Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

RIN 1010 AD73, Proposed Rule 

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

Revisions to Safety and Environmental Management Systems 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement 

(BOEMRE), Department of the Interior 

August 15, 2011 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 3

Need for Regulatory Action and the Reasons that Action is being Considered.......... 3

How this rule will meet the need for regulatory action............................................................... 4

Baseline: the world without the regulation ................................................................................. 5

Proposed Regulation’s Compliance Costs...................................................................... 6

Recordkeeping and Implementation Costs.................................................................................. 7

Legacy Recordkeeping and Implementation Costs..................................................................... 9

Training Costs............................................................................................................................. 9

Benefits of a SEMS Program and this Proposed Regulation...................................... 10

Benefits of the Regulation......................................................................................................... 11

Measuring the Future Benefits of SEMS .................................................................................. 11

Net Benefits...................................................................................................................... 12

Regulatory Alternatives.................................................................................................. 12

Employee Participation (§ 250.1932)...................................................................................... 13

Additional requirements for conducting a Job Safety Analysis (JSA) (§ 250.1911)................ 13

Independent Third Party Audit (§ 250.1920)............................................................................ 14

Stop Work Authority (§250.1930)............................................................................................ 15

Ultimate Work Authority (§250.1931) ..................................................................................... 16

Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions (§250.1933)................................................................ 17

Analysis Specific to the Regulatory Flexibility Act...................................................... 17

Small Entities Estimated to be Impacted by this Rulemaking .................................................. 18

The Estimated Breakdown of Large and Small Company Compliance Costs.......................... 19

Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal rules that may duplicate, overlap 

or conflict with the proposed rule. ............................................................................................ 21

Small Business Alternatives...................................................................................................... 22

2 
SEMS-II Regulatory Impact Analysis1

Executive Summary 

This proposed rule is a significant rule, as determined by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), under Executive Order 12866 due to its novel legal and policy issues. It 

is not a significant rule due to its annual economic impact. 

Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) is a risk-based performance 

safety management system. The existing SEMS regulations were effective on November 

15, 2010 and OCS operators have until November 15, 2011 to implement a SEMS 

program under the existing regulations. The proposed provisions in this rulemaking are 

designed to fill the gaps in the existing SEMS regulations and are consistent with the 

recommendations of work groups, panels or commissions established following the 

Deepwater Horizon event. 

BOEMRE (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement) 

estimates the average annual cost of complying with this rulemaking is $26.9 million, 

spread across all OCS oil and gas operators with active operations. The benefits of the 

SEMS provisions in this rulemaking would come from enhanced safety for offshore 

workers and greater protection of the marine environment. These benefits would be 

realized though additional employee participation in safety procedures, training 

programs, notification obligations as well as strengthened safety and SEMS auditing 

procedures. 

Approximately 40 percent of the costs for this rulemaking will fall on 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). The operating risk 

for these small entities of incurring 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. We have evaluated a number of alternatives 

to accommodate small entities and facilitate compliance with the intent of this 

rulemaking, but were unable to identify provisions that would achieve the same safety 

objectives. 

Need for Regulatory Action and the Reasons that Action 

is being Considered 

The importance of this proposed rule is highlighted by the Deepwater Horizon event on 

April 20, 2010. The blowout of the BP Macondo well, and the resulting explosion on the 

Deepwater Horizon, resulted in the deaths of 11 workers, an oil spill of national 

 

1

 This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) includes both the economic analysis under Executive order 12866 

and the small business analysis under the Regulatory Flexibly Act. 

3 
significance, and the loss of the Deepwater Horizon MODU. Although the causes of the 

event are still under investigation, its grave consequences underline the importance of 

additional measures to ensure safe operations on the OCS. In consideration of issues 

raised by the testimony, hearings, and reports being released about the Deepwater 

Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill, BOEMRE proposes to expand, revise, and add 

several new requirements necessary for a more thorough SEMS program and for better 

BOEMRE oversight. 

The role of SEMS was specifically mentioned by the Presidential Oil Spill Commission. 

The commission recommended the existing SEMS regulations be updated. This 

proposed rule includes those provisions that BOEMRE believes are most necessary at 

reasonable cost to improve the existing SEMS program for OCS operators. The 

commission recommendation related to SEMS is found in the following summary: 

The Safety and Environmental Management Program Recommended Practice 75 

(API RP 75) developed in 1993 by the API and incorporated by reference in the 

Department of the Interior’s new workplace safety rules, adopted in October 

2010, is a reasonable starting point. Updates to those safety rules are needed 

immediately, but a new industry safety institution could make a credible start by 

requiring members to adopt all safety standards promptly—and mandating that 

the companies, in turn, require that their contractors and service providers 

comply with the new safety rules.2

The commission also specifically recommended that BOEME provide protection for 

“whistleblowers” that notify authorities about lapses in safety3 and expand Safety 

Environmental Management System requirements to include regular third-party audits at 

three- to five-year intervals and certification.4

 Both of these provisions are included in 

this proposed rulemaking. 

The importance of exercising stop work authority when an unsafe condition is identified 

was emphasized by the USCG joint investigation report.5 While most if not all operators 

and contractors provide their workers stop work authority, BOEMRE believes stop work 

authority needs to be formally integrated to the SEMS program. 

How this rule will meet the need for regulatory action 

A SEMS program is a comprehensive system to reduce human error and organizational 

failures. The proposed 30 CFR 250 Subpart S revisions will strengthen the existing 

SEMS framework built around API Recommended Practice 75. Many of the provisions 

proposed in this rulemaking are already being implemented by safety conscious OCS 

operating companies. However, as the safety regulator for OCS operations, BOEMRE 

 

2

 Report of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Part 

III, Lessons Learned: Industry, Government, Energy Policy 

http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FinalReportPartIII.pdf, page 242. 3

 Ibid, page 254. 

4

 Ibid, page 253 

5

USCG Report of Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Explosion, Fire, Sinking and Loss 

of Eleven Crew Members Aboard the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon, Appendix M, 

April 22, 2011. 

4 
needs to ensure that all companies are implementing the best safety practices and this 

regulation will help achieve that outcome. In addition to the requirements in current 

Subpart S regulations, the operator would henceforth be required to include the following 

in its SEMS program: 

(1) Additional requirements for conducting a Job Safety Analysis (JSA); 

(2) Procedures to execute a Stop Work Authority (SWA) by any and all 

employees on the facility when witnessing an activity that creates a threat of 

danger to an individual, property, and/or the environment; 

(3) Clearly defined requirements establishing who has the ultimate authority on 

the facility for operational safety and decision making at any given time; 

(4) A plan of action that shows how an operator’s employees are involved in the 

development and implementation of the American Petroleum Institute’s 

Recommended Practice for Development of a Safety Environmental 

Management Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities (API RP 75) was 

incorporated by references in the October 15, 2010, final rule; 

(5) Guidelines for reporting unsafe work conditions that provide all employees 

the right to report a possible safety or environmental violation(s) and request a 

BOEMRE inspection of the facility if they believe there is a serious threat of 

danger or their employer is not following BOEMRE regulations; 

(6) Revision to an operator’s SEMS program to allow only an independent third 

party to conduct all SEMS audits and meet the specified criteria listed in the 

proposed rule. 

Though these 6 provisions are required, they afford the operator flexibility under their 

company SEMS to determine the best method and practice to comply with the provisions. 

For example, the proposed rule allows the operator to designate the individual on the 

facility with Ultimate Work Authority rather than prescribing to the operator who or the 

position of that individual. 

BOEMRE believes that integrating these additional provisions into existing operators 

SEMS programs will help facilitate a safety culture and provide greater protections to 

OCS workers and the environment. A review how each of the provisions will contribute 

toward improving OCS safety is provided in the Regulatory Alternatives section. 

Baseline: the world without the regulation 

The proposed regulatory provisions are intended to enhance existing provisions or 

strengthen the existing SEMS program, rather than to create a new SEMS program. 

Because the existing SEMS program will not be completely implemented until November 

15, 2011, and since it takes several years to compile and analyze needed data, BOEMRE 

is unable to establish a SEMS regulatory baseline to analyze this proposed rule. 

A safety management system such as SEMP (Safety and Environmental Management 

Program) or SEMS has been used by many companies for many years. However, only 

with the publication of the final rule Safety and Environmental Management Systems is 

the implementation of SEMS mandatory for OCS operating companies. Per 30 CFR 

5 
250.1900(a), full implementation of all thirteen elements of the SEMS program and 

compliance with the requirements of 30 CFR 250 Subpart S and API RP 75 is required 

before November 15, 2011. 

BOEMRE has determined that the six proposed regulatory provisions in this proposed 

rule should easily fit into existing or developing SEMS programs and are integral to a 

well functioning SEMS and the advancement of safety and protection of the environment. 

For example, many companies already include employees in SEMS program 

development, hazard analysis and JSA development. Stop work authority (SWA) and 

reporting unsafe work practices are also components of safety and SEMS programs at 

many OCS companies. While the ultimate work authority (UWA) and independent third 

party audits of companies SEMS programs are new to most operators, the proposed 

requirements should not be difficult to implement for companies with a robust SEMS 

program. 

Proposed Regulation’s Compliance Costs 

We determined the costs of this proposed regulation by summing the costs from the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden estimates and from the estimated required 

training costs added through this rulemaking. BOEMRE estimates that the compliance 

costs for this regulation are $15.2 million for recordkeeping, administration and related 

costs and $11.7 million for training costs. This yields a total estimated annual 

compliance cost for this proposed rule of $26.9 million. 

Table 1 AD73 Compliance Cost Summary (without legacy costs)

Recordkeeping and 

Implementation 

$15.2 MM

Training $11.7 MM

TOTAL: $26.9 MM

Because OCS operators have until November 15, 2011 to implement to all thirteen 

elements of the SEMS program, the compliance cost estimate for this regulation must 

consider burden hours for legacy implementation costs covered by the PRA. These costs 

are estimated to be $40.0 million and are summarized in the next part. 

Table 2 AD73 Compliance Cost Summary

Recordkeeping and 

Implementation 

$15.2 MM

Training $11.7 MM

Legacy Recordkeeping and 

Implementation Costs 

$40.0 MM

TOTAL: $66.9 MM

6 
Recordkeeping and Implementation Costs 

This proposed rulemaking would add 177,077 burden hours through expansion of some 

existing regulatory requirements and through new regulatory requirements. The burden 

table below portrays only the expanded and/or new requirements/burden hours that would 

be added to those already approved by OMB. Italics show expansion of existing 

requirements; bold indicates new requirements. 

The paperwork burden table includes all estimated implementation costs for this 

proposed rulemaking other than employee training. While BOEMRE is proposing to 

require independent third parties to audit an operator’s SEMS program, we do not assign 

an additional cost to this requirement. Third party audit costs are not new, only shifted 

from in-house staff already doing that under existing rules. Additionally, BOEMRE is 

not estimating costs for actual work stoppages if SWA is employed. If SWA is employed 

during an actual safety situation the work stoppage is not a cost of this rule, but normal 

operations. SWA may be employed by a worker and the resulting work stoppage could 

be a “false alarm.” BOEMRE has no method to estimate the cost or frequency of a “false 

alarm” work stoppage and welcomes public comments. 

Using a loaded (including benefits and overhead) hourly rate of $86 per hour, we 

estimate the annual cost to industry for provisions in this proposed rulemaking other than 

training to be about $15.2 million ($86/hr x 177,077 hrs= $15,228,622). Please see Table 

3 for the PRA burden breakout and the rule preamble for a more in-depth discussion 

about the PRA costs. 

Table 3 Burden Table from Proposed Rule PRA Section

Citation

30 CFR 

250 

Subpart S

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirement

Hour 

Burden

Average No. 

of Annual 

Responses

Additional 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours

1900-1933 

Expanded 

High Activity Operator: ... As part of your 

SEMS, you must also develop and 

implement written procedures for SWA and 

include item as standard info pertaining to 

SWA in all JSAs; plan of action re employee 

participation and implementation; UWA 

info/designated person; procedures for 

employees to report unsafe work 

conditions..... 

2,848 13 operators. 37,024

1900-1933 

Expanded 

Moderate Activity Operator: ... As part of 

your SEMS, you must also develop and 

implement written procedures for SWA and 

include item as standard info pertaining to 

SWA in all JSAs; plan of action re employee 

participation and implementation; UWA 

info/designated person; procedures for 

employees to report unsafe work 

conditions.....

2,188 41 operators. 89,708

1900-1933 

Expanded 

Low Activity Operator: ... As part of your 

SEMS, you must also develop and 

implement written procedures for SWA and 

100 76 operators. 7,600

7 
Citation

30 CFR 

250 

Subpart S

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirement

Hour 

Burden

Average No. 

of Annual 

Responses

Additional 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours

include item as standard info pertaining to 

SWA in all JSAs; plan of action re employee 

participation and implementation; UWA 

info/designated person; procedures for 

employees to report unsafe work 

conditions..... 

1911(b) 

Expanded 

Direct supervisor and onsite designated 

person approval to conduct a JSA. Employee 

participation and signing..

1 min. 130 operators 

x 365 days x 

6=284,700* 

4,745 

1920(c); 

1925(a), 

(c); 

1926(e) 

Submit to BOEMRE after completed audit, 

report of findings and conclusions, including 

deficiencies and required supporting 

information/documentation. 

Burden already covered under 1010-0186. 

1926(a), 

(d) 

NEW 

Notify BOEMRE of nomination of 

independent third party, submit request 30 

days prior to audit re approval with relevant 

information; include management statement 

and submit new nomination if needed. 

3 130 operators 

once every 3 

years = 43 

129 

1925(a); 

1926(f)

Pay for all costs associated with BOEMRE 

directed audit approximately 20 percent per 

operator per category: 3 required audits for 

high operator ($20,000 per audit x 3 audits = 

$60,000); 8 required audits for moderate 

operator ($12,000 per audit x 8 audits = 

$96,000; and 15 required audits for low 

operator ($9,000 per audit per 15 audits = 

$135,000) = 26 required audits per year at a 

total yearly combined cost of $291,000. 

Burden already covered under 1010-0186. 

2 hrs/ mo 

x 12 

mos/yr = 

24 hrs 

1,007 manned 

facilities 

1928 24,168 

Expanded

..... (4) SWA documentation must be kept 

onsite for 30 days; retain records for 2 years. 

(5) Retain employee participation 

documentation for 2 years. (6) All 

documentation included in this requirement 

must be made available to BOEMRE upon 

request. 

30 mins. 2,447 

unmanned 

facilities 

1,224 

(rounded) 

1930(c) 

NEW

Document decision to resume SWA 

activities. 

8 Once every 2 

weeks = 26 

208 

1932(d), 

(e) 

NEW 

Upon request, provide BOEMRE copy of 

employee participation program; make 

program available during an audit. 

1 43 audits 43 

1933(c), (d), 

(f) 

NEW

Employee reports unsafe practice(s) and /or 

health violation(s). 

10 mins. 

30 mins. 

1 oral 

1 written 

1 hour 

(rounded) 

1933(e) 

NEW

Create and distribute to all employees unsafe 

activities card with relevant information. 

10 mins. 63,000 

full/part time 

employees 

10,500 

1933(j) 

NEW 

Post notice where employees can view re 

employees rights for reporting unsafe 

practices. 

30 mins. 3,454 facilities 1,727 

8 
Citation

30 CFR 

250 

Subpart S

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirement

Hour 

Burden

Average No. 

of Annual 

Responses

Additional 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours

TOTAL BURDEN to be added to 30 CFR 250, Subpart S 354,826 

Responses

177,077

Hours

*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. 

Legacy Recordkeeping and Implementation Costs 

Per 30 CFR 250.1900(a), full implementation of all thirteen elements of the SEMS 

program and compliance with the requirements of 30 CFR 250 Subpart S and API RP 75 

is required before November 15, 2011. The 177,077 burden hours shown in the previous 

section must be added to the existing PRA burden of 465,099 hours because this 

proposed rule is being published before November 15, 2011. The total burden is: 

177,077 + 465,099 = 642,176 hours. The estimated implementation cost for a final rule 

will not consider these legacy PRA costs. Using the same loaded hourly rate of $86 per 

hour, we estimate the annual legacy cost to industry for provisions not yet implemented 

by November 15, is estimated to be about $40.0 million ($86/hr x 465,099 hrs= 

$39,998,514). The following table includes both the new and legacy PRA costs for this 

rulemaking. 

Table 4 AD73 Complete PRA Implementation Costs

Recordkeeping and 

Implementation for AD73 

$15.2 MM

Legacy Recordkeeping and 

Implementation Costs (AD15) 

$40.0 MM

TOTAL: $55.2 MM

Training Costs 

BOEMRE is proposing additional training requirements so that OCS personnel are 

trained to work safely and to be aware of offshore environmental considerations in 

accordance with their duties and responsibilities. The training requirements proposed to 

be added with this rulemaking are: 

 How to recognize and identify hazards and the creation and implementation of 

JSAs (§250.1911) 

 Stop work authority (§ 250.1930) 

 Ultimate work authority (§ 250.1931) 

 Employee participation program (§ 250.1932) 

 Reporting unsafe work conditions (§ 250.1933) 

 

BOEMRE estimates that the personnel training related to hazard identification and JSAs 

will take about 90 minutes per year. The remaining four items (SWA, UWA, employee 

participation and reporting unsafe work conditions) will together take approximately 30 

9 
minutes per person per year. Together, the new training requirements in this proposed 

rule are estimated to take about 2 hours per year for all OCS employees working over the 

water. Based upon voluntary SEMS reporting for the last two years, BOEMRE estimates 

that approximately 63,000 employees work full or part time during the year on the OCS. 

This yields 126,000 training hours per year. Using the same $86/hourly rate, the cost of 

training personnel is estimated to be $10,836,000 (2 hours * 63,000 employees * $86/hr). 

Companies will also incur cost for instructors conducting the training. We estimate that 

the average training class size for the 63,000 personnel will be 20 persons. This equates 

to another 6,300 hours for the instructor’s time at a cost of $541,800 (6,300 * $86/hr). 

Instruction materials and other miscellaneous training expenses are estimated to be $5.00 

per person. This equates to an additional $315,000 ($5.00 * 63,000 employees). 

Estimated training costs for this proposed rulemaking are summarized in Table 5. 

Table 5 Estimated Training Costs

Training Item Estimated Cost 

Hazard analysis, JSA, SWA, 

UWA, employee participation and 

reporting unsafe work conditions. 

$10.836 MM 

Instruction cost. $0.542 MM 

Miscellaneous training expense $0.315 MM 

TOTAL: $11.693 MM 

BOEMRE is assigning the complete estimated training cost to this proposed regulation 

even though part of the training may already be incorporated into some operator’s 

existing SEMS programs. Many operators already conduct training for hazard analysis, 

JSAs and SWA even though it is not required by BOEMRE current regulation. Because 

BOEMRE does not have a basis to determine how many companies already include this 

training and the share of their personnel receive this training, we are assigning the full 

estimated training costs to this proposed regulation. 

Benefits of a SEMS Program and this Proposed 

Regulation 

The ultimate goal of SEMS is to promote safety and environmental protection during 

OCS activities. The protection of human life and the environment are the top priorities 

and objectives of this rule. While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of lives saved and 

risks avoided due to this proposed regulation, implementation of these proposed 

requirements will further the goal of avoiding accidents that may result in injuries, 

fatalities or serious environmental damage. Additional discussion of the benefits of 

SEMS can be found the final rule for Safety and Environmental Management Systems. 

10 
Benefits of the Regulation 

A SEMS program that includes these proposed requirements would enhance safety across 

all aspects of OCS operations. A review of the most recent BOEMRE incident data for 

calendar year 2010 in Table 6 suggests that SEMS is designed to address many of the 

incidents and contributing causes observed. 

Table 6 provides a historical summary of incidents that were investigated by BOEMRE. 

The data in the table are updated from the results that appeared in the preamble to the 

final SEMS rule (RIN 1010–AD15, 75 FR 63610) to include the calendar year 2010 

incidents investigated by BOEMRE. Two new categories of “other” and “SWA” were 

added for the calendar year 2010 analysis. 

Table 6 OCS Incidents and Contributing Causes

SEMS Element

Number of 

Incidents*

CY 2010 Incident 

Contributing Causes 

(since SEMS-I rule)

Hazards Analysis 430 18 

Management of Change 207 4 

Operating Procedures 614 5 

Mechanical Integrity 741 15 

Other 5 

SWA identified 3 

*Incident totals include past BOEMRE completed investigations inclusive of 

calendar year 2010. 

The largest SEMS category for 2010 incidents is hazard analysis. This proposed 

regulation helps address one of the root causes of OCS incidents by requiring hazard 

analysis training for operator employees. Additionally, three of the incident 

investigations cited the failure to exercise SWA as a key contributing cause. The result 

of these three incidents was one fatality and two serious injuries requiring evacuation. 

BOEMRE has determined based on the analysis of historical incident data that the 

proposed regulatory provisions should enhance OCS safety practices and culture. 

Measuring the Future Benefits of SEMS 

There are two primary methods that BOEMRE will use to assess the effectiveness of 

SEMS and other OCS safety improvements. The first is through SEMS audits and 

reviews and the second is through analysis of OCS incident data. 

SEMS audits can be announced or unannounced, or occur onshore, offshore or both. The 

audit may only involve employee interviews, or it could focus on record keeping. A full 

audit could involve 5 people for a week and could be conducted by an independent third 

party. In some instances, BOEMRE may find it necessary to conduct a SEMS audit. 

Audit results will be used by BOEMRE to assess the effectiveness of the SEMS program 

and individual operator performance. 

11 
BOEMRE also uses the Offshore Safety Index (OSI) and other incident data to evaluate 

individual operator performance as well as all OCS operators. While changes in OCS 

safety metrics may be the result of a multitude of factors including SEMS, it is a key 

component of BOEMRE’s evaluation of OCS safety effectiveness. 

Net Benefits 

BOEMRE believes that the additional safety requirements would provide net benefits 

through improved safety and environmental protection; however, for the reasons 

discussed above, we have not monetized or calculated the net benefits of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Table 7 Estimated Net Benefits 

Item Estimated Cost 

The total estimated compliance 

cost for this proposed rule6

 is: 

$26.9 million. 

The total estimated benefits for 

this proposed rule is: 

undetermined* 

Net Benefit: undetermined 

*Please see the section on Benefits of the Regulation for the discussion on benefits for the proposed rule. 

Regulatory Alternatives 

BOEMRE has determined that the six proposed regulatory provisions are necessary for a 

comprehensive SEMS program and are consistent with the recommendations of work 

groups, panels or commissions established following the Deepwater Horizon event. The 

proposed requirements should easily fit into existing or developing SEMS programs and 

are designed to fill the gaps in the existing SEMS regulations through the advancement of 

safety and protection of the environment. For example, many companies already include 

employees in SEMS program development, hazard analysis and JSA development. Stop 

work authority (SWA) and reporting unsafe work practices are also components of safety 

and SEMS programs at many OCS companies. While the ultimate work authority 

(UWA) and independent third party audits of companies SEMS programs are new to 

most operators, the proposed requirements should not be difficult to implement for 

companies with a robust SEMS program. 

Operators retain flexibility to implement these proposed requirements in a manner that 

fits with the operational and cultural approach in their individual companies. For 

example, the proposed rule allows the operator to designate the individual on the facility 

with Ultimate Work Authority rather than prescribing to the operator who or the position 

of that individual. The following sections outline how the proposed requirements 

contribute to the safety of OCS workers and summarize BOEMRE’s evaluation of 

alternatives for the newly proposed regulatory provisions in 30 CFR Part 250, subpart S. 

 

6

 If legacy implementation costs are included, the estimated implementation cost increases to $66.9 million. 

12 
Employee Participation (§ 250.1932) 

Employee participation means the partaking in the SEMS program by company staff and 

management at every level and pay grade within the organization. This proposed rule 

would require the operator to describe how their employees are involved in the 

development and implementation of their SEMS program. Management would also have 

to develop a written plan of action regarding how employee participation in the SEMS 

program is conducted on both onshore and offshore facilities. The operator would have 

to provide each employee and contractor employee access to the SEMS program and to 

all other information required by API RP 75, and the employee participation program. 

Management must provide BOEMRE a copy of the employee participation program upon 

request and make it available during an audit. The intent of this program is to foster 

broad and active participation involving hourly, exempt, and nonexempt employees 

cooperating to make the workplace safer. BOEMRE believes that a strong involvement 

of employees in the development and operations of SEMS will provide greater buy-in 

and confidence in the risk-based SEMS program. 

Most companies already involve employees in the development of their SEMS program. 

This proposed provision would provide regulatory clarity that a company cannot 

outsource all of their SEMS development to a contractor. Even if SEMS development, 

implementation and recordkeeping are outsourced to a contractor, the operator’s 

employees must participate in safety activities for the SEMS program to be effective. 

Less Stringent Alternative: A less burdensome alternative is to allow companies to 

develop in-house or outsource SEMS development without employee participation. 

While most companies would not implement SEMS in this manner, there is a possibility 

that some companies inclined to only minimally support the spirit of SEMS would seek 

out this alternative if available. However, this alternative is not feasible since it would 

not allow the employees who are actively engaged in OCS activities to identify 

workplace issues that directly impact them. 

More Stringent Alternative: A stricter alternative is to require operator 

documentation demonstrating how each element of their SEMS program as well as 

hazard analysis and JSAs incorporates their employees’ input. BOEMRE does not 

believe that this very prescriptive approach is necessary or would provide improved 

employee acceptance and adoption of a safety culture. We believe that the occasional 

BOEMRE SEMS audits and independent third party audits can accurately reveal whether 

employees participated in the SEMS development, hence that further documentation is 

unnecessary. 

Additional requirements for conducting a Job Safety Analysis 

(JSA) (§ 250.1911) 

BOEMRE is proposing additional requirements for conducting a JSA. The proposed 

requirements would improve the effectiveness of the JSA through improved identification 

of risk and hazards. 

13 
The immediate supervisor of the personnel conducting the work would conduct the JSA, 

sign the JSA, and ensure that all personnel participating in the job sign as well. The 

person onsite designated by the operator as the person in charge of the facility would be 

required to approve and sign the JSA and document the results of the JSA in writing. The 

person onsite designated by the operator would ensure that records of all JSAs are kept 

onsite for at least 30 days. The JSA must be kept for 2 years as required in § 250.1928. 

The operator would conduct training on how to recognize and identify hazards as part of 

the SEMS program for all personnel. In addition, the operator would provide training to 

employees within 30 days of employment, and at not less than once every 12 months 

thereafter. 

These additional requirements for conducting JSAs will emphasize the hazard and risk 

factors identified for the pending operations. The review and sign-off by employees 

performing the operations will also facilitate communication about the risks for the 

pending action among its participants and contribute to a safety culture. 

Less Stringent Alternative: A more relaxed alternative is to continue with the 

existing subpart S requirements in § 250.1911. This does not require mandatory training 

or the JSA signing by all workers participating in the job. While many companies 

routinely train their employees on hazard analysis, hazard analysis training is not 

currently a SEMS training requirement in BOEMRE regulations. The same holds for the 

signing of JSAs by all workers. Many operators do this as a standard practice, but 

BOEMRE has determined that requiring the signing of the JSA would help ensure that all 

offshore workers understand the JSA and would follow the requirements. 

More Stringent Alternative: A stricter alternative would be for BOEMRE to 

require the use of a standard JSA template. The JSA template would cover all of the 

basic areas of concern. This alternative would unnecessarily remove important flexibility 

from operators to design their JSA in the manner most appropriate for the job and their 

SEMS program. 

Independent Third Party Audit (§ 250.1920) 

The proposed regulation requires that audits be conducted by independent third parties 

rather than providing operators the option of conducting an audit in-house or hiring an 

independent third party. BOEMRE is requiring an auditor that is fully independent of the 

entity being audited. This provides greater assurance the audit results are objective. 

We are no longer allowing a company to conduct the audit themselves. This is necessary 

because we want to ensure the objectivity of the auditor and avoid even the perception of 

bias. While some companies through their culture and systems of internal controls may 

provide a truly independent assessment of their own company’s SEMS program, 

BOEMRE has not identified any easy and objective metrics to evaluate that 

independence. 

14 
BOEMRE reserves the right to audit an operator’s SEMS program at any time. For this 

to occur, BOEMRE staff must to be available to initiate audits when a potential weakness 

in an operator’s SEMS program is identified. Weakness identification could occur either 

through an incident or other information received. Additionally, BOEMRE will be 

reviewing the independent third party audits to provide an additional review and 

assessment of a company’s SEMS program. 

Less Stringent Alternative: A more lenient alternative is to continue to allow the 

company to conduct the audit in-house at their discretion. BOEMRE has determined that 

this creates a potential conflict of interest within the company and is not a program 

feature that we believe is conducive to the long-term health and objectivity of SEMS 

programs. 

More Stringent Alternative: A more strict approach is to have the Federal 

government conduct all audits. The government is already authorized to conduct audits, 

reviews or visits to determine whether a SEMS program addresses all required elements, 

and is effective in protecting the safety and health of workers, the environment, and 

preventing incidents when it deems it necessary. These evaluations or visits may be 

random or based upon the OCS lease operator’s or contractor’s performance. At this 

time BOEMRE believes that having an independent third party conduct the audit and 

BOEMRE primarily conducting periodic reviews or visits will achieve more complete 

SEMS oversight than would be possible with only BOEMRE audits. 

Stop Work Authority (§250.1930) 

The proposed rule adds a new section requiring operators to create and implement a 

“Stop Work Authority” (SWA) program. Incorporating SWA into a SEMS program will 

contribute to the culture of safety because all employees will have both the responsibility 

and authority to halt work when an unsafe conduction is identified. 

This provision would ensure that all employees including contractors are given authority 

to stop the work when employees witness an activity that creates an imminent risk or 

danger to the health or safety of an individual or to the environment. When a SWA 

occurs, the proposed rule would provide that person in charge of the conducted activity is 

responsible for ensuring the work is stopped in an orderly and safe manner. The rule 

would provide that work may be resumed upon a determination by the person on the 

facility with ultimate work authority that the imminent danger or risk does not exist or no 

longer exists. The decision to resume activities would have to be documented as soon as 

practicable. 

A Less Stringent Alternative: A less stringent option is to continue the current 

situation where SWA, even if it is company policy, may not always be clearly and 

repeatedly communicated and implemented by all OCS workers. Many accident reports 

over the years show that injuries, deaths and pollution events could have been avoided if 

someone at the scene had called for a work stoppage. BOEMRE believes that universal 

SWA is a necessary component of SEMS. 

15 
More Stringent Alternative: In the case of SWA, BOEMRE could propose very 

stringent standards which include redundant reminders about workers’ SWA 

responsibility to stop work if there is any safety risk or danger. We don’t believe this is a 

reasonable alternative for a more stringent regulatory SWA provisions because it would 

not meaningfully improve awareness over that achieved during routine training and 

safety meetings. 

Ultimate Work Authority (§250.1931) 

BOEMRE is proposing a requirement for operators to specify who has the Ultimate Work 

Authority (UWA) on MODU’s performing activities under BOEMRE’s jurisdictions and 

on fixed or floating facilities. The UWA would be the person on the facility or MODU 

with the final responsibility for making decisions. Under the proposed rule, the 

operator’s SEMS program must identify the person(s) that has the ultimate work 

authority and this person(s) must be designated as such by the operator. The SEMS 

program would have to define clearly who is in charge at all times, and would ensure that 

all personnel clearly know who is in charge, including when that responsibility shifts to a 

different person. The person(s) with UWA must be known by name and readily 

identifiable by every person on the MODU or fixed and floating facility. This could be 

done, for instances by posting a notice in a public and easily accessible location. 

Proposed § 250.1931(d) would require the SEMS to provide that if an emergency occurs 

that creates an imminent risk or danger to the health or safety of an individual or of the 

public or to the environment (as specified in proposed § 250.1930(a)), the person(s) with 

the UWA, is authorized to pursue the most effective action necessary in that person’s 

judgment for mitigating and abating the conditions or practices causing the emergency. 

This grant of authority is needed to assure that necessary actions will be taken to deal 

with a serious emergency. 

Clarifying UWA on OCS facilities will contribute to the culture of safety by ensuring that 

all employees know and understand the decision making chain both during routine 

operations and in the case of a safety emergency. Any confusion or conflict about which 

person has the authority to make critical decisions during an emergency can cost critical 

moments and endanger the safety of workers and the facility. The UWA requirement 

will ensure that all OCS facilities under BOEMRE jurisdiction will have a designated 

person/position that has the ultimate authority to make safety or other critical operational 

decisions. The proposed rule allows the operator to designate the individual on the 

facility with Ultimate Work Authority rather than prescribing to the operator who or the 

position of that individual. 

A Less Stringent Alternative: Again, the less stringent alternative is to continue 

the current situation where the lines of authority may not always be clearly 

communicated to all OCS workers. During normal routine operations, this may not be a 

significant problem, but during emergency operations such as the BP Deepwater Horizon 

event, confusion about lines of authority can cause inappropriate responses and contribute 

to delays in decision making. BOEMRE finds this risk is no longer acceptable. 

16 
More Stringent Alternative: A more rigorous approach is to require that the 

operator or “company man” always be onsite and be designated as the ultimate work 

authority. BOEMRE believes that this prescriptive requirement is overly burdensome 

and costly, because among other things it would interfere with performance based 

contracts that operators have with their service providers, perhaps inadvertently 

compromising safety as well as operating efficiency. 

Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions (§250.1933) 

The proposed rule has a Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions provision which requires 

that the operator’s SEMS program must include procedures that address reporting unsafe 

work conditions. Any person may report a possible violation of any regulation or any 

other hazardous or unsafe working condition on any facility engaged in OCS activities to 

BOEMRE. 

 All operators must post a notice in a conspicuous location in the place of 

employment where employees frequent that explains employee rights and 

remedies for reporting unsafe working conditions. 

 Each operator must provide training to employees on their unsafe work conditions 

policy within 30 days of employment, and not less than once every 12 months 

thereafter. 

 Each employee must be provided a card which contains a BOEMRE telephone 

number that employees can call to get information or report unsafe activities. 

This proposed provision will contribute to the safety culture by providing OCS workers 

an avenue outside their company to report unsafe working conditions if they do not feel 

comfortable reporting the situation to authorities in their own operational chain. 

A Less Stringent Alternative: A more flexible approach is to continue the current 

situation where the option of reporting unsafe working conditions to BOEMRE exists, 

but relevant information about filing a report is not required to be routinely 

communicated to employees working offshore. Many companies have their own 

ombudsman to act as a trusted intermediary within the company for safety or other 

grievances. While this practice may work for some operators, BOEMRE believes that 

the option to report to BOEMRE must also be advertised so that every offshore worker is 

aware of this opportunity to report unsafe working conditions to the regulator. 

More Stringent Alternative: In the case of reporting unsafe working conditions, 

BOEMRE could propose very stringent standards including redundant reminders and 

postings about workers’ opportunity to report unsafe working conditions to BOEMRE. 

We don’t believe such an added requirement would provide a meaningful improvement 

in awareness, and therefore conclude that these more stringent requirements are neither 

reasonable nor currently within BOEMRE’s authority. 

Analysis Specific to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

BOEMRE is proposing this rulemaking for reasons summarized in the earlier sections 

covering the need for regulatory action and how this rule will meet that need. The 

summary of compliance costs and benefits is provided in the E.O. 12866 analysis. This 

17 
section only includes a summary of the compliance costs that we estimate would impact 

small entities. All components of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are 

contained within this RIA. 

Small Entities Estimated to be Impacted by this Rulemaking 

The changes proposed in the rule would affect lessees and operators of leases and 

pipeline right-of-way holders in 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, we estimate 65 percent of these 

companies are small entities. This proposed rule, therefore would affect a substantial 

number of small entities. 

This proposed rule would apply to all Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operators and oil 

and gas operations under BOEMRE jurisdiction including drilling (MODUs while under 

BOEMRE jurisdiction), production, construction, well workover, well completion, well 

servicing and DOI pipeline activities. Based upon BOEMRE data for OCS lease 

operators, we estimate that approximately 105 out of 130 OCS lease operators currently 

have active OCS operations. The remaining approximately 25 operators hold operating 

rights, but do not have ongoing operations. These companies would be required to have a 

SEMS program if the company initiated OCS operations. More than 80 percent of these 

approximately 25 operators hold less than 10 leases and almost half of these inactive 

operators hold a single lease. We have categorized these 25 companies as “low activity” 

operators for this analysis. 

There are many arrangements for sharing project risks and expenses for OCS exploration 

and development projects. These include original and revised ownership agreements 

where the risk, equity, and other and other operating interest arrangements may be 

complex. When there is an assignment of lease rights among different parties, BOEMRE 

records the OCS lease assignments in a manner similar to county court property records. 

However for the small entity analysis for this rulemaking, we are only looking at the 

designated operator or operator of record since that is the entity that BOEMRE will hold 

responsible for all SEMS related compliance. 

High Activity Operators 

BOEMRE considers 13 of the 105 active lease operators, high activity operators that 

produce more than 10 million BOE and operate more than 1,000 components. Nine of 

these companies are large entities and 4 are small companies. The average number of 

complexes managed by a high activity operator is 118 and high activity operators manage 

approximately half of all OCS facilities. We estimate the total number of employees on 

complexes of high activity operators is 31,500, compared to 63,000 employees on all 

complexes. Therefore, we can conclude that a majority of OCS production originates 

from these high activity operators. Because the drivers for SEMS compliance actions and 

costs are generally the number of complexes and personnel working on these complexes, 

18 
we infer that the high activity operators would bear about half of the cost of this 

rulemaking. 

Moderate Activity Operators 

BOMRE deems another 41 companies to be moderate activity operators that produce 

more than 1 million BOE and operate more than 100 components. Of these, 20 are large 

companies and 21 are small companies. The average number of complexes managed by 

moderate activity operators is 30. Moderate activity operators operate approximately 40 

percent of OCS complexes. We estimate the total number of employees on complexes 

run by moderate activity operators to be 25,000, compared to 63,000 employees on all 

complexes. Consistent with the above approach, the moderate activity operators thus 

would bear about 40 percent of the cost of this rulemaking. 

Low Activity Operators 

BOEMRE considers the remaining 76 companies low activity operators that did not meet 

the activity level thresholds for high or moderate activity operators. Of these, 18 are 

large companies and 58 are small entities. Only 51 of the 76 have conducted active OCS 

operations within the last 3 years. The remaining 25 hold leases but have not conducted 

active OCS operations within the last three years. Consistent with OMB guidance, only 

the PRA portion of compliance costs estimated in this analysis applies to these 25 

inactive operators. While inactive operators may incur an information collection burden 

because they are active leaseholders, they only face the full requirements of this proposed 

rulemaking if they undertake OCS operations. Accordingly, compliance costs for 

meeting training requirements are computed based only on the active operator employee 

count. 

Low activity operators have an average of 6 OCS complexes. Low activity operators 

represent almost half of all active operators, but they only operate 10 percent of OCS 

complexes. We estimate that the total number of employees on complexes run by low 

activity operators is 6,500. Therefore, the low activity operators would bear about 10 

percent of the cost of this rulemaking. 

The Estimated Breakdown of Large and Small Company 

Compliance Costs 

Table 8 details BOEMRE’s estimate of this proposed rulemaking’s impact across 

operations on leases held by high, moderate and low activity operators for each of the 

proposed regulatory provisions. The estimated costs other than training are the PRA 

costs obtained from the burden summarized in Table 3. The cost estimates are further 

split between small (less than 500 employees) and large operators. Factors used to 

allocate costs include estimated number of facilities, estimated number of employees and 

number of operators in each activity category. 

Table 8 Calculations: This section describes the cost estimation and allocation 

methodology for a single cell in Table 8. The example explained is for the low activity 

19 
small company operators for 30 CFR 250.1933(f) with an estimated cost of $10,099 

(posting employees rights for reporting unsafe working conditions on OCS facilities). 

The $10,099 is the estimated cost allocated to low activity small companies from the total 

of $148,522. The cost calculation from the burden table for 1933(f) in Table 3 is 

repeated below. 

1933(f) 

NEW 

Post notice where 

employees can view 

employees’ rights for 

reporting unsafe practices. 

30 

mins. 

3,454 

facilities 

1,727 $148,522 = (3454 facs * 

0.5 hr * $86/hr) 

The cost for 1933(f) notice posting is determined by using the estimated number of 

facilities operated by low activity small company operators. BOEMRE estimates that 

235/3,454 complexes are operated by companies in this category. This equates to 6.8% 

of the total OCS complexes. This yields $10,099 (0.068 * $148,522). Each of the PRA 

and training costs are allocated to the six operator categories using the categories’ 

estimated share of employees, complexes or total active operators. 

Table 8 Estimated Compliance Cost by Company Size and Level of Activity ($) 

Company Category►

CFR/Requirement▼

High 

LgCo. 

High 

SmCo. 

Mod. 

LgCo. 

Mod. 

SmCo. 

Low 

LgCo. 

Low 

SmCo. 

$Totals 

1900-1933 High 

Activity Operator 

2,547,251 636,813 3,184,064 

1900-1933 

Mod. Operator 

 3,765,503 3,949,385 7,714,888 

1900-1933 

Low Operator 

 217,867 435,733 653,600 

1911(b) Suprvsr & 

Empl. JSA signing. 

163,228 40,807 79,669 83,559 13,602 27,205 408,070 

1926(a) Submit letter 

30 days prior to audit 

768 341 1,707 1,792 1,536 4,950 11,094 

1928 Recordkeeping 

(manned facilities) 

831,107 207,777 403,925 423,650 70,663 141,326 2,078,448 

1928 Recordkeeping 

(unmanned facilities) 

42,092 10,523 20,457 21,456 3,579 7,158 105,264 

1932(d), (e) Provide 

Employee Participation 

256 114 569 597 512 1,650 3,698 

1933(f) Post unsafe 

working condn info. 

59,389 14,847 28,864 30,273 5,049 10,099 148,522 

1933(h)(i)(j) Distr 

unsafe wrkng condn 

card 

361,234 90,309 176,312 184,922 30,103 60,206 903,086 

Training (all) 4,677,120 1,169,280 2,282,821 2,394,299 389,760 779,520 11,692,800 

$Total: 8,682,446 2,170,811 6,759,826 7,089,933 732,671 1,467,846 26,903,534 

Table 9 provides the estimated split between small and large entities for this proposed 

rulemaking. This compliance cost summary indicates that small companies would bear 

approximately 40 percent of the costs of this proposed rulemaking. While this is greater 

than their share of OCS leases, small entities 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); see Table 10 and Table 11. 

20 
Table 9 Small Company Compliance Cost Summary ($)

Estimated Large Company Cost: 16,174,944 

Estimated Small Company Cost: 10,728,590 

7

$Total: 26,903,534 

Table 10 Lease Ownership among Small and Large Companies (11/1/2010) 

Leases 

11/01/2010 

(percentage) 

Shallow Water 

Leases 

Deepwater 

Leases 

All Leases 

Large Co. 55% 92% 80% 

Small Co. 45% 8% 20% 

100% 100% 100% 

Table 11 Gulf of Mexico Active Platforms (02/22/2011) 

Water Depth 

in Meters 

Active 

Platforms 

0 to 200 3,244 

201 to 400 20 

401 to 800 10 

801 to 1000 7 

1000 and Above 26 

Identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant federal 

rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

BOEMRE has determined that this proposed rule does not create an additional burden to 

operators because it does not duplicate, overlap or conflict with regulations of other 

federal agencies. This proposed rule would apply to all OCS oil and gas and sulphur 

operations and the facilities under BOEMRE jurisdiction including drilling, production, 

construction, well workover, well completion, well servicing, and DOI pipeline activities. 

Several other agencies have jurisdiction over other aspects of OCS activities and some of 

these agencies require the use of safety management systems. It is the intent of this 

proposed rule that the operators modify their SEMS plans only for oil, gas and sulphur 

operations under BOEMRE jurisdiction. The requirement for this SEMS plan does not 

affect the obligation to comply with other regulatory requirements outside of BOEMRE’s 

jurisdiction. If the operator’s activities fall within the regulatory purview of another 

agency (e.g., USCG, DOT), the operator is required to follow that agency’s regulations. 

 

7

 Excludes legacy PRA implementation costs. 

21 
Small Business Alternatives 

This section describes BOEMRE’s evaluation of any significant alternatives to the 

proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and that 

minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. This 

includes alternatives considered, such as: 

(1) establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources available to small entities; 

(2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting 

requirements under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) use of performance rather than design standards; 

(4) any exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 

entities. 

Alternative compliance or implementation timelines for small entities 

BOEMRE has determined that the proposed provisions in this rulemaking can easily be 

integrated into OCS operators existing SEMS programs. No new capital equipment is 

required. Most of this proposed rulemaking’s compliance cost is for training and to 

develop and implement written procedures for the proposed revisions. For small entities 

with only a few facilities (low activity operators), these new provisions would involve 

minimal cost. For small entities that are high and moderate activity operators, the cost 

would be correspondingly greater. BOEMRE has determined that the proposed extra 

training and documentation requirements are essential for a reliable safety program and 

delay of implementation is not a viable option. 

Consolidation or reporting requirements under the rule for small 

entities 

SEMS records are normally kept by the operator or their SEMS contractor and not 

routinely provided to BOEMRE unless there is a specific request. BOEMRE may request 

records during a routine or directed audit of an operators SEMS program. Records kept 

by the operator are integral to the audit trail for SEMS compliance. The SEMS 

recordkeeping requirements proposed in this rulemaking clarify some of what would be 

necessary to ensure compliance with the underlying audit requirement. 

Use of performance rather than design standards 

The training, notification and other requirements in this rulemaking are intentionally 

prescriptive. While many operators have or would implement the proposed safety 

provisions in this rulemaking or similar procedures, we cannot be certain that all 

operators would implement appropriate measures without regulations. This has been 

demonstrated over the past decade where not all OCS operating companies have 

voluntarily implemented a SEMS program. For the provisions in this proposed rule, we 

have not identified alternatives that would provide the same assurance across all 

operators as the proposed requirements. BOEMRE requests your comments for any 

alternative safety measures or programs for OCS operations that would confirm universal 

achievement of the SEMS goal. 

22 
23 

Exemption from parts the rule for such small entities 

A standard alternative under the RFA is to exempt small businesses from the 

requirements of this proposed rule. The “exemption” or “no action” alternative was not 

adopted by BOEMRE for this rulemaking because it is imperative that BOEMRE adopt 

the best safety practices and requirements by all OCS operators as highlighted by the BP 

Deepwater Horizon event. Offshore operations are highly technical and can be 

hazardous; delay or exemption from the proposed provisions in this rulemaking may 

increase the risk of OCS oil and gas operations. The risk is not lower for small entities 

and BOEMRE cannot compromise the safety of offshore personnel and the environment 

for any entity including small businesses. 

BOEMRE can approve departures to existing regulations when the departure would 

assure the continued safety of OCS operations. In 30 CFR 250.105 departures means: 

Approvals granted by the appropriate MMS [now BOEMRE] representative for 

operating requirements/procedures other than those specified in the regulations 

found in this part. These requirements/procedures may be necessary to control a 

well; properly develop a lease; conserve natural resources; or protect life, 

property, or the marine, coastal, or human environment.

If an operator can identify alternative procedures that afford an equal or greater degree of 

protection, safety, or performance, and why the departure is necessary, BOEMRE will 

consider the request.