Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41259 

Agency’s mission. We will provide 

everyone the opportunity to develop to 

his or her fullest potential. When a 

barrier to someone achieving this goal 

exists, we will strive to remove this 

barrier. 

Affirmative Employment 

The Board reaffirms its commitment 

to ensuring FCA conducts all of its 

employment practices in a 

nondiscriminatory manner. The Board 

expects full cooperation and support 

from everyone associated with 

recruitment, selection, development, 

and promotion to ensure such actions 

are free of discrimination. All 

employees will be evaluated on their 

EEOD achievements as part of their 

overall job performance. Though staff 

commitment is important, the role of 

supervisors is paramount to success. 

Agency supervisors must be coaches 

and are responsible for helping all 

employees develop their talents and 

give their best efforts in contributing to 

the mission of the FCA. 

Workplace Harassment 

It is the policy of the FCA to provide 

a work environment free from unlawful 

discrimination in any form, and to 

protect all employees from any form of 

harassment, either physical or verbal. 

The FCA will not tolerate harassment in 

the workplace for any reason. The FCA 

also will not tolerate retaliation against 

any employee for reporting harassment 

or for aiding in any inquiry about 

reporting harassment. FCA begins 

prompt, thorough, and impartial 

investigations within 10 days of 

receiving notice of harassment 

allegations. 

Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action 

Program (DVAAP) 

A disabled veteran is defined as 

someone who is entitled to 

compensation under the laws 

administered by the Veterans 

Administration or someone who was 

discharged or released from active duty 

because of a service-connected 

disability. 

The FCA is committed to increasing 

the representation of disabled veterans 

within its organization. Our Nation 

owes a debt to those veterans who 

served their country, especially those 

who were disabled because of service. 

To honor these disabled veterans, the 

FCA shall place emphasis on making 

vacancies known to and providing 

opportunities for employing disabled 

veterans. 

Dated this 24th day of August 2017. 

By Order Of The Board. 

Dale L. Aultman, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18416 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Notice of Agreements Filed 

The Commission hereby gives notice 

of the filing of the following agreements 

under the Shipping Act of 1984. 

Interested parties may submit comments 

on the agreement to the Secretary, 

Federal Maritime Commission, 

Washington, DC 20573, within twelve 

days of the date this notice appears in 

the Federal Register. A copy of the 

agreement is available through the 

Commission’s Web site (www.fmc.gov) 

or by contacting the Office of 

Agreements at (202)–523–5793 or 

tradeanalysis@fmc.gov. 

Agreement No.: 011550–015. 

Title: ABC Discussion Agreement. 

Parties: Hamburg-Su ̈d, King Ocean 

Services Limited, Seaboard Marine, 

Ltd.; and Crowley Caribbean Services, 

LLC. 

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; 

Cozen O’Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20036. 

Synopsis: The amendment adds a new 

Article 13 suspending authority with 

respect to Curacao, deletes Seafreight 

Line as a party, and corrects the 

Agreement’s table of contents. 

Agreement No.: 012489. 

Title: CMA CGM/Marinex Cargo Line 

U.S. Virgin Islands—Saint Maarten 

Service Space Charter Agreement. 

Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Marinex 

Cargo Line Inc. 

Filing Party: Draughn Arbona; CMA 

CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright 

Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502. 

Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes 

Marinex Cargo Line to charter space to 

CMA CGM in the trade between the U.S. 

Virgin Islands and Saint Maarten. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: August 25, 2017. 

Rachel E. Dickon, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18413 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6731–AA–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

[Docket Number OP–1573] 

Request for Information Relating to 

Production of Rates 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Notice and request for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (Board) is 

considering the production and 

publication of three rates by the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), 

based on data for overnight repurchase 

agreement transactions on Treasury 

securities. The Board is inviting public 

comment to assist the Federal Reserve 

in considering and developing this 

proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 30, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. OP—1573, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http://

www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: regs.comments@

federalreserve.gov. Include the docket 

number in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Fax: (202) 452–3819 or (202) 452– 

3102. 

• Mail: Address to Ann E. Misback, 

Secretary, Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20551. 

All public comments will be made 

available on the Board’s Web site at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/ 

generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as 

submitted, unless modified for technical 

reasons. Accordingly, comments will 

not be edited to remove any identifying 

or contact information. Public 

comments may also be viewed 

electronically or in paper in Room 3515, 

1801 K Street NW. (between 18th and 

19th Streets NW.), Washington, DC 

20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 

on weekdays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Bowman, Associate Director, 

(202–452–2334), Division of 

International Finance; or Christopher W. 

Clubb, Special Counsel (202–452–3904), 

Evan Winerman, Counsel (202–872– 

7578), Legal Division; for users of 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

(TDD) only, contact (202–263–4869). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

FRBNY, in cooperation with the U.S. 

Office of Financial Research (OFR), is 

considering publishing three rates based 

on overnight repurchase agreement 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41260 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

1For a detailed discussion of the U.S. repo 

market, see FRBNY Staff Report No. 740, 

‘‘Reference Guide to U.S. Repo and Securities 

Lending Markets,’’ (Revised Dec. 2015) https://

www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/ 

staff_reports/sr740.pdf . 

2FICC’s GCF Repo service only clears interdealer 

repo transactions. The Securities and Exchange 

Commission recently approved a change to FICC’s 

rulebook to permit a new FICC service to clear triparty repo transactions involving buy-side cash 

lenders, called the ‘‘Centrally Cleared Institutional 

Tri-Party Service’’ or the ‘‘CCITTM Service.’’ 82 FR 

21439 (May 8, 2017). At this time, it is not 

anticipated that the three proposed rates would 

include data regarding the CCIT repo transactions. 

(repo) transactions on U.S. Treasury 

securities (Treasury repo). The 

publication of these rates, targeted to 

commence by mid-2018, is intended to 

improve transparency into the repo 

market by increasing the amount and 

quality of information available about 

the market for overnight Treasury repo 

activity. The three overnight Treasury 

repo rates would be based on 

transaction-level data from various 

segments of the repo market. 

The U.S. Treasury securities market is 

the deepest and most liquid government 

securities market in the world. It plays 

a critical and unique role in the global 

economy, serving as a means of 

financing the U.S. federal government, a 

significant investment instrument and 

hedging vehicle for global investors, a 

risk-free benchmark for other financial 

instruments, and an important market 

for the Federal Reserve’s 

implementation of monetary policy. 

Treasury repos are critically 

important for the U.S. financial system 

and for the implementation of monetary 

policy. A repo transaction is the sale of 

a security, or a portfolio of securities, 

combined with an agreement to 

repurchase the security or portfolio on 

a specified future date at a prearranged 

price.1 A repo also has the economic 

characteristics of a collateralized loan. 

The initial seller of the security (the 

‘‘securities provider’’) may view itself as 

a borrower of cash and the initial buyer 

of the security (the ‘‘cash provider’’) 

may view itself as a lender in a secured 

transaction. The discount on the 

repurchase is equivalent to an interest 

rate. In the event the securities provider 

is unable to repurchase the securities 

(i.e., repay the loan) at maturity, the 

cash provider is entitled to liquidate the 

securities to obtain repayment. 

The market for Treasury repos 

includes a ‘‘tri-party’’ segment (a 

submarket of which is executed through 

the GCF Repo® service offered by the 

Fixed Income Clearing Corporation 

(FICC)) and a bilateral segment. All triparty repos—and some bilateral repos— 

are made against a pool of ‘‘general’’ 

collateral rather than specific securities. 

In a general collateral (GC) repo, the 

cash provider stipulates a population of 

acceptable collateral (e.g., all Treasury 

securities), but does not stipulate the 

specific securities that the securities 

provider must pledge. 

A. Tri-Party Repo Market 

In a tri-party repo, a clearing bank is 

used to facilitate the clearing and 

settlement of the transaction by 

managing the securities and ensuring 

that the securities adhere to the cash 

provider’s eligibility requirements (as 

noted above, all repo transactions 

currently conducted over tri-party repo 

platforms are GC repos). Tri-party repos 

settle on the books of the clearing bank, 

where cash and securities are 

transferred between the cash provider’s 

and securities provider’s respective 

accounts. Among the most prominent 

cash providers in this segment are 

money market mutual funds and cash 

collateral reinvestment accounts 

managed for securities lenders, while 

the primary securities providers are 

securities dealers. Bank of New York 

Mellon (BNYM) and JPMorgan Chase 

(JPMC) currently serve as the two 

clearing banks in the tri-party repo 

market. JPMC announced in July 2016 

that it plans to exit government 

securities settlement for broker-dealers 

by the end of 2018. After 2018, BNYM 

may become the sole clearing bank in 

the tri-party repo market for Treasury 

securities. 

The tri-party Treasury repo market is 

important because it provides market 

liquidity and price transparency for U.S. 

government securities and thereby 

fosters stable financing costs for the U.S. 

government. It also serves as a critical 

source of funding for many systemically 

important broker-dealers that make 

markets in U.S. government securities. 

The tri-party repo market interconnects 

with other payment, clearing, and 

settlement services that are central to 

U.S. financial markets. 

Currently, information available to the 

public about rates of return in the 

market for tri-party Treasury repos is 

limited. Pursuant to the Board’s 

supervisory authority, however, the 

FRBNY collects trade-by-trade data on 

tri-party Treasury repo transactions on a 

daily basis from the two clearing banks. 

This data set includes: the interest rate 

of the transaction; the parties to the 

transaction; information on the 

collateral that may be pledged in the 

transaction; the type of transaction; the 

date the transaction is initiated; the date 

the transaction becomes effective; the 

date the transaction matures; whether 

the transaction is open-ended (i.e., has 

no specific maturity date); the value of 

funds borrowed in the transaction; 

whether the transaction includes an 

option (e.g., the ability to extend or 

terminate early); and, if the transaction 

includes an option, the minimum notice 

period required to exercise such an 

option. 

B. General Collateral Financing (GCF) 

Repo Market 

GCF Repo, introduced by FICC in 

1998, permits FICC’s netting members to 

trade cash and securities among 

themselves based on negotiated rates 

and terms. GCF Repo trades are 

completed on an anonymous basis 

through interdealer brokers and settle 

on the two clearing banks’ tri-party repo 

platforms. FICC acts as a central 

counterparty in GCF Repo, serving as 

the legal counterparty to each side of the 

repo transaction for settlement 

purposes. GCF Repo is designed as a 

general collateral repo service, where 

FICC defines the set of permissible 

collateral classes. 

Securities dealers currently rely on 

GCF Repo transactions for a variety of 

functions, including raising funds and 

seeking securities to fulfill tri-party repo 

obligations. FRBNY has entered into an 

agreement with DTCC Solutions LLC 

(DTCC Solutions), an affiliate of the 

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation 

(DTCC), to obtain data regarding GCF 

Repo transactions.2 This data set 

includes: the interest rate of the 

transaction; information on the 

collateral that may be pledged in the 

transaction; the date the transaction is 

initiated; the date the transaction 

becomes effective; the date the 

transaction matures; the value of funds 

borrowed in the transaction; and an 

indicator differentiating between repos 

and reverse repos in relation to the 

central counterparty. 

C. Bilateral Repo Market 

Unlike the tri-party repo market, in 

the bilateral repo market, counterparties 

instruct their custodians to exchange 

cash and securities without the use of a 

third party to manage collateral and 

facilitate centralized settlement. In order 

to effect settlement, the parties identify 

specific securities for their custodians to 

transfer. As a result, the bilateral repo 

market can be used to temporarily 

acquire specific securities (referred to as 

specific-issue collateral). Depending on 

the individual market for each security, 

repos for specific-issue collateral can 

take place at much lower rates than GC 

trades, as cash providers may be willing 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 41261 

3The Federal Reserve may enter into bilateral and 

tri-party Treasury repos in order to implement 

monetary policy. The three proposed rates are 

intended to reflect market rates, and will exclude 

Federal Reserve repos because Federal Reserve repo 

transactions are priced at a policy rate rather than 

a market rate. 

4For example, the FRBNY could use a filter such 

as simply excluding the lowest quartile of bilateral 

transaction volume. 

5 In the event of an even number of transactions 

in the data set, the median would be considered to 

be the higher of the two numbers (i.e., it would be 

rounded up). 

to accept a lesser return on their cash, 

or even at times accept a negative 

return, in order to secure a particular 

security. Such securities are commonly 

referred to as ‘‘specials.’’ However, 

because all bilateral transactions must 

identify the securities being delivered in 

order to settle, it is not possible to 

determine from settlement data 

whether, in any particular trade, a cash 

provider intended to invest cash against 

general collateral (at the general 

collateral market rate) or to acquire 

specific securities (at a possibly lower 

rate for ‘‘specials’’). 

Bilateral repo transactions fall into 

two segments: Bilateral repo cleared 

through FICC’s Delivery-versus-Payment 

(DVP) service and non-cleared bilateral 

repo. Repos cleared through FICC’s DVP 

service are similar to GCF Repo in that 

they both allow for clearing in 

interdealer repo markets and both 

novate transactions to FICC. GCF repos, 

however, are exclusively blind 

brokered, while DVP repos can be blind 

brokered or directly negotiated. Noncleared bilateral repo transactions are 

conducted entirely outside the services 

offered by FICC and do not settle on the 

clearing banks’ tri-party repo platforms, 

and detailed information about that 

segment is not currently available. 

FRBNY has entered into an agreement 

with DTCC Solutions to obtain data 

regarding FICC-cleared Treasury 

bilateral repo transactions. This data set 

includes: the interest rate of the 

transaction; information on the specific 

collateral that is pledged in the 

transaction; the date the transaction is 

initiated; the value of funds borrowed in 

the transaction; and an indicator 

differentiating between repos and 

reverse repos in relation to the central 

counterparty. 

II. Production of Treasury Repo Rates 

In order to provide the public with 

more information regarding the interest 

rates associated with repo transactions, 

the FRBNY proposes to publish interest 

rate statistics for overnight Treasury 

repos. As described below, the FRBNY 

proposes to publish three different rates. 

A. Proposed Rates 

Rate 1: Tri-Party General Collateral Rate 

(TGCR) 

This rate would measure the rate of 

return available on overnight repo 

transactions against Treasury securities 

in the tri-party repo market, excluding 

GCF Repo and transactions in which the 

Federal Reserve is a counterparty.3 As 

currently envisioned, the FRBNY would 

calculate the rate based on the 

transaction-level tri-party data collected 

from BNYM under the Board of 

Governors’ supervisory authority as 

described above. This rate would focus 

on the dealer-to-customer activity in triparty repo and would capture a 

narrower set of transactions relative to 

the other two proposed rates. 

Rate 2: Broad General Collateral Rate 

(BGCR) 

This rate would provide a broader 

measure of rates on overnight Treasury 

GC repo transactions. As currently 

envisioned, the FRBNY would calculate 

the rate based on the same transactionlevel tri-party data collected from 

BNYM as in the TGCR plus GCF Repo 

data obtained from DTCC Solutions as 

described above. This rate would 

therefore reflect both dealer-to-customer 

and interdealer repos. By including data 

from different tri-party platforms, this 

rate would represent a broader, more 

diverse transaction set than the first 

rate, resulting in greater resiliency to 

market evolution. However, 

idiosyncratic pricing behavior over 

month- and quarter-ends in the GCF 

Repo transaction base could result in 

divergence from other money market 

rates depending on relative volume in 

the GCF Repo market. 

Rate 3: Secured Overnight Financing 

Rate (SOFR) 

This rate would be the broadest 

measure of rates on overnight Treasury 

financing transactions by also including 

bilateral Treasury repo transactions 

cleared through FICC’s DVP service, 

filtered to remove some (but not all) 

transactions considered ‘‘specials.’’ 4 As 

currently envisioned, the FRBNY would 

calculate the rate based on the tri-party 

data from BNYM, GCF Repo data from 

DTCC Solutions, and FICC-cleared 

bilateral repo data from DTCC 

Solutions. This rate would capture the 

broadest set of transactions, resulting in 

the rate most resilient to market 

evolution, but would not be a pure GC 

repo rate. 

B. Calculation of the Rates 

The FRBNY proposes to use a 

volume-weighted median as the central 

tendency measure for each of the three 

Treasury repo rates described above. 

While the volume-weighted mean, 

median, and trimmed mean would be 

similar to each other based on historical 

data, the median is more resistant to 

erroneous data, and would be consistent 

with the methodology used for the 

Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) and 

Overnight Bank Funding Rate (OBFR).5

Further, in instances when the three 

statistical measures differ considerably 

from each other, the median has 

generally been more representative of 

where the bulk of trading has taken 

place. FRBNY also proposes to publish 

summary statistics to accompany the 

daily publication of the rate, which 

would consist of the 1st, 25th, 75th and 

99th volume-weighted percentile rates, 

as well as volumes. 

The target publication time for the 

three rates and their summary statistics 

would be each morning at 8:30 ET. The 

repo rates would only be revised on a 

same-day basis, and only if the updated 

data would result in a shift in the 

volume-weighted median by more than 

one basis point. Such revisions, which 

should be a rare occurrence, would be 

effected that same day at or around 2:30 

ET and would result in a republication 

of updated summary statistics. In the 

event the previously noted data sources 

were unavailable, the rates would be 

calculated based upon back-up repo 

market survey data collected each 

morning from FRBNY’s primary dealer 

counterparties. FRBNY may decide to 

revise the summary statistics or publish 

additional summary statistics on a 

lagged basis. 

For each rate, FRBNY would exclude 

trades between affiliated entities when 

relevant and the data to make such 

exclusions are available. To the extent 

possible, ‘‘open’’ trades for which 

pricing resets daily (making such 

transactions economically similar to 

overnight transactions) would be 

included in the calculation of the rates. 

The inclusion of these open transactions 

is intended to ensure that the proposed 

rates incorporate all relevant 

transactions, and will mitigate risks 

around potential changes in market 

practice. Each of the rates could be 

modified in the future in response to 

market evolution or to incorporate 

additional market segments if data 

become available. 

Solicitation for Comments on 

Production of the Rates 

To assist the Board in considering the 

production of the proposed rates, the 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES

41262 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 30, 2017 / Notices 

Board seeks public comment on the 

following questions: 

1. Would the proposed rates be useful 

to market participants, researchers, or 

others? For what purpose(s)? 

2. Are one or more of the proposed 

rates more likely to be useful than the 

other(s)? For what purpose(s)? 

3. Are there changes to one or more 

of the rates that would make them more 

useful? For what purpose(s)? 

4. Are there particular sources of data 

or data sets that should be incorporated 

in the calculation of the rates that would 

make the rates more useful to the 

public? 

5. Are there changes that should be 

made to the proposed manner of 

calculating and publishing the three 

rates? 

6. Is the proposed time of publication 

early enough to facilitate the use of the 

rates for various purposes? 

7. Is the use of the volume-weighted 

median appropriate? Is there a different 

measure of the central tendency of the 

distribution of individual transacted 

rates that would be better suited? For 

what purpose(s)? 

8. Are the proposed summary 

statistics useful to the market? For what 

purposes? Would other summary 

statistics be more useful to accompany 

the daily publication, instead of or in 

addition to those proposed? 

Administrative Law 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 

5 CFR part 1320, Appendix A.1), the 

Board reviewed the proposal under the 

authority delegated to the Board by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

purposes of calculating burden under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, a 

‘‘collection of information’’ involves 10 

or more respondents. As noted above, 

the data to be used to produce the 

proposed rates will be obtained solely 

from (1) BNYM with respect to tri-party 

GC repo data and (2) DTCC Solutions 

with respect to GCF repo data and DVP 

bilateral repo data. Therefore, no 

collection of information pursuant to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act is 

contemplated by the proposed rate 

production at this time. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (‘‘RFA’’) generally 

requires an agency to perform an initial 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

on the impact a rule is expected to have 

on small entities. The RFA imposes 

these requirements in situations where 

an agency is required by law to publish 

a general notice of proposed rulemaking 

for any proposed rule. The production 

of the rates does not create any 

obligations or rights for any private 

parties, including any small entities, 

and so the publication of a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking is not 

required. Accordingly, the RFA does not 

apply and an initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, August 22, 2017. 

Ann E. Misback, 

Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18402 Filed 8–29–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM 

RESTORATION COUNCIL 

[Docket No.: 108292017–1111–16] 

Proposed Amendment to Initial (2015) 

Funded Priorities List 

AGENCY: Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council. 

ACTION: Proposed amendment to Initial 

Funded Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Gulf Coast Ecosystem 

Restoration Council (Council) seeks 

public and Tribal comment on a 

proposal to amend its Initial Funded 

Priorities List (FPL) to approve 

implementation funding for the 

Robinson Preserve Wetlands Restoration 

project (Robinson Preserve), Florida. 

The Council is proposing to approve 

$1,319,636 in implementation funding 

for Robinson Preserve. The Council is 

also proposing to reallocate $470,910 

from planning to implementation. The 

total amount of funding available for 

implementation of Robinson Preserve 

would be $1,790,546. These funds 

would be used to restore 118.2 acres of 

coastal habitat, along with related 

activities in Tampa Bay. The 

Department of Commerce’s National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) is the sponsor 

of the Robinson Preserve project. 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other applicable laws, the Council is 

proposing to adopt an existing 2015 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) http://www.

habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/NOAA_

Restoration_Center_Final_PEIS.pdf 

developed by NOAA’s Restoration 

Center and ensure compliance with the 

terms and conditions of a Clean Water 

Act (CWA) Section 404 permit that has 

been issued for the Robinson Preserve 

project. In so doing, the Council would 

expedite project implementation, reduce 

planning costs and potentially increase 

the ecological benefits of this project. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

amendment are due September 29, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed 

amendment may be submitted as 

follows: 

By Email: Submit comments by email 

to frcomments@restorethegulf.gov. 

Email submission of comments ensures 

timely receipt and enables the Council 

to make them available to the public. In 

general, the Council will make such 

comments available for public 

inspection and copying on its Web site, 

www.restorethegulf.gov, without change, 

including any business or personal 

information provided, such as names, 

addresses, email addresses and 

telephone numbers. All comments 

received, including attachments and 

other supporting materials, will be part 

of the public record and subject to 

public disclosure. You should only 

submit information that you wish to 

make publicly available. 

By Mail: Send comments to Gulf Coast 

Ecosystem Restoration Council, 500 

Poydras Street, Suite 1117, New 

Orleans, LA 70130. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Please send questions by email to 

frcomments@restorethegulf.gov or 

contact John Ettinger at (504) 444–3522. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to 

passage of the Resources and 

Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist 

Opportunities, and Revived Economies 

of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 

(RESTORE Act) (33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and 

note), which dedicates 80 percent of all 

Clean Water Act administrative and 

civil penalties related to the oil spill to 

the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund 

(Trust Fund). The RESTORE Act also 

created the Council, an independent 

Federal entity comprised of the five Gulf 

Coast states and six Federal agencies. 

Among other responsibilities, the 

Council administers a portion of the 

Trust Fund known as the CouncilSelected Restoration Component in 

order to ‘‘undertake projects and 

programs, using the best available 

science, that would restore and protect 

the natural resources, ecosystems, 

fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, 

beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy 

of the Gulf Coast.’’ Additional 

information on the Council can be 

found here: https://

www.restorethegulf.gov. 

On December 9, 2015, the Council 

approved the FPL, which includes 

projects and programs approved for 

funding under the Council-Selected 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES