as to worker's safety. Others opposed any agency other than Coast Guard being involved.

Representatives of Coast Guard and OSHA detailed to the committee their cooperative efforts to promulgate and enforce worker's safety rules. For example, Coast Guard and OSHA have recently worked together to prepare final standards on commercial diving operations, applicable to OCS and non-OCS activities. 41 Fed. Reg. 37650-37674 (July 22, 1977). These standards were formally promulgated by the Department of Labor.

As a practical matter, both OSHA and the Coast Guard will continue to function on the OCS. OSHA has prepared not only divers standards but also numerous general industry and construction standards currently in force in the OCS. OSHA and the Coast Guard have each trained diving inspectors. OSHA will maintain responsibility for health standards, even if final safety standards are promulgated by Coast Guard. OSHA administers a compresensive health and safety law which establishes a "general duty" to maintain a safe place of work and there is no corresponding responsibility under Coast Guard enabling legislation. OSHA will always be in the position of filling in the gaps in the regulatory effort of the Coast Guard.

Subsection (c) (2) intended to avoid possible interagency conflict and duplication of effort. Specifically, by overruling the "ousting language" of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA and Coast Guard are to coordinate activity to prepare and enforce regulations so as to avoid duplication and maximize employee protection. Without such a provision, duplication and conflict might occur.

For example as to diving operations, Coast Guard could by existing law regulate safety and OSHA health; yet as a practical matter, in the field, health and safety often merge in a single operation. Similarly under existing law, Coast Guard would protect the safety of divers below the surface and OSHA protect the deck crew.

The committee believed that the best way to resolve this problem is not the status quo which has led to confusion, litigation and employee resistance. Rather it is to give clear direction to the administration to develop interagency cooperative arrangements and resolve all jurisdictional conflicts. Thus, this subsection was included, not giving lead agency responsibility to OSHA, not infringing on Coast Guard jurisdiction, but providing authority for both to work together.

Regulations for hazardous working conditions

At its hearings, the committee learned of a particular problem concerning the safety of divers in the waters above the Outer Continental Shelf. Until very recently, there were no regulations or standards applying to such diving activities. Although as discussed above, diver standards have now been promulgated, the committee is concerned that there might be other areas involving safety that are unregulated. Paragraph 1 of subsection (c) of this section requires that within 60 days after enactment of the 1977 amendments, interim regulations are to be prepared by the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, as to unregulated hazardous working conditions on the Shelf. It is the intention of the committee that the Secretary of Labor use the Occupational Safety and Health Adminis

tration, and its Administrator, within his Department, to promulgate such regulations, and that the Administrator consult with the Secretary of the Interior, and the Coast Guard, in developing such regulations. These regulations are to remain in effect until final ones are promulgated, but, of course, can be modified from time to time as

necessary.

Best technology required

The committee, during its visits to off-shore facilities, was impressed by the continuing ability of industry and others to develop newer and safer equipment. Subsection (b) mandates that regulations under this section are to require if practicable, such updated equipment. Therefore, on all new drilling and production operations, the best available and safest technology economically achievable is to be required. Because of the impracticability of requiring the newest equipment on existing facilities, the best available and safest technology is to be required on existing operations wherever practicable. A balancing of danger and costs is required. The focus of this provision is to require that operations in the Outer Continental Shelf on leases are to be the safest possible. The regulator is to balance the significance of the procedure or piece of equipment on safety. If adoption of new techniques or equipment would significantly increase safety, and would not be an undue economic hardship on the lessee or permittee, he is to require it. In determining whether an undue economic hardship is involved, the regulator is to weigh incremental benefits against incremental costs. If the incremental benefits are clearly insufficient when compared to the incremental costs, the new technique, procedure or equipment is not to be required. Finally, the committee is aware that there may be several technologies as to a particular activity. In applying the "best available and safest" standard, the regulator is to evaluate the several options, and more than one might be appropriate. "Best" and "safest", in other words, apply to the technology and may include several alternative techniques, pieces of equipment or practices-any of which might be acceptable.

Section 22.-Enforcement

This section is intended to provide mechanisms and procedures for the enforcement of regulations issued pursuant to the provisions of this Act. Failure to comply with any provision of the Act, any implementing regulation, or terms of a lease or permit included because of the Act or regulations, would subject the violators to civil or criminal penalties under section 24 of the 1977 amendments.

Subsection 22(a) requires strict enforcement of OCS safety and environmental regulations. In addition, in accord with the committee's desire, indicated throughout the 1977 amendments, to provide for coordinated activity, this subsection authorizes services, personnel, and facilities of any agency with enforcement authority to be used by any other agency with such authority in a cooperative joint mannerso as to avoid costly duplication.

To provide for strict enforcement, subsection 22(b) provides that lessees or permittees are to allow access to any inspector promptly, and to provide any requested documents and records that are pertinent to occupational and public health, safety, or environmental protection.

In addition, compliance with the Act, applicable regulations, and the terms of the lease, is required by all those responsible for actual operations. Thus, a lessee or permittee is also made responsible for the maintenance of safeguards for all employees, including those of any employee, contractor, or subcontractor utilized by the lessee or permittee.

To insure regular inspection, regulations are to be promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, either individually or jointly if they so agree, to provide for at least annual physical observation of all installations, testing of all safety equipment and surprise visits at least once a year.

Investigations

The committee was concerned with the lack of information concerning accidents as a result of activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. While presently the Interior and the Coast Guard have the authority and responsibility to investigate all such accidents, whether or not they result in the loss of life, this permissive authority was not, in the committee's opinion, adequately implemented. Subsection (d) (1) requires the Secretary of Interior or the Coast Guard to investigate and make a public report on every major fire and major oil spill occurring as a result of operations conducted pursuant to this Act. In addition, the Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Labor, through his Occupational Safety and Health Administrator, is to make an investigation or report on any death or serious injury occurring as a result of operations conducted pursuant to this Act. These agencies are also given permission to investigate any other accident.

As it is possible, and perhaps even probable that a major fire or major oil spill might also involve serious bodily injury or death, there may be instances where more than one agency under this Act or other acts will seek to conduct investigations. It is the intention of the committee that the responsible agencies will act in a cooperative and joint fashion. Specifically, the agencies may utilize the services, personnel and facilities of each other, or of any other Federal agency.

Subsection 22(e) requires that the Secretary of the Interior or as to worker's safety and health, the Secretary of Labor (intended to be operating through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), consider any allegation of any person of the existence of a violation of any safety regulations and respond to such allegation within 90 days, stating whether or not such alleged violation exists, and if so, what action has been or will be taken. Full authority to conduct such an investigation is granted, with the power to summon witnesses, and to require production of evidence. Under subsection 22(g), a report on the allegations is to be included by the Secretary of the Interior in his annual report.

These provisions are designed to allow any interested person, including a union official, a subcontractor or lawyer, or a local or State governmental official, who believes safety regulations are being violated, to trigger an investigation. In most cases, this form of involvement would be more effective than, and hopefully eliminate the need for, legal action.

Section 23.-Citizens' Suits, Court Jurisdiction, and Judicial Review Section 23 details the procedures by which citizens, including lessees, or permittees, employees, local and state governmental officials, and others, can participate in the enforcement of the Act. Review of certain types of actions are through administrative proceedings, followed by an appeal in a court of appeals. Review of other actions are by suits in a district court.

Citizens suits

Subsection 23(a) provides for citizens' suits against any person including any governmental agency (including the Department of Interior or other agencies or departments with regulatory or enforcement authority as to OCS activities), alleged to be in violation of the Act, applicable regulations, or the terms of any lease or permit issued under the Act.

This subsection provides that suits may be brought by "any person having a valid legal interest which is or may be adversely affected." Thus, the scope of persons who can sue are those who can show an actual interest that is being negatively affected, or will be negatively affected at a reasonable time in the future. The interest must be discernible and ascertainable. Standing to sue includes not only those who have an economic interest, or who have suffered or will probably suffer a tortuous injury, but also those who may have a definable aesthetic or environmental interest. Specifically, the Committee intends that this includes persons who meet the requirement for standing to sue set out by the Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

No such citizens suit action may bé commenced until 60 days after written notice, under oath, of the alleged violation to the alleged violator, to the Secretary and any other appropriate Federal official and to the State where the alleged violation occurred.

If the Secretary or other official, or the Attorney General, begins and diligently prosecutes an action against the violator, no court action could take place on the citizen's suit, but the complainant would have the right to intervene. This 60-day waiting period does not apply when the violation of failure to act involves an imminent threat to the public health or safety or would immediately affect the legal interest of the plaintiff. If any action is commenced by a citizen, pursuant to this section, the Secretary, any other appropriate Federal official, or the Attorney General, if not already a party, can intervene as a matter of right on either side.

This provision for notice, and a waiting period, is designed to give the Secretary or any other appropriate Federal official, the Attorney General, and the alleged violator, an opportunity to promptly stop any violation, and thus limit, or eliminate the need for any court action.

As detailed in paragraph (6) of subsection 23(a), this citizen suits provision ordinarily provides the exclusive method to challenge OCS decisions, enforcement or violations. Legal remedies or relief under any other act or the common law would not be affected. Thus, any statutory procedure or remedy provided in other Federal statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Deepwater Ports Act, the Clean Air Act, or the Fish and Wildlife Act, or under an applicable State law are not precluded.

Of course, it is possible that an act or activity is alleged to be a violation of this Act or another. A challenge as to the act or activity could then be brought either under this statute or the other appropriate statute or both. It is intended, however, that this section, patterned on provisions in most other related statutes, would lead to a unitary court action-where all challenges are raised, under one or more statutes. Thus, for example, a challenge to a lease sale decision would be brought under this subsection. A challenge as to alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in the setting of that lease sale could be brought under this subsection or under the applicable procedures of N.E.P.A. One court action could, under this section, deal with both claims.

The only exception to the application of this subsection is detailed in subsection (c). Under that subsection, the establishment of a leasing program, or the approval, modification, or disapproval of an exploration plan or of a development and production plan, are to be litigated in administrative proceedings and then reviewed in a court of appeals. They would not be subject to citizens' suits in a district court under subsection (a).

Jurisdiction

Subsection 23(b) reincorporates the jurisdictional provisions previously found in section 4(b) of the OCS Lands Act of 1953. Citizens' suits, or other cases or controversies arising out of any activity conducted on the Shelf, including cancellation, suspension or termination of a lease or permit, or the rights to natural resources (as, for example, between the State and the Federal Government), are to be brought to the U.S. district court in which the defendant resides or can be found, or in a judicial district of the state nearest to the place at which the controversy arose. Whether the proceeding is for an original hearing as in the case of a dispute between the state and federal government over resources, under subsection 8(b), or for appellate-like review, as in the case of an environmental cancellation, is determined by the nature of the case or controversy and the provisions of this Act.

Judicial review

Subsection 23 (c) provides a different procedure for challenges to certain kinds of decisions by the Secretary of the Interior. Review of a leasing program, an exploration plan, or a development and production plan, can be based on the written document itself. Moreover, specific mandates are given to the Secretary of the Interior to make proposals or drafts of these documents available and to consider the opinions of affected persons. Thus, unlike a lease sale determination covered by the citizens' suit provision, if appropriate administrative proceedings are undertaken, there is a less of a need to create a record at a trial court, and thus review in a court of appeals would not only be sufficient, but also appropriate, as being able to reduce litigation. Any person "adversely affected or aggrieved" by action on the program or plans, as that term is described in the discussion on subsection (a), who has participated in administrative proceedings leading to those actions, can petition for review. The committee noted that review of a leasing program would involve consideration of various regional interests and problems, and a determination as to propriety