Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20423 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

identified with RIN 2700–AD82 and 

may be sent to NASA via the Federal ERulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please note that NASA will post all 

comments on the Internet with changes, 

including any personal information 

provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nanette Jennings, (202) 358–0819. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Direct Final Rule Adverse Comments 

NASA has determined this 

rulemaking meets the criteria for a 

direct final rule because it involves 

nonsubstantive changes to correct 

citations. No opposition to the changes 

and no significant adverse comments 

are expected. However, if the Agency 

receives a significant adverse comment, 

it will withdraw this direct final rule by 

publishing a notice in the Federal 

Register. A significant adverse comment 

is one that explains: (1) Why the direct 

final rule is inappropriate, including 

challenges to the rule’s underlying 

premise or approach; or (2) why the 

direct final rule will be ineffective or 

unacceptable without a change. In 

determining whether a comment 

necessitates withdrawal of this direct 

final rule, NASA will consider whether 

it warrants a substantive response in a 

notice and comment process. 

Background 

The Board, established on May 15, 

1961, is authorized to act for and 

exercise the authority of the 

Administrator in cases involving 

requests for extraordinary contractual 

adjustments under the Act of August 28, 

1958 (50 U.S.C. 1431–35), is continued 

in effect by this regulation. Subpart 3 

was promulgated to consider and 

dispose of requests for extraordinary 

contractual adjustments by contractors 

of NASA. The Board references an 

obsolete internal NASA policy (NASA 

Management Instruction (NMI) 1152.5) 

that was cancelled September 30, 1994, 

because it was considered to be a 

duplication of this regulation. 

Therefore, it should no longer be 

referenced in the regulation. 

Statutory Authority 

The National Aeronautics and Space 

Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113(a), 

authorizes the Administrator of NASA 

to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and 

amend rules and regulations governing 

the manner of its operations and the 

exercise of the powers vested in it by 

law. 

Regulatory Analysis 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563, Improvement Regulation 

and Regulation Review 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). EO 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has been 

designated as ‘‘not significant’’ under 

section 3(f) of EO 12866. 

Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis to be published at the time the 

proposed rule is published. This 

requirement does not apply if the 

agency ‘‘certifies that the rule will not, 

if promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities’’ (5 U.S.C. 603). 

This rule removes an obsolete citation 

referenced in 14 CFR part 3 and, 

therefore, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This direct final rule does not contain 

any information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Review Under EO 13132, Federalism 

EO 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 

(August 4, 1999) requires regulations be 

reviewed for Federalism effects on the 

institutional interest of states and local 

governments, and if the effects are 

sufficiently substantial, preparation of 

the Federal assessment is required to 

assist senior policy makers. The 

amendments will not have any 

substantial direct effects on State and 

local Governments within the meaning 

of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism 

assessment is required. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 1209 

Government contracts. 

Accordingly, 14 CFR part 1209, 

subpart 3 is revised as follows: 

PART 1209—BOARDS AND 

COMMITTEES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1209 

subpart 3 is revised as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 85–804 and 51 U.S.C. 

20113. 

§ 1209.302 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 1209.302, remove the words 

‘‘NASA Management Instruction (NMI) 

1152.5 and’’. 

Charles F. Bolden, Jr., 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07962 Filed 4–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 250 

[Docket ID: BSEE–2012–0011] 

RIN 1014–AA04 

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in 

the Outer Continental Shelf—Revisions 

to Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems 

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE); 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule will revise and 

add several new requirements to 

regulations for Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems 

(SEMS). These requirements pertain to 

developing and implementing stop work 

authority (SWA) and ultimate work 

authority (UWA), requiring an employee 

participation plan (EPP), and 

establishing guidelines for reporting 

unsafe working conditions. The rule 

establishes additional requirements for 

conducting job safety analyses (JSA) for 

activities identified in an operator’s 

SEMS program. In addition, this final 

rule requires that SEMS programs be 

audited by an accredited audit service 

provider (ASP). This rulemaking will 

further support BSEE’s efforts to reduce 

the occurrence of accidents, injuries, 

and spills during oil and gas activities 

on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

June 4, 2013. You must comply with the 

provisions of this rule on or before June 

4, 2014, except the auditing 

requirements under § 250.1920. You 

must be in compliance with § 250.1920 

by June 5, 2015. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20424 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of June 4, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Petka, Office of Offshore 

Regulatory Programs, (703) 787–1736 or 

email sems@bsee.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

When Congress enacted the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) 

(43 U.S.C. 1332(6)), it declared that it is 

the policy of the United States to assure 

that operations on the OCS are 

conducted: 

• Safely by well-trained personnel; 

and 

• Using technology, precautions, and 

techniques sufficient to prevent or 

minimize the likelihood of: 

Æ blowouts, loss of well control, fires, 

or spillage, physical obstruction to other 

users of the waters or subsoil and 

seabed; 

Æ occurrences that may cause damage 

to the environment or to property; and 

Æ occurrences that endanger life or 

health. 

Final regulations implementing a 

SEMS program were published on 

October 15, 2010, to accomplish these 

goals and to reduce the likelihood of 

another event like the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and oil spill, 75 FR 

63610. The regulations required 

operators to have a SEMS program in 

place as of November 15, 2011. A SEMS 

program is a comprehensive system to 

reduce human error and organizational 

failure. 

On September 14, 2011, the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement (BOEMRE) published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 

Federal Register entitled, ‘‘Oil and Gas 

and Sulphur Operations in the Outer 

Continental Shelf—Revisions to Safety 

and Environmental Management 

Systems’’ (76 FR 56683). These 

revisions to 30 CFR 250, subpart S, grow 

out of and strengthen the existing SEMS 

framework. The previous SEMS final 

rule was published in October 2010. 

The current BSEE SEMS regulations 

incorporate by reference the entirety of 

the American Petroleum Institute’s 

Recommended Practice 75 (API RP 75), 

Third Edition, May 2004, reaffirmed 

May 2008. Many companies operating 

on the OCS were already in compliance 

with parts of the existing SEMS 

regulation when it was published in 

2010. Through this final rule, being 

published today, BSEE supplements the 

requirements in API RP 75 to ensure 

that all companies are implementing 

current best practices and establishing 

well-functioning SEMS programs. 

This final rule incorporates ideas from 

comments that were received following 

publication of the proposed rule. This 

final rule will require operators to 

integrate new requirements into their 

existing SEMS program to enhance the 

program and facilitate oversight. These 

additional requirements provide several 

key ways for personnel to help ensure 

safe performance of oil and gas activities 

on the OCS: 

1. Job Safety Analysis (JSA)—Provides 

additional requirements for conducting 

a JSA. 

2. Auditing—Requires that all SEMS 

audits must be conducted by an audit 

service providers (ASPs), accredited by 

a BSEE-approved accreditation body 

(AB). 

3. Stop Work Authority (SWA)— 

Creates procedures that establish SWA 

and make responsible any and all 

personnel who witness an activity that 

is creating imminent risk or danger to 

stop work. 

4. Ultimate Work Authority (UWA)— 

Clearly defines requirements 

establishing who has the UWA on the 

facility for operational safety and 

decision-making at any given time. 

5. Employee Participation Plan 

(EPP)—Provides an environment that 

promotes participation by employees 

and management in order to eliminate 

or mitigate hazards on the OCS. 

6. Reporting Unsafe Working 

Conditions—Empowers all personnel to 

report to BSEE possible violations of 

safety or environmental regulations and 

requirements and threats of danger. 

Background 

Pursuant to the OCSLA, the Federal 

government has a broad mandate to 

promote a culture of safety and 

environmental protection on the OCS. 

Acting on this mandate, BSEE’s 

predecessor, the Minerals Management 

Service (MMS), advocated voluntary 

implementation of API RP 75. The 

MMS’ goal was to assist in the 

development of a management system 

designed to promote safety and 

environmental protection during the 

performance of offshore oil and gas and 

sulphur operations. This system would 

be a tool for integrating and managing 

operations. By developing a 

management system based on API RP 

75, owners and operators would be 

required to formulate policy and 

objectives concerning significant safety 

hazards and environmental impacts 

over which they had control and could 

be expected to have an influence. 

Ultimately, a SEMS program is intended 

to focus attention on the role of human 

error and poor organization in 

accidents, drive continuous 

improvement in the offshore industry’s 

safety and environmental records, 

encourage the use of performance-based 

operating practices, and encourage 

collaboration between industry to 

promote the interests of offshore worker 

safety and environmental protection. 

Many operators voluntarily developed 

a SEMS program, as outlined by API RP 

75. Prior to implementing the SEMS 

regulations, MMS carefully analyzed 

accident panel investigation reports, 

incident reports, and incidents of 

noncompliance. The MMS determined 

that the root cause of most safety and 

environmental accidents and incidents 

derived from four specific elements 

identified in API RP 75: Hazards 

Analysis; Management of Change; 

Operating Procedures; and Mechanical 

Integrity. The MMS issued an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 

22, 2006 (71 FR 29277), soliciting 

comments on amending the agency’s 

regulations to include SEMS. The MMS 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on June 17, 2009 (74 FR 28639) that 

would require all operators to develop 

a management system minimally 

consisting of the four main elements 

identified by MMS as the root cause of 

most accidents. 

However, the Deepwater Horizon 

explosion and resulting oil spill 

highlighted potential faults in the 

existing OCS safety culture, convincing 

MMS of the need to require all operators 

to implement a comprehensive SEMS. 

On October 15, 2010, BOEMRE, the 

successor agency to MMS, published in 

the Federal Register the final rule, ‘‘Oil 

and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the 

Outer Continental Shelf—Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems’’ 

(75 FR 63610). That rule established a 

new Subpart S in 30 CFR part 250, 

requiring all OCS operators to have a 

SEMS program in place by November 

15, 2011. 

Nearly a month before this deadline, 

on September 14, 2011, BOEMRE 

proposed revisions to SEMS to address 

safety concerns that were not covered in 

the first SEMS final rule issued in 

October 2010. The comment period for 

the proposed rule closed on November 

14, 2011. In this final rule, BSEE is 

promulgating many of the changes that 

were proposed in the September 2011 

proposed rule. 

On June 21, 2010, the MMS was 

renamed to BOEMRE. On October 1, 

2011, the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) reorganized BOEMRE, creating 

two new Bureaus, BSEE and the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20425 

The SEMS program and regulations fall 

under the authority of BSEE. 

Summary of Comments on the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

In response to the proposed rule, 

BSEE received 35 sets of comments from 

oil and gas companies (operators and 

contractors), industry associations, 

environmental organizations, and 

individuals. In the following section, we 

first address the general comments on 

the rule. These are followed by a 

Section-by-Section discussion of 

comments, including any changes made 

to the final rule based on comments. 

Comments that are not related to the 

proposed rule or that are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking are not 

addressed. All of the comments received 

are posted on www.regulations.gov, 

under docket number BOEM–2011– 

0003. 

General Comments 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that BSEE reopen the comment period 

and hold a workshop to address the 

following issues: 

(1) The BSEE’s vision for the 

regulatory program. 

(2) The BSEE’s strategy for achieving 

that vision. 

(3) Migrating to a goal-setting regime 

that is less prescriptive, with fewer 

approvals. 

(4) How SEMS ‘‘fits’’ with the United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) and Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA). 

(5) How the SEMS regulations 

compare to other international 

regulatory regimes. 

(6) Experience with implementation 

of SEMS to date. 

Several other commenters also 

requested more time to comment on the 

proposed rule. 

Response: The BSEE does not believe 

it is necessary to allow more time to 

comment on the proposed rule. In the 

future, we intend to hold a workshop on 

SEMS to address implementation and 

other issues raised in the comments. 

The BSEE actively engages with 

members of the industry, nongovernment organizations, academia, 

trade organizations, standards 

committees, and members of the public 

to develop regulations and standards, 

and to encourage joint participation in 

research and workshops. All of these 

activities are used to implement BSEE’s 

vision for safe, clean, and efficient OCS 

operations. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the proposed rule appeared to indicate 

that a company’s size does not matter in 

relation to safety, and that adverse 

consequences from an incident are the 

same regardless of the operator’s size. 

Instead, the commenter felt that smaller 

operators have fewer financial resources 

compared to large operators. The 

commenter stated that in the event of a 

catastrophic incident, a small operator 

is more likely to seek bankruptcy 

protection and walk away from the 

problem than a larger operator. 

Additionally, the commenter believes 

the main lesson to be learned from the 

Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil 

spill is that the risk of another event 

stems from managing high pressure 

wells, not from operating in deepwater. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees that a 

small operator is more likely to walk 

away from a catastrophic incident than 

a larger operator. We stated in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that 

‘‘adverse consequences in the event of 

incidents are the same regardless of the 

operator’s size.’’ This statement reflects 

BSEE’s concern that small, mid-size, or 

large OCS oil and gas operators working 

on the shelf or in deepwater on highpressure or normal pressure wells can 

cause damage and loss of life resulting 

from an oil spill, fire, or explosion. 

Regarding small companies that declare 

bankruptcy, the OCSLA authorizes DOI 

to require lessees to provide financial 

assurance to cover their 

decommissioning obligations. Should a 

small operator attempt to avoid liability 

for a catastrophic incident, existing 

statutes govern the agency’s rights in 

that proceeding. 

Comment: Some commenters urged 

BSEE to withdraw the proposed 

rulemaking and reconsider its approach 

toward using SEMS on the OCS. One 

commenter stated that the existing BSEE 

SEMS rule is flawed and expressed 

concern over the UWA, the definition of 

facility, contractor responsibilities and 

liabilities, and jurisdictional 

boundaries. A wide range of industry 

commenters also raised concerns 

regarding the jurisdiction of other 

Federal agencies. The commenters 

believed that the scope of the SEMS 

program should not be defined by 

Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) and 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) 

among Federal agencies. There is 

concern that ‘‘unscrupulous’’ parties 

may ‘‘severely restrict’’ their SEMS 

programs based on jurisdictional issues. 

Some commenters believe that the 

phrase ‘‘activities that are regulated 

under BSEE jurisdiction’’ creates 

‘‘considerable and unacceptable 

ambiguity.’’ Some commenters believe 

that problems caused by jurisdictional 

questions can be avoided if SEMS takes 

a ‘‘holistic’’ approach to OCS safety 

regulations. 

Response: The BSEE has authority 

under the OCSLA to regulate safety and 

environmental matters associated with 

oil and gas development. Accordingly, 

BSEE’s authority under the OCSLA is 

not limited simply because BSEE 

authority coincides with the authority of 

another government agency. In a 

number of areas, BSEE co-regulates 

offshore activity with other Federal 

agencies, such as the Coast Guard and 

EPA. None of the provisions of this rule 

affects or modifies the authority of these 

other agencies. The BSEE uses MOUs 

and MOAs with other agencies to 

coordinate the regulatory activities for 

specific types of equipment and 

processes, but these interagency 

agreements do not limit the scope of the 

SEMS program that must be maintained 

by the operator under these regulations. 

An operator’s SEMS program should 

address all oil and gas activities subject 

to a lease and should not be limited to 

the components listed in the 

interagency agreements. To further 

clarify, BSEE has removed the phrase 

‘‘activities that are regulated under 

BSEE jurisdiction’’ from the final rule. 

The concerns raised by the comments 

about UWA, definitions, and potential 

contractor liabilities are addressed in 

the Section-by-Section discussion. The 

BSEE also addresses certain minor 

editorial flaws and redundancies in the 

existing regulation. For example, 

§ 250.1920 now consolidates the audit 

frequency information into one 

subsection in order to improve 

readability. 

Comment: Another commenter 

expressed the view that the proposed 

rule has many elements requiring 

hazard recognition and formal reporting 

of unsafe conditions. Therefore, the 

commenter urged BSEE to consider 

including a requirement for operators to 

conduct and submit an independent, 

anonymous survey that validates the 

status of the existing safety culture, at 

least once every three years. The 

commenter believed that this proposed 

survey would provide evidence for how 

well the components of work stoppage, 

employee empowerment, employee 

participation, etc., have become 

engrained within the operating culture. 

The commenter stated that the results 

would provide further opportunities for 

initiating action planning and remedial 

measures. The commenter asserted that 

it would represent a viable ‘‘link’’ 

between the SEMS provisions and the 

reality of how those SEMS components 

need to be incorporated within a 

healthy safety culture. 

Response: The BSEE sees value in the 

comment concerning a periodic 

submission of a ‘‘survey’’ to validate the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20426 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

existence and status of a safety culture 

within an operator’s organization. The 

BSEE will take this comment under 

consideration for future guidance or 

future rulemaking. Such a requirement 

could be put into effect by BSEE in the 

future. 

Contractor Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems Program 

Comment: Several comments stated 

that BSEE should better address the role 

of contractors in the SEMS program. 

There were suggestions to clarify the 

regulation regarding the role of 

contractors in improving safety and 

environmental performance. The 

comments also proposed that 

contractors should have their own 

separate SEMS and it should not be the 

operator’s role to ensure that contractor 

employees are trained in the operator’s 

SEMS program. 

Response: In response to these 

comments, BSEE is evaluating the 

possibility of requiring contractors to 

have a SEMS program while performing 

operations on the OCS. The BSEE may 

address this concept through future 

rulemaking. Currently, all personnel, 

which includes contractors, must be 

trained in accordance with the 

requirements of § 250.1915. Operators 

must verify that contractors are trained 

in accordance with § 250.1915 prior to 

performing a job. In accordance with 

§ 250.1914, operators must ensure that 

contractors have their own written safe 

work practices. Contractors may adopt 

appropriate sections of an operator’s 

SEMS program. Operators and 

contractors must document an 

agreement on appropriate contractor 

safety and environmental policies and 

practices before the contractor begins 

work at an operator’s facilities. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

BSEE needs to explore the possibility of 

developing regulations that ensure 

worker and contractor qualifications (as 

in the Transportation of Hazardous 

Liquids by Pipeline (49 CFR part 195, 

subpart G)) in addition to including 

training requirements in the SEMS 

program. The commenter also stated 

that it is not enough for workers to be 

trained; the workers need to prove their 

capabilities and document the proof. 

Response: A SEMS program, under 

the existing regulations, must ensure 

that all personnel are trained in 

accordance with their duties and 

responsibilities to work safely and are 

aware of potential environmental 

impacts. Because technologies and 

practices change, and circumstances are 

diverse, BSEE favors a flexible 

approach. In the future, BSEE may 

consider a more prescriptive approach 

for establishing worker qualifications 

and evidence of capabilities. 

Process Safety 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

that BSEE should explore the question 

of whether the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration’s (OSHA) 

Process Safety Management (PSM) 

program will provide a superior 

approach to attaining process safety 

compared to the SEMS approach. The 

commenters stated that if PSM data 

shows a significant and meaningful 

reduction in process safety accidents, 

BSEE should consider implementing 

PSM requirements or incorporate 

elements of such an approach into 

future SEMS rulemakings. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed regulations do not fully draw 

upon the learning and best practices 

from PSM to handle low-probability, 

high-consequence events that often 

become large disasters. The commenter 

believes that process safety requires 

more than a SEMS program and the new 

elements. The commenter proposed that 

BSEE regulations should also address 

safety critical elements and performance 

requirements for those elements. 

Additionally, the commenter stated that 

BSEE regulations should ensure that 

barrier management for all operations is 

identified, described, and managed 

based upon process safety management 

principles. The commenter asserted that 

such requirements would effectively 

address the low-probability, highconsequence events that management 

systems do not fully consider. 

Response: The BSEE evaluated the 

OSHA, Process safety management of 

highly hazardous chemicals, 29 CFR 

1910.119 requirements. The elements in 

the PSM requirements are very similar 

to those included in SEMS (e.g., 

training, management of change, and 

auditing). However, BSEE determined 

that the SEMS approach is more 

appropriate because it was developed 

specifically for the offshore oil and gas 

industry and therefore addresses 

processes unique to OCS operations. 

The term ‘‘critical equipment’’ is used 

in the API RP 75 (defined in Appendix 

D) and Subpart S. A SEMS program 

addresses all types of operations and 

equipment on a variety of OCS facilities, 

including low-probability, highconsequence events and highprobability, low-consequence events. 

The SEMS requirement that the operator 

identify the ‘‘critical equipment’’ on a 

facility and the requirement to conduct 

a hazards analysis are methods to 

prioritize hazards (low-probability, 

high-consequence events and highprobability, low-consequence events) 

and develop appropriate mitigation 

measures to address the identified 

hazards. 

Goal Setting 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that BSEE should establish a broader, 

‘‘holistic’’ regulatory strategy for 

offshore facilities that is based on 

setting goals. As part of the overall 

strategy to transition to a goal-setting 

regulatory culture, the commenters 

stated that SEMS should be structured 

as a goal-setting safety management 

regime. One commenter elaborated on 

this suggestion by adding that SEMS 

should be based on operator (not 

regulator) responsibility, risk 

management (not prescription), and 

regulatory oversight (not regulator 

command-and-control). This commenter 

also stated that BSEE should allow 

operators to establish audit programs, 

JSA criteria, employee input programs, 

stop work procedures, and facility 

management procedures that are best 

suited to their organization and culture. 

Also, the commenter stated that BSEE 

should encourage operators to follow 

practices that are best for their 

particular circumstances, and monitor 

the operator’s performance to evaluate 

their success. 

Response: The SEMS approach, 

consistent with API RP 75, integrates a 

variety of safety management initiatives 

that give the operator the flexibility to 

comply with regulatory requirements. 

Examples of similar provisions are: 

Subpart O performance-based training 

regulations; Subpart A, the use of 

alternate procedures or equipment at 

§ 250.141; and the use of customizable 

field rules in Subparts D, E, and F. In 

§ 250.141, BSEE allows an operator to 

propose the use of new operational 

procedures or equipment not already 

addressed in our regulations. These 

‘‘alternate’’ procedures and technologies 

provide a mechanism for the industry to 

develop and use alternate procedures 

and technologies, with approval from 

BSEE as long as the proposed alternate 

procedures and technologies provide an 

equivalent of higher of safety and 

environmental protection on the OCS. 

Additionally, § 250.463 (field drilling), 

§ 250.512 (field well-completion), and 

§ 250.612 (field well-workover) 

requirements allow us to establish rules 

specific to a particular field that are 

different from what is required in the 

regulations if local geologic and 

engineering information show they are 

appropriate. 

Overly Prescriptive 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

many elements of the proposed rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20427 

were overly prescriptive, and 

unnecessarily and inappropriately 

restricted options for managing OCS 

activities. The commenter also viewed 

the existing SEMS rule as overly 

prescriptive. The commenter stated that 

a major contributor in this regard was 

BSEE’s substitution of the word ‘‘shall’’ 

for ‘‘should’’ regarding the 

incorporation of API RP 75 into Subpart 

S. Commenters urged BSEE to make the 

regulations less prescriptive by 

completely re-writing 30 CFR part 250, 

subpart S, and the means by which it 

has incorporated the provisions of API 

RP 75 into Subpart S. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with this 

comment in part. Regarding the 

prescriptive nature of the regulations as 

they incorporate API RP 75, we have 

removed the ‘‘should’’/‘‘shall’’ language 

from § 250.1904. This language has also 

been removed from § 250.198(a)(3) 

under the recently published rule on 

Increased Safety Measures for Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (77 FR 50856). 

The overarching mechanism used by 

an operator to develop and implement 

its SEMS program provides avenues of 

flexibility, including the following: 

1. The operator may apply the JSA to 

recurring events; 

2. The operator has the freedom to 

select the individual with UWA; and 

3. The operator can determine 

training frequency, training 

methodology, and the training vendor, 

except in specific cases where certain 

training requirements are specified in 

Section 7 of API RP 75. 

The BSEE has removed prescriptive 

language related to training from 

proposed §§ 250.1911(c) and 

250.1933(g). There is no need to 

prescribe each aspect of an operator’s 

SEMS training program or how 

frequently an operator must conduct 

periodic training. The final regulatory 

text in § 250.1915 is sufficient to cover 

the detailed training requirements for an 

operator’s SEMS programs. The 

introductory language establishes that 

all personnel must be trained to perform 

work safely. These changes allow 

operators to take responsibility for 

implementing their own training in 

accordance with the regulations. 

The main element of prescription that 

was added to Subpart S was the 

requirement to conduct a JSA for all 

tasks addressed in a SEMS. As 

discussed in the preamble of the 

proposed rule, JSAs are not covered in 

API RP 75. Nevertheless, SEMS 

maintains performance flexibility as 

evidenced by the discretion granted to 

operators to develop their EPP and SWA 

programs. We also eliminated the 

requirement that personnel must be 

given cards with BSEE hotline number 

for reporting unsafe working conditions. 

Suggested Improvements for BSEE 

Comment: One commenter indicated 

that BSEE needs to make significant 

operational changes and increase 

oversight and inspection capabilities. 

The commenter also believes that BSEE 

should ensure a fundamental 

transformation in the offshore industry’s 

safety culture. 

Response: Since the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and oil spill, BSEE 

has developed rulemakings to enhance 

safety and environmental protection and 

to increase BSEE oversight (e.g., the 

final rule on Increased Safety Measures 

for Energy Development on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (77 FR 50856)). The 

BSEE is also currently developing other 

rulemakings to address items such as 

the design, manufacture, repair, testing, 

operational verification, and capabilities 

of blowout preventers; and production 

safety systems, lifecycle analysis, 

quality assurance, and safety device 

testing. 

The BSEE understands the 

importance of improving the safety 

culture across the OCS. The BSEE’s 

intent in implementing the SEMS 

program is the development and 

implementation of a safety culture 

within an organization, which is a step 

to enhancing a safety culture throughout 

the entire industry. It is BSEE’s intent to 

use this rulemaking as a step to enhance 

safety culture throughout industry. 

International Regulators 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that BSEE should align itself 

better with its international peers. These 

commenters asserted that safety 

management is a regulatory approach, 

not an element of a prescriptive 

regulatory regime. They believe that 

implementing the SEMS program must 

be accompanied not with layers of new 

regulations and approvals, but with 

regulatory reform consistent with the 

international consensus. They would 

also like BSEE to explain how SEMS 

compares to the regulatory regimes of 

international regulators with established 

(e.g., Norway, United Kingdom (UK), 

and/or the Netherlands) and emerging 

(e.g., Australia) safety regulations. 

Response: The BSEE actively 

participates in the International 

Regulators Forum and shares lessons 

learned among the Forum’s member 

countries. The BSEE also participates in 

the Arctic Council’s Protection of the 

Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) 

Working Group. The DOI Secretary is 

committed to the Arctic Council’s 

initiatives, and BSEE supports the 

Secretary’s commitment by contributing 

expertise at PAME meetings and 

conferences. 

Regarding other international 

regulators, there are significant 

differences between BSEE’s SEMS 

program and the use of management 

systems by other regulatory bodies 

across the globe. The legal, political, 

and operational environments vary from 

one country to another. Some of these 

differences include: the number of 

offshore facilities in one area as 

compared to another; the structure of 

the various operating companies 

(multinational, small, independent); and 

whether and how labor or trade unions 

are involved in the different areas. 

These and other distinctions make it 

difficult to directly compare OCS 

management systems (i.e., SEMS) with 

those used in the United Kingdom (i.e., 

Safety Case), Norway, Australia, and/or 

the Netherlands. All of these regulatory 

regimes have tailored the use of 

management systems to the specific 

local conditions prevalent in their 

respective areas. 

Compliance Metrics 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

BSEE has expressed a desire to have a 

risk-based inspection system and to 

‘‘develop metrics that demonstrate 

industry’s degree of compliance with 

new regulatory requirements.’’ Also, the 

commenter stated that the splitting of 

BOEMRE into BOEM and BSEE has 

created a departmentally mandated 

firewall between the Office of Offshore 

Regulatory Programs and the Economics 

Division (which is in BOEM), removing 

the technical and statistical expertise 

from the Office of Offshore Regulatory 

Programs in BSEE. 

Response: We believe that BSEE 

possesses the necessary expertise to 

develop the appropriate metrics that 

will demonstrate industry’s degree of 

compliance. We generate annual 

incident statistics from reports received 

from OCS operators in accordance with 

the Incident Reporting Rule (71 FR 

19640, April 17, 2006) and publish this 

information on our Web site. We will 

determine industry’s degree of 

compliance with the SEMS regulatory 

requirements by conducting, 

participating in, or directing audits of 

operators’ SEMS programs. We are 

currently working with the Center for 

Offshore Safety (COS) workgroups on 

developing indicators to gauge industry 

OCS performance and would appreciate 

additional ideas related to metrics (i.e., 

lagging or leading) from other 

stakeholders. The BSEE continues to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20428 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

work with BOEM on functions that have 

interdependence. 

Increased Financial Burden 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

increased regulation and the resulting 

enforcement significantly underestimate 

the regulatory burden and energy costs 

to consumers. The commenter also 

stated that current standards and selfregulation by Gulf of Mexico operators 

remain satisfactory. The commenter 

asserted that government regulations 

will ultimately hinder innovations that 

increase safety and productivity. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees with 

this comment. The SEMS program is a 

safety management system based on an 

industry standard that promotes 

innovation regarding operator safety. 

The commenter did not provide 

additional information to support the 

assertion that BSEE underestimated the 

regulatory burden or any increased 

costs. The Regulatory Impact Analysis 

assesses the costs of this rulemaking and 

provides further details. We consider 

this regulation critical to ensuring 

continuous safety improvements on the 

OCS. 

Enhanced Drilling Safety 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that these SEMS revisions explicitly 

state that U.S. flagged vessels covered 

by a Document of Compliance with the 

International Safety Management (ISM) 

program be considered substantially 

equivalent to the SEMS requirements 

without any further documentation. 

Response: The BSEE is aware of the 

differences in scope between the SEMS 

program and the requirements 

mandated within the ISM program. 

There is nothing in this rule preventing 

the operator from including ISM 

requirements in its SEMS program. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of the 

Final Rule 

The industry trade organizations (e.g., 

Offshore Operators Committee, 

American Petroleum Institute (API), and 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors (IADC)) and OCS operators 

submitted extensive lists of specific 

comments for most sections of the 

proposed rule. We responded to some of 

their comments in the General 

Comments section. The following 

addresses more specific comments not 

already discussed. 

Definitions. (§ 250.105) 

Section 250.105 now contains a 

definition of ‘‘facility’’ for Subpart S 

purposes. 

Comment: A commenter wrote that 

there is no definition of ‘‘facility’’ in the 

existing § 250.105 that is applicable to 

Subpart S, nor is this term defined 

within Subpart S. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. 

The term ‘‘facility’’ was defined in 

§ 250.1911, which stated how this term 

is used throughout Subpart S. However, 

BSEE agrees with the comment about 

§ 250.105. Therefore, to eliminate any 

confusion over this term, BSEE removed 

the definition of facility from § 250.1911 

and added it in the definition of facility 

under § 250.105. 

Reports and Investigations of Possible 

Violations (§ 250.193 Includes Certain 

Language From Proposed § 250.1933) 

The BSEE moved the language 

describing the process by which 

personnel may report unsafe working 

conditions from proposed § 250.1933 to 

§ 250.193. This change consolidates the 

reporting process for any possible 

violation into one section. The BSEE 

retained the language regarding operator 

procedural requirements for unsafe 

working conditions in § 250.1933. The 

BSEE also changed the term ‘‘apparent 

violation’’ to ‘‘possible violation’’ 

throughout the section and in the title. 

Under the final rule, personnel only 

need to identify that a violation may 

have occurred; they are not required to 

know whether a specific legal 

requirement was actually violated in 

order to report unsafe conditions. 

However, a report should contain 

sufficient information to establish a 

reasonable basis for BSEE to determine 

whether a violation or other hazardous 

or unsafe working condition exists. 

Documents Incorporated by Reference 

(§ 250.198) 

The BSEE is incorporating three 

Center for Offshore Safety (COS) 

standards and one International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

standard at § 250.198. These standards 

address requirements for accreditation 

bodies, qualifications for audit teams 

and auditors, requirements for auditing, 

and requirements for accreditation of 

audit service providers. The BSEE 

believes these standards will 

substantially improve the SEMS 

auditing process. 

Must I have a SEMS program? 

(§ 250.1900) 

The BSEE removed the deadline of 

November 15, 2011, for having a SEMS 

program that complies with Subpart S 

because that date has passed. However, 

removing the date does not excuse 

operators in existence before November 

15, 2011, from compliance with the rule 

then in place. Removing the date simply 

removes reference in the regulatory text 

to a date that is now passed. The BSEE 

will take enforcement action against any 

operators that were operating before 

November 15, 2011, whose SEMS 

programs were not in compliance with 

Subpart S by November 15, 2011. 

Furthermore, as of that date, we expect 

all new operators to be in compliance 

with Subpart S from the first day of 

operation. 

The BSEE is revising paragraph (a) to 

make clear that Subpart S takes 

precedence over any conflicting 

language in the documents incorporated 

by reference. Additionally, the BSEE 

removed paragraph (b) because it is 

redundant with § 250.1929. 

What is the goal of my SEMS program? 

(§ 250.1901) 

The BSEE received a comment 

concerning the operations that may be 

performed by a mobile offshore drilling 

unit (MODU) and whether or not 

decommissioning must be covered by a 

SEMS program. The BSEE agrees that 

this issue needs clarification, and has 

revised § 250.1901(a) accordingly. 

Decommissioning is encompassed 

within the meaning of operation. The 

SEMS program addresses facilities and 

all stages of OCS operations, from start 

to finish, which includes 

decommissioning. This requirement 

applies to all facilities, including 

MODUs when they are attached to the 

seabed. 

What must I include in my SEMS 

program? (§ 250.1902) 

The BSEE developed additional 

requirements for Subpart S in this 

rulemaking. The final rule revised this 

section to include references to the 

following new sections and 

requirements: SWA (§ 250.1930); UWA 

(§ 250.1931); EPP (§ 250.1932); and 

guidelines for reporting unsafe working 

conditions (§ 250.1933). These are 

additional requirements that must be 

included in an operator’s SEMS 

program. 

Definitions (§ 250.1903) 

The BSEE added a list of acronyms 

and the following five new definitions: 

accreditation body (AB), audit service 

provider (ASP), corrective action plan 

(CAP), personnel, and ultimate work 

authority (UWA). The CAP definition 

was added to further increase the 

readability and clarity of the SEMS 

auditing requirements. The definition 

for MODU was removed from the final 

rule. The BSEE removed the definitions 

for Management and Designated and 

Qualified Personnel (DQP). 

Comment: Several comments stated 

that the MODU definition should be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20429 

consistent with the USCG’s MODU 

definition. 

Response: The BSEE removed the 

definition of MODU from the final rule. 

The term MODU had been defined to 

mean a vessel capable of engaging in 

drilling, well workover, well 

completion, decommissioning, 

temporary and permanent 

abandonment, or well servicing 

operations for exploring or exploiting 

subsea oil, gas, or other mineral 

resources. The BSEE removed the 

definition of MODU because BSEE 

believes it is already clearly understood 

among operators that MODUs include 

vessels that are involved in other 

operations besides drilling. 

Comment: Other comments stated that 

the definition of Management appears to 

be intended for the proposed new 

§ 250.1932 and is not necessary as a 

definition in the regulations. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with the 

comment and has removed the 

definition of Management from 

§ 250.1903. Since BSEE removed the 

definition of Management, the EPP 

requirements under § 250.1932 were 

altered to reflect this change. Removal 

of this term allows the operator to 

decide who is considered management 

for the purposes of its SEMS program. 

The BSEE will hold the operator 

responsible for complying with its own 

determination of management as part of 

any SEMS audits conducted on the 

operator’s program. 

Comment: It was suggested that the 

definition of Designated and qualified 

personnel be removed. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with this 

comment and made several changes to 

§ 250.1902 to enhance the SEMS 

auditing requirements. The BSEE 

removed the definition of Designated 

and qualified personnel from § 250.1903 

and all other sections within Subpart S. 

Operators are now required to have their 

SEMS program audited by an accredited 

ASP. The BSEE must approve the AB 

that accredits the ASP. 

Comment: A question was asked if the 

definitions of job and work were 

required in an operator’s SEMS 

program. 

Response: The BSEE does not believe 

the terms job and work need to be 

defined for the purposes of Subpart S. 

These are terms commonly used by 

industry and BSEE does not feel there 

will be any confusion. However, an 

operator may define either or both of 

these terms in its SEMS program if it 

sees value in doing so. 

Documents Incorporated by Reference 

(§ 250.1904 Current Section Title) 

Special Instructions (§ 250.1904 Final 

Rule Title) 

The BSEE replaced the title and 

language of § 250.1904 because the 

existing language in § 250.1904 was 

redundant with § 250.198. The new title 

is Special Instructions. The new 

language clarifies the terminology used 

in the COS and the ISO documents 

incorporated by reference for purposes 

of these regulations and allows them to 

be applied across the OCS. For Subpart 

S purposes, references in the COS 

documents to deepwater means all 

water depths, and references to COS 

member companies means all operators. 

For Subpart S purposes, references in 

the ISO/IEC (International 

Electrotechnical Commission) document 

to conformity assessment body (CAB) 

means an ASP. 

What hazards analysis criteria must my 

SEMS program meet? (§ 250.1911) 

The BSEE now requires the operator 

to prepare, conduct, and approve JSAs 

for OCS activities identified or 

discussed in its SEMS program. The JSA 

is a tool used to identify risks to 

personnel associated with their job 

activities. The JSAs are also used to 

determine the appropriate risk 

mitigation measures. 

The BSEE has added phrases related 

to environmental hazards and impacts 

to this section in order to ensure 

regulatory consistency throughout this 

section and Subpart S in general. The 

task level analysis should mirror that 

conducted at the facility level under 

§ 250.1911(a)(1)(iv). This paragraph 

requires consideration of impacts to the 

human and marine environment. 

Therefore, BSEE added the phrases 

environmental hazards and 

environmental impacts to 

§§ 250.1911(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), 

respectively. These additions are 

consistent with the management of 

change requirement in § 250.1912(d)(2). 

The overall goal of SEMS under 

§ 250.1901(a) requires operators to 

include impacts and environmental 

hazards in their SEMS programs. 

The addition of these environmental 

references is also necessary in order to 

properly explain the context in which a 

single JSA may be used for recurring 

activities. The person in charge must 

consider several factors in making this 

determination, including changes in 

personnel, procedures, equipment, and/ 

or environmental conditions associated 

with the activity. In accordance with 

§ 250.1915, the operator must provide 

training for all personnel on how to 

recognize and identify hazards and how 

to develop and implement JSAs prior to 

performing a job on the facility. 

The BSEE removed the phrase ‘‘* * * 

that are regulated under BSEE 

jurisdiction * * *’’ from paragraphs (b) 

and (c) in response to comments 

received on this subject and as further 

discussed in the General Comments 

section. 

Comments: Several comments were 

received concerning JSA training 

requirements, as well as questions 

regarding who has the authority to 

approve and sign a JSA. Commenters 

also stated that the entire JSA process is 

too demanding and onerous. 

Commenters were primarily concerned 

about the proposed rule’s clarity in 

relation to JSAs. They believe that the 

JSA should not include all personnel 

affected by the activity being conducted. 

Response: The BSEE believes the 

proposed modifications to the JSA 

requirement will lead to safer OCS 

operations. The component of the 

training focused on JSA development 

and implementation should improve an 

operator’s and contractor’s ability to 

perform an activity in a safe manner. In 

addition, training will provide 

personnel a better understanding of how 

a SEMS program addresses particular 

hazards. The final rule does require the 

JSA to include all personnel involved 

with the job activity being conducted. 

The personnel performing the job must 

be aware of the hazards and sign the 

JSA. The immediate supervisor of the 

crew actually performing the job needs 

to conduct the JSA, sign the JSA, and 

make sure all personnel participating in 

the job sign the JSA. The individual 

designated as being in charge of the 

facility by the operator must approve 

and sign all JSAs. Having dual levels of 

involvement/approval in the JSA 

process provides an extra level of safety. 

Providing signatures is an indication 

by the individuals signing the JSA that 

they are aware of the hazards and will 

adhere to the recommended preventions 

and mitigations while performing and/ 

or supervising the job. This requirement 

will help minimize the possibility of 

safety or environmental issues. 

Requiring signatures from all parties is 

appropriate. The BSEE has found that 

not performing a JSA, conducting an 

incomplete JSA, or not having all parties 

involved in the task participate in the 

JSA process has contributed to accidents 

or Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs). 

The BSEE believes that requiring 

signatures on the JSA will ensure a 

better understanding of the proper way 

to perform operations and will better 

ensure that all personnel involved in the 

job understand the risks, procedures, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20430 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and expectations of the task at hand 

before initiating work. 

The BSEE has accepted the 

commenter’s recommendation to 

remove the phrase affected by from the 

JSA section of the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that electronic signatures should be 

accepted for JSAs. 

Response: The BSEE agrees. An 

electronic signature on the JSA is an 

acceptable alternative to a written 

signature, as long as the operator’s 

SEMS program states that electronic 

signatures are acceptable. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended revising the proposed 

§ 250.1911(b) to read as follows: ‘‘The 

JSA must include all personnel involved 

with the job activity.’’ 

Response: The BSEE agrees with this 

comment and has made this revision. 

What criteria must be documented in 

my SEMS program for safe work 

practices and contractor selection? 

(§ 250.1914) 

To ensure consistent language 

throughout Subpart S, BSEE updated 

the language in this section to replace 

references to operator and lessee with 

you or your. 

What training criteria must be in my 

SEMS program? (§ 250.1915) 

The BSEE now requires a SEMS 

program to establish and implement a 

training program so that all personnel 

are trained in accordance with their 

duties and responsibilities to work 

safely and are aware of environmental 

impacts. Training must address 

operating procedures (§ 250.1913), safe 

work practices (§ 250.1914), emergency 

response and control measures 

(§ 250.1918), SWA (§ 250.1930), UWA 

(§ 250.1931), EPP (§ 250.1932), and 

reporting unsafe working conditions 

(§ 250.1933); how to recognize and 

identify hazards (§ 250.1911); and how 

to construct and implement JSAs 

(§ 250.1911). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

to reduce the ambiguity of the present 

and proposed provisions of Subpart S 

regulations, BSEE should articulate 

what training in a MODU owner’s SEMS 

program is required for various rig 

activities and systems. 

Response: As stated in § 250.1915, an 

operator’s SEMS program must establish 

and implement a training program so 

that all personnel who perform 

activities on the OCS, including 

personnel on a MODU performing 

activities on the OCS, are trained in 

accordance with their duties to work 

safely and are aware of potential 

environmental impacts. An SWA 

training program will be required on a 

MODU if these workers are involved 

with a task or job. The required training 

imposed on the operator must be in 

accordance with § 250.1915 and API RP 

75. 

What are the auditing requirements for 

my SEMS program? (§ 250.1920) 

The BSEE’s current regulations 

require operators to conduct a 

comprehensive SEMS audit within a 3- 

year cycle. This final rule clarifies that 

the cycle begins on the start date of each 

audit (including the initial 

implementation audit) and ends on the 

start date of the next audit. An 

operator’s SEMS program must be 

audited by an accredited ASP according 

to the requirements of Subpart S. 

Operators must include the ASP’s 

qualifications in their audit plans. 

Operators must also provide us with a 

copy of the audit report and their CAP. 

We extended the deadline for 

submitting audit reports and CAPs from 

within 30 days of the audit completion 

date to within 60 days of the audit 

completion date in this final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the rule should retain the option to 

allow designated and qualified 

personnel to lead an audit. The 

commenter stated that there are not 

enough skilled and knowledgeable 

independent third party (I3P) auditors 

available to conduct these audits. In 

addition, the commenter stated that 

using designated and qualified 

personnel ensures that operator audits 

are conducted by personnel with the 

highest knowledge of the operator’s 

SEMS program. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees in part 

with this comment. The option for the 

operator to use designated and qualified 

operator personnel to lead an audit was 

removed in this final rule from Subpart 

S and replaced with an accredited ASP. 

Consistent audits performed by well 

trained and experienced auditors are 

critical to ensuring that SEMS programs 

are successfully implemented and 

maintained on the OCS. As a result, we 

are adopting industry best practices 

related to SEMS audits and auditor 

qualifications. Industry is already 

voluntarily adopting these practices in 

many deepwater operations. We believe 

that the application of these 

requirements to all OCS operations will 

result in more robust and consistent 

SEMS audits. 

To ensure that a sufficient pool of 

auditors is available, the compliance 

date for this audit requirement is 

January 1, 2015, over 2 years from the 

date this rule will become effective. 

This compliance date gives the industry 

sufficient time to develop an adequate 

number of qualified SEMS auditors. 

What qualifications must the ASP meet? 

(§ 250.1921) 

The BSEE added this section to 

include the minimum qualifications that 

the ASP must meet. These qualifications 

were developed with consideration of 

guidelines issued by the COS. The ASP 

must be accredited by a BSEE-approved 

AB. 

Comment: Some commenters were 

concerned that the exclusion of those 

individuals already involved in program 

development will lead to the use of less 

qualified individuals who may not be 

equipped with the knowledge to 

properly evaluate the effectiveness of 

the SEMS program. The commenters 

believe that imposing these minimum 

qualifications could greatly reduce the 

potential for positive safety and 

environmental gains expected from full 

SEMS implementation. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with this 

comment in part and altered the final 

rule to mitigate this concern. Operators 

are now required to audit their SEMS 

program by using audit teams from an 

accredited ASP. The prohibition against 

qualified operator personnel 

participating in the audit was removed. 

Instead, the rule now requires that only 

the audit team lead must be an ASP 

employee, representative, or agent, and 

must not have any affiliation with the 

operator. The remaining team members 

may either be operator personnel or that 

of the ASP. This option gives the 

operator the flexibility to utilize inhouse expertise on the audit team. This 

rule adopts the latest industry standards 

related to auditor qualifications. 

What qualifications must an AB meet? 

(§ 250.1922) 

The BSEE has eliminated the I3P 

process in this final rule and added this 

section to implement a new process to 

handle approving auditor teams. The 

BSEE will now approve ABs which will 

accredit ASPs that have the necessary 

expertise and training to perform SEMS 

audits. The AB will be required to 

satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 

17011. The ISO/IEC 17011 standard 

provides international guidelines for 

ABs. 

Comment: Several commenters 

support the concept of utilizing I3P 

auditors to assess SEMS compliance. 

One commenter stated that it is 

inconsistent with safety management 

principles for BSEE to approve I3Ps. 

Commenters believe auditors should be 

approved through the API COS program. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with this 

comment. The I3Ps were replaced by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20431 

ASPs. The BSEE will not review and 

approve audit teams. The BSEE will rely 

on ABs such as the COS to determine 

which ASPs meet the necessary 

qualifications and experience to perform 

SEMS audits. The BSEE will approve 

and evaluate ABs responsible for ASP 

certification. The BSEE has added new 

sections to the final rule to address the 

role of an ASP (§ 250.1921) and an AB 

(§ 250.1922). The rule also defines the 

functions and standards of the ABs 

regarding the accreditation process. 

Operators will be able to choose from a 

pool of accredited ASPs. Implementing 

the AB and ASP structure will ensure 

consistent measurement of SEMS 

performance and resolution of safety 

deficiencies within companies and 

across industry. 

[Reserved] (§ 250.1923) 

How will BSEE determine if my SEMS 

program is effective? (§ 250.1924) 

The BSEE requires the operator to 

conduct SEMS audits using an 

accredited ASP. The BSEE, or its 

authorized representative, may evaluate 

any and all aspects of your SEMS 

program as outlined in Subpart S. These 

evaluations or visits may be random or 

may be based upon operator or 

contractor performance. 

May BSEE direct me to conduct 

additional audits? (§ 250.1925) 

This section explains the 

circumstances under which BSEE may 

direct operators to conduct an audit and 

the timeframe for submitting audit 

reports for BSEE-directed audits. The 

BSEE updated this section to replace 

references to I3P with ASP and to 

ensure consistency with the new 

language and requirements of 

§§ 250.1920 and 250.1921. Additionally, 

BSEE removed existing § 250.1925(b), 

stating that audit findings may be used 

in enforcement actions, because it was 

redundant (also expressed in 

§ 250.1927). Removing paragraph (b) 

does not affect BSEE’s ability to use 

audit findings to enforce regulations. 

[Reserved] § 250.1926 

This section was replaced with 

§ 250.1921. 

What are my recordkeeping and 

documentation requirements? 

(§ 250.1928) 

For documenting JSAs and SWA 

procedures, records must be kept onsite 

for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, 

records must be kept onsite for 30 days 

or until the operator releases the MODU, 

whichever comes first. The BSEE has 

removed from this section the 

requirements for training on SWA 

policies and a review of SWA 

procedures as a part of all meetings 

where the primary topic applies to 

facility safety, although the SWA 

procedures still must be reviewed at 

those meetings under § 250.1930(e). 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

not all facilities have the capability to 

maintain records. Therefore, the 

commenter suggested that the language 

should allow records to be maintained 

at the nearest field office where such 

records are maintained. 

Response: In existing § 250.1928(a), 

all SEMS program documents must be 

maintained at an onshore location. 

However, there are some records that 

BSEE believes are important to also 

maintain on the actual facility where the 

task, operation, or job has been 

performed. These records include those 

associated with SWA and JSA, as 

specified in § 250.1928(b) and (f) of the 

final rule. If a facility does not have the 

capability to maintain onsite records for 

the period of time specified in the rule, 

then that facility needs to be modified. 

Records can be maintained 

electronically or as paper. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

documentation cannot be expected to be 

retained on a MODU if the operator 

releases the MODU prior to the 30-day 

required record-retention time frame. 

Response: The BSEE agrees. The BSEE 

modified the regulatory text to state that 

in the case of a MODU, records must be 

kept onsite for 30 days or until the 

operator releases the MODU, whichever 

comes first. 

What must be included in my SEMS 

program for SWA? (§ 250.1930) 

This final rule will require operators 

to create and implement a SWA 

program. This program will ensure that 

all personnel are given the 

responsibility and authority to stop 

work when they witness an activity that 

creates an imminent risk or danger to 

the health or safety of an individual, to 

the public, or to the environment. The 

SWA will include authority to stop the 

specific task(s) or activity that poses an 

imminent risk or danger as defined in 

§ 250.1930(a). 

The rule provides further that 

individuals who receive notification to 

stop work must comply with the 

direction immediately. In supporting 

the safe execution of work and to 

promote a culture of safety at work, all 

personnel should have the 

responsibility and authority, without 

fear of reprisal, to stop work or decline 

to perform an assigned task when an 

immediate risk or danger exists. 

Personnel exercising the SWA should 

have discussions with co-workers, 

supervisors, and/or safety 

representatives to attempt to resolve any 

safety issues that are causing the 

imminent danger or risk. When a work 

stoppage occurs, the final rule provides 

that the person in charge of the 

conducted activity is responsible for 

ensuring the work is stopped in an 

orderly and safe manner. The final rule 

further provides that work may be 

resumed when the individual on the 

facility with UWA determines that the 

imminent danger or risk does not exist 

or no longer exists. 

The BSEE now requires the operator 

to conduct training on their SWA 

procedures as part of orientations for all 

new personnel who perform activities 

on the OCS. Additionally, the SWA 

procedures must be reviewed as part of 

all safety-focused meetings related to 

facilities subject to SEMS. 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

SWA program should remain voluntary 

rather than mandatory. In past OCS 

accidents, the SWA program did not 

function as designed because personnel 

hesitated to implement this provision 

due to fear of reprisal. 

Response: The BSEE believes that a 

mandatory program is necessary to 

promote safety on the OCS and ensure 

that all personnel are aware of their 

responsibility to implement the 

program. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the individual with UWA on a facility 

may not always be the appropriate party 

to authorize the startup of activities 

following a work stoppage, and that the 

immediate task supervisor would be a 

more appropriate individual to make the 

decision. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. The 

individual with the UWA is responsible 

for overall facility safety and operations. 

Therefore, this individual is best 

qualified to make the decision regarding 

when a crew should return to work. 

Comment: There was a 

recommendation to remove the word 

drill at the end of proposed subsection 

(d) and make JSA plural. 

Response: The BSEE agrees and made 

the suggested corrections. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the term safety meetings is not defined 

and potentially includes non-safety 

topics when a brief introductory item 

related to safety is provided as a matter 

of course. The commenter suggested 

alternative language to this proposed 

subsection to read as follows: ‘‘* * * 

review of the SWA policy must be 

completed as part of all meetings 

relating to facilities subject to SEMS for 

which safety is the primary topic of the 

meeting.’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20432 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The commenter also proposed that the 

references in this section to SWA policy 

and program and SWA policy should be 

replaced with SWA procedures, which 

is the term used in § 250.1930(a). 

Response: The BSEE agrees with the 

comments. The BSEE has always 

intended for this section to apply to 

meetings where safety is the primary 

subject. It is not intended that SEMS be 

included in meetings where safety is 

addressed as a passing or indirect 

reference. The regulatory text has been 

changed in § 250.1930(e) to read as 

follows: 

‘‘You must conduct training on your 

SWA procedures as part of orientations 

for all new personnel who perform 

activities on the OCS. Additionally, the 

SWA procedures must be reviewed 

during meetings focusing on safety on 

facilities subject to this subpart.’’ 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that most operations present some level 

of danger when they are being 

conducted. However, the commenters 

asserted that the risk can be managed 

and mitigated through the application of 

barriers or controls. The commenters 

stated that the draft text should 

therefore be qualified to show that SWA 

is applicable when a threat or danger is 

outside of the ordinary. Commenters 

also recommended changing the 

wording of SWA to not only address 

imminent risk or danger, but risk or 

danger that is also significant. The 

commenters recommend changing the 

wording to ‘‘and witness any activity 

that creates an imminent and significant 

risk or danger.’’ 

Response: The BSEE agrees in part. 

Most OCS operations present a level of 

danger; however, the quantification of 

risk as significant is difficult. Consistent 

with the philosophy used in the 

development of the SEMS rule, BSEE 

made the determination that the 

operator has flexibility to determine 

which activities and associated risks 

need to be addressed in a SWA program; 

therefore, BSEE did not adopt this 

proposed change. 

What must be included in my SEMS 

program for UWA? (§ 250.1931) 

The final rule now requires that an 

operator’s SEMS program specify who 

has the UWA on the operator’s facilities. 

This requirement could be met, for 

instance, by posting a notice in an easily 

accessible public location. The 

individual with UWA will be the 

individual on the facility with the final 

responsibility for making decisions. The 

individual with UWA has a key role in 

assuring that the operator’s SEMS 

program is implemented in a manner 

that addresses personnel safety and 

environmental protection. 

Under the final rule, the operator’s 

SEMS program must identify and 

designate the individual with the UWA 

on the facility. Only a single individual 

will have UWA at any given time, so 

operators must take into consideration 

all applicable USCG regulations that 

deal with designating a person in charge 

(in accordance with USCG regulations) 

of a MODU or a floating facility on the 

OCS. 

Section 250.1931(c) in the proposed 

rule was removed from the final rule. 

Since facility is now defined to include 

fixed and floating facilities, there was 

no need to explicitly state that the 

SEMS program applies to these 

facilities. The final rule requires that an 

operator implements all provisions of its 

SEMS program at all times on all 

facilities as defined in the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

for unmanned facilities where personnel 

may be working on a daily basis and not 

spending the night, the individual with 

UWA may not be located on that facility 

but located somewhere else (either 

offshore or onshore). To eliminate this 

confusion, the commenter 

recommended removing the 

requirement for the individual with 

UWA to be located on the facility. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. All 

facilities need to have an individual 

identified by the operator located onsite 

as the one with UWA. This requirement 

applies to unmanned facilities, as well 

as when a crew is performing work on 

those facilities. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed Subpart S regulation 

fails to address UWA in situations 

where multiple facilities are attached 

(e.g., a jack-up MODU performing 

drilling, well-workover, wellcompletion, or well-servicing operations 

over a fixed platform) or in close 

proximity to each other when 

conducting OCS operations. 

Response: The BSEE agrees. The 

intent of the regulation is to assure that 

the individual with UWA is identified 

in an operator’s SEMS program for all 

facilities. Recognizing that compliance 

with this requirement is complex when 

facilities are attached or in close 

proximity to one another, this final rule 

clarifies that the operator needs to 

identify an individual with overall 

UWA for all the facilities involved in a 

common operation. The BSEE added the 

following sentence at the end of 

§ 250.1931(a), ‘‘In the event that 

multiple facilities, including a MODU, 

are attached and working together or in 

close proximity to one another to 

perform an OCS operation, your SEMS 

program must identify the individual 

with the UWA over the entire operation, 

including all facilities.’’ 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the bridging arrangements contemplated 

by the proposed API/IADC Technical 

Bulletin (TB) 97, Well Construction 

Interface Document, could be used in a 

flexible manner so as to assure the 

identification of the individual or 

position having UWA, both for standalone and for combined operations. 

Response: The BSEE will review the 

API/IADC TB 97 for possible 

incorporation by reference into our 

operating regulations when it is 

complete. For operations conducted 

from a MODU, TB 97 could present a 

viable alternative to meet the intent of 

the UWA regulation if this document is 

identified by an operator as being part 

of its SEMS program. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that rather than identify an individual 

person with UWA, identifying the 

position with UWA would be more 

appropriate. This specification would 

alleviate possible confusion associated 

with crew changes/rotations for the 

individual designated as having UWA. 

All personnel would know that a 

particular position retains the UWA 

rather than a specific individual. 

Response: The final rule states that 

the operator must identify the 

individual or position with UWA in its 

SEMS program. The operator has 

discretion to decide to identify an 

individual or a position with the UWA. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

relocating the language in § 250.1931(c) 

to a different section of Subpart S. 

Response: This section does not apply 

to UWA and was removed from the rule 

because it is already covered in 

§ 250.1902. Because of this change, 

BSEE redesignated § 250.1931(d) to now 

be § 250.1931(c). 

What are my EPP requirements? 

(§ 250.1932) 

This rule now requires operators to 

develop and implement an EPP. Under 

this rule, an operator who performs 

regulated activities on the OCS will be 

required to consult with its employees 

regarding the development, 

implementation, and modification of its 

SEMS program. The operator will also 

have to develop a written plan of action 

regarding how appropriate onshore and 

offshore employees will participate in 

the SEMS program development and 

implementation. The operator will have 

to provide its personnel access to 

relevant sections of the SEMS program. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that this section is out of sequence with 

the overall compliance timeline of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20433 

SEMS program. It requires employee 

participation in the plan with specific 

requirements for employee consultation 

and a written plan, among other things. 

The commenters noted that this new 

section will be effective at some future 

date that was not specified in the 

proposal. Therefore, the commenters 

asserted, it will be difficult to comply 

with this employee participation 

provision since the program elements 

will already be developed and 

implemented before the new EPP 

requirement is finalized and made 

effective. The commenters stated that 

industry believes that it could include 

affected employees in future SEMS 

modifications. Moreover, the 

commenters stated that appropriate 

employee participation will be evident 

through the audit of an operator’s 

SEMS. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. The 

SEMS is a dynamic program. Requiring 

the operator to have an EPP will ensure 

that all employees understand and are 

involved in updating the SEMS program 

on an ongoing basis. The EPP adds 

value to the overall safety of OCS 

operations because this plan provides 

employees a stake in the development 

and implementation of an operator’s 

SEMS program. This program engages 

employees in the field and in the office, 

bridging a significant gap between those 

actually performing OCS operations and 

those planning, managing, and/or 

monitoring these operations in an 

onshore office. The EPP requirements 

provide the operator with a significant 

amount of flexibility to tailor this plan 

to its specific needs. The final rule 

grants operators one year after the 

effective date to modify their 

recordkeeping policies to capture EPP 

information. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

BSEE should require operators to fund 

worker safety expert(s) to participate in 

SEMS program development and 

implementation. The commenter stated 

that such experts should be selected by 

the workers, ideally by the applicable 

labor union. 

Response: Operators have complete 

discretion to hire outside experts, 

including those affiliated with labor 

unions, to assist in developing and/or 

implementing their SEMS program. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that BSEE revise this section 

so that you replaces management and 

your replaces their. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. These 

regulations require management to make 

the EPP available during an audit; either 

a BSEE-conducted audit or an ASP 

audit. The BSEE believes that 

management is the most appropriate 

party to be responsible for this duty. If 

the term management was replaced 

with the term ‘‘you’’ it would allow 

management to avoid this 

responsibility. 

However, BSEE agrees with the 

commenter’s concern about who 

management is. As a result, BSEE has 

removed the definition of Management 

from § 250.1903. Removing this 

definition allows the operator to decide 

who is considered management for the 

purposes of its EPP. The BSEE will hold 

the operator responsible to comply with 

its own determination of who 

management is as part of any SEMS 

audits conducted on its program. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

an EPP is written into various sections 

of their overall SEMS. The commenter 

stated that the best way to prove that 

employees are participating in the 

SEMS program is through the audit 

process, as is already provided under 

existing rules. The commenter suggested 

that paragraph (d) be deleted. 

Response: The BSEE agrees in part. 

The BSEE has deleted paragraph (d) 

because it was redundant with 

§ 250.1924(b). However, per 

§ 250.1924(b), BSEE still reserves the 

right to request a copy of the operator’s 

SEMS program, which could include 

the EPP element. The BSEE may request 

these documents regardless of whether 

BSEE conducts an audit. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

an EPP is necessary. However, the 

commenter stated, ‘‘it is the 

responsibility of the employer to 

develop the SEMS for the operations to 

be conducted by his or her employees 

with their participation; this program 

must then be deemed acceptable by the 

entity controlling the work site in a 

manner that can be coordinated with 

other operations. A general consultation 

by all ‘management’ (as defined in the 

regulations) is not needed, nor must it 

involve all ‘employees’ at the work 

site.’’ 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. While 

an operator’s management is tasked to 

include appropriate employees in the 

development and implementation of a 

SEMS, management must consult with 

all employees, including both the 

operator’s office employees and 

employees working on offshore 

facilities. 

What procedures must be included for 

reporting unsafe working conditions? 

(§ 250.1933—Certain language in 

§ 250.1933 was moved to § 250.193 in 

the Final Rule) 

To address redundancies between the 

proposed language of this section and 

§ 250.193, certain requirements in the 

proposed rule were merged with 

§ 250.193. All personnel are permitted, 

under § 250.193, to report to BSEE any 

hazardous or unsafe working conditions 

and any possible violations of an order, 

regulation, or any other provision of 

Federal law relating to offshore safety. 

Section 250.1933 of the final rule 

requires the operator to develop 

procedures for reporting unsafe working 

conditions. These procedures must take 

into account the existing USCG unsafe 

working conditions reporting 

requirements currently found at 33 CFR 

142.7 and 46 CFR 109.419. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested adding a requirement to the 

proposed language for personnel to first 

notify the operator of unsafe conditions 

so that such conditions can be 

addressed and remedied immediately. 

Response: The BSEE agrees with the 

comment but sees no need to revise the 

regulation. There is nothing in this 

requirement that prevents personnel 

from first notifying the operator of an 

unsafe working condition before they 

notify BSEE, regardless of whether the 

unsafe condition poses an imminent 

risk or danger. If personnel are 

conducting an activity and believe the 

activity poses an imminent risk or 

danger, they have the authority to stop 

work under § 250.1930. Once SWA is 

activated, management on the facility 

will be aware of the unsafe condition. 

Comment: Several commenters 

objected to the posting of a notice at 

each work location explaining 

personnel rights and contact 

information. These commenters prefer 

to post this information on their 

companies’ Web site. They believe that 

posting the information on their Web 

sites will ensure that the information is 

readily accessible at all times from any 

location. They felt that the requirement 

to provide a card containing BSEE’s 

telephone number for information and 

reporting of unsafe activities would not 

accomplish the intended purpose since 

these cards could be easily lost or 

misplaced. They believe the distribution 

of cards will also be very burdensome 

given the level of activity in the OCS 

and the constant changing of personnel. 

The commenters did not object to initial 

briefings or annual reminders regarding 

the reporting opportunity and will 

incorporate this into their current 

training requirements for personnel. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. 

The BSEE requires the posting of 

notices, convenient and understandable 

for workers, so that when personnel are 

working in a potentially unsafe 

environment, they have access to the 

information necessary to call or go 

online to notify BSEE anonymously of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20434 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

questionable/unsafe activity. There is 

nothing in this requirement that 

prohibits an operator from developing a 

provision in its SEMS program that 

states this information must be posted 

on an operator’s Web site in addition to 

posting a notice at the work site that 

contains the reporting information 

contained in § 250.193. 

We agree with the comment 

concerning the distribution of cards. We 

have removed the requirement for 

personnel to carry an unsafe working 

condition notification card. Instead, a 

new BSEE Toll-free Safety Hotline 

number and reporting Web site were 

established and are listed in this 

regulation under § 250.193. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed language in this section 

will apply to ‘‘contractors providing 

domestic services to the lessee or other 

contractors, including domestic services 

include [sic] janitorial work, food and 

beverage service, laundry service, 

housekeeping, and similar activities 

* * *’’ The commenter stated that the 

proposed language appears to be in 

conflict with existing § 250.1914(a), 

which excludes ‘‘contractors providing 

domestic services to the lessee or other 

contractors’’ from the definition of 

contractors. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. 

Section 250.193 allows all personnel, 

including contractors providing 

domestic services, to anonymously 

report to BSEE a possible violation of 

any order, standard, or regulation. The 

BSEE believes that the reporting 

requirement should include not only the 

contractors covered in § 250.1914(a), but 

all contractors on a facility, including a 

MODU, since individuals involved with 

any level of responsibility, including 

housekeeping and janitorial duties, can 

witness an unsafe act. 

Comment: One commenter said that 

the training language in the proposed 

§ 250.1933 states that follow-up training 

must be provided ‘‘not less than once 

every 12 months thereafter.’’ The 

proposed language of this subsection 

does not allow for a precise 

determination of the date by which 

follow-up training must be provided. 

The commenter asked whether 12 

months means 365 days, or does it mean 

that the follow-up training must be 

conducted during the same month that 

the initial training was conducted, or 

either? Several commenters stated that 

the time allowed for initial training 

(within 30 days of employment) was 

inadequate and it should be increased. 

Response: The BSEE believes the 

existing training requirements in 

§ 250.1915 are adequate. Therefore, the 

training frequency requirements in the 

proposed § 250.1933(g) have been 

removed from the final rule. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed language of § 250.1933(g) 

and (h) only applies to employees and 

not to contractors. It is the commenter’s 

understanding that the intent is to limit 

the applicability of these proposed 

subsections to operator employees. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. 

Proposed § 250.1933(g) and (h) were 

removed from the final rule. However, 

BSEE maintains its position that 

training and safety requirements apply 

to all personnel as stated in § 250.1915. 

The definition of personnel in 

§ 250.1903 includes contractors. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

this portion of the rule should be 

deleted since it is similar to the existing 

§ 250.193. 

Response: The BSEE agrees in part. 

The BSEE agrees that some parts of this 

section were redundant with § 250.193 

and moved the relevant language to 

§ 250.193. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

BSEE should clarify whether the 

reporting hotline is toll-free. If not, then 

BSEE should say so and state that it is 

going to make provisions for assuming 

any usage charges associated with calls 

from offshore locations to the numbers 

provided in the regulations. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees. The 

final rule uses the term toll-free; its 

common meaning is that there are no 

long-distance fees charged for calling 

the hotline. Since the area code for the 

hotline is not a traditional 1–800 prefix, 

toll-free must be retained in order to 

ensure that personnel who wish to call 

in a report know that the hotline will 

not charge long-distance fees. However, 

users may still be responsible to their 

own communication service provider 

for applicable charges. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

BSEE should issue a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 

the provisions of the proposed 

§ 250.1933(e) to indicate that 

information reported over the hotline 

may be shared with officials of other 

agencies having jurisdiction, 

particularly if the report alleges criminal 

activity. 

Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. 

A supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking is not necessary to resolve 

this concern. This language in the final 

rule has been moved to § 250.193. When 

a possible violation is reported, BSEE 

will investigate the matter and take 

appropriate action, which could include 

referral to other agencies. 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 

13563) 

This final rule is a significant rule as 

determined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and is 

subject to review under E.O. 12866. 

(1) This final rule will not have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy. 

(2) It will not adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities. 

(3) This final rule will not create a 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency. 

(4) This final rule will not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. 

(5) This final rule might raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. 

The E.O. 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the Nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. 

directs agencies to consider regulatory 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public where these 

approaches are relevant, feasible, and 

consistent with regulatory objectives. 

The E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Executive Order 13563 requires each 

agency to account for ‘‘among other 

things, and to the extent practicable, the 

costs of cumulative regulations.’’ The 

BSEE is using the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) Burden Table for Subpart S 

to estimate the cumulative cost of SEMS 

regulations. Due to this rulemaking, 

BSEE estimates a program increase of 

186,629 burden hours imposed on 

private sector operators and a non-hour 

cost burden of $1,250,000. The total 

PRA hour burden inventory for the 

SEMS program required in 30 CFR 250 

subpart S is estimated to be 651,728 

hours inclusive of this rulemaking. The 

total non-hour burden is estimated to be 

$1,250,000 for the cost of paying 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20435 

independent parties to audit SEMS 

implementation. 

The full annual E.O. 13563 analysis 

costs of the SEMS requirements in 

Subpart S (this rulemaking and existing 

requirements) is summarized in the 

following Table. 

E.O. 13563 SUMMARY COST

Burden hours Est. annual 

cost 

PRA @ $86/hr. ........................................................................................................................................................ 651,728 $56,048,608 

Non-Hour Cost Burden ............................................................................................................................................ ........................ $ 1,250,000 

TOTAL: ............................................................................................................................................................. ........................ $57,298,608 

The BSEE has prepared an RIA for 

this rulemaking. The full analysis can be 

found on the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: www.regulations.gov. In the 

entry titled Enter Keyword or ID, enter 

BSEE–2012–0011 then click search. 

Follow the instructions to view the RIA 

and submit public comments for this 

rulemaking. 

The BSEE estimates the average 

annual cost of complying with this 

rulemaking is approximately $17 

million, spread across all OCS oil and 

gas operators with active operations. 

The benefits of the SEMS provisions in 

this rulemaking will come from 

enhanced safety for offshore workers 

and greater protection of the marine 

environment. These benefits will be 

realized through additional employee 

participation in safety procedures, 

training programs, notification 

obligations as well as strengthened 

safety and SEMS auditing procedures. 

The protection of human life and the 

environment are the top priorities and 

objectives of this rule. It is difficult to 

quantify the benefits of lives saved and 

risks avoided due to this regulation. 

However, implementing these 

requirements will further the goal of 

avoiding accidents that may result in 

injuries, fatalities or serious 

environmental damage. 

The compliance cost for managing a 

comprehensive SEMS program is 

estimated to be very minor compared to 

the costs associated with major 

accidents. For example, in 1987, prior to 

industry’s development of a safety 

management template for offshore 

operations, the Mississippi Canyon 311, 

A (Bourbon), platform in the Gulf of 

Mexico was tilted to one side by an 

extensive underground blowout. The 

cost associated with this incident alone 

was $274,000,000. In 1989, a fire 

associated with a pipeline repair killed 

7 people and destroyed a major 

production facility. The 2010 Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and oil spill killed 11 

people, destroyed the drilling rig, and 

caused billions of dollars in damages. A 

SEMS plan will implement procedures 

and evaluations that may prevent or 

mitigate the adverse consequences of 

these types of events. The BSEE 

concludes that these additional 

requirements will further enhance the 

existing safety management program on 

OCS facilities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The BSEE has prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

in conjunction with this final rule. 

The FRFA for this final rule is 

available as part of the RIA. The FRFA 

can be found on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled 

Enter Keyword or ID, enter BSEE–2012– 

0011 then click search. Follow the 

instructions to view the RIA and FRFA, 

and submit public comments for this 

rulemaking. 

The changes in the final rule will 

affect lessees and operators of leases and 

pipeline right-of-way holders on the 

OCS. This group could include about 

130 active Federal oil and gas lessees. 

Small lessees that operate under this 

rule fall under the Small Business 

Administration’s North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

codes 211111, Crude Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Extraction, and 213111, 

Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. For these 

NAICS code classifications, a small 

company is one with fewer than 500 

employees. Based on these criteria, an 

estimated 65 percent of these companies 

are considered small. This final rule, 

therefore, will affect a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small entities are represented in all 

activity levels of OCS operations (high, 

moderate, and low based on the number 

of offshore complexes the entity 

operates). Small companies will bear 

approximately 43 percent of the costs of 

this final rulemaking. While 43 percent 

is greater than small companies’ 

percentage share of OCS leases, small 

companies hold 45 percent of leases in 

the shallow water depths where most 

production facilities are located (98 

percent of active platforms are in 

shallow water). 

The operating risk for small 

companies to incur safety or 

environmental accidents is not lower 

than it is for larger-sized companies. 

Offshore operations are highly technical 

and can be hazardous. The risk level 

along with the adverse consequences in 

the event of incidents is the same 

regardless of the operator’s size. The 

BSEE evaluated a number of alternatives 

based on the size of an operator 

including those provided through 

comments but was unable to identify 

provisions that will impose lesser 

requirements on some operators and 

still achieve the same safety objectives. 

The Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were 

established to receive comments from 

small businesses about Federal agency 

enforcement actions. The Ombudsman 

will annually evaluate the enforcement 

activities and rate each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on the actions of 

BSEE, call 1–888–734–3247. You may 

comment to the Small Business 

Administration without fear of 

retaliation. Allegations of 

discrimination/retaliation filed with the 

Small Business Administration will be 

investigated for appropriate action. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

The final rule is not a major rule 

under the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 

et seq.). This final rule: 

a. Will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. 

c. Will not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The requirements will apply to all 

entities operating on the OCS. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This final rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. This 

final rule will not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. A 

statement containing the information 

required by the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not 

required. 

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 

12630) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this 

final rule does not have significant 

takings implications. The final rule is 

not a governmental action capable of 

interference with constitutionally 

protected property rights. A Takings 

Implication Assessment is not required. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this 

final rule does not have federalism 

implications. This final rule will not 

substantially and directly affect the 

relationship between the Federal and 

State governments. To the extent that 

State and local governments have a role 

in OCS activities, this final rule will not 

affect that role. A Federalism 

Assessment is not required. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This rule complies with the 

requirements of E.O. 12988. 

Specifically, this rule: 

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) 

requiring that all regulations be 

reviewed to eliminate errors and 

ambiguity and be written to minimize 

litigation; and 

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we 

have evaluated this final rule and 

determined that it has no substantial 

effects on federally recognized Indian 

tribes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 

1995 

This rule contains a collection of 

information that was submitted to OMB 

for review and approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The title of the 

information collection (IC) for this rule 

is 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart S, Safety 

and Environmental Management 

Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil, 

Gas, and Sulphur Operations. The OMB 

approved the collection under Control 

Number 1014–0017, expiration 3/31/ 

2016, 651,728 hours, $1,250,000 nonhour cost burdens. Respondents 

primarily are Federal OCS oil, gas, and 

sulphur lessees and/or operators or 

other independent third parties. The 

frequency of response varies, but is 

primarily annual. Responses to this IC 

are mandatory. 

The BSEE will protect proprietary 

information according to the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522) and its 

implementing regulations (43 CFR part 

2), and 30 CFR 250.197, Data and 

information to be made available to the 

public or for limited inspection and 30 

CFR part 252, OCS Oil and Gas 

Information Program. The BSEE will 

use the information to evaluate the 

effect of industry’s continued 

improvement of OCS safety and 

environmental management and its 

compliance with the regulations. It 

should be noted that while this 

rulemaking adds additional burden 

hours to industry, the vast majority of 

these hours stem from expanding their 

current SEMS program, along with 

documenting and recordkeeping relative 

to these expanded requirements, and to 

address issues raised in testimony, 

hearings, and reports being released 

about the Deepwater Horizon explosion 

and oil spill. 

As stated in the preamble, BSEE 

received 35 sets of comments from 

individual entities (companies, industry 

organizations, or private citizens). In 

response to the comments, we made 

adjustments to both hour and non-hour 

cost burdens from the burdens 

published in the preamble of the 

proposed rule. The changes and reasons 

for making them are as follows: 

—§§ 250.1900–250.1933 Operator 

Activity: Changes from the proposed 

to final rule incorporate refresher 

training requirements to coincide 

with audits, once every 3 years. These 

changes result in the following 

burden increases: 

(1) High Activity operator (+10,504 

hours). 

(2) Moderate Activity operator (+8,405 

hours). 

(3) Low Activity operator (+2,128 

hours). 

—§ 250.1911(b)—Expanded the 

requirement to include additional 

signatures but we deem that the 

current and proposed hour burden is 

sufficient to adequately cover the 

requirement. 

—§ 250.1922—Added a new 

requirement—Organization requests 

approval for AB; submits 

documentation for assessing, 

approving, maintaining, and 

withdrawing accreditation of ASP (+ 

48 hours). 

—§ 250.1925(a)—The BSEE directed 

audit non-hour cost burdens were 

adjusted to be aligned with the audit 

costs in § 250.1920(a). We have 

determined that since an ASP will be 

part of the audit process, audits will 

be more objective; therefore, there 

will be less likelihood for as many 

BSEE-directed audits as was 

previously determined (¥$15,000 

non-hour cost burdens). 

—§ 250.1926—Removed independent 

third-party requirements [-129 hours], 

but moved conflict of interest [+3 

hours] to § 250.1922, for a total net 

reduction (¥126 hours). 

—§ 250.1932(d), (e)—Removed the 

requirement, upon request, to provide 

BSEE a copy of your EPP; make plan 

available during an audit (¥43 

hours). 

—§ 250.1933(c)—[in this rule now 

§ 250.1933(a)] Removed the 

requirement for employees to report 

unsafe practices and/or health 

violation since we have reporting of 

violations in current § 250.193 (¥1 

burden hour). 

—§ 250.1933(f) [in this rule now 

§ 250.1933(b)]—The requirement 

remains the same; recalculated the 

hour burden—Post notice where 

personnel can view their rights for 

reporting unsafe practices (¥863 

hours). 

—§ 250.1933(h)—Removed—Create and 

distribute to all personnel unsafe 

activities card with relevant 

information (¥10,500 hours). 

The following requirement, 

§ 250.1920(a), was in the proposed rule 

but the non-hour cost burdens for the 

requirements were inadvertently 

omitted from the burden table. 

—§§ 250.1920(a), (b), and 250.1921— 

You must have your SEMS program 

audited by an ASP according to the 

requirements of this subpart and API 

RP 75, Section 12 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) 

within two years of the initial 

implementation of the SEMS program 

and at least once every three years 

thereafter. [Since we revised the 

requirement to no longer allow for inhouse qualified personnel to lead an 

audit, we added non-hour cost 

burdens for each operator activity to 

cover the costs of engaging ASPs to 

conduct audits once every 3 years 

(+$974,000 non-hour cost burdens)]. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20437 

This final rulemaking also removes all 

the non-hour cost burdens for the initial 

implementation of SEMS required by 

the existing Subpart S regulation. 

Operators were required to have their 

SEMS implemented by November 15, 

2011, which was after this proposed 

rule was published, so BSEE had to 

account for the non-hour cost burdens 

in this proposed rule. Now that 

operators have implemented their 

SEMS, we no longer need to account for 

that non-hour cost burden; therefore, we 

removed the non-hour cost burdens 

pertaining to implementation 

(¥$12,642,000). 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

BURDEN TABLE

[Italics show expansion/revision of existing requirements; bold indicates new requirements; current regulations are regular font.] 

Citation 

30 CFR 250 

Subpart A 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden 

Average number of annual 

responses 

Additional 

annual burden 

hours 

193 ................... Report possible hazardous, unsafe working conditions, violations, or 

non-compliance issues; if possible submit information/supporting 

documentation.

Burden included under 30 CFR 

250, Subpart A—1010–0114. 

0 

Citation 30 CFR 

250 Subpart S Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden 

Average number of annual 

responses 

Additional 

annual burden 

hours 

1900–1933 Expanded.High Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, and maintain all 

documentation and records pertaining to your SEMS program, according to API RP 75, ISO/IEC 17011 in their entirety, the COS– 

2–01, 03, and 04 documents as listed in § 250.198, and all the requirements as detailed in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S. Make your 

SEMS available to BSEE upon request.

18,708 ..............

3,656 ................

13 operators ..... 243,204 

47,528 

1900–1933 Expanded.Moderate Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, and maintain all 

documentation and records pertaining to your SEMS program, according to API RP 75, the three COS documents in their entirety, 

and all the requirements as detailed in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S. 

Make your SEMS available to BSEE upon request.

2,528 ................

2,393 ................

41 operators ..... 103,648 

98,113 

1900–1933 Expanded.Low Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, and maintain all documentation and records pertaining to your SEMS program, according to API RP 75, the three COS documents in their entirety, 

and all the requirements as detailed in 30 CFR 250, Subpart S. 

Make your SEMS available to BSEE upon request.

899 ...................

128 ...................

76 operators ..... 68,324 

9,728 

1928(d), (e); 

1929.

Submit Form BSEE–0131. Maintain a contractor employee injury/illness log in the operation area, retain for 2 years, and make available to BSEE upon request (this requirement is included in the 

form burden). Inform contractors of hazards.

10 ..................... 130 operators ... 1,300 

1911(b) Expanded.Immediate supervisor must conduct a JSA, sign the JSA, and ensure all personnel participating sign the JSA. The individual designated as being in charge of facility approves and signs all JSAs 

before job starts.

NOTE: If activity is repeated, the 1st signed JSA is allowed ..............

10 mins. ............

1 min. ................

130 operators × 

365 days × 6 

= 284,700* 

47,450 

4,745 

1920(a), (b); 

1921 Revised.

ASP audit for High Activity Operator ...................................................

ASP audit for Moderate Activity Operator 

ASP audit for Low Activity Operator 

NOTE: An audit once every 3 years. 

13 operators × $60,000 audit = $780,000/3 = $260,000 

4l operators × $30,000 audit = $1,230,000/3 = 

$410,000 

76 operators × $12,000 audit = $912,000/3 = $304,000 

1920 ................. Notify BSEE with audit schedule 30 days prior to conducting your 

audit.

1 ....................... 130 operators/ 

once every 3 

years = 43 

43 (rounded) 

1920(c); 1925; .. Submit to BSEE after completed audit, an audit report of findings 

and conclusions, including deficiencies and required supporting information/documentation.

3 ....................... 44 operators ..... 132 

1920(d); 

1925(b); 

Submit/resubmit a copy of your CAP that will address deficiencies 

identified in audit.

4 ....................... 10 submissions 40 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Citation 30 CFR 

250 Subpart S Reporting and recordkeeping requirement Hour burden 

Average number of annual 

responses 

Additional 

annual burden 

hours 

1922 NEW ........ Organization requests approval for AB; submits documentation 

for assessing, approving, maintaining, and withdrawing accreditation of ASP.

16 ..................... 3 ....................... 48 

1922 NEW ........ Make available to BSEE upon request, conflict of interest procedures.15 mins ............ 12 requests ..... 3 

1924(b) ............. Make available to BSEE upon request, evaluation documentation 

and supporting information relating to your SEMS.

2 ....................... 130 operators ... 260 

1924(c) ............. Explain and demonstrate your SEMS during site visit if required; 

provide evidence supporting your SEMS implementation.

8 ....................... 6 explanations .. 48 

1925(a); ............ Pay for all costs associated with BSEE directed ASP audit approximately 10 percent per operator per category: 1 required audit for 

high operator ($60,000 per audit × 1 audit = $60,000); 4 required 

audits for moderate operator ($30,000 per audit × 4 audits = 

$120,000; and 8 required audits for low operator ($12,000 per 

audit per 8 audits = $96,000) = 13 required audits per year.

13 BSEE directed ASP audits—for a total of $276,000. 

1928 Expanded (1) Document and keep all SEMS audits for 6 years (at least 2 full 

audit cycles) at an onshore location. (2) JSAs must have documented results in writing and kept onsite for 30 days, or until release of the MODU; retain records for 2 years. (3) All MOC 

records (API RP Sec 4) must be documented, dated, and retained 

for 2 years. (4) SWA documentation must be kept onsite for 30 

days; retain records for 2 years. (5) Documentation of employee 

participation must be retained for 2 years. (6) All documentation 

included in this requirement must be made available to BSEE 

upon request.

5 ....................... 130 operators ... 650 

2hrs/mo × 12 

mos/yr = 24 

hrs 

1,007 manned 

facilities 

24,168 

30 mins ............. 2,447 unmanned 

facilities 

1,224 (rounded) 

1930(c) NEW .... Document decision to resume SWA activities ............................... 8 ....................... Once every 2 

wks = 26 

208 

1933(a) NEW .... Procedures for personnel reports unsafe practices and/or possible violations.Burden covered under 30 CFR 

250, Subpart A 1010–0114. 

0 

1933(b) NEW ... Post notice where personnel can view reporting information 

pertaining to possible violations.

15 mins ............ 3,454 facilities 864 

CURRENT SUBPART S BURDEN 285,469 Responses 465,099 Hours 

$12,933,000 Non-Hour Cost Burdens 

NEW and EXPANDED BURDEN added to 30 CFR 250, Subpart S 6,946 responses 186,629 hours 

$1,250,000 non-hour cost burdens 

COMBINED [current, new, and expanded] TOTAL SUBPART S 292,415 Responses 651,728 Hours 

$1,250,000 Non-Hour Cost Burdens 

*We calculated operators conducting six JSAs a day (3 JSAs for each 12-hour shift). Some contractors may perform none for a particular day, 

whereas others may conduct more than six per day. This estimate is an average. 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and you are not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The public may 

comment, at any time, on the accuracy 

of the IC burden in this rule and may 

submit any comments to DOI/BSEE; 

ATTN: Regulations and Standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20439 

Branch; HE–3313; 381 Elden Street; 

Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

This rule does not constitute a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment. The 

BSEE has analyzed this final rule under 

the criteria of the National 

Environmental Policy Act and 516 

Departmental Manual 15. This final rule 

meets the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 

46.210 for a Departmental Categorical 

Exclusion in that this rule is ‘‘* * * of 

an administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature * * *.’’ 

This rule also meets the criteria set forth 

in 516 Departmental Manual 15.4(C)(1) 

for a BSEE Categorical Exclusion in that 

its impacts are limited to administrative, 

economic, or technological effects. 

Further, BSEE has analyzed this rule to 

determine if it meets any of the 

extraordinary circumstances that will 

require an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement as 

set forth in 43 CFR 46.215. 

Most sections of the rule address 

strictly administrative, technical, and/or 

procedural matters. Specific examples 

include definitions of terminology, 

scope and timing of documentation, 

recordkeeping, transfer of information, 

and general descriptions of what is to be 

included in written procedures. The 

rule does not create the potential for 

environmental effects as a result of new 

technologies, technology configurations, 

or technological procedures as such 

measures are not part of the rule. For 

aspects of the rule dealing with 

mechanical integrity and inspections, 

the requirements are procedural as the 

rule covers the content of the written 

procedures. While the rule identifies the 

requirement, it allows the operator to 

choose the means to accomplish the end 

as long as it is consistent with the SEMS 

requirements. 

Other subsections require activities in 

addition to administrative tasks, 

advance planning, and procedural 

documentation, such as training, 

emergency response drills, and 

corrective procedural actions that 

address human errors identified in 

investigations. These requirements are 

also considered procedural in nature 

since the subsections describe general 

and ordered steps that operators must 

undertake to have and maintain a 

compliant SEMS program. Sections that 

require training or drilling of personnel 

are procedural in that they target the 

cognitive skills and knowledge of 

personnel (e.g., § 250.1915(b)) and/or 

clarify the purpose and/or scope of 

training (e.g., § 250.1918(c)). For 

example, in § 250.1918, BSEE requires 

training and drills for personnel to 

exercise elements in the Emergency 

Action Plan that focus on response, 

control, and evacuation procedures and 

reporting. The principal purpose of this 

is to ensure retention and refinement of 

the skills, knowledge, and abilities of 

personnel. 

Each section and subsection has also 

been reviewed to ensure that no 

potentially relevant extraordinary 

circumstances apply to the final action 

that will warrant the preparation of an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. All 

extraordinary circumstances were 

considered in accordance with 43 CFR 

46.215, but only the following ones are 

potentially applicable: 

(1) Have significant impacts on public 

health or safety. 

(2) Establish a precedent for future 

action or represent a decision in 

principle about future actions with 

potentially significant environmental 

effects. 

(3) Have a direct relationship to other 

actions with individually insignificant 

but cumulatively significant 

environmental effects. 

The BSEE has analyzed this rule to 

determine if it meets any of the 

extraordinary circumstances that will 

require an Environmental Assessment or 

an Environmental Impact Statement as 

set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 

2.3, and Appendix 2. The BSEE 

concluded that this rule does not meet 

any of the criteria for extraordinary 

circumstances as set forth in 43 CFR 

46.215. 

Data Quality Act 

In developing this rule, we did not 

conduct or use a study, experiment, or 

survey requiring peer review under the 

Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554, app. 

C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153– 

154). 

Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply 

(E.O. 13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in E.O. 

13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is 

not required. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Public Lands—mineral 

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Tommy P. Beaudreau, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Land and 

Minerals Management. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is 

amending 30 CFR part 250 as follows: 

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND 

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

■ 1. The authority citation for 30 CFR 

part 250 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

43 U.S.C. 1334. 

■ 2. In § 250.105, under the definition 

for ‘‘facility,’’ add paragraph (5) to read 

as follows: 

§ 250.105 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Facility means: 

* * * * * 

(5) As used in Subpart S of this part, 

all types of structures permanently or 

temporarily attached to the seabed (e.g., 

mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs); 

floating production systems; floating 

production, storage and offloading 

facilities; tension-leg platforms; and 

spars) that are used for exploration, 

development, and production activities 

for oil, gas, or sulphur in the OCS. 

Facilities also include DOI-regulated 

pipelines. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 250.193 to read as follows: 

§ 250.193 Reports and investigations of 

possible violations. 

(a) Any person may report to BSEE 

any hazardous or unsafe working 

condition on any facility engaged in 

OCS activities, and any possible 

violation or failure to comply with: 

(1) Any provision of the Act, 

(2) Any provision of a lease, approved 

plan, or permit issued under the Act, 

(3) Any provision of any regulation or 

order issued under the Act, or 

(4) Any other Federal law relating to 

safety of offshore oil and gas operations. 

(b) To make a report under this 

section, a person is not required to 

know whether any legal requirement 

listed in paragraph (a) of this section has 

been violated. 

(c) When BSEE receives a report of a 

possible violation, or when a BSEE 

employee detects a possible violation, 

BSEE will investigate according to BSEE 

procedures and notify any other Federal 

agency(ies) for further investigation, as 

appropriate. 

(d) BSEE investigations of possible 

violations may include: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20440 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Conducting interviews of 

personnel; 

(2) Requiring the prompt production 

of documents, data, and other evidence; 

(3) Requiring the preservation of all 

relevant evidence and access for BSEE 

investigators to such evidence; and 

(4) Taking other actions and imposing 

other requirements as necessary to 

investigate possible violations and 

assure an orderly investigation. 

(e)(1) Reports should contain 

sufficient credible information to 

establish a reasonable basis for BSEE to 

investigate whether a violation or other 

hazardous or unsafe working condition 

exists. 

(2) To report hazardous or unsafe 

working conditions or a possible 

violation: 

(i) Contact BSEE by: 

(A) Phone at 1–877–440–0173 (BSEE 

Toll-free Safety Hotline), 

(B) Internet at www.bsee.gov, or 

(C) Mail to: U.S. DOI/BSEE, 1849 C 

Street NW., Mail Stop 5438, Herndon, 

VA 20240 Attention: IRU Hotline 

Operations. 

(ii) Include the following items in the 

report: 

(A) Name, address, and telephone 

number should be provided if you do 

not want to remain anonymous; 

(B) The specific concern, provision or 

Federal law, if known, referenced in (a) 

that a person violated or with which a 

person failed to comply; and 

(C) Any other facts, data, and 

applicable information. 

(f) When a possible violation is 

reported, BSEE will protect a person’s 

identity to the extent authorized by law. 

■ 4. Amend § 250.198 by adding 

paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.198 Documents incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(m) International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De la VoiCreuse, Case postale 56, CH–1211, 

Geneva 20, Switzerland; www.iso.org; 

phone: 41–22–749–01–11. 

(1) ISO/IEC (International 

Electrotechnical Commission) 17011, 

Conformity assessment—General 

requirements for accreditation bodies 

accrediting conformity assessment 

bodies, First edition 2004–09–01; 

Corrected version 2005–02–15; 

incorporated by reference at 

§§ 250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 

250.1922. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(n) Center for Offshore Safety (COS), 

1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1370, 

Houston, TX 77056; 

www.centerforoffshoresafety.org; phone: 

832–495–4925. 

(1) COS Safety Publication COS–2–01, 

Qualification and Competence 

Requirements for Audit Teams and 

Auditors Performing Third-party SEMS 

Audits of Deepwater Operations, First 

Edition, Effective Date October 2012; 

incorporated by reference at 

§§ 250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 

250.1921. 

(2) COS Safety Publication COS–2–03, 

Requirements for Third-party SEMS 

Auditing and Certification of Deepwater 

Operations, First Edition, Effective Date 

October 2012; incorporated by reference 

at §§ 250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 

250.1920. 

(3) COS Safety Publication COS–2–04, 

Requirements for Accreditation of Audit 

Service Providers Performing SEMS 

Audits and Certification of Deepwater 

Operations, First Edition, Effective Date 

October 2012; incorporated by reference 

at §§ 250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 

250.1922. 

■ 5. Amend § 250.1900 by: 

■ a. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b), 

■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and 

(d) as (a) and (b) respectively, and 

■ c. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program? 

* * * * * 

(a) If there are any conflicts between 

the requirements of this subpart and API 

RP 75; COS–2–01, COS–2–03, or COS– 

2–04; or ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198), you 

must follow the requirements of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 250.1901, revise paragraph (a) 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS 

program? 

* * * * * 

(a) To accomplish this goal, you must 

ensure that your SEMS program 

identifies, addresses, and manages 

safety, environmental hazards, and 

impacts during the design, construction, 

start-up, operation (including, but not 

limited to, drilling and 

decommissioning), inspection, and 

maintenance of all new and existing 

facilities, including mobile offshore 

drilling units (MODUs) when attached 

to the seabed and Department of the 

Interior (DOI) regulated pipelines. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 250.1902 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(12) and 

(13), 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) through 

(17); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1902 What must I include in my 

SEMS program? 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(12) Auditing (Audit of Safety and 

Environmental Management Program 

Elements) (see § 250.1920) 

(13) Recordkeeping (Records and 

Documentation) and additional BSEE 

requirements (see § 250.1928) 

(14) Stop Work Authority (SWA) (see 

§ 250.1930) 

(15) Ultimate Work Authority (UWA) 

(see § 250.1931) 

(16) Employee Participation Plan 

(EPP) (see § 250.1932) 

(17) Reporting Unsafe Working 

Conditions (see § 250.1933). 

(b) You must include a job safety 

analysis (JSA) for OCS activities 

identified or discussed in your SEMS 

program (see § 250.1911). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 250.1903 to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1903 Acronyms and definitions. 

Definitions listed in this section apply 

to this subpart and supersede 

definitions in API RP 75, Appendices D 

and E; COS–2–01, COS–2–03, and COS– 

2–04; and ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated 

by reference as specified in § 250.198). 

(a) Acronyms used frequently in this 

subpart have the following meanings: 

AB means Accreditation Body, 

ASP means Audit Service Provider, 

CAP means Corrective Action Plan, 

COS means Center for Offshore 

Safety, 

EPP means Employee Participation 

Plan, 

ISO means International Organization 

for Standardization, 

JSA means Job Safety Analysis, 

MODU means Mobile Offshore 

Drilling Unit, 

OCS means Outer Continental Shelf, 

SEMS means Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems, 

SWA means Stop Work Authority, 

USCG means United States Coast 

Guard, and 

UWA means Ultimate Work 

Authority. 

(b) Terms used in this subpart are 

listed alphabetically as follows: 

Accreditation body (AB) means a 

BSEE-approved independent third-party 

organization that assesses and accredits 

ASPs. 

Audit service provider (ASP) means 

an independent third-party organization 

that demonstrates competence to 

conduct SEMS audits in accordance 

with the requirements of this subpart. 

Corrective action plan (CAP) means a 

scheduled plan to correct deficiencies 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20441 

identified during an audit and that is 

developed by an operator following the 

issuance of an audit report. 

Personnel means direct employee(s) 

of the operator and contracted workers. 

Ultimate Work Authority (UWA) 

means the authority assigned to an 

individual or position to make final 

decisions relating to activities and 

operations on the facility. 

■ 9. Revise § 250.1904 to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1904 Special instructions. 

(a) For purposes of this subpart, each 

and every reference in COS–2–01, COS– 

2–03, and COS–2–04 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) to 

the term deepwater means the entire 

OCS, including all water depths. 

(b) The BSEE does not incorporate by 

reference any requirement that you must 

be a COS member company. For 

purposes of this subpart, each and every 

reference in COS–2–01, COS–2–03, and 

COS–2–04 to the phrase COS member 

company(ies) means you, whether or 

not you are a COS member. 

(c) For purposes of this subpart, each 

and every reference in the relevant 

sections of COS–2–01, COS–2–03, and 

COS–2–04 (incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 250.198) to the Center for 

Offshore Safety or COS means 

accreditation body or AB. 

(d) For purposes of this subpart, each 

and every reference in ISO/IEC 17011 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 250.198) to conformity assessment 

body (CAB) means ASP. 

■ 10. Amend § 250.1911 by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading, the 

introductory text, and paragraphs (a) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1911 What hazards analysis criteria 

must my SEMS program meet? 

You must ensure that a hazards 

analysis (facility level) and a JSA 

(operations/task level) are developed 

and implemented for all of your 

facilities and activities identified or 

discussed in your SEMS. You must 

document and maintain a current 

analysis for each operation covered by 

this section for the life of the operation 

at the facility. You must update the 

analysis when an internal audit is 

conducted to ensure that it is consistent 

with your facility’s current operations. 

(a) Hazards Analysis (facility level). 

The hazards analysis must be 

appropriate for the complexity of the 

operation and must identify, evaluate, 

and manage the hazards involved in the 

operation. 

* * * * * 

(4) A single hazards analysis can be 

performed to fulfill the requirements for 

simple and nearly identical facilities, 

such as well jackets and single well 

caissons. You can apply this single 

hazards analysis to simple and nearly 

identical facilities after you verify that 

any site-specific deviations are 

addressed in each of your SEMS 

program elements. 

(b) JSA. You must ensure a JSA is 

prepared, conducted, and approved for 

OCS activities that are identified or 

discussed in your SEMS program. The 

JSA is a technique used to identify risks 

to personnel associated with their job 

activities. The JSAs are also used to 

determine the appropriate mitigation 

measures needed to reduce job risks to 

personnel. The JSA must include all 

personnel involved with the job activity. 

(1) You must ensure that your JSA 

identifies, analyzes, and records: 

(i) The steps involved in performing 

a specific job; 

(ii) The existing or potential safety, 

health, and environmental hazards 

associated with each step; and 

(iii) The recommended action(s) and/ 

or procedure(s) that will eliminate or 

reduce these hazards, the risk of a 

workplace injury or illness, or 

environmental impacts. 

(2) The immediate supervisor of the 

crew performing the job onsite must 

conduct the JSA, sign the JSA, and 

ensure that all personnel participating 

in the job understand and sign the JSA. 

(3) The individual you designate as 

being in charge of the facility must 

approve and sign all JSAs before 

personnel start the job. 

(4) If a particular job is conducted on 

a recurring basis, and if the parameters 

of these recurring jobs do not change, 

then the person in charge of the job may 

decide that a JSA for each individual job 

is not required. The parameters you 

must consider in making this 

determination include, but are not 

limited to, changes in personnel, 

procedures, equipment, and 

environmental conditions associated 

with the job. 

(c) All personnel, which includes 

contractors, must be trained in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 250.1915. You must also verify that 

contractors are trained in accordance 

with § 250.1915 prior to performing a 

job. 

■ 11. In § 250.1914, revise the 

introductory text and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.1914 What criteria must be 

documented in my SEMS program for safe 

work practices and contractor selection? 

Your SEMS program must establish 

and implement safe work practices 

designed to minimize the risks 

associated with operations, 

maintenance, modification activities, 

and the handling of materials and 

substances that could affect safety or the 

environment. Your SEMS program must 

also document contractor selection 

criteria. When selecting a contractor, 

you must obtain and evaluate 

information regarding the contractor’s 

safety record and environmental 

performance. You must ensure that 

contractors have their own written safe 

work practices. Contractors may adopt 

appropriate sections of your SEMS 

program. You and your contractor must 

document an agreement on appropriate 

contractor safety and environmental 

policies and practices before the 

contractor begins work at your facilities. 

(a) A contractor is anyone performing 

work for you. However, these 

requirements do not apply to 

contractors providing domestic services 

to you or other contractors. Domestic 

services include janitorial work, food 

and beverage service, laundry service, 

housekeeping, and similar activities. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In § 250.1915, revise the section 

heading, the introductory text, and 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 250.1915 What training criteria must be 

in my SEMS program? 

Your SEMS program must establish 

and implement a training program so 

that all personnel are trained in 

accordance with their duties and 

responsibilities to work safely and are 

aware of potential environmental 

impacts. Training must address such 

areas as operating procedures 

(§ 250.1913), safe work practices 

(§ 250.1914), emergency response and 

control measures (§ 250.1918), SWA 

(§ 250.1930), UWA (§ 250.1931), EPP 

(§ 250.1932), reporting unsafe working 

conditions (§ 250.1933), and how to 

recognize and identify hazards and how 

to construct and implement JSAs 

(§ 250.1911). You must document your 

instructors’ qualifications. Your SEMS 

program must address: 

* * * * * 

(c) Communication requirements to 

ensure that personnel will be informed 

of and trained as outlined in this section 

whenever a change is made in any of the 

areas in your SEMS program that 

impacts their ability to properly 

understand and perform their duties 

and responsibilities. Training and/or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

20442 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

notice of the change must be given 

before personnel are expected to operate 

the facility. 

(d) How you will verify that the 

contractors are trained in the work 

practices necessary to understand and 

perform their jobs in a safe and 

environmentally sound manner in 

accordance with all provisions of this 

section. 

■ 13. Amend § 250.1920 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b)(5), (b)(6), (c), and (d) 

and removing paragraph (e). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 250.1920 What are the auditing 

requirements for my SEMS program? 

(a) Your SEMS program must be 

audited by an accredited ASP according 

to the requirements of this subpart and 

API RP 75, Section 12 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198). The 

audit process must also meet or exceed 

the criteria in Sections 9.1 through 9.8 

of Requirements for Third-party SEMS 

Auditing and Certification of Deepwater 

Operations COS–2–03 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) or its 

equivalent. Additionally, the audit team 

lead must be an employee, 

representative, or agent of the ASP, and 

must not have any affiliation with the 

operator. The remaining team members 

may be chosen from your personnel and 

those of the ASP. The audit must be 

comprehensive and include all elements 

of your SEMS program. It must also 

identify safety and environmental 

performance deficiencies. 

(b) * * * 

(5) Section 12.5 Audit Frequency, 

except your audit interval, must not 

exceed 3 years after the 2-year time 

period for the first audit. The 3-year 

auditing cycle begins on the start date 

of each comprehensive audit (including 

the initial implementation audit) and 

ends on the start date of your next 

comprehensive audit. 

(6) Section 12.6 Audit Team. Your 

audits must be performed by an ASP as 

described in § 250.1921. You must 

include the ASP’s qualifications in your 

audit plan. 

(c) You must submit an audit report 

of the audit findings, observations, 

deficiencies identified, and conclusions 

to BSEE within 60 days of the audit 

completion date. 

(d) You must provide BSEE with a 

copy of your CAP for addressing the 

deficiencies identified in your audit 

within 60 days of the audit completion 

date. Your CAP must include the name 

and job title of the personnel 

responsible for correcting the identified 

deficiency(ies). The BSEE will notify 

you as soon as practicable after receipt 

of your CAP if your proposed schedule 

is not acceptable or if the CAP does not 

effectively address the audit findings. 

■ 14. Add §§ 250.1921 and 250.1922 to 

read as follows: 

§ 250.1921 What qualifications must the 

ASP meet? 

(a) The ASP must meet or exceed the 

qualifications, competency, and training 

criteria contained in Section 3 and 

Sections 6 through 10 of Qualification 

and Competence Requirements for 

Audit Teams and Auditors Performing 

Third-party SEMS Audits of Deepwater 

Operations, COS–2–01, (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) or its 

equivalent; 

(b) The ASP must be accredited by a 

BSEE-approved AB; and 

(c) The ASP must perform an audit in 

accordance with 250.1920(a). 

§ 250.1922 What qualifications must an AB 

meet? 

(a) In order for BSEE to approve an 

AB, the organization must satisfy the 

requirements of the International 

Organization for Standardization’s (ISO/ 

IEC 17011) Conformity assessment— 

General requirements for accreditation 

bodies accrediting conformity 

assessment bodies, First Edition 2004– 

09–01; Corrected Version 2005–02–15 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 250.198) or its equivalent. 

(1) The AB must have an accreditation 

process that meets or exceeds the 

requirements contained in Section 6 of 

Requirements for Accreditation of Audit 

Service Providers Performing SEMS 

Audits and Certification of Deepwater 

Operations, COS–2–04 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) or its 

equivalent, and other requirements 

specified in this subpart. Organizations 

requesting approval must submit 

documentation to BSEE describing the 

process for assessing an ASP for 

accreditation and approving, 

maintaining, and withdrawing the 

accreditation of an ASP. Requests for 

approval must be sent to DOI/BSEE, 

ATTN: Chief, Office of Offshore 

Regulatory Programs, 381 Elden Street, 

HE–3314, Herndon, VA 20170. 

(2) An AB may be subject to BSEE 

audits and other requirements deemed 

necessary to verify compliance with the 

accreditation requirements. 

(b) An AB must have procedures in 

place to avoid conflicts of interest with 

the ASP and make such information 

available to BSEE upon request. 

■ 15. Amend § 250.1924 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and removing 

paragraph (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 250.1924 How will BSEE determine if my 

SEMS program is effective? 

(a) The BSEE, or its authorized 

representative, may evaluate or visit 

your facility(ies) to determine whether 

your SEMS program is in place, 

addresses all required elements, is 

effective in protecting worker safety and 

health and the environment, and 

preventing incidents. The BSEE, or its 

authorized representative, may evaluate 

any and all aspects of your SEMS 

program as outlined in this subpart. 

These evaluations or visits may be 

random and may be based upon your 

performance or that of your contractors. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Your audit team’s qualifications. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise § 250.1925 to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1925 May BSEE direct me to conduct 

additional audits? 

(a) The BSEE may direct you to have 

an ASP audit of your SEMS program if 

BSEE identifies safety or noncompliance concerns based on the 

results of our inspections and 

evaluations, or as a result of an event. 

This BSEE-directed audit is in addition 

to the regular audit required by 

§ 250.1920. Alternatively, BSEE may 

conduct an audit. 

(1) If BSEE directs you to have an ASP 

audit, you are responsible for all of the 

costs associated with the audit, and 

(i) The ASP must meet the 

requirements of §§ 250.1920 and 

250.1921 of this subpart. 

(ii) You must submit an audit report 

of the audit findings, observations, 

deficiencies identified, and conclusions 

to BSEE within 60 days of the audit 

completion date. 

(2) If BSEE conducts the audit, BSEE 

will provide you with a report of the 

audit findings, observations, 

deficiencies identified, and conclusions 

as soon as practicable. 

(b) You must provide BSEE a copy of 

your CAP for addressing the 

deficiencies identified in the BSEEdirected audit within 60 days of the 

audit completion date. Your CAP must 

include the name and job title of the 

personnel responsible for correcting the 

identified deficiency(ies). The BSEE 

will notify you as soon as practicable 

after receipt of your CAP if your 

proposed schedule is not acceptable or 

if the CAP does not effectively address 

the audit findings. 

§ 250.1926 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 17. Remove and reserve § 250.1926 

■ 18. Amend § 250.1928 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 66 / Friday, April 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 20443 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as 

paragraph (h); and 

■ c. Adding new paragraphs (f) and (g). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 250.1928 What are my recordkeeping 

and documentation requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) For JSAs, the person in charge of 

the job must document the results of the 

JSA in writing and must ensure that 

records are kept onsite for 30 days. In 

the case of a MODU, records must be 

kept onsite for 30 days or until you 

release the MODU, whichever comes 

first. You must retain these records for 

2 years and make them available to 

BSEE upon request. 

* * * * * 

(f) For SWA, you must document all 

training and reviews required by 

§ 250.1930(e). You must ensure that 

these records are kept onsite for 30 days. 

In the case of a MODU, records must be 

kept onsite for 30 days or until you 

release the MODU, whichever comes 

first. You must retain these records for 

2 years and make them available to 

BSEE upon request. 

(g) For EPP, you must document your 

employees’ participation in the 

development and implementation of the 

SEMS program. You must retain these 

records for 2 years and make them 

available to BSEE upon request. 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Add §§ 250.1930 through 250.1933 

to read as follows: 

§ 250.1930 What must be included in my 

SEMS program for SWA? 

(a) Your SWA procedures must ensure 

the capability to immediately stop work 

that is creating imminent risk or danger. 

These procedures must grant all 

personnel the responsibility and 

authority, without fear of reprisal, to 

stop work or decline to perform an 

assigned task when an imminent risk or 

danger exists. Imminent risk or danger 

means any condition, activity, or 

practice in the workplace that could 

reasonably be expected to cause: 

(1) Death or serious physical harm; or 

(2) Significant environmental harm to: 

(i) Land; 

(ii) Air; or 

(iii) Mineral deposits, marine, coastal, 

or human environment. 

(b) The person in charge of the 

conducted work is responsible for 

ensuring the work is stopped in an 

orderly and safe manner. Individuals 

who receive a notification to stop work 

must comply with that direction 

immediately. 

(c) Work may be resumed when the 

individual on the facility with UWA 

determines that the imminent risk or 

danger does not exist or no longer 

exists. The decision to resume activities 

must be documented in writing as soon 

as practicable. 

(d) You must include SWA 

procedures and expectations as a 

standard statement in all JSAs. 

(e) You must conduct training on your 

SWA procedures as part of orientations 

for all new personnel who perform 

activities on the OCS. Additionally, the 

SWA procedures must be reviewed 

during all meetings focusing on safety 

on facilities subject to this subpart. 

§ 250.1931 What must be included in my 

SEMS program for UWA? 

(a) Your SEMS program must have a 

process to identify the individual with 

the UWA on your facility(ies). You must 

designate this individual taking into 

account all applicable USCG regulations 

that deal with designating a person in 

charge of an OCS facility. Your SEMS 

program must clearly define who is in 

charge at all times. In the event that 

multiple facilities, including a MODU, 

are attached and working together or in 

close proximity to one another to 

perform an OCS operation, your SEMS 

program must identify the individual 

with the UWA over the entire operation, 

including all facilities. 

(b) You must ensure that all personnel 

clearly know who has UWA and who is 

in charge of a specific operation or 

activity at all times, including when that 

responsibility shifts to a different 

individual. 

(c) The SEMS program must provide 

that if an emergency occurs that creates 

an imminent risk or danger to the health 

or safety of an individual, the public, or 

to the environment (as specified in 

§ 250.1930(a)), the individual with the 

UWA is authorized to pursue the most 

effective action necessary in that 

individual’s judgment for mitigating and 

abating the conditions or practices 

causing the emergency. 

§ 250.1932 What are my EPP 

requirements? 

(a) Your management must consult 

with their employees on the 

development, implementation, and 

modification of your SEMS program. 

(b) Your management must develop a 

written plan of action regarding how 

your appropriate employees, in both 

your offices and those working on 

offshore facilities, will participate in 

your SEMS program development and 

implementation. 

(c) Your management must ensure 

that employees have access to sections 

of your SEMS program that are relevant 

to their jobs. 

§ 250.1933 What procedures must be 

included for reporting unsafe working 

conditions? 

(a) Your SEMS program must include 

procedures for all personnel to report 

unsafe working conditions in 

accordance with § 250.193. These 

procedures must take into account 

applicable USCG reporting requirements 

for unsafe working conditions. 

(b) You must post a notice at the place 

of employment in a visible location 

frequently visited by personnel that 

contains the reporting information in 

§ 250.193. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07738 Filed 4–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 103 

[DoD–2008–OS–0124; 0790–AI37] 

Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response (SAPR) Program 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This part implements 

Department of Defense (DoD) policy and 

assigns responsibilities for the SAPR 

Program on prevention, response, and 

oversight to sexual assault. It is DoD 

policy to establish a culture free of 

sexual assault by providing an 

environment of prevention, education 

and training, response capability, victim 

support, reporting procedures, and 

accountability that enhances the safety 

and wellbeing of all persons covered by 

this regulation. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 5, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diana Rangoussis, Senior Policy 

Advisor, Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office (SAPRO), (703) 696– 

9422. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

This rule: 

a. Incorporates all applicable 

congressional mandates from Section 

113 of Title 10, United States Code 

(U.S.C.), and Public Laws 109–364, 109– 

163, 108–375, 106–65, 110–417, and 

111–84; and all applicable 

recommendations from the IG, DoD; 

Government Accountability Office; and 

Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in 

the Military Services; 

b. Establishes the creation, 

implementation, maintenance, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES