Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27419 

Property Number: 15201320011 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 2,112 sf.; 

barracks; 60 months vacant; very poor 

conditions; need major repairs; rodents w/ 

Hanta virus presence 

Laufman Warehouse 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320012 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 1,836 sf.; 

storage; 60 months vacant; lead-based 

paint; very poor conditions; unidentified 

chemical spills; rodents w/Hanta virus 

presence 

Laufman Fuelwood Storage 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320013 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 176 sf.; storage; 

dilapidated; 60 months vacant; major 

repairs needed; rodents w/Hanta virus 

presence 

Laupman Timber Office 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320014 

Status: Excess 

Comments: Off-site removal; 1,028 sf.; office; 

60 months vacant; deteriorated; no roof; 

repairs a must; rodents w/Hanta virus 

presence 

Shed 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320015 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 80 sf.; shed; 120 

months vacant; very poor conditions; 

rodents w/Hanta virus presence 

Laufman Fire Office 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320016 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 700 sf.; storage; 

60 months vacant; very poor conditions; 

lead-based paint; repairs a must; rodents 

w/Hanta virus presence 

Laufman Silvilcultupe 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320017 

Status: Excess 

Comments: Off-site removal; 1,478 sf.; 60 

months vacant; very poor conditions; 

repairs a must; rodents w/Hanta virus 

presence 

Laufman Upper Pumphouse 

446525 Milford Grade Rd. 

Milford CA 96121 

Landholding Agency: Agriculture 

Property Number: 15201320019 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Off-site removal; 96 sf.; utility; 60 

months vacant; very poor conditions; 

rodents w/Hanta virus presence 

Unsuitable Properties 

Building 

Ohio 

2 Buildings 

Glenn Research Center 

Rye Beach Island OH 44839 

Landholding Agency: NASA 

Property Number: 71201320001 

Status: Unutilized 

Directions: Facilities 8132 and 8170 

Comments: w/in secured area; public access 

denied & no alternative method to gain 

access without compromising nat’l security 

Reasons: Secured Area 

Tennessee 

U.S. Coast Guard Paris Landing 

700 Coast Guard Rd. 

Buchanan TN 38222 

Landholding Agency: Coast Guard 

Property Number: 88201320003 

Status: Excess 

Comments: Public access denied & no 

alternative method to gain access w/out 

compromising nat’l security 

Reasons: Secured Area 

[FR Doc. 2013–10865 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

[13XE1700DX EEEE600000 

EX1SF0000.DSA000] 

Final Safety Culture Policy Statement 

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 

issues this Final Statement of Policy to 

announce its expectation that 

individuals and organizations 

performing or overseeing activities 

regulated by BSEE establish and 

maintain a positive safety culture 

commensurate with the significance of 

their activities and the nature and 

complexity of their organizations and 

functions. The BSEE defines safety 

culture as the core values and behaviors 

of all members of an organization that 

reflect a commitment to conducting 

business in a safe and environmentally 

responsible manner. Further, it is 

important for all lessees, the owners or 

holders of operating rights, designated 

operators or agents of the lessee(s), 

pipeline right-of-way holders, State 

lessees granted a right-of-use and 

easement, and contractors to foster in 

personnel an appreciation for the 

importance of safety and environmental 

stewardship, emphasizing the need for 

their integration into performance 

objectives to achieve optimal protection 

and production. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Keith Petka, Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems Branch at (703) 

787–1736, or by email at 

SEMS@bsee.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 20, 2012, BSEE 

published a Notice in the Federal 

Register requesting comments on its 

Draft Statement of Policy announcing 

the expectation that individuals and 

organizations performing or overseeing 

activities regulated by BSEE establish 

and maintain a positive safety culture 

commensurate with the significance of 

their activities and the nature and 

complexity of their organizations and 

functions [77 FR 75443]. The comment 

period for this notice closed on March 

20, 2013. 

II. Summary of Comments on Draft 

Safety Culture Policy Statement 

In response to the Federal Register 

notice, BSEE received 32 sets of 

comments from oil and gas companies 

(operators and contractors), industry 

associations, environmental 

organizations, and individuals. In the 

following section, we address the 

general comments by topic and discuss 

any changes made to the Policy 

Statement based on these comments. 

Comments that are not related to the 

notice or that are outside the scope of 

the policy statement are not addressed. 

All of the comments BSEE received are 

posted on www.regulations.gov, under 

docket number BSEE–2012–0017. 

Comments by Topic 

Support for BSEE’s Issuance of Draft 

Safety Culture Policy Statement 

A majority of commenters approved 

of BSEE’s publication of the draft safety 

culture policy statement and identified 

it as an important starting point to 

initiate substantial discussions focused 

on improving the safety culture on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

Nine Safety Culture Characteristics 

The majority of commenters 

expressed agreement with the nine 

characteristics of safety culture that 

BSEE listed in the policy statement. 

Some commenters recommended 

modifications to the safety culture 

characteristics, such as the need for 

equipment control and integrity. In 

response to these comments, BSEE has 

altered the title of characteristic two 

from ‘‘Problem Identification and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27420 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 

Resolution’’ to ‘‘Hazard Identification 

and Risk Management’’ and 

acknowledged equipment control in 

characteristic four. The BSEE feels that 

these changes better align with the 

common vocabulary used on the OCS 

for identifying potential safety issues as 

well as concentrating on the inherent 

risk in oil and gas activities. A positive 

safety culture would focus on 

continuously appraising hazards during 

the various exploration and production 

activities while adequately directing 

resources to the highest risks in order to 

best enhance safety. 

Other commenters suggested adding 

new characteristics such as 

implementation, measurement and 

evaluation, and reward and recognition. 

The BSEE believes these are valuable 

ideas, but are too specific for inclusion 

in this policy statement. It is not BSEE’s 

intention to mandate safety culture 

requirements. The ultimate goal for 

releasing this policy statement is to 

outline the critical traits that are present 

in a positive safety culture while 

initiating a constructive dialogue on 

how regulators, industries, and the 

public can collaborate on improving the 

overall safety on the OCS. However, we 

will consider utilizing these concepts as 

we plan future strategies outside of this 

policy statement. 

Safety Versus Production 

Many commenters noted that the 

policy statement appears to subordinate 

safety to production. Most of the 

commenters who commented on this 

issue pointed out that safety and 

production are often viewed as being in 

competition with each other. All of 

those who commented on this issue 

emphasized the need to clarify that 

safety should not be secondary to 

production. 

The BSEE agrees with these 

comments and has altered the policy 

statement to read, ‘‘Each and every 

person involved in the wide range of 

activities associated with the offshore 

oil and gas program should emphasize 

the need to integrate safety and 

environmental stewardship into 

personal, company, and government 

performance objectives.’’ 

Prescription of Safety Culture 

Many commenters requested that 

BSEE refrain from mandating the 

adoption of a safety culture and that the 

policy statement not be too prescriptive. 

The commenters cited the need for 

flexibility in the adoption of safety 

culture and expressed the concern that 

the very act of mandating or prescribing 

safety culture activities would 

counteract the cultural assimilation that 

the safety culture statement intends to 

advance. It is not BSEE’s intention to 

mandate safety culture requirements. 

The BSEE believes this would be 

counterproductive to building a positive 

safety culture; therefore, we are not 

prescribing a safety culture policy. 

Differences Between Occupational and 

Process Safety 

Many commenters stated that the 

policy statement should acknowledge a 

difference between occupational and 

process safety. Some commenters noted 

that the measures taken to advance 

occupational and process safety each are 

different: Occupational safety focuses 

primarily on behaviors while process 

safety focuses on management 

framework and better involves 

organization leaders. One commenter 

stated that occupational safety efforts 

concentrate on individual worker 

actions while process safety efforts 

concentrate on preventing high 

consequence, low likelihood events 

through engineering design. 

A number of commenters expressed 

concern that the broad direction to 

adopt a safety culture is often translated 

into pressure on workers to avoid 

injuries. According to the commenters, 

this would occur without a concomitant 

requirement for a safety culture 

commitment throughout all levels of the 

organization. 

The BSEE agrees with the comments 

that there is a difference between 

process safety and occupational safety. 

In an effort to involve all types of safety 

and all organization personnel, the 

definition of safety culture and several 

parts of the statement have been edited 

to better encompass all roles in an 

organization, and characteristic three 

has therefore been edited to read, ‘‘All 

individuals take personal responsibility 

for process and personal safety as well 

as environmental stewardship.’’ 

Lack of Environmental Awareness 

Several commenters stated that the 

policy statement does not adequately 

present the need for OCS organizations 

to focus on both safety and 

environmental issues. One commenter 

described the link between 

environmental safety and process safety 

that is vital to the OCS safety culture. 

Another commenter indicated that the 

statement ‘‘must clearly and 

consistently emphasize the importance 

of environmental health and safety in 

addition to human safety.’’ 

The BSEE agrees that environmental 

protection plays a significant role in the 

activities on the OCS and we have 

edited the policy statement to reflect 

this importance. 

Learn From Others 

A number of commenters stated that 

other organizations and Federal 

agencies have already led safety culture 

transformations and encouraged BSEE 

to study their experiences. The BSEE 

appreciates this suggestion and is 

currently working to develop 

information sessions and workshops 

with various organizations that have 

had extensive experience with safety 

culture in comparable industries (e.g., 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Petroleum Safety Authority Norway, 

etc.). 

Stop Work Authority 

Many commenters encouraged the use 

of the stop work authority. They 

emphasized that stop work authority 

could be used as a tool for workers to 

use in preventing accidents and as a 

safety cultural assimilation method. 

Several of those commenters who 

advocated special mention of stop work 

authority within the policy statement 

noted that while it deserves emphasis, 

it also needs to be carefully described in 

order to prevent misuse. According to 

the commenters, if the stop work 

authority were improperly applied or 

guided, it could exacerbate already 

deteriorating conditions. 

On April 5, 2013, the final rule 

‘‘Revisions to Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems’’ was published in 

the Federal Register [78 FR 20423]. This 

rule mandates that all operators 

implement stop work authority on all 

OCS activities regulated by BSEE. 

Therefore, BSEE is not making any 

changes to the policy statement with 

regard to stop work authority. 

Further Involvement 

Many commenters noted that BSEE 

should continue the dialogue on the 

topic of a safety culture policy 

statement. The majority of these 

comments contained recommendations 

that BSEE provide further details about 

safety culture in a future guidance 

document. Other commenters stated 

that BSEE should engage in an ongoing 

dialogue with stakeholders to discuss 

safety culture so that continued progress 

could be made. 

Through public comments and 

industry input, BSEE has identified 

several tools that can effectively 

encourage a positive safety culture on 

the OCS. These include: 

1. Forums and workshops with 

industry and other agencies to discuss 

safety culture initiatives; 

2. Establishing a research program 

that can identify safety areas in need of 

improvement; or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2013 / Notices 27421 

3. Writing guidance documents that 

describe best practices and case studies 

for safety culture advancement. 

The BSEE is currently exploring these 

options and will look towards further 

collaboration with industry and the 

public. 

III. Statement of Policy 

The BSEE defines safety culture as the 

core values and behaviors of all 

members of an organization that reflect 

a commitment to conduct business in a 

manner that protects people and the 

environment. 

It is necessary for everyone 

participating in the exploration, 

development, and production of 

offshore oil and gas—from a contract 

service provider, to the leaseholder, to 

the government regulator—to realize the 

importance of a culture that promotes 

safety and environmental stewardship 

to a vigorous and respected offshore 

energy industry. Each and every person 

involved in the wide range of activities 

associated with the offshore oil and gas 

program should emphasize the need to 

integrate safety and environmental 

stewardship into personal, company, 

and government performance objectives. 

Continued improvement in safety and 

environmental protection will 

demonstrate to the American public that 

access to the valuable offshore energy 

resources can be accomplished while 

respecting the environment and 

protecting the offshore workers. 

Experience has shown that certain 

personal and organizational 

characteristics are present in a culture 

that promotes safety and environmental 

responsibility. A characteristic, in this 

case, is a pattern of thinking, feeling, 

and behaving that emphasizes safety, 

particularly in situations that may have 

conflicting goals (e.g., production, 

schedule, and the cost of the effort 

versus safety and environmental 

protection). 

The following are some of the 

characteristics that typify a robust safety 

culture: 

1. Leadership Commitment to Safety 

Values and Actions. Leaders 

demonstrate a commitment to safety and 

environmental stewardship in their 

decisions and behaviors; 

2. Hazard Identification and Risk 

Management. Issues potentially 

impacting safety and environmental 

stewardship are promptly identified, 

fully evaluated, and promptly addressed 

or corrected commensurate with their 

significance; 

3. Personal Accountability. All 

individuals take personal responsibility 

for process and personal safety, as well 

as environmental stewardship; 

4. Work Processes. The process of 

planning and controlling work activities 

is implemented so that safety and 

environmental stewardship are 

maintained while ensuring the correct 

equipment for the correct work; 

5. Continuous Improvement. 

Opportunities to learn about ways to 

ensure safety and environmental 

stewardship are sought out and 

implemented; 

6. Environment for Raising Concerns. 

A work environment is maintained 

where personnel feel free to raise safety 

and environmental concerns without 

fear of retaliation, intimidation, 

harassment, or discrimination; 

7. Effective Safety and Environmental 

Communication. Communications 

maintain a focus on safety and 

environmental stewardship; 

8. Respectful Work Environment. 

Trust and respect permeate the 

Organization with a focus on teamwork 

and collaboration; and 

9. Inquiring Attitude. Individuals 

avoid complacency and continuously 

consider and review existing conditions 

and activities in order to identify 

discrepancies that might result in error 

or inappropriate action. 

Although there are additional traits 

that amplify or extend these basic 

characteristics, these nine 

characteristics are foundational to the 

development of an effective and 

functioning safety culture that 

recognizes the need to protect people 

and the environment first and foremost. 

Dated: May 2, 2013. 

James A. Watson, 

Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11117 Filed 5–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–ES–2013–N106; 

FXES1112040000–134–FF04EF2000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Receipt of Application for 

Incidental Take Permit; Availability of 

Proposed Low-Effect Habitat 

Conservation Plan and Associated 

Documents; Polk County, FL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comment/information. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of an incidental take permit 

(ITP) application and a Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP). Vulcan 

Materials Company, Florida Rock 

Divisions (dba Florida Rock Industries, 

Inc. a subsidiary of Vulcan Materials 

Company) (applicant), requests an ITP 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). The applicant’s 

HCP describes the minimization and 

mitigation measures proposed to 

address the effects of the project on the 

sand skink and gopher tortoise. We 

invite written comments on the ITP 

application and HCP. 

DATES: Written comments on the ITP 

application and HCP should be sent to 

the South Florida Ecological Services 

Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be 

received on or before June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below for 

information on how to submit your 

comments on the ITP application and 

HCP. You may obtain a copy of the ITP 

application and HCP by writing the 

South Florida Ecological Services 

Office, Attn: Permit number 

TE01724B–0, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, 

FL 32960–3559. In addition, we will 

make the ITP application and HCP 

available for public inspection by 

appointment during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Brian Powell, Wildlife Biologist, South 

Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero 

Beach, Florida (see ADDRESSES); 

telephone: 772–562–3909, extension 

315. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

announce the availability of an ITP 

application and HCP. Vulcan Materials 

Company, Florida Rock Divisions (dba 

Florida Rock Industries, Inc., a 

subsidiary of Vulcan Materials 

Company) (applicant), requests an ITP 

under the Act. The applicant proposes 

incremental mining of sand reserves 

throughout the permitted mining limits 

of the approximately 488.35-acre project 

area over the life of the mine. 

The site has been divided into five 

phases, based on the anticipated 

progression of the mining operation. 

Within Phase I, the applicant anticipates 

taking about 6.72 acres of breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering habitat for the 

sand skink (Neopseps reynoldsi), 

bluetail mole skink (Eumeces egregius 

lividus), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus 

polyphemus), incidental to land 

preparation for the expansion of existing 

sand mining operations located in Polk 

County, Florida (project). The extent of 

direct impacts in future phases is 

currently undetermined; however, based 

on the current USFWS guidelines, 

within Phases II, III, and IV, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES