its flood control project? 

What should be considered adequate 

operations and management for 

eligibility purposes? 

Question 5: How should USACE 

evaluate a non-federal sponsor’s 

emergency preparedness, notification, 

evacuation planning and exercise plan 

and activities to determine if they are 

adequate? What should USACE 

evaluate? What should be considered 

adequate? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 30 / Friday, February 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules 8017 

Question 6: How should USACE 

evaluate a non-federal sponsor’s risk 

communications plan and activities for 

informing local officials, residents, and 

business owners about risks associated 

with the potential failure of the flood 

control project (e.g., a levee breach)? 

Question 7: Are there other criteria 

that USACE should consider using to 

determine eligibility for rehabilitation 

assistance that would assist and 

encourage non-federal sponsors and 

flood-prone communities to reduce their 

risks from flooding? 

2. Improving Collaboration to Address 

Complicated Natural Resources 

Challenges and System-Wide Repairs. 

USACE intends to incorporate the 

System Wide Improvement Framework 

(SWIF) policy into 33 CFR part 203. The 

SWIF allows non-federal sponsors 

(currently, of levees and floodwalls 

only) to retain eligibility for 

rehabilitation assistance while actively 

conducting longer-term, system-wide 

improvement activities that are beyond 

the scope of usual O&M activities. This 

includes activities related to complex, 

serious or systemic deficiencies, 

addressing complex natural resources 

challenges such as threatened or 

endangered species, undocumented 

encroachments, and tribal treaty rights, 

all of which require additional time and 

coordination beyond what is normally 

allowed under current policy. The 

purpose is to ensure the imperatives of 

public safety, tribal rights, and 

environmental principles are met while 

still reducing the risk from floods. 

Question 8: What improvements to 

the existing SWIF policy should be 

made? 

Question 9: Currently, the SWIF 

policy has only been used for levee 

projects. Should the SWIF concept be 

applied to other types of flood control 

projects like channels? If so, for what 

purposes and using what criteria? 

Question 10: If the eligibility for 

rehabilitation assistance moves away 

from a standards-based inspection 

criteria and moves toward an activitiesbased approach (as is considered in 

Section B.1 above), what role should the 

SWIF policy play? Under what 

circumstances would development of a 

SWIF be useful to non-federal sponsors? 

3. Mitigating Impacts to Threatened or 

Endangered Species and Tribal Treaty 

Rights During Project Rehabilitation. 

USACE is considering allowing 

additional types of features and 

approaches that can be incorporated 

into rehabilitation efforts to minimize or 

address impacts to threatened and 

endangered species and impacts on 

tribal treaty rights. Features currently 

being considered include planting 

berms, set back levees, and overbuilt 

sections. 

Question 11: Are there other types of 

features and approaches that USACE 

should allow during rehabilitation 

efforts to minimize or address impacts 

on threatened and endangered species 

and tribal treaty rights while still 

providing the intended benefits of the 

flood control projects and reducing the 

risk of loss of life and significant 

economic damages? 

4. Early identification of 

Nonstructural Alternative Projects 

(NSAPs). USACE currently has the 

authority to undertake a nonstructural 

alternative project in lieu of a structural 

rehabilitation effort at the request of the 

non-federal sponsor and in accordance 

with 33 CFR Section 203.50. However, 

15 years of experience shows that 

NSAPs can be difficult to implement in 

the immediate aftermath of a flood. 

Challenges to NSAP implementation 

include difficulties in obtaining 

easements, land transfers, and 

municipal permits, as well as legal 

limitations of some non-federal 

sponsors, and a lack of public 

awareness. USACE is considering how 

to enable non-federal interests to 

identify viable NSAPs prior to a flood 

event so that the non-federal sponsors 

may be able to effectively implement as 

viable NSAPS an alternative to 

structural rehabilitation efforts after a 

flood event. 

Question 12: What advance planning 

activities could USACE undertake with 

non-federal interests to enable nonfederal interests to consider NSAPs as 

viable alternatives to structural 

rehabilitation efforts if the project is 

damaged in a future flood event? 

Question 13: How can the current 

NSAP policy be improved? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), USACE must 

determine whether a regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

review by OMB and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

state, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

After consideration of Executive 

Orders 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563, entitled 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), 

this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking has been determined to be 

not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Because this document does not 

impose or propose any requirements, 

and instead seeks comments and 

suggestions for USACE to consider in 

possibly developing a subsequent 

proposed rule, the various other review 

requirements that apply when an agency 

imposes requirements do not apply to 

this action. Nevertheless, as part of your 

comments on this ANPR, you may 

include any comments or information 

that could help the Agency to assess the 

potential impact of a subsequent 

regulatory action on small entities 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to consider 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

pursuant to Executive Order 12898, 

entitled ‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994); or to consider potential impacts 

to state and local governments or tribal 

governments. USACE will consider such 

comments during the development of 

any subsequent rulemaking. 

Dated: February 9, 2015. 

Karen Durham-Aguilera, 

Director of Contingency Operations/

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2015–03033 Filed 2–12–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS