Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Plans and Information, 51478-51519 [05-16764]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Minerals Management Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51478-51519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16764]



[[Page 51477]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Minerals Management Service



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



30 CFR Parts 250 and 282



Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf--
Plans and Information; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 51478]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Parts 250 and 282

RIN 1010-AC47


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf--Plans and Information

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule reorganizes and updates the requirements and 
processes for submitting various plans and information for MMS review 
and approval before a lessee or an operator may explore, develop, or 
produce oil and gas and sulphur in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective September 29, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kumkum Ray, Offshore Regulatory 
Programs, (703) 787-1604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The current regulations at 30 CFR part 250, 
subpart B, were structured into five broad sections: General 
Requirements, Preliminary Activities, Well Location and Spacing, 
Exploration Plan, and Development and Production Plan. This rule 
reorganizes and clarifies the requirements pertaining to Exploration 
Plans (EP), Development and Production Plans (DPP), and Development 
Operations Coordination Documents (DOCD). It also adds sections to 
describe Deepwater Operations Plans (DWOP) and Conservation Information 
Documents (CID). The rule provides more descriptive headings under 
which a large number of separate sections state the current 
requirements clearly and concisely and in a more logical order to:
     Clarify and update the review process;
     Provide a concise list of the contents of EP, DPP, and 
DOCD (plan) submissions; and
     Detail the accompanying information that lessees and 
operators must submit to support their plans.

Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
(GOMR)

    MMS is also issuing a companion NTL for the GOMR. This NTL further 
interprets the requirements in the rule regarding the information a 
lessee or operator must submit for MMS determinations, analyses, and 
approvals of EPs and DOCDs as they would apply specifically to leases 
and units in the GOMR. It also explains how the GOMR is invoking 30 CFR 
250.201(c) with respect to limiting submission of information that is 
not needed in particular cases.

Background

    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires that before 
conducting activities on a lease that has been awarded, lessees must 
file and MMS must approve EPs or DPPs describing their proposed 
activities. The OCSLA, at 43 U.S.C. 1351(a)(1), provides that DPPs 
aren't required in the GOM. 43 U.S.C. 1351(l) then provides that the 
Secretary may require the provisions of section 1351 to apply to leases 
in areas adjacent to the State of Florida. Current rules at 30 CFR 
250.204(d) require DPPs for leases except those in the Western GOM. 
This is continued in Sec.  250.201(a)(2) of this final rule. Section 
250.105 defines the Western GOM as all areas of the GOM except those 
adjacent to the State of Florida. However, because of the need to 
review and track development activities in the Western GOM, DOCDs are 
required for leases in the Western GOM.
    According to the OCSLA, in reviewing EPs and DPPs, MMS must ensure 
that the proposed activities will not:
    (1) Cause serious or undue harm or damage to (a) life, (b) 
property, (c) any other mineral deposits (in leased or unleased areas), 
(d) the national security or defense, or (e) the marine, coastal, or 
human environment;
    (2) Unreasonably interfere with other uses of the area;
    (3) Interfere with or endanger operations on other leases;
    (4) Result in pollution;
    (5) Create hazardous or unsafe conditions; or
    (6) Disturb any site, structure, or object of historical or 
archaeological significance.
    Under the OCSLA, MMS must also ensure that the proposed activities 
will comply with other applicable Federal laws and regulations, 
including the Clean Air Act (CAA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone 
Management Act (CZMA), and Clean Water Act. The regulations at 30 CFR 
part 250 subpart B are intended to enable MMS to carry out these 
responsibilities under the OCSLA.
    MMS issues NTLs to explain and clarify its regulations. MMS 
rescinds NTLs that have served their short-term purpose and now 
regularly reviews the long-term NTLs--both regional and national--to 
keep them up-to-date and to ensure their accuracy and applicability.
    MMS must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), its implementing regulations issued by the Council on 
Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, and 
policies of the Department of the Interior (DOI). According to NEPA 
requirements, MMS must prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
connection with its review of plans for activities on the OCS. The 
contents of these plans must be sufficient to support a sound analysis 
of potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed 
activity. The appropriate MMS Region prepares these analyses for every 
plan received.
    However, the NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) do allow agencies to 
exclude categories of actions from the preparation of an EA or an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) when agency procedures have 
demonstrated that these actions--individually or cumulatively--do not 
have a significant impact on the environment.
    MMS follows the procedures outlined in the DOI's Departmental 
Manual (516 DM 15) to categorically exclude (``CATEX'') routine OCS 
lease or unit plans in the Western and Central GOM Planning Areas 
unless certain exceptions are present. Some exceptions pertain to the 
nature of the proposed activity, and others to the nature of potential 
environmental impacts that may result from the activity. When MMS 
processes plans using a Categorical Exclusion Review (CER), the agency 
reviews the proposed activity and the potential environmental impacts 
at the proposed site. These do not require MMS to prepare an EA, and 
MMS may limit the information that the lessee/operator is required to 
submit unless the information is required for compliance with other 
Federal laws. MMS prepares an EA in its review of plans that meets the 
criteria of the specified exceptions to the CATEX criteria. As required 
by NEPA, if the EA concludes that significant impacts will result from 
the proposed activity, MMS will prepare an EIS.
    Whether MMS reviews plans through the CER or EA process, the agency 
requires that environmental impacts be avoided or diminished to an 
acceptable level through plan amendments or conditions that MMS imposes 
in the plan approval. See proposed rule published on May 17, 2002 (67 
FR 35372).

[[Page 51479]]

Changes to Subpart B Regulations

    Subpart B incorporates many of the detailed procedures and 
processes that were addressed in Letters to Lessees (LTLs) and NTLs. 
Although the rule may appear to contain many changes from the text of 
the former 30 CFR part 250, subpart B, including expanded lists of data 
and information to be submitted, the rewritten regulations basically 
reflect current requirements and ongoing practices as conveyed to 
lessees and operators via NTLs and LTLs.
    There are, however, some new or expanded areas. The following is a 
list of the major changes in this rule:
    (1) Definitions--Sec.  250.200: Definitions are added to explain 
certain terms used in the rule.
    (2) Conservation--Sec. Sec.  250.203 and 250.204: The rule adds 
language to further clarify and emphasize conservation practices. This 
language will ensure the proper development of economically producible 
reservoirs according to sound conservation, engineering, and economic 
practices. The rule adds clarifying language to protect the full 
interest of the Federal government along State and foreign boundaries.
    (3) Electronic Filing--Sec.  250.206(b): The regulations allow for 
electronic filing of EPs, DOCDs, DPPs, and their accompanying 
information to expedite their review.
    (4) Ancillary Activities--Sec. Sec.  250.207 to 250.210: Under the 
current regulations activities conducted without the approval of an 
application or permit, in order to obtain information to ensure proper 
exploration or development of a lease or unit, are ``preliminary'' 
activities. These activities are conducted before submitting an EP, 
DPP, or DOCD. The term ``preliminary'' activities is not used in this 
revised rule. Instead, the term ``ancillary'' activities is added, and 
the rule covers ancillary activities that could be conducted after, as 
well as before, an EP, DPP, or DOCD is submitted to MMS. The terms 
``development geological and geophysical activities'' and ``geological 
and geophysical explorations'' are added to clarify certain types of 
ancillary activities.
    (5) Written Notice--Sec.  250.208: The rule contains requirements 
for conducting on-lease geological and geophysical (G&G) explorations 
or development geological and geophysical activities that are ancillary 
activities. Lessees and operators must give MMS a written notice before 
beginning any such ancillary activities, including those conducted 
after an OCS plan is approved. This is not a new requirement; various 
NTLs describe this notice. The notice enables MMS to better ensure safe 
use and environmental protection of the OCS with respect to these G&G 
activities. Notification makes MMS aware of significant sets of 
valuable data that could and will be incorporated into MMS analyses and 
MMS-funded studies.
    (6) Other Requirements Related to Notice of Certain Ancillary 
Activities--Sec. Sec.  250.208(c) and 250.209: Along with the notice 
requirement, lessees and operators may be required to prepare and 
submit a report, retain certain data and information, and notify other 
users of the OCS before conducting ancillary activities.
    (7) Detailing Accompanying Information--Sec. Sec.  250.212 and 
250.242: The rule details what information must accompany EPs, DPPs, 
and DOCDs. MMS makes its decision to approve, require modification of, 
or disapprove OCS plans based on its evaluation of the accompanying 
information, as well as the plan contents. If MMS determines that a 
plan has inadequate accompanying information, or if it omits 
accompanying information, then MMS will not deem the plan submitted.
    The rule clarifies that the adequacy review will not begin until 
MMS receives both the OCS plan and its accompanying information. The 
objective is efficiency--so that lessees and operators provide MMS with 
all required information for OCSLA, NEPA, CZMA, and other purposes at 
the beginning of the process. These regulations and the accompanying 
NTL notify industry ``up front'' of the information needed for 
expeditious review of an OCS plan, thereby reducing the need for 
additional filings and costly delays. This benefits industry and MMS 
long-term, particularly in those cases when an EA is required.
    (8) Detailing Cooling Water Intake Information--Sec. Sec.  250.217 
and 250.248: The rule contains new requirements for EPs, DPPs, and 
DOCDs, which briefly summarize information on cooling water intake 
structures, and mitigation measures for reducing adverse environmental 
impacts and biofouling of intake structures.
    (9) Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA)--Sec. Sec.  250.227 and 
250.261: Environmental ``reports'' were formerly required for CZMA and 
NEPA purposes, and to determine compliance with other Federal laws. The 
rule replaces these environmental reports with a reference to 
applicable regulations at 15 CFR part 930 for required CZMA information 
and an EIA for use in our NEPA analysis. The EIA information will aid, 
but not replace, MMS's NEPA evaluation, which is based both on the plan 
contents and accompanying information.
    (10) Change in Timeframes for Deemed-submitted Review--Sec. Sec.  
250.231 and 250.266: The rule increases the time MMS can take to 
determine if a plan is deemed submitted from 10 to 15 working days for 
EPs, and from 20 to 25 working days for DPPs and DOCDs. The OCSLA 
requires MMS to make a decision on EPs within 30 days after they are 
submitted, and on DPPs and DOCDs within 60 days after they are 
submitted (unless an EIS is prepared). MMS needs adequate time before 
the decision-making period starts to determine that the plan and 
accompanying information fulfill requirements and are sufficiently 
accurate. Providing additional time at the beginning of the process is 
more efficient, and can avoid multiple delays later in the review 
process.
    (11) Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD)--Sec.  
250.241: The rule treats DPPs and DOCDs the same way. DOCDs are 
submitted for the Western GOM only. The current regulations state that 
any information submitted in DOCDs under the provisions at 30 CFR 
250.204(d)(1) and (d)(2) ``shall be considered a Development and 
Production Plan for the purpose of references in any law, regulation, 
lease provision, agreement, or other document referring to the 
preparation or submission of a plan.'' Therefore, MMS deals with them 
together.
    (12) Deepwater Operations Plans (DWOP)--Sec. Sec.  250.286 to 295: 
The sections of the final rule regarding the DWOP have been rewritten 
from the proposed rule for clarity. The final rule specifies more 
particularly than the proposed Sec.  250.288 what a lessee may not do 
without approval of the respective parts of a DWOP.
    The purpose of the DWOP is to ensure that MMS has sufficient 
information to review any development project that uses non-
conventional production or completion technology (in most cases, 
floating or subsea production systems), from a total system approach. 
MMS evaluates the system to determine whether the project will be 
properly developed, particularly from the standpoint of operational 
safety and environmental protection issues.
    A lessee must submit a DWOP if the lessee is going to use non-
conventional production or completion technology, regardless of water 
depth. (The final rule adds a definition of the term ``non-conventional 
production or completion technology'' in the definitions section.)

[[Page 51480]]

Even though these provisions are not limited to deep water operations, 
the plan is called a Deepwater Operations Plan because the use of 
subsea development technology and floating platforms occurs primarily 
on the deep water leases.
    The final rule's provisions supersede NTL 2000-N06. Therefore, NTL 
2000-N06 is hereby rescinded when the regulations take effect on 
September 29, 2005. The preamble to the proposed rule stated that MMS 
would issue a new NTL to replace NTL No. 2000-N06. However, MMS now 
believes that there is no present need to issue a new NTL, and that the 
final rule's provisions adequately cover the information MMS needs. 
Experience with, and knowledge gained from, DWOPs submitted under the 
NTL and its predecessor NTL over the last several years has shown that 
the degree of detail required under NTL 2000-N06 is not needed at this 
point.
    Under NTL 2000-N06, a DWOP was submitted in the three parts, a 
Conceptual Part, a Preliminary Part, and a Final Part. The real 
substance of the DWOP is in what was called the Preliminary Part under 
the NTL and the proposed rule, and is now the DWOP under the final 
rule. The Preliminary Part under the NTL, which the proposed rule would 
have continued, had proved to be unworkable and had not served any real 
purpose because there were no real changes in planned operations from 
the Preliminary Part in the first 90 days after production begins. 
Therefore, the final rule has simplified the process to two parts 
instead of three, a Conceptual Plan and a DWOP. The information 
required for the Preliminary Part under the proposed rule is required 
for what is called the DWOP in the final rule.
    It is appropriate to explain the relationship of the DWOP to a 
DOCD. A DOCD must be approved and pass consistency review under section 
307(c)(3) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 
1456(c)(3), before the lessee may install a production platform. In 
addition to an approved DOCD, the lessee must obtain approval of an 
Application for Permit to Drill (APD) before the lessee may drill a 
production well. While the Conceptual Plan is likely to be (but is not 
necessarily) submitted before a DOCD is approved, approval of the 
Conceptual Plan often occurs after approval of a DOCD. (The DOCD will 
specify that the lessee will use a floating facility, but in most cases 
the DOCD likely will not address in detail the same matters that the 
DWOP addresses.) The lessee may obtain approval of a DOCD, pass CZMA 
consistency review, obtain approval of an APD, and even drill the well, 
without approval of the Conceptual Plan as long as the lessee does not 
complete the well or install the tree before MMS approves the 
Conceptual Plan.
    Similarly, the DWOP must be submitted after the lessee has 
substantially completed safety system design and before procurement or 
fabrication of the safety and operational systems (other than the 
tree), production platforms, pipelines, etc., but the lessee may obtain 
approval of the DOCD, pass CZMA consistency review, and, if it wishes 
to do so, procure or manufacture the safety and operational systems, 
install the platform, drill the well, and (if the Conceptual Plan has 
been approved) complete the well and install the tree before MMS 
approves the DWOP, as long as the lessee does not begin production 
before approval of the DWOP. In most cases, MMS anticipates that both 
the Conceptual Plan and the DWOP will be approved before wells are 
drilled.
    MMS is requiring lessees to submit the Conceptual Plan of the DWOP 
to the Regional Director after the lessee has decided on the general 
concept(s) for development and before beginning engineering design of 
the well safety control system or subsea production systems. MMS will 
not approve a straight hydraulic well control system if the host 
platform is more than ten miles away from the well. At distances 
greater than 10 miles, a straight hydraulic system will not shut a well 
in fast enough in the event of an emergency or other contingency 
requiring a shut-in. If the host platform is more than 10 miles away 
from the well, MMS generally will require an electro-hydraulic well 
control system. In addition, if a lessee is planning to use new or non-
conventional technology from the point of completion onward (including 
subsea systems), it should explain what it intends to do in the 
Conceptual Plan.
    The proposed rule (at Sec.  250.295) contained timeframes within 
which MMS would decide to approve or disapprove the various parts of 
the DWOP. (The proposed rule did not specify what the consequences 
would be if MMS missed an approval deadline.) Upon further 
consideration, the agency has determined that it would not be 
appropriate to bind itself to the timeframes in the proposed rule, and 
has therefore removed these provisions in the final rule.
    Finally, there are a few differences in the content requirements 
for the DWOP under the final rule and the Preliminary Part under the 
proposed rule. (Section 250.292 of the proposed rule specified what the 
Preliminary Part must contain, and Sec.  250.292 of the final rule 
specifies what is now called the DWOP must contain.) First, paragraph 
(j) is refined because MMS has determined that it does not need a flow 
chart for the entire facility. It needs a description of the system up 
to the separation equipment.
    Second, paragraph (1) in the proposed rule is not needed because 
MMS' notification to the lessee of approval of the DWOP will include a 
reminder that the lessee must obtain approval of production test 
allocation processes, flaring, and the Conservation Information 
Document before production may begin.
    Third, paragraph (o) in the proposed rule was in the original NTL 
when the DWOP process was in its beginning stages. MMS does not now 
need a hazard analysis from a third party firm because MMS is much more 
familiar with deep water processes and hazards.
    Fourth, paragraphs (n) and (o) in the final rule pertain to any new 
technology that affects the hydrocarbon recovery system and any 
alternate compliance procedures or departures for which the lessee 
anticipates requesting approval. MMS needs this type of information to 
properly evaluate the lessee's planned system.
    (13) Conservation Information Documents (CID)--Sec. Sec.  250.296 
to 299: The rule contains new sections pertaining to CIDs. NTL 2000-N05 
currently outlines the procedures for these documents. The revised rule 
incorporates the NTL procedures. Therefore, NTL 2000-N05 is hereby 
rescinded when the regulations take effect on September 29, 2005.

Discussion and Analysis of Comments to Proposed Rule

    MMS received comments on the proposed rule and the draft NTL for 
the GOMR from the State of Florida (Florida), Ms. Cynthia Peeler 
(individual commenter), Mr. Peter Velez of Shell Exploration and 
Production Company (SEPCo), and a set of comprehensive comments from 
the oil and gas industry prepared by the American Petroleum Institute 
and Offshore Operators Committee (OOC). Mr. Velez' comments were 
general in nature and although MMS did not prepare specific responses 
to his comments, they were given due consideration and incorporated 
wherever possible. SEPCo also participated in and adopted the comments 
prepared by OOC. All comments were posted on the MMS Internet homepage. 
A summary of the comments received on the proposed rule and MMS' 
responses to the comments, follows.

[[Page 51481]]

Section 250.200 Definitions

    Comment: OOC notes that it is confusing to have terms defined in 
this section and also in 30 CFR 250.105. It recommends that all 
definitions not directly related to plans be located in Sec.  250.105. 
The terms that would remain in this section would be Amendment, 
Modification, Resubmitted OCS Plan, Revised OCS Plan, [and] 
Supplemental OCS Plan.
    Response: MMS adopted the recommended changes, except that the 
definition of ``New or unusual technology'' remains in Sec.  250.200. A 
definition for ``Non-conventional production or completion technology'' 
has been added to the final rule under Sec.  250.200.
    Comment: Florida comments on the definition of ``Ancillary 
activities'' to add [to (1)] ``but which are still required to be 
consistent with the coastal management programs of affected States.''
    Response: No change. Ancillary activities do not require a Federal 
license or permit or other form of approval or permission (see 15 CFR 
930.51(a)) and, therefore, are not subject to CZMA consistency 
requirements. However, should MMS, after review of the notification 
made under Sec.  250.209, determine that an OCS plan is required; the 
plan will be subject to all plan review requirements.
    Also, MMS deleted paragraph (2) in the proposed definition of 
``ancillary activities'' which provided that ancillary activities need 
not be covered by an approved EP, DPP, or DOCD. Under certain 
circumstances an ancillary activity is required to be covered by an OCS 
plan. A change was also made to add the words ``data and'' before the 
word ``information'' in paragraph (1).
    Comment: OOC comments that it is not clear whether the definition 
of ``Development geophysical activities'' excludes shallow hazards 
studies. It recommends that the definition be reworded to the 
following: ``Development geophysical activities means those geophysical 
and related data-gathering activities on your lease or unit that take 
place following discovery of oil, gas, or sulphur in paying quantities 
that detect or imply the presence of oil, gas or sulphur in commercial 
quantities.''
    Response: MMS added the recommended language but retained the 
authority to require notice of shallow hazard surveys and other 
ancillary activities under Sec.  250.208(b)(1) on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment: OOC recommends that the definition of ``New or unusual 
technology'' be clarified so that extensions of existing technology 
which do not meet the proposed rule's criterion of ``(1) Function in a 
manner that potentially causes different impacts to the environment 
than the equipment or procedures did in the past,'' should not be 
considered as ``New or unusual technology.'' OOC recommends that the 
definition be reworded to the following: ``New or unusual technology 
means equipment or procedures that: (1) Have not been used previously 
or extensively in an MMS OCS Region; (2) Have not been used previously 
under the anticipated operating conditions; or (3) Have operating 
characteristics that are outside the performance parameters established 
by this part; and (4) Function in a manner that potentially causes 
different impacts to the environment than the equipment or procedures 
did in the past.'' It is OOC's understanding that at least in the GOMR, 
MMS maintains an internal list of technology that is to be considered 
``new or unusual.'' While OOC recognizes that this list is periodically 
updated as technology moves out of the ``new or unusual'' category and 
may not cover everything that could be considered new or unusual, it 
would be helpful to industry for MMS to make this list available by 
posting it on the Web site.
    Response: MMS agrees that a clarification is necessary and has 
deleted item (1) from the proposed definition of ``New or unusual 
technology'' and renumbered the remaining items in the definition. MMS 
maintains a list and determines whether the technology could cause 
different impacts, and plans to post the non-proprietary portions of 
the list.
    Comment: OOC notes that in 30 CFR 250.201(c) the term 
``comprehensive environmental management program'' is used. It requests 
a definition for this term.
    Response: MMS deleted proposed Sec.  250.201(c)(3) which contained 
the term. Consequently, no definition is needed.

Section 250.201(a) Plans and documents.

    Comment: OOC disagrees that all of the listed plans must be 
approved before conducting any activities. For example, it may be 
necessary or desirable to install mooring piles well in advance of 
installing a floating facility. This activity would normally be a part 
of a DPP or DOCD and would also be described in a DWOP. Lessees and 
operators should not be prevented from performing this activity due to 
the CID not being approved. Rather, the approval of the DPP or DOCD 
should state that the wells cannot be produced until the CID is 
approved.
    Response: No change. Examples of exploration and development 
activities that must be covered by a plan are listed in Sec. Sec.  
250.211(a) and 250.241(a), respectively. Mooring piles are considered 
part of the production platform under Sec.  250.241(a)(3), and, 
therefore, must be covered by an approved DPP or DOCD before 
installation. The DPP or DOCD can be approved before CID approval.
    Comment: OOC notes that in many cases, a well may be drilled as an 
exploratory well under an Exploration Plan, and if hydrocarbons in 
paying quantities are discovered, the well will be completed before 
demobing [demobilizing] the drilling rig off location. This is 
especially true for subsea wells. Therefore, OOC suggests the following 
modifications:
    ``(2) Development and Production Plan (DPP): You must submit a DPP 
before you conduct any development and production activities on a lease 
or unit in any OCS area other than the western GOM. A well may be 
drilled and completed under an Exploration Plan, but not produced until 
a DPP has been approved;
    ``(3) Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD): You must 
submit a DOCD before you conduct any development and production 
activities on a lease or unit in the western GOM. A well may be drilled 
and completed under an Exploration Plan, but not produced until a DOCD 
has been approved;
    ``(5) Conservation Information Document (CID): (ii) Wells drilled 
and completed under an EP meeting the description of (i)(A) or (B) must 
file a CID within 60 days of completing the drilling and logging 
operations. Approved completion operations are allowed to proceed 
before the approval of the CID. The CID must be approved before 
production of the well.''
    Response: No change. Completion is considered part of the drilling 
activities and is therefore, covered under an approved EP. Since EP 
approval is independent of CID approval, completion operations may 
proceed before CID submittal or approval.
    Comment: OOC remarks that under the requirements to have an 
approved EP, DPP, or DOCD under (6), it is not clear what information 
would need to be provided in an EP, DPP or DOCD. OOC also states that 
it is not clear what the difference is between (6)(C) and (6)(D) since 
under (D) the Regional Supervisor has the right to determine that an 
EP, DPP, or DOCD is necessary

[[Page 51482]]

if the performance standard in Sec.  250.202(e) is not complied with.
    Response: No change. The information requirements for OCS plans 
(including those proposing G&G explorations and development G&G 
activities) are listed in subpart B. Under paragraph 6(C) (now 6 (iii) 
in a table), MMS might determine that certain types or classes of G&G 
explorations or development G&G activities might have a significant 
adverse effect and by NTL would require that such types or classes be 
included in an OCS plan. Under paragraph 6(D) (now 6 (iv) in a table), 
MMS, after receiving notice, might determine that a particular G&G 
exploration or development G&G activity needs to be covered by an OCS 
plan.
    Comment: OOC also notes that currently under the provisions of NTL 
2000-N05, Conservation Information is submitted as a part of 
supplemental EPs or initial or supplemental DOCDs. It agrees that 
approval of supplemental EPs or DOCDs should not be dependent on the 
approval of CIDs.
    Response: MMS agrees that a change was needed. CIDs are no longer 
submitted as part of an Initial or Supplemental DOCD. However, a lessee 
or operator must submit a CID when it submits an Initial DOCD or 
Supplemental DOCD for any development of a lease or leases located in 
water depths greater than 400 meters (1,312 feet). The CID must be 
approved before production begins.

Section 250.201(c) Limiting information.

    Comment: Florida requests clarification of the requirements for 
limiting information by adding the words ``for a similar activity or a 
similar environment.''
    Response: MMS added the word ``applicable.''
    Comment: Ms. Peeler requests submission of a `comprehensive 
environmental management strategy', and that MMS and operators should 
be working under a comprehensive environmental management plan.
    Response: No change. This is beyond the scope of subpart B.
    Comment: Florida requests adding Sec.  250.201(c)(5) in order to 
not relieve the operator or MMS of the responsibility to transmit 
necessary data.
    Response: No change. The rule should not impose requirements on the 
agency. MMS is fully aware of its responsibility to ensure that we do 
not eliminate information from a plan that is required by a State and 
that the required State information is received before MMS deems a plan 
submitted. MMS is also aware of its responsibility to send necessary 
data and information to the affected States.

Section 250.201(d) Referencing.

    Comment: OOC fully supports referencing information and data 
previously submitted or otherwise readily available to MMS. However, in 
practice, OOC finds that many times MMS requires duplicative 
information to be submitted. It presumes this is for the reviewers' 
convenience so the reviewer does not have to locate material in other 
plans and in MMS files. The OOC encourages MMS to utilize previously 
submitted information whenever possible.
    Comment: Florida requests that additional language be added to the 
rule regarding referenced material.
    Response: No change. MMS is required to provide ``complete'' copies 
of plans and accompanying information, including CZMA necessary data 
and information, to reviewing agencies and to the public. If documents 
are referenced from previous submittals, MMS will make those documents 
or their location (library, website, etc.) available to the agencies/
public upon request.

Section 250.203 Where can wells be located under an EP, DPP or DOCD?

    Comment: OOC recommends that (b) be changed to ``Recovering optimum 
reserves;'' stating that economics should always be considered in the 
recovery of hydrocarbons.
    Response: No change. The use of the word ``reserves'' by OOC 
implies that the reservoir has been penetrated by a well. However, 
there are cases when lessees and operators submit EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs 
where it is obvious that there is lease line stacking by a number of 
wells targeting resources (i.e., no prior well penetration) common with 
adjacent leases. This potentially presents a drainage problem that MMS 
tries to rectify before the wells are drilled. MMS agrees with OOC that 
``economics'' should always be considered in the recovery of 
hydrocarbons. However, MMS cannot make a decision that resources (based 
solely on seismic data) are economic and tell a company where a well 
should be drilled. Further, MMS cannot, and does not, require a company 
to drill or produce a well that is not economic.
    Comment: OOC remarks that it is unclear how this matches up with 
the requirements for and approval of the CID for development plans. If 
MMS is reviewing this information under the DPP or DOCD and then again 
under the CID, it appears that MMS is doing duplicative work.
    Response: No change. The CID is only for deep water. These are 
factors MMS will consider, not information that the operator must 
submit.
    Comment: OOC asks for an explanation of the difference between (c) 
[number of wells that can be economically drilled for proper reservoir 
management] and (i) [drilling of unnecessary wells].
    Response: No change. The following example is offered as an 
explanation of the difference between paragraphs (c) and (i): The 
Regional Supervisor's analysis shows that a reservoir could support a 
maximum of three wells. Two wells are producing on Lease A, and one 
well is producing on Lease B. All of the wells are producing from the 
same reservoir. In essence, this is the proper ``number of wells that 
can be economically drilled for proper reservoir management'' 
(paragraph (c)).
    However, the operator of Lease B proposes to economically drill 
another well solely to counter possible drainage by Lease A. The 
drilling of this well would not increase the ultimate recovery or 
contribute additional hydrocarbon reserves. Even though the well is 
economic, it was established that the reservoir can only support a 
maximum of three wells. Therefore, the drilling of this fourth well 
would be unnecessary. In deciding whether to approve a proposed well 
location the Regional Supervisor will consider factors including the 
``drilling of unnecessary wells'' (paragraph (i)).

Section 250.206(a) Number of copies.

    Comment: OOC comments that since the number of copies may change 
from time to time, and may be different for various plans, it may be 
more appropriate to put the details in an NTL. In the GOMR, for 
example, NTL No. 2002-G08 (now NTL No. 2003-G17), clarifies that not 
all plans require 8 public information copies.
    Response: No change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
requires that agencies justify for OMB approval if the agency requires 
more than an original and two copies of any response. It is appropriate 
that the maximum number of copies be specified through rulemaking.

Section 250.206(b) Mailing addresses.

    Comment: OOC comments that since MMS addresses may change from time 
to time, it may be less burdensome to provide this information in a NTL 
and alleviate the necessity for a rulemaking effort to change an 
address.

[[Page 51483]]

    Response: MMS agrees and has deleted the addresses.

Section 250.206(c) Electronic submission.

    Comment: OOC comments that the regulation should not include a 
provision requiring electronic submittals when no details of the 
requirements have been provided for comment. This should be the subject 
of a subsequent rulemaking if electronic submittals are required.
    Response: MMS agrees and made appropriate changes.
    Comment: OOC supports the options for voluntary electronic 
submittals that have been provided in NTL No. 2002 G-08 and supports 
including this information in the regulation.
    Response: An administrative and procedural NTL will be issued 
shortly after the effective date of the rule. It will contain guidance 
on electronic submittals according to Section 250.190(a)(3).
    Comment: OOC is concerned over the details on how electronic 
submittals are handled by MMS. How will the confidential information be 
handled and be secured? How will the information be made available to 
the various MMS reviewers? Will the information be released in an 
electronic format to other federal agencies and state agencies?
    Response: MMS will continue to protect confidential and proprietary 
information according to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its 
implementing regulations.
    Comment: Florida recommends adding ``Electronic submission to 
affected States will require consultation with the Regional Supervisor 
and concurrence of an affected State.''
    Response: MMS does not agree. MMS will consult with affected States 
(and already has with Texas and Louisiana) to work out details of the 
electronic submission process. This is a procedural matter to be worked 
out between government agencies, not a matter of concern to a plan 
submitter, and does not belong in the rule.

Section 250.207(a) Geological and geophysical explorations and 
development geological and geophysical activities.

    MMS has deleted the phrase, ``except those that must be covered by 
an EP, DPP, or DOCD under 30 CFR 250.201(a)(6), or 250.209'' to show 
that a geological or geophysical exploration or a development 
geological or geophysical activity remains an ancillary activity even 
when it is required to be covered by an OCS plan. This change resulted 
from an internal MMS review of the proposed regulation, not from an 
outside comment.

Section 250.208 If I conduct ancillary activities, what notices must I 
provide?

    Comment: OOC assumes that the notices required for those activities 
that are conducted on individual leases are similar to the ones covered 
under 30 CFR part 251 for unleased areas or areas leased to third 
parties.
    Response: This is a correct assumption.
    Comment: Florida requested addition of the word ``specific'' before 
``type(s) of operations'' in (a)(2).
    Response: MMS agrees and added the word ``specific.''
    Comment: OOC assumes that this notice requirement does not apply to 
shallow hazard surveys or any of the other ancillary activities (other 
than geological and geophysical explorations and development geological 
and geophysical activities) identified in Sec.  250.207(a). Based on 
the language in Sec.  250.208(b)(1), OOC assumes that MMS cannot 
require notices for the other listed ancillary activities in Sec.  
250.207 without a change in regulation. If this is not correct, then 
OOC strongly objects to a 30-day notice period for the other listed 
ancillary activities. This would be extremely burdensome and slow down 
reserve development.
    Response: This is not a correct assumption; see response to next 
comment. MMS is retaining the authority under Sec.  250.208(b)(1) to 
require notice for any other ancillary activity, including shallow 
hazard surveys. If such a notice is required, MMS will review the 
notice to determine if the ancillary activity complies with certain 
performance standards in accordance with Sec.  250.209. If MMS 
concludes that the activity does not comply with those standards, MMS 
will require the lessee or operator to submit an OCS plan. In that 
case, the ancillary activity cannot be conducted until MMS approves the 
OCS plan. In addition, MMS changed Sec.  250.208(b)(1) to provide for a 
15-day notice period if a notice for another listed ancillary activity 
(i.e., those described in Sec.  250.207(b) and (c)) is required.
    Comment: OOC states that the requirement in Sec.  250.208(b)(1) is 
very broad and confusing. What other activities could be considered 
ancillary activities?
    Response: The other types of ancillary activities are stated in 
Sec.  250.207(b) and (c). The notice period is 15 days.
    Comment: OOC states that Sec.  250.208(b)(2) is an overly broad 
requirement and lacks sufficient detail for it to appropriately 
comment. Under what circumstances would this be done? Who would they be 
required to notify? How would it be done? What would be the timeframe 
for the notice? They believe that this requirement should be deleted 
from the regulation and be covered under a separate rulemaking if 
notice is to be required.
    Response: No change. Depending upon the nature of the ancillary 
activity (e.g., the use of explosives), it may be appropriate for the 
lessee or operator to notify other users of the area such as a military 
facility or other lessees, operators or G&G permittees. If this 
provision is invoked, guidance on the procedures for these notices will 
be provided either on a case-by-case basis or in a revised NTL.
    Comment: Regarding Sec.  250.208(b)(2), Florida requests a 
discussion of the method of notification.
    Response: No change. If necessary, this type of guidance will be 
provided either on a case-by-case basis or in a revised NTL.

Section 250.210(a) Reporting.

    Comment: OOC asks when MMS will require that a report be submitted. 
How much time would the operator have until the report was due? What 
would be the required analysis? What would be data or information 
derived from the ancillary activities? Would it be held confidential? 
This requirement is overly broad without enough detail to properly 
comment. OOC recommends that MMS remove this from the proposed 
regulation and cover it in a subsequent rulemaking when sufficient 
information is available for comment.
    Response: No change. MMS believes that sufficient information was 
available in the proposed rule and current NTLs for an adequate review 
of this section and, consequently, did not remove it for consideration 
under subsequent rulemaking. Guidance regarding when reports on 
ancillary activities will be required and due, and their contents, will 
continue to be addressed in various NTLs. Information from reports of 
G&G explorations and development G&G activities enables MMS to prepare 
for lease sales and conduct fair market value determinations. 
Information from other ancillary activities enables MMS to adequately 
review EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs. When applicable, data and information 
submitted to MMS will be held confidential in accordance with Sec.  
250.196(b). MMS added this confidentiality statement in a new paragraph 
(c) in Sec.  250.210.

[[Page 51484]]

Section 250.210(b) Data or information retention.

    Comment: OOC does not believe that it is appropriate for MMS to 
require operators to retain copies of all information derived from 
ancillary activities. Many times, there may be studies that are used 
for purposes other than exploring or developing a lease that a lessee 
or operator should not have to retain. OOC does not object to retaining 
the raw data and making it available to MMS.
    Response: MMS limited the requirement to retain information to that 
obtained during G&G explorations and development G&G activities. MMS 
may need this information to evaluate leases and plan for lease sales 
at any time during the life of the lease or unit. Even though the rule 
does not require the retention of data and information from other 
ancillary activities, MMS suggests that lessees and operators consider 
retaining data and information because the lessee or operator may need 
to include that data and information in supplemental or revised EPs, 
DPPs, and DOCDs (e.g., high resolution seismic lines under Sec. Sec.  
250.214(g) and 250.244(g)).

Section 250.211(a) Description, objectives, and schedule.

    Comment: For overall clarity, OOC recommends that the seismic 
activity language be moved from this section to Sec.  250.207(a).
    Response: MMS agrees. MMS has deleted the reference to seismic 
activities in the MMS Alaska and Pacific OCS Regions since the process 
to handle these activities is sufficiently delineated in Sec. Sec.  
250.207 through 250.210.
    Comment: OOC recommends including well completion (not production) 
as an example of an exploratory activity.
    Response: No change. A well completion is an extension of the 
exploration drilling activity and does not need to be covered as a 
separate activity under an EP.

Section 250.211(b) Location.

    Comment: OOC believes there is no purpose in showing the water 
depth of the bottom hole location and, therefore, that information 
should not be required.
    Response: MMS made the recommended change. MMS agrees that the 
bottom hole location is not needed on the location map.
    Comment: OOC asks whether bathymetry information be provided in a 
table instead of a map.
    Response: No change. A location plat is required for MMS evaluation 
and State consistency review.

Section 250.211(c) Drilling unit.

    Comment: OOC believes that it is overly burdensome and serves no 
meaningful purpose to provide the required information for fuels, oil, 
and lubricants that are stored on the facility in very small 
quantities. It recommends that the rule be limited to fuels, oil and 
lubricants that are stored in quantities greater than 25 barrels.
    Response: For the GOMR, due to the large number of very similar 
plans that are routinely submitted, MMS agrees that listing smaller 
volumes of stored fuels, oil, and lubricants is overly burdensome. The 
volume thresholds are stated in the interpretive guidance in the 
accompanying GOMR NTL, not in this part of the rule.
    Comment: OOC notes that in many cases at the time an EP is filed, 
the specific rig or rigs to be utilized has or have not been 
contracted. Therefore, only generic information that pertains to the 
type of rig to be utilized is provided. OOC also notes that the 
specific rig and equipment particulars are identified in the APD for 
the well to be drilled. OOC believes that this is the appropriate 
application to provide this information.
    Response: No change. If the specific rig has not been contracted, 
the maximum in the class should be provided. MMS requires this 
information to assess environmental impacts and for State coastal zone 
consistency review.
    Comment: OOC suggests that if an MMS regional office needs specific 
information on rigs operating within the region, MMS should collect the 
information one time and maintain a file for the rig. If a rig is 
brought into the MMS region, the file could be updated.
    Response: No change. However, MMS encourages industry to establish 
a regional rig file that a lessee or operator could access on the 
Internet and reference under Sec.  250.201(d).

Section 250.213(b) Drilling fluids.

    Comment: OOC notes that in many cases, several different mud 
systems with different chemical composition and components will be 
utilized during the course of a well. At the time that the EP is filed, 
the specific mud program for each well may not have been developed. OOC 
recommends that this section be changed to the following: ``(b) 
Drilling fluids. A table showing the projected amounts for each of the 
types (i.e., water based, oil based, synthetic based) of drilling 
fluids you may use to drill your proposed exploration wells.''
    Response: MMS agrees and has provided clarification.
    Comment: OOC requests an explanation of the term ``rates of 
usage.''
    Response: For clarification, MMS changed the term ``rates of 
usage'' to ``discharge rate.''

Section 250.213(c) Chemical products.

    Comment: OOC comments that following the issuance of NTL No. 2000-
G21, a study was conducted on chemical products usage in the GOM in 
lieu of this information being submitted in each plan. Therefore, it 
recommends that the GOM be exempt from this requirement.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR.
    Comment: OOC comments to the NTL point out that the NTL requires 
``Oils Characteristics'' and there is no corresponding reference in the 
rule for EPs. OOC also notes that detailed information is unknown at 
the EP stage.
    Response: MMS agrees with OOC. Since no reference to Oils 
Characteristics for EPs is in the rule, the provision in the MMS GOMR 
NTL to provide such information for EPs has been deleted.

Section 250.213(d) New or unusual technology.

    Comment: OOC comments that in many cases, the use of new or unusual 
technology includes the use of proprietary information. Therefore, it 
recommends that the following statement be added to the regulation: 
``In the public information copies of your EP, you may exclude any 
proprietary information from this description. In that case, include a 
brief discussion of the general subject matter of the omitted 
information. If you will not use any new or unusual technology to carry 
out your proposed activities, include a statement so indicating.''
    Response: MMS agrees and has adopted the language.

Section 250.213(e) Bonds, oil spill financial responsibility, and well 
control statements.

    Comment: OOC recommends that MMS allow lessees or operators to 
delay furnishing bonds and evidence of oil spill financial 
responsibility until after the EP has been approved, but before the 
proposed activities are approved or permitted. Therefore, OOC 
recommends adding the following statement to (1): ``In lieu of 
providing bonds and making this statement, you may request, in writing, 
to delay furnishing the required bond coverage until after your EP or 
DOCD is approved but before your proposed activities are approved or

[[Page 51485]]

permitted. Refer to 30 CFR 256.53(a)(1)(ii).''
    Response: MMS adopted OOC's recommended change and provided a 
reference to 30 CFR 256 subpart I.

Section 250.213(g) Blowout scenario.

    Comment: Florida recommends adding the word ``maximum'' to qualify 
``timeframe.''
    Response: MMS reworded for clarity and added ``maximum duration.''

Section 250.214(g) High-resolution seismic lines.

    Comment: OOC questions the necessity of providing two intersecting 
seismic lines.
    Response: MMS agrees that only the closest line is needed and made 
the appropriate change.
    Comment: OOC recommends adding the following statement: ``You are 
not required to provide this information if the surface location of 
your proposed well has been approved in a previously submitted EP, DPP, 
or DOCD.''
    Response: MMS agrees with OOC and adopted the proposed language.

Section 250.214(j) Geochemical information.

    Comment: OOC recommends that the GOM should be specifically 
excluded from this requirement.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR.

Section 250.214(k) Future G&G activities.

    Comment: OOC recommends that the GOM should be specifically 
excluded from this requirement.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR.

Section 250.215(a) Concentration.

    Comment: OOC recommends that this should be required only when the 
area has been classified as H2S present. Otherwise you will 
not know the concentration.
    Response: No change. The rule requires only an estimate, not a 
known concentration.

Section 250.216 What biological, physical, and socioeconomic 
information must accompany the EP?

    Comment: Florida recommends deleting ``if you obtain'' and replace 
with ``you must obtain.''
    Response: No change. MMS does not require this type of information 
to be collected. However, if the lessee or operator independently 
collects it during the development of the EP, then it must accompany 
the EP.

Section 250.216(b) Physical environment reports.

    Comment: OOC notes that in the GOM, limited site-specific 
meteorological data (temperature, wind, etc.) may be collected, but not 
necessarily in any formal, organized, or scientific fashion and should 
not have to be submitted. Therefore, it recommends that this 
requirement be eliminated for the GOM. Similarly, OOC notes that 
limited physical oceanographic information may be collected, but not 
necessarily in any formal, organized, or scientific fashion. This data 
should not have to be submitted. Therefore, OOC recommends that this 
requirement be eliminated for the GOM.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR. According to the NTL, this information is not required to 
accompany EPs in the GOMR. However, in the Eastern Planning Area of the 
GOMR, a discussion of air and water quality in and adjacent to the 
proposed activities is required. For clarity, MMS replaced 
``archaeological information'' with ``archaeological reports if 
required under Sec.  250.194.''

Section 250.216(c) Socioeconomic study reports.

    Comment: OOC requests that this requirement not apply to the GOM.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR. According to the NTL, this information is not generally required 
to accompany EPs in the GOMR. However, if the proposed activities have 
socioeconomic implications for the State of Florida, certain 
information is required.

Section 250.217(a) Projected wastes.

    Comment: OOC notes that providing the quantity of a waste either 
annually or monthly may be difficult to estimate. An appropriate unit 
of measure should be utilized which could include on a per well or per 
person basis. The chemical product wastes should be limited to 
``treating'' chemicals (not include housekeeping, etc. chemical 
wastes.)
    Response: MMS agrees to delete ``annual or monthly.'' MMS made no 
change with regard to projected waste `` MMS may want to require 
information regarding other projected wastes. MMS requires the 
information for NEPA and CZMA purposes.

Section 250.217(e) Projected cooling water intake.

    Comment: OOC requests that this requirement be removed from the 
regulation. This is premature since the Environmental Protection Agency 
has not adopted final regulations pertaining to cooling water intake 
structures used for exploratory activities.
    Response: MMS included information collection requirements for 
cooling water intake structures to more fully comply with the NEPA, its 
implementing regulations issued by the CEQ at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 
1508, and policies of DOI and MMS. According to NEPA requirements, MMS 
must prepare an EA in connection with its review of plans for 
activities on the OCS. The contents of plans must be sufficient to 
support a sound analysis of potential environmental impacts that may 
result from the proposed activity. As required by NEPA, if the EA 
concludes that significant impacts will result from the proposed 
activity, MMS will prepare an EIS.
    MMS does not agree with the commentor that this action is 
premature; MMS's responsibilities under NEPA are independent of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Sec.  
316(b) rulemaking on cooling water intake structures. As previously 
stated, MMS is required by NEPA to assess potential environmental 
impacts that may result from the proposed activity.
    See https://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/ for more 
information on EPA's CWA Sec.  316(b) rulemakings.

Section 250.218(a) Projected emissions.

    Comment: Ms. Peeler states that MMS should require planning 
documents to address greenhouse gases and establish a monitoring system 
to assure greenhouse gas emission levels are not exceeded.
    Response: No change. The Clean Air Act (CAA) does not address 
greenhouse gas emissions. Neither MMS nor the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) presently has the authority to require limits on 
greenhouse gas emissions from specific projects.

[[Page 51486]]

    Comment: Ms. Peeler requests establishing an emission/discharge 
trading program.
    Response: No change. Emission offsets are covered under Sec.  
250.303(i).
    Comment: OOC notes that emission factors (EF) for PM10 
and PM2.5 based upon natural gas fired units measured by 
conventional EPA methods are probably high by a factor of 10-50 based 
upon recent DOE/API studies. Current MMS-138 and MMS-139 forms use an 
EF of 7.6 lbs of PM (Total) per 10\6\ scf. (AP-42, Table 1.4-2, July 
1998). It is assumed that all the PM is less than 1.0 microns in 
diameter. Why speciate PM when EF are of such poor quality?
    Response: Since the Breton Offshore Activities Data System (BOADS) 
study and EPA's AP-42 document use 7.6 pounds per million cubic feet 
(MMCF), MMS will maintain this value. MMS will revise the emission 
factors once official updated values are available.

Section 250.218(b) Emission reduction measures.

    Comment: Ms. Peeler makes reference to 43 U.S.C. 1347(b) and best 
available and safest technology (BAST).
    Response: No change. Sections 250.107(c) and (d) implement this 
requirement.

Section 250.219(a) Oil spill response planning.

    Comment: With respect to paragraph (a)(2)(iii), since Oil Spill 
Removal Organizations (OSROs) are included in the regional Oil Spill 
Response Plan (OSRP), OOC asks why they have to be named in each EP. 
With respect to paragraph (a)(2)(iv), OOC inquires regarding the 
purpose of providing a comparison between the site specific worst case 
discharge and that in the regional OSRP.
    Response: No change. The information required under paragraph 
(a)(2)(iii) is necessary for all States to use in their CZMA 
consistency reviews. MMS uses the information required under paragraph 
(a)(2)(iv) as a streamlined means to ensure compliance with 
requirements of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90).

Section 250.221(a) Monitoring systems.

    Comment: OOC assumes that this does not include wind, temperature, 
etc. that are commonly monitored on an informal basis.
    Response: No change. A monitoring plan might include this type of 
information.

Section 250.221(b) Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary.

    Comment: For clarity and completeness, OOC recommends that this 
language be moved to Sec.  250.219(c).
    Response: No change. This is not spill information, it is 
monitoring information.
    Comment: OOC requests modification to ``a description of your 
provisions for monitoring the impacts of an oil spill on the 
environmentally sensitive resources at the Flower Garden Banks National 
Marine Sanctuary.''
    Response: MMS agrees and has reworded for clarity.

Section 250.223 What mitigation measures information must accompany the 
EP?

    Comment: OOC notes that the language used seems to indicate that 
such measures will be utilized. They suggest the following language: 
``If you propose to use any measures beyond those required by the 
regulations in this part to minimize or mitigate environmental impacts 
from your proposed exploration activities, provide a description of the 
measures you will use in your EP.''
    Response: MMS agrees and used the recommended language.

Section 250.224(a) General.

    Comment: OOC requests clarification of the term ``offshore 
vehicle.''
    Response: An offshore vehicle is a vehicle that is capable of being 
driven on ice. See definition.

Section 250.224(b) Air emissions.

    Comment: For clarity and completeness, OOC recommends that this 
requirement be moved to the air emission section in Sec.  250.218.
    Response: No change. The regulations are organized in a manner that 
addresses air emissions based on source. There is no single section 
that includes all air information requirements.

Section 250.224(c) Drilling fluids and chemical products 
transportation.

    Comment: OOC would like this requirement to be specifically 
eliminated for the Western and Central GOM.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR. According to the NTL, this information is not required to 
accompany EPs in the Western and Central Planning Areas of the GOMR.

Section 250.224(d) Solid and liquid wastes transportation.

    Comment: OOC asks for the purpose of giving the reason for 
transportation, because these are already classified as wastes.
    Response: MMS agrees and deleted ``the reason for transportation.''
    Comment: OOC asks whether the destination being requested is the 
shore base or the ``final'' disposal, reuse, or recycling location. OOC 
suggests that the destination being requested be considered the shore 
base. In many instances, the ``final'' destination is not known, 
particularly for trash that is placed in a common bin at the shore 
base.
    Response: No change. The final destination is the place where the 
operator transfers the waste to an entity that will receive, reuse, 
recycle, or dispose of the waste.
    Comment: OOC notes that the composition and quantities are 
estimates only and based on typical estimates from similar drilling 
operations. Also, the destination of the waste is based on pre-planning 
only and may change during the actual activities conducted under the 
EP.
    Response: MMS concurs that these are estimates.
    Comment: OOC states that given that this information is based on 
typical wastes and disposal for similar operations, it fails to see the 
necessity of providing the information in each plan. Of equal or more 
value could be a waste management study across industry for various 
activities.
    Response: If such an industry-wide waste management study is 
completed, it may be referenced under Sec.  250.201(d).

Section 250.224(e) Vicinity map.

    Comment: OOC suggests adding the word ``primary'' before 
``routes.'' In many cases, an alternate route may be taken depending on 
environmental conditions, visiting multiple platforms, etc.
    Response: MMS agrees and made the appropriate change.

Section 250.225(a) General.

    Comment: Florida requests additional language regarding onshore 
facilities.
    Response: MMS agrees and added additional language as follows: 
Describe any State or Federal permits or approvals (dredging, filling, 
etc.) that would be required for constructing or expanding them.

Section 250.225(b) Air emissions.

    Comment: OOC requests that EPs in areas westward of 87[deg]30'W 
longitude in

[[Page 51487]]

the GOM be specifically excluded from this requirement.
    Response: No change to the rule. The rule applies to all Regions 
and the commenter is requesting this change only in the GOMR. The 
accompanying NTL does make the change requested with respect to the 
GOMR. According to the NTL, this information is not required to 
accompany any EPs in the GOMR.

Section 250.225(c) Unusual solid and liquid wastes.

    Comment: Florida requests a definition