Friday, 

October 15, 2010 

Part III 

Department of the 

Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 250 

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in 

the Outer Continental Shelf—Safety and 

Environmental Management Systems; 

Final Rule 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement 

30 CFR Part 250 

[Docket ID BOEM–2010–0046] 

RIN 1010–AD15 

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in 

the Outer Continental Shelf—Safety 

and Environmental Management 

Systems 

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a 

new subpart under the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement (BOEMRE) regulations to 

require operators to develop and 

implement Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems (SEMS) for oil 

and gas and sulphur operations in the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This 

rulemaking will incorporate in its 

entirety and make mandatory the 

American Petroleum Institute’s 

Recommended Practice 75, 

Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities, with 

respect to operations and activities 

under the jurisdiction of BOEMRE. This 

final rule will 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. The importance of 

this final rule is highlighted by the 

Deepwater Horizon event on April 20, 

2010. Although the cause of the event is 

presently under investigation, it further 

illustrates the importance of ensuring 

safe operations on the OCS. BOEMRE 

believes that requiring operators to 

implement SEMS will reduce the risk 

and number of accidents, injuries, and 

spills during OCS activities. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes 

effective on November 15, 2010. The 

incorporation by reference of the 

publication listed in the regulation is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 15, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Nedorostek, (703) 787–1029. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

22, 2006, the former Minerals 

Management Service published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (71 FR 29277), and then on 

June 17, 2009, BOEMRE (formerly 

MMS) published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in the Federal Register 

entitled ‘‘Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems for Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Operations’’ (74 FR 28639). The 

comment period for that proposed rule 

closed on September 15, 2009. In 

response to several requests, BOEMRE 

issued a National Notice to Lessees and 

Operators (NTL No. 2009–N05) on 

August 12, 2009, announcing a public 

meeting on September 2, 2009, in New 

Orleans, Louisiana, to discuss the 

proposed rule. 

Summary of the Final Rule 

BOEMRE is incorporating by 

reference, and making mandatory, the 

American Petroleum Institute’s 

Recommended Practice for 

Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities (API 

RP 75), Third Edition, May 2004, 

reaffirmed May 2008. This 

recommended practice, including its 

appendices, constitutes a complete 

Safety and Environmental Management 

System (SEMS) program. On May 22, 

2006, BOEMRE published an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

in the Federal Register (71 FR 29277) 

related to requiring a SEMS program. 

This was followed on June 17, 2009, by 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR). 

The ANPR discussed several options 

for implementing a SEMS program. One 

of these options was a comprehensive 

safety and environmental management 

approach by addressing all elements of 

API RP 75. API RP 75 consists of 13 

sections, one of which is a ‘‘General’’ 

section. This relates to the 12 elements 

identified in the ANPR and states the 

overall principles for the SEMS program 

and establishes management’s general 

responsibilities for its success. This 

General element is critical to the 

successful implementation of the SEMS 

program in API RP 75, and BOEMRE is 

including it by incorporating by 

reference the entirety of API RP 75. 

The NPR proposed regulatory text 

premised on the four critical elements of 

API RP 75 (hazards analysis, 

management of change, operating 

procedures, and mechanical integrity). 

BOEMRE noted all elements of API RP 

75 in the proposed rule, stating that a 

SEMS program should be modeled after 

the requirements of API RP 75, but did 

not propose to incorporate all elements 

of API RP 75. However, several 

comments suggested that BOEMRE 

should incorporate by reference and 

require implementation of all elements 

of API RP 75. BOEMRE has determined 

that for the SEMS program to be most 

effective, the entirety of API RP 75 

needs to included in the program and 

has required as much in the final rule. 

BOEMRE also believes that adoption of 

API RP 75 in its entirety is consistent 

with the direction of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1996, which directs agencies, 

wherever possible, to adopt private 

standards. 

This final rule will therefore require 

the operator (a lessee, the owner or 

holder of operating rights, or the 

designated operator) to integrate a 

comprehensive SEMS program into the 

management of their OCS operations, 

thereby providing for the prevention of 

waste and conservation of natural 

resources of the Outer Continental 

Shelf. In addition, BOEMRE is 

highlighting certain requirements from 

API RP 75 and further describing those 

requirements in the regulatory text to 

clarify compliance requirements. It is 

the intent of this rule to hold the 

operator accountable for the overall 

safety of the offshore facility, including 

ensuring that all contractors and 

subcontractors have safety policies and 

procedures in place that support the 

implementation of the operator’s SEMS 

program and align with the principles of 

managing safety set forth in API RP 75. 

Nothing in this final rule shall affect the 

Coast Guard’s authority and jurisdiction 

over vessels and offshore facilities. This 

final rule will require all elements of 

API RP 75 as follows: 

(1) General, with additional 

clarification in § 250.1909, 

(2) Safety and Environmental 

Information, with additional 

clarification in § 250.1910, 

(3) Hazards Analysis, with additional 

clarification in § 250.1911, 

(4) Management of Change, with 

additional clarification in § 250.1912, 

(5) Operating Procedures, with 

additional clarification in § 250.1913, 

(6) Safe Work Practices, with 

additional clarification in § 250.1914, 

(7) Training, with additional 

clarification in § 250.1915, 

(8) Assurance of Quality and 

Mechanical Integrity of Critical 

Equipment, (Mechanical Integrity), with 

additional clarification in § 250.1916, 

(9) Pre-startup Review, with 

additional clarification in § 250.1917, 

(10) Emergency Response and 

Control, with additional clarification in 

§ 250.1918, 

(11) Investigation of Incidents, with 

additional clarification in § 250.1919, 

(12) Audit of Safety and 

Environmental Management Program 

Elements, (Auditing), with additional 

clarification in §§ 250.1920, 1924, and 

1925, and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63611 

(13) Records and Documentation, 

(Recordkeeping and Documentation), 

with additional BOEMRE requirements 

in § 250.1928. 

BOEMRE also carried over other 

provisions that were contained in the 

proposed rule. Therefore, in 

implementing a comprehensive SEMS 

program that incorporates all of API RP 

75, the operator needs to include the 

following in its SEMS program: 

(1) Recordkeeping and documentation 

regarding specification of the amount of 

time records are to be kept; 

(2) Clarification of the differences 

between hazards analysis (facility level) 

and job safety analysis (task level); 

(3) Procedures to verify that 

contractors are conducting their 

activities in accordance with the 

operator’s SEMS program and an 

evaluation to ensure that contractors 

have the skills and knowledge to 

perform their assigned duties; 

(4) An independent third-party or 

your designated and qualified personnel 

must conduct all SEMS audits; 

(5) Audit documentation must be 

submitted to BOEMRE; 

(6) Other documentation to be made 

available to BOEMRE upon request; 

(7) OCS performance measures data 

(Form MMS–131). 

The following table provides a 

summary of the individual provisions 

and their associated cost for 

implementation and annual 

maintenance of a SEMS program. No 

costs are identified for implementation 

of a SEMS program by high activity 

operators because all high activity 

operators currently have a SEMS 

program. Implementation costs for 

moderate and low activity operators that 

have a partial SEMS program are lower 

than those operators without a SEMS 

program. 

Elements 

Implementation 

(moderate) 

Implementation 

(low) Maintenance 

(high) 

Maintenance 

(moderate) 

Maintenance 

(low) 

Partial Full Partial Full 

General ........................................................ $18,000 $18,000 $5,000 $5,000 $50,000 $3,000 $2,000 

Safety and Environmental Information ........ 0 22,000 0 8,000 75,000 12,000 3,000 

Hazards Analysis ......................................... 0 98,000 0 23,000 300,000 34,000 14,000 

Management of Change .............................. 0 29,000 0 18,000 150,000 21,000 7,000 

Operating Procedures .................................. 0 20,000 0 10,000 100,000 17,000 4,000 

Safe Work Practices .................................... 0 28,000 0 12,000 125,000 17,000 5,000 

Training ........................................................ 0 30,000 0 14,000 200,000 25,000 9,000 

Mechanical Integrity ..................................... 0 38,000 0 19,000 225,000 27,000 11,000 

Pre-startup Review ...................................... 25,000 25,000 8,000 8,000 125,000 16,000 5,000 

Emergency Response and Control .............. 28,000 28,000 14,000 14,000 175,000 24,000 7,000 

Investigation of Incidents ............................. 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 95,000 17,000 3,000 

Audits ........................................................... 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 6,000 6,000 

Records and Documentation ....................... 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 30,000 6,000 4,000 

Total ...................................................... 100,000 365,000 43,000 147,000 1,665,000 225,000 80,000 

Total One-time Implementation: $655,000. 

Total Annual Maintenance: $1,970,000. 

BOEMRE may enforce noncompliance with any of the 

requirements of 30 CFR part 250 subpart 

S, in a variety of ways. BOEMRE may 

issue incidents of non-compliance 

(INCs) following an inspection where 

BOEMRE determines that a facility is 

conducting operations that do not 

comply with the requirements of 

subpart S, or after a BOEMRE directed 

independent third-party SEMS audit. If 

BOEMRE identifies non-compliance 

with subpart S as a result of a regularly 

scheduled SEMS audit and all 

deficiencies discovered during the 

course of the audit are sent to BOEMRE 

with a schedule for their correction, 

then BOEMRE will consider this in 

deciding whether to issue an INC. 

However, if the operator does not meet 

its schedule of corrections, BOEMRE 

will be more likely to issue an INC. 

If non-compliance resulting from an 

inspection or BOEMRE-directed audit 

poses actual harm or threat to the 

human and marine environment, 

BOEMRE will proceed with a civil 

penalty review of that violation(s) 

subject to 30 CFR part 250, subpart N— 

Outer Continental Shelf Civil Penalties. 

Should non-compliance with subpart S 

display serious and pervasive safety 

management concerns, BOEMRE may 

restrict or revoke the operator’s privilege 

to operate on the OCS as a designated 

operator or lessee operator through 

probationary or disqualification actions 

as detailed in § 250.135. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Comments 

In response to the proposed rule, 

BOEMRE received 61 sets of comments, 

of which 57 were from individual 

entities (companies, industry 

organizations, or private citizens). Some 

of the 61 comments were duplicates, not 

related to the proposed rule, or the same 

company submitting multiple 

comments. All of the comments 

received are posted on the BOEMRE 

Web site at: http://www.BOEMRE.gov/

federalregister/PublicComments/AD15

SafetyEnvMgmtSysforOCSOilGas

Operations.htm. 

Multiple comments stated that they 

do not support the proposed rule as 

written because it will eliminate the 

flexibility needed for any safety 

management system to work effectively, 

including flexibility inherent in the API 

RP 75 approach. 

Five comments received 

recommended that BOEMRE should 

move forward to implement its plan to 

require a SEMS for oil and gas and 

sulphur operations on the OCS and that 

the proposed rule should require that 

offshore operators implement all 

elements of API RP 75. Other comments 

suggested various combinations of the 

API RP 75 elements. 

The majority of the comments 

received stated that SEMS should 

remain voluntary and the proposed rule, 

as written, would increase 

documentation and recordkeeping 

requirements and would not address 

human factors (i.e., errors, behavior, 

etc.). Several comments recommended 

that BOEMRE incorporate the JSA into 

current 30 CFR part 250 regulations to 

address human factors as an alternative 

to incorporating the four elements. 

Numerous comments received from 

drilling, production, and service 

contractors stated that BOEMRE already 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

has regulations in place to address 

employee training and competency 

assessments in 30 CFR part 250, subpart 

O—Well Control and Production Safety 

Training, and recommended that 

BOEMRE strike the section relating to 

contractors from the rule because it is 

redundant with the existing subpart O 

regulations. 

A few comments received from 

industry trade organizations (API, 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors (IADC), Offshore Operators 

Committee (OOC)) stated that the 

proposed rule as written will require 

lessees and operators to modify existing 

SEMS programs and that rewriting these 

programs would not prevent accidents 

or increase safety. 

In response to the comments we 

address the general comments and those 

that pertain to several sections of the 

rule first. Following that, we have a 

section-by-section discussion of the 

specific comments received and our 

response to those comments, including 

any changes made to the final rule. 

General Comments 

Contractor Selection Criteria 

Comment: Nearly every comment 

addressed contractor selection criteria. 

They stated that BOEMRE already has 

regulations in place (30 CFR part 250, 

subpart O—Well Control and 

Production Safety Training) that address 

training and competency assessment for 

contractors. In addition, they stated that 

BOEMRE was requiring contractors to 

have a SEMS program. 

Response: We incorporated by 

reference API RP 75, Section 7, which 

addresses training. Subpart O addresses 

training and competency for contractors. 

The operator may use the training 

requirements in subpart O to meet part 

of the requirements of Section 7. As part 

of their SEMS program, operators must 

establish and implement training 

programs so that all personnel are 

trained to work safely and are aware of 

environmental considerations offshore, 

in accordance with their duties. The 

SEMS program must address contractor 

training to ensure and verify that 

contractors have their own written safe 

work practices and contractors may 

adopt appropriate sections of the 

operator’s SEMS program. The operator 

must have a SEMS program and is 

responsible for obtaining and evaluating 

information regarding the contract 

employer’s safety performance and 

safety programs to ensure that skilled, 

knowledgeable, and properly trained 

personnel are working on the OCS. In 

order to comply with this rule, an 

operator must ensure that its contractors 

are conducting their operations in 

accordance with the operator’s SEMS 

program. The operator must work with 

the contractor regarding appropriate 

contractor safety and environmental 

policies and practices before a 

contractor begins work at the operator’s 

facilities. 

Jurisdictional Authority 

Comment: Most comments expressed 

concern that BOEMRE had overstepped 

its jurisdictional authority by imposing 

management safety system requirements 

in the proposed rule on mobile offshore 

drilling units (MODUs). Comments 

questioned BOEMRE’s authority to 

require an operator to have a SEMS on 

a MODU. 

Response: BOEMRE has jurisdictional 

authority to adopt and implement this 

rule. The final rule will require 

operators to have a SEMS for a MODU 

when it is under BOEMRE’s jurisdiction 

such as during drilling, well workover, 

well completion, and servicing 

operations. 

The U.S. Offshore Industry Safety 

Record 

Comment: Most comments expressed 

the view that the safety and 

environmental protection record of the 

offshore industry is excellent, and that 

imposing these new requirements is not 

justified. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees that the 

final SEMS regulation is not justified in 

light of the available incident data and 

the trends identified through analyzing 

this data as discussed in the ANPR and 

preamble of the proposed SEMS rule. 

This analysis covers 10 years (from 2000 

to 2009) of OCS oil and gas operations, 

including Incidents of Noncompliance 

(INCs), accident panel investigation 

reports, incident analysis, and OCS spill 

analysis. It shows that the majority of 

INCs and accidents during that period 

were related to human factors and not 

to equipment failure. Thus, additional 

regulations are needed to address how 

operators can reduce the risk of 

incidents during OCS activities. 

The ANPR and the proposed rule 

describe numerous incidents that 

indicate the need for a comprehensive 

SEMS program. The recent Deepwater 

Horizon incident is a significant 

reminder of the risk of offshore 

operations and the need to regularly 

evaluate measures that help ensure safe 

operations. A SEMS program will 

augment existing safety requirements. 

Root Cause 

Comment: Most comments stated that 

BOEMRE’s assertion that ‘‘root cause 

analysis’’ points to the need for 

requiring the four proposed SEMS 

elements, is not supported by the 

BOEMRE’s incident analysis. 

Response: BOEMRE believes that the 

SEMS regulation is justified given the 

available incident data trends and 

associated analysis discussed in the 

ANPR and preamble of the proposed 

and final SEMS rule. As mentioned 

previously, the analysis covered over 10 

years and demonstrates that requiring 

operators to implement a SEMS program 

is likely to improve OCS safety. 

BOEMRE incident analysis supports 

adopting all 13 elements. Voluntary data 

submitted by industry should not be 

construed as BOEMRE data as it is 

incomplete and unverified. BOEMRE 

data is the only source of industry-wide 

data available. 

Job Safety Analysis/Job Hazards 

Analysis 

Comment: Most comments claimed 

that the job safety analysis/job hazards 

analysis is the only significant portion 

of the proposed rule that could affect 

the behavioral issues related to an 

incident. 

Response: BOEMRE agrees that a JSA/ 

JHA does address behavioral change 

with the goal of minimizing accidents, 

but disagrees that it is the only portion 

of the rule that bears on behavior. In the 

final rule, BOEMRE is incorporating all 

elements of API RP 75, much of which 

addresses behavioral issues and 

additional regulatory requirements to 

clarify expectations for compliance. 

Mandated SEMS Program 

Comment: Most comments strongly 

disagree that a mandated SEMS program 

as proposed is needed. The comments 

stated that a mandated program will not 

reduce OCS incidents any more than a 

voluntary SEMS program. As such, they 

recommend BOEMRE keep SEMS 

voluntary. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. In 

1998, operators accounting for 98 

percent of OCS production reported that 

they were covered under a SEMS. By 

2006, this number decreased to 

approximately 60 percent (see API RP 

75 implementation survey at: http:// 

www.BOEMRE.gov/semp/Reports/ 

survey98.htm). A voluntary SEMS 

program has not been adopted by all 

operators. The only way to ensure the 

adoption of a SEMS program by all 

operators is to require that all operators 

implement such a program. 

Comment: The other option proposed 

by some comments was to mandate a 

program for those operators who have a 

historical record of poor performance. 

Response: BOEMRE does not agree 

that this is the most effective approach. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63613 

The purpose of requiring a SEMS 

program is to reduce the risk and 

number of incidents during OCS 

activities, which is not solely based or 

determined by an operator’s past record 

of poor performance. 

Withdraw Proposed Rule 

Comment: Many comments stated that 

BOEMRE should withdraw the 

proposed rule immediately and 

reevaluate the cost/benefits of 

mandating a program that, as recently as 

2003, was determined by the agency to 

be performing well as a voluntary 

program. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. The 

only way to ensure SEMS programs are 

used across the entire OCS is to require 

a program for all operators. As of 2009, 

only 54 percent of OCS operators had a 

SEMS program, and not all of the 54 

percent include the entirety of APR RP 

75 in their SEMS program. 

Underestimated Cost 

Comment: Most comments expressed 

that BOEMRE significantly 

underestimated the cost of developing, 

revising, and implementing the SEMS 

program. Comments also stated that 

BOEMRE dramatically underestimated 

the major new documentation and 

reporting burden that the rule will 

impose on offshore operators. 

Response: BOEMRE re-evaluated the 

cost burden on industry by interviewing 

parties experienced in the development 

of SEMS programs, vendors that submit 

information for operators, and operators 

with designated personnel who work on 

SEMS issues. Based on this information, 

we have increased the non-hour cost 

and hour burdens. Should OCS 

companies have documented data that 

shows a higher cost to industry, they 

may submit comments at any time on 

the paperwork burden as stated in 

§ 250.199(d). 

New Reporting, Documentation, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

Comment: Several comments claim 

that this proposed rule attempts to 

prescribe new reporting, 

documentation, and recordkeeping 

requirements far above current levels in 

API RP 75, that will adversely impact 

OCS operators’ businesses, both 

operationally and financially, while 

bringing little benefit towards 

improving safety of offshore operations. 

Response: BOEMRE changed the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements from the proposed rule to 

the final rule. We are now incorporating 

all elements of API RP 75, with 

requirements in § 250.1928 to enhance 

documentation and recordkeeping. The 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in this final rule are 

primarily submissions of documents 

that are directed by the adoption of API 

RP 75 and used to comply with this 

recommended practice. The reporting to 

BOEMRE is necessary to ensure the 

bureau has the appropriate 

documentation to monitor compliance 

with this rule. 

Comment: The operator can only 

supply the information on the Form 

MMS–131 by collecting and 

consolidating information from their 

contractors, suppliers, and vendors and, 

in turn, any subcontractors or other 

workers involved in OCS operations. 

This is not a current practice and it will 

require a significant amount of time to 

establish and maintain a reporting 

system. Further complications will arise 

since a significant portion of work may 

be contracted out as ‘‘lump sum’’ 

turnkey projects where individual 

worker hours are not provided to the 

operator. 

Response: Such information is critical 

to the effective implementation of a 

SEMS program. While operators may 

not currently require contractors, 

suppliers, and vendors to submit this 

information, it is not unreasonable to 

expect them to provide it to the 

operator. Regarding ‘‘lump sum’’ turnkey 

projects, individual worker hours could 

be estimated as a normal practice. For 

example, a contractor may have workers 

who stay offshore for 2 weeks at a time 

and work 12 hour shifts. Therefore, a 

crew of 20 people, could be estimated 

to work a total of 240 hours per day for 

14 continuous days (240 hours × 14 

days = 3, 360 hours). 

Comment: While most contractors on 

the OCS probably collect information 

regarding employee work hours and 

injuries/illnesses for their own use, they 

typically do so either on a quarterly or 

annual basis, not the per-contract basis 

which would be necessitated by the 

proposed action. 

Response: Operators will need to 

work with their contractors to establish 

the best approach to provide the 

information required by this rule. 

Comment: Collection and reporting of 

information that only becomes available 

post-contract is problematic. For 

example: Will the operator be expected 

to report days of continuing restricted 

work activity for a contractor’s 

employee injured while working for the 

operator after the termination of the 

contract? 

Response: Once the contract has been 

terminated, the contractor’s employee is 

no longer working for the operating 

company in question. Form MMS–131 

only requests that an operating company 

provide information for contractors 

under their employment during the 

calendar year. Operating companies will 

only be required to provide information 

tallied for the portion of the year the 

contractor is under the operating 

company’s employment, not for the 

entire year. 

Comment: There is no consistent 

industry practice of collecting 

information regarding work hours and 

injuries/illnesses from sub-contractors 

and other (possibly occasional) workers. 

The proposed action would require the 

establishment of such an information 

collection and reporting system. The 

collection of such information regarding 

occasional workers (e.g., equipment 

repair specialists), particularly those 

providing services on a per-job (rather 

than hourly) basis will be particularly 

challenging. 

Response: In § 250.1914(e)(2), 

BOEMRE requires the operator to keep 

an injury/illness log, retain it for 2 

years, and include this information on 

Form MMS–131. The operating 

company is responsible for collecting 

and submitting this data and will need 

to work with their contractors to 

establish a process for doing so. 

Comment: BOEMRE has not, with this 

proposed version of Form MMS–131, 

provided the necessary instructions and 

definitions for the user to understand 

the information collection and comply 

with the reporting requirement. The 

instructions and definitions should be 

made available, with the proposed form, 

for public comment. The information 

collection should not be authorized 

until clear and unambiguous 

instructions are provided. 

Response: There is no need to make 

proposed Form MMS–131 available for 

public comment since it was previously 

made available for comment in the 

proposed rule. However, in light of your 

comment concerning the instructions, 

the BOEMRE is providing explicit 

instructions to guide respondents on 

completing the form. See Appendix 1 of 

the final rule. 

Comment: Cost and time estimates are 

more in line with the printing of 

manuals and instructions and not actual 

or historical costs we have as operators 

experienced for the development, 

implementation, and long term support 

of a new program. 

Response: BOEMRE re-evaluated the 

cost burden on industry by interviewing 

parties experienced in the development 

of SEMS programs, vendors that submit 

information for operators, and operators 

with designated personnel who work on 

SEMS issues. Based on this information, 

we have increased the non-hour cost 

and hour burdens. If OCS companies 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

have documented data that shows a 

higher cost to industry, they may submit 

comments at any time on the paperwork 

burden as stated in § 250.199(d). 

Comment: The proposed rule does not 

take into consideration the impact that 

the requirements and administrative 

burden will force on small independent 

contractors and service suppliers who 

perform a large portion of the field work 

typically carried out on OCS facilities. 

Response: The operators must submit 

Form MMS–131 to BOEMRE, not small 

independent contractors and service 

suppliers. BOEMRE foresees that the 

primary impact for these groups is that 

they are now expected to provide 

information on the man-hours. That task 

may be as simple as taking note of the 

time specific employees report in and 

out of a specific work site and tracking 

that data. Operators will need to work 

with their contractors to establish the 

best approach to provide the 

information required by this rule. 

Comment: We ask that BOEMRE 

appropriately acknowledge the entire 

burden being imposed by this 

rulemaking on the industry and account 

for it within its information collection 

budget. 

Response: This is discussed in more 

detail in the Procedural Matters of this 

rulemaking under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Paperwork 

Reduction Act section. If OCS 

companies have documented data that 

shows a higher paperwork burden than 

what BOEMRE estimates, they may 

submit comments at any time on the 

paperwork burden as stated in 

§ 250.199(d). 

Unnecessary Burden on BOEMRE 

Comment: Most comments claim that 

implementing this proposed rule will 

create an additional burden to regional 

BOEMRE staff that will require 

additional inspector/auditor training 

and increased workloads. 

Response: While this is additional 

work, we consider this regulation 

critical to improve safety on the OCS. 

BOEMRE will adjust inspector training 

and workload as necessary to ensure 

effective implementation of the rule. 

Where BOEMRE Believes the Industry Is 

Falling Short of Expectations 

Comment: Several comments would 

like to know specifically where 

BOEMRE believes the industry is falling 

short of BOEMRE’s expectations 

regarding safety and why the BOEMRE 

has not shared this information in the 

rulemaking. 

Response: The proposed rule was 

developed based upon 33 accident 

panel investigations, 1,443 incident 

analyses, and 3,132 INCs issued by the 

agency. Additional information about 

these items is publicly available at: 

http://www.BOEMRE.gov/incidents/ 

index.htm and http:// 

www.gomr.BOEMRE.gov/homepg/ 

offshore/safety/acc_repo/accindex.html. 

For the SEMS program to be most 

effective, the entirety of API RP 75 

needs to be part of the program, which 

the final rule requires. 

Remove Prescriptive Language 

Comment: A few comments pointed 

out that if BOEMRE intends to require 

that each SEMS conform to API RP 75, 

then the highly prescriptive language 

should be removed and the final rule 

should simply reference the appropriate 

sections in API RP 75. They recommend 

that BOEMRE incorporate by reference 

API RP 75 into the regulations and 

require compliance with the existing 

recommended practice. In addition, the 

comments state that the proposed rule, 

as written, not only represents an abrupt 

change from past direction of the 

BOEMRE, but it also penalizes those 

operators that took the initiative and 

developed programs patterned after the 

API RP 75 model. For operators that 

implement API RP 75 and continue to 

evolve their systems to keep abreast of 

changing operations, having the 

BOEMRE implement a 4 element SEMS 

will require them to go back and modify 

or change those systems to comply with 

new BOEMRE prescriptive 

requirements. These changes to 

programs that are working effectively 

will add minimal if any added value. 

Response: The final rule incorporates, 

and thus prescribes, all of API RP 75, as 

well as requirements as detailed in 30 

CFR 250 subpart S for recordkeeping 

and documentation, JSAs for activities 

identified in the SEMS programs, 

contractor selection criteria, and audit 

requirements. 

Implementation 

Comment: A commenter pointed out 

that the rule calls for the program to be 

implemented within 1 year after the 

final rule becomes effective. For 

operators that do not already have a 

written SEMS program that covers all of 

the elements, it will be impossible to 

develop the SEMS program, conduct all 

of the hazards analyses (facility), 

complete job hazards analysis for every 

job, write complete operating 

procedures, establish a mechanical 

integrity program, and establish an audit 

program for everyone on their facilities. 

Even for those operators that have a 

SEMS in place, it is likely to take more 

than 1 year to compare their existing 

program to the prescriptive 

requirements in this rulemaking and 

make all of the required modifications. 

Therefore, if a mandatory program is 

adopted, the commenter recommends 

that a phased-in approach to 

implementation be adopted. 

Response: BOEMRE believes that 1 

year is a sufficient amount of time for 

operators to develop their SEMS 

program, even if they do not already 

have a program in place. The final rule 

incorporates by reference, and thus 

prescribes, the entirety of API RP 75 

together with related requirements for 

recordkeeping and documentation, JSAs 

for activities identified in the SEMS 

programs, and contractor selection 

criteria. BOEMRE believes that 1 year is 

a sufficient amount of time for operators 

to put these related requirements of the 

program in place. 

Three Alternatives for Consideration 

Comment: A comment suggested that 

in lieu of pursuing the rulemaking in its 

current form, the BOEMRE should 

consider the following three 

alternatives: 

1. Suspend the rulemaking and 

continue with the voluntary program 

currently in place. 

2. Suspend the rulemaking and return 

to the Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

3. Abandon the concept of a new 

prescriptive section in the regulation 

and simply include the following 

language in § 250.107: 

(e) You must have a safety and 

environmental management program in 

accordance with the American 

Petroleum Institute’s Recommended 

Practice for Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities (API 

RP 75), incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 250.198. 

(1) At a minimum, your safety and 

environmental management program 

must include: 

(i) Hazards Analysis. You must 

perform a hazards analysis for all OCS 

facilities to identify, evaluate, and, 

where unacceptable, reduce the 

likelihood and minimize the 

consequences of uncontrolled releases 

and other safety or environmental 

incidents. This includes having a job 

safety analysis process. Human factors 

should be considered in this analysis, 

(ii) Management of Change. You must 

establish procedures to identify and 

control hazards associated with change 

and maintain the accuracy of safety 

information, 

(iii) Operating Procedures. You must 

have written facility operating 

procedures designed to enhance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63615 

efficient, safe, and environmentally 

sound operations, 

(iv) Mechanical Integrity. You must 

ensure that procedures are in place and 

implemented so that critical equipment 

for any facility subject to this 

recommended practice is designed, 

fabricated, installed, tested, inspected, 

monitored, and maintained in a manner 

consistent with appropriate service 

requirements, manufacturer’s 

recommendations, BOEMRE 

requirements, or industry standards, 

and 

(v) Documentation. You must 

establish a documentation system to 

ensure that records and documents are 

maintained in a manner sufficient to 

implement your safety and 

environmental management program. 

Records or documentation may be in 

either paper or electronic form. You 

must make this documentation available 

for BOEMRE inspection upon request. 

* * * 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees with all 

three of the proposed alternatives. Not 

all operators on the OCS voluntarily 

submit Form MMS–131. A 

comprehensive SEMS program is 

important. The final rule incorporates, 

and thus prescribes, API RP 75, and 

requirements for recordkeeping and 

documentation necessary to implement 

API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified 

in the SEMS programs, contractor 

selection criteria and the option of 

utilizing either an independent third 

party or your designated and qualified 

personnel to conduct audits on your 

behalf. 

Potential Adverse Impacts to Drilling 

Contractors 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concerned that any prescriptive 

imposition of mandatory SEMS 

elements upon operators has the 

potential to adversely impact drilling 

contractors’ SEMS, if a careful balance 

between the operators’ perceived need 

to impose those SEMS elements against 

the contractors’ need to manage their 

own SEMS is not achieved. Clearly the 

goal should be that a drilling contractor 

should move between operators with 

little, if any, modification to the 

contractor’s SEMS. 

Response: The final rule does not 

require that a contractor have a SEMS 

program. The final rule requires 

operators to ensure that contractors have 

their own written safe work practices 

and provides that they may adopt 

appropriate sections of the operator’s 

SEMS program. The operator must have 

a SEMS program and is responsible for 

obtaining and evaluating information 

regarding the contractor’s safety 

performance and programs. An operator 

and contractor should agree on 

appropriate contractor’s safety and 

environmental policies and practices 

before the contractor begins work at the 

operator’s facilities. 

BOEMRE Meetings With Industry 

Comment: Several comments state 

that BOEMRE should have held 

meetings with industry so that industry 

comments and views could have been 

placed on the record. An informal 

‘‘workshop’’ without public recording of 

industry views is insufficient to reflect 

the depth of concern held by 

exploration and production companies 

operating on the OCS and the numerous 

other companies that support their 

activities. Even though BOEMRE held a 

public meeting in September 2009, it 

did not have official recording of 

comments. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. 

BOEMRE has publicized its views that 

a SEMS rule is needed since 1993 at a 

variety of industry conferences and 

meetings. At these meetings, BOEMRE 

explained that the agency supported 

implementation of a comprehensive 

SEMS program. These meetings 

presented the industry with numerous 

opportunities for dialog with BOEMRE 

regarding this type of program. In 1994, 

API RP 75 was developed with input 

from industry. In addition, the BOEMRE 

published its views in an ANPR in 2006, 

which discussed BOEMRE’s 

consideration of a comprehensive API 

RP 75-based program, and an NPR in 

2009. At the September 2009 meeting, 

attendees were encouraged to submit 

written comments. 

Rule Lacks Specifics 

Comment: Several comments stated 

that the proposed rule lacks specificity 

in some areas, as well as in the 

discussion on hazard/safety analyses. It 

is the commenters’ concern that without 

specifics, there will be inconsistency 

with regard to interpretation, which will 

be difficult on the industry, as well as 

BOEMRE, to implement and enforce. 

Response: The final rule incorporates, 

at an appropriate level of detail, 

requirements necessary for 

recordkeeping and documentation to 

implement API RP 75, JSAs for activities 

identified in the SEMS programs, 

contractor selection criteria and the 

option of utilizing either an 

independent third party or your 

designated and qualified personnel to 

conduct audits on your behalf. 

Agency Jurisdiction 

Comment: Several comments stated 

that it is not clear that BOEMRE is 

expanding its reach into other agencies’ 

jurisdiction, and do not understand how 

this will help safety. BOEMRE’s 

proposal to handle enforcement issues 

on MODUs, where the USCG has 

jurisdiction and has done a very good 

job over the years with their limited 

resources, is a duplication of efforts and 

a power grab by BOEMRE. Requiring 

mandatory reporting to BOEMRE when 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) is the 

appropriate agency is another area of 

duplication and another power grab by 

BOEMRE. The comments stated that 

they may be misreading the information, 

but it also appeared that BOEMRE is 

attempting to take over jurisdiction of 

Department of Transportation (DOT) 

regulated pipelines. If this is the case, 

here is another attempt at duplication or 

a power grab by BOEMRE. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. A 

SEMS will and should apply to MODUs 

when they are under BOEMRE’s 

jurisdiction (i.e., drilling, well 

workover, well completion, servicing 

operations). The final rule clarifies that 

the SEMS program must address DOI 

regulated pipelines only. BOEMRE, 

DOT, and USCG establish the 

requirements for workplace safety on 

the OCS with requirements that pertain 

to personal protection equipment, 

tripping and slipping hazards, deck 

openings, means of escape, fire 

extinguishers, and other workplace 

safety items. The OSHA requirements 

do not apply to OCS operations. 

Support for the Proposed Rule 

Comment: Some comments supported 

BOEMRE in requiring OCS oil and gas 

operators to implement SEMS rules, 

which are intended to reduce human 

error and organizational failures. The 

analysis summarized in the proposed 

rule indicates that the elements are 

associated with contributing causes of 

most incidents, hence the rationale for 

focusing on them. Comments requested 

that this regulation require, rather than 

simply encourage, that offshore 

operators implement all elements of the 

API RP 75, as identified in the 

rulemaking notice. 

Response: Upon review of all the 

comments and the requirements of API 

RP 75, BOEMRE agrees that a SEMS 

program should be comprehensive to 

reduce human error and organizational 

failures. Therefore, BOEMRE 

incorporated all elements of API RP 75 

with requirements necessary to 

implement API RP 75 and regulatory 

language to clarify expectations for 

compliance. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63616 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment Period 

Comment: The comment period to 

such a significant, formal rule, was not 

long enough and it is recommended that 

further discussions with industry be 

carried out prior to any final 

rulemaking. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. 

BOEMRE published an ANPR in 2006 

notifying industry that we were 

considering requiring a comprehensive 

SEMS program and seeking comment. 

The proposed rule was published on 

June 17, 2009, with a 90-day comment 

period. BOEMRE also held a workshop 

on September 2, 2009 at which 

attendees were encouraged to submit 

written comments on the proposed rule. 

This comment period is consistent with 

comment periods for other rules of this 

magnitude. Thus, sufficient response 

time was afforded for interested parties 

to submit comments. 

General Comments 

Comment: A SEMS approach is more 

applicable to production facilities; 

MODU, liftboat, and coiled tubing 

operations are inherently more 

hazardous than production facility 

operations, and lead to more well 

control incidents. 

Response: BOEMRE believes that 

SEMS has merit for all OCS operations 

including, but not limited to, 

production, drilling, well completion, 

well workover, well servicing, and 

coiled tubing. For SEMS to be properly 

implemented, it needs to address all 

OCS operations. Liftboats are under the 

jurisdiction of the USCG and are not 

covered by this regulation. 

Comment: Support a more focused 

SEMS program for production facility 

management (excluding MODU 

operations), preferably one that is 

voluntary. Such a program, with 

elements of hazards analysis and 

management of change, probably could 

be helpful especially for smaller 

operators. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees. A 

SEMS should apply to MODUs and all 

other facilities under BOEMRE’s 

jurisdiction. The final rule will require 

operators to have a SEMS for operations 

and activities onboard a MODU when it 

is under BOEMRE’s jurisdiction such as 

drilling, well workover, well 

completion, and servicing operations. 

Comment: Does the definition of 

facility in this section apply to all the 

sections in subpart S? 

Response: BOEMRE is incorporating 

by reference API RP 75, including the 

definitions from Appendix D of API RP 

75, except as revised in the final rule. 

Comment: How does BOEMRE 

perceive the difference between a Job 

Hazards Analysis (JHA) and a Job Safety 

Analysis (JSA)? 

Response: A JSA is one form of 

hazards analysis. Hazards analysis is 

performed to identify and evaluate 

hazards for the purpose of their 

elimination or control. A JSA is a 

process used to review site-specific 

detailed job steps and uncover hazards 

associated with the specific job 

undertaken. To alleviate any confusion, 

BOEMRE replaced the term JHA with 

JSA in the final rule. 

Comment: Is the JHA for each general 

operation or for the immediate task at 

hand? 

Response: BOEMRE removed the term 

JHA from the final rule. In the final 

rulemaking, JSAs are required for the 

immediate tasks at hand and are not 

required for general operations. 

Comment: What is BOEMRE’s 

expectation for what triggers an internal 

audit and updating a facility hazards 

analysis? 

Response: The final rule requires 

operators to have their SEMS program 

audited by either an independent third 

party or your designated and qualified 

personnel, according to the 

requirements of this subpart and API RP 

75, Section 12. The first audit must be 

within 2 years of the initial 

implementation of the SEMS program 

and at least once every 3 years 

thereafter. However, BOEMRE may 

issue additional guidance on this after 

the final rule is implemented. BOEMRE 

may direct specific operators to conduct 

additional independent third-party 

audits or BOEMRE may conduct an 

audit, if we identify safety or noncompliance concerns based on the 

results of inspections and evaluations, 

or as a result of an event. 

The operator must update the 

appropriate elements of their SEMS 

program, if there are deficiencies 

identified in the audit. For updating a 

hazards analysis for a facility, we 

incorporated by reference the 

requirements of API RP 75, Section 4.4, 

which requires that if a management of 

change is conducted due to changes in 

personnel, facility and operating 

conditions, then the operator must 

conduct a hazard analysis on those 

changes. For simple and nearly identical 

facilities, such as well jackets and single 

well caissons, the operator may use the 

same single hazards analysis after 

verifying that any site-specific 

deviations have been identified and 

addressed (see § 250.1911). 

Comment: Recommend in proposed 

section § 250.1907 ‘‘What criteria for 

Mechanical Integrity must my SEMS 

program meet?’’ that ‘‘manufacturer’s 

recommended limits’’ should be 

changed to manufacturers and/or 

engineering design limits. 

Response: We disagree; we believe 

that the manufactures recommended 

limits are the most appropriate guidance 

to use. 

Comment: What are BOEMRE’s 

definitions of temporary operations, 

personnel change, and facility? 

Response: See the scope of ‘‘facilities’’ 

addressed in § 250.1911 and Appendix 

D of API RP 75, incorporated by 

reference, which includes a definition of 

‘‘facility.’’ As to personnel change, we 

are now incorporating by reference API 

RP 75, Section 4, which defines 

‘‘personnel change’’ in Section 4.3. The 

term ‘‘temporary operations’’ was 

removed from the final rule. It is the 

operator’s responsibility to ensure all 

contractors subscribe to basic safety 

workplace principles that meet the 

spirit and intent of the operator’s SEMS 

program. 

Comment: Does BOEMRE support API 

RP 75 guidance on MOC as being 

sufficient to direct operators in 

developing an effective MOC process? 

Response: The guidance provided in 

API RP 75, Section 4, which we 

incorporated by reference in the final 

rule, along with the requirement in 

§ 250.1912 of the final rule provides 

sufficient guidelines and procedures on 

when and how to develop a MOC 

process. 

Comment: How does BOEMRE 

perceive the difference between 

documenting the inspection and tests 

that have been performed, and 

verification that inspections and tests 

are being performed? 

Response: BOEMRE will evaluate all 

of the documentation provided to verify 

that the inspections and tests were 

performed and that the operator 

continues to perform the inspections 

and tests, as described in their SEMS. 

BOEMRE is vigilant about operator 

documentation and may use a variety of 

tools to determine the validity of 

operator records and that the operator is 

conducting all prescribed and 

appropriate tests, as identified in their 

SEMS. 

Comment: Are there contractor groups 

that BOEMRE believes are not being 

addressed by existing subpart O 

requirements—identify. We believe this 

is redundant with the existing subpart O 

program. 

Response: BOEMRE does not regulate 

contractors; we regulate operators. 

Subpart O applies to well control and 

production safety, whereas this SEMS 

final rule applies to operators who are 

performing or who have contractors 

performing maintenance or repair, 

turnaround, major renovation, or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63617 

specialty work on or adjacent to a 

covered process. The training 

requirements of subpart O may be used 

to partially meet the SEMS 

requirements. 

Comment: Can you provide detailed 

instructions and examples for filling out 

Form MMS–131? 

Response: The form and instructions 

are in Appendix 1 which is 

incorporated by reference into the rule 

and is also set forth in the preamble of 

the final rule. 

Comment: BOEMRE fails to recognize 

that our voluntary safety and 

environmental programs are effective. 

Response: The voluntary programs 

may be effective for those who follow 

the guidance completely. However, 

more needs to be done to promote safety 

of the environment and the personnel 

working on the OCS by ensuring that 

everyone complies with API RP 75 and 

the requirements of this final rule. 

Comment: BOEMRE fails to 

understand that our safety record is 

good and is only getting better. 

Response: The record of incidents that 

cause injuries, fatalities, fires, collisions, 

loss of well control, or explosions 

demonstrates the need for regular 

evaluation and improvement of safety 

standards. 

Comment: BOEMRE fails to 

understand that the prescriptive SEMS 

program will not address many of the 

incidents/accidents that the regulation 

is based on. 

Response: BOEMRE does not agree 

that the voluntary program has been as 

effective as it could be. Industry wide 

adoption of SEMS is crucial to 

enhancing safety in the OCS. 

Comment: BOEMRE wrote 

prescriptive requirements for all or part 

of 8 of the 12 SEMS elements in lieu of 

just following API RP 75. 

Response: BOEMRE is incorporating 

all elements of API RP 75 in the final 

rule, with clarification of the proposed 

rule’s requirements for JSA, 

recordkeeping and documentation 

requirements, contractor selection 

criteria, and the option of utilizing 

either an independent third party or 

your designated and qualified personnel 

to conduct audits on your behalf. 

Comment: The proposed rule changes 

the wording and expands on API RP 75, 

Section 5, dealing with environmental 

and occupation safety and health 

considerations. These requirements 

overlap with hazardous materials 

regulations, OPA 90, RCRA, NPDES, etc. 

How does BOEMRE think the addition 

of these requirements will impact safety 

performance more than the existing 

regulations of other agencies? 

Response: SEMS is a safety 

management system that will enhance 

the effectiveness of other laws and 

regulations. 

Comment: BOEMRE should use an 

alternative compliance approach, i.e., 

those operator/lessees that have 

established Safety and Environmental 

Management Program (SEMP) 

(identified by BOEMRE as 56 percent or 

73 of the 130 operators) and are within 

the BOEMRE standard of compliance as 

recognized in the annual Safe Award 

program that would be exempt from the 

proposed rule. 

Response: We believe that there are 

varying degrees of commitment and 

compliance with the voluntary SEMP 

program and that a mandatory program 

is the best way to ensure that operators 

implement a comprehensive approach 

to safety. Operators that have a 

comprehensive SEMS program in place 

addressing all of API RP 75 are already 

addressing many of the requirements in 

this final rule. 

Comment: Some operators have 

existing processes that address changes. 

Consideration should be given to these 

existing processes and not develop a 

prescribed MOC process for changes 

that are already covered. 

Response: BOEMRE changed the final 

rule by incorporating by reference API 

RP 75, Section 4, to address MOCs. You 

may use your existing MOC process if 

it meets the requirements of API RP 75 

and § 250.1912. 

Comment: We believe that the one 

size fits all approach to this rule does 

not take into account the diversity of 

operations that exists in the OCS. 

Response: SEMS is not a one size fits 

all program. In fact, SEMS encourages 

operators to consider unique 

circumstances and conditions. BOEMRE 

changed the final rule by incorporating 

all elements of API RP 75 and 

requirements for recordkeeping and 

documentation necessary to implement 

API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified 

in the SEMS programs, contractor 

selection criteria, and the option of 

utilizing either an independent third 

party or your designated and qualified 

personnel to conduct audits on your 

behalf to allow for the diversity of 

operations that exists on the OCS and 

within the company/operation. 

Comment: Please clarify if the parts of 

the proposed elements can be 

accomplished through other 

management systems; in other words, a 

comprehensive SEMS program can 

cover each of the proposed items 

without these necessarily being part of 

a single system. 

Response: In the final rule, we are 

requiring all operators to follow the 

elements of API RP 75 and requirements 

for recordkeeping and documentation, 

JSAs for activities identified in the 

SEMS programs, contractor selection 

criteria, and the option of utilizing 

either an independent third party or 

your designated and qualified personnel 

to conduct audits on your behalf. As 

recognized in API RP 75, Section 

1.3.1.1, some systems may have been 

developed using other guidelines. If a 

system was developed using other 

guidelines, when that system is 

assessed, the operator should focus on 

assuring that all the program elements 

from API RP 75 and this final rule are 

addressed. 

Comment: What data will be made 

available to the public? What measures 

will be in place to protect sensitive 

company data from being made public? 

Response: BOEMRE requires a copy of 

Form MMS–131 from an operator. The 

information on the Form MMS–131 is 

not protected from disclosure and is 

subject to the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA), should a member of the 

public request this information. 

BOEMRE may request a copy of the 

operator’s SEMS and audits. BOEMRE 

will protect proprietary information 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

(5 U.S.C. 522) and its implementing 

regulations (43 CFR part 2); and 30 CFR 

250.197. 

Comment: We further believe that the 

record retention requirements for the 

JSA and related index are unduly 

burdensome and contrary to BOEMRE’s 

stated intent that the programs not 

become a paperwork exercise. The 

proposed rule also creates concern 

regarding ‘‘ownership’’ of the JSA/index 

once a MODU is no longer under 

contract for the operator under whose 

contract they were developed. 

Response: The retention in the final 

rule for the JSAs is now 30 days on-site 

and up to 2 years at a location of the 

operator’s discretion. The JSA/index has 

been removed. 

Comment: A commenter believes that 

BOEMRE should have a separate section 

in the rulemaking that pertains only to 

hazards analysis for MODUs. 

Response: BOEMRE disagrees; the 

final rulemaking does not need a 

separate section for hazards analysis for 

MODUs. We incorporated by reference 

API RP 75, Section 3, for hazards 

analysis requirements, with 

requirements necessary to implement 

API RP 75 in § 250.1901 and § 250.1911. 

Comment: How do we overcome 

human error? 

Response: The intent of this rule is to 

reduce human error by focusing on a 

comprehensive SEMS program and 

JSAs. One result of an effectively 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63618 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

implemented SEMS will be to reduce 

human error. 

Comment: If BOEMRE intends to 

require that each SEMS conform to API 

RP 75, then the highly prescriptive 

language should be removed and the 

final rule should simply reference the 

appropriate sections in API RP 75. Any 

exception or additions could be listed, 

similar to the approach taken in 

§ 250.804. 

Response: BOEMRE is incorporating 

by reference API RP 75 and 

requirements for recordkeeping and 

documentation necessary to implement 

API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified 

in the SEMS programs, contractor 

selection criteria and the option of 

utilizing either an independent third 

party or your designated and qualified 

personnel to conduct audits on your 

behalf. 

Comment: The rulemaking is 

confusing with respect to the 4 types of 

contractor requirements, e.g., MODUs; 

contractors brought onto platforms for 

painting/cleaning, etc.; contract 

operating companies; individuals 

working side by side with employees 

under head company rules. The word 

‘‘employee’’ needs to be clarified—just 

the operator’s actual employees or 

whom? 

Response: We are replacing 

‘‘employees’’ with ‘‘personnel’’ and 

defining ‘‘personnel’’ in § 250.1903 in 

the final rule. The term ‘‘Personnel’’ 

means direct employee(s) of the 

operator and contracted workers who 

are involved with or affected by specific 

jobs or tasks. All personnel involved 

with or affected by a SEMS specific task 

must be trained by skilled and 

knowledgeable personnel to perform 

their assigned duties. 

Comment: A comment expressed the 

concern that we are accepting 

duplicated work that is already required 

by DOT, OSHA, and USCG—killing 

trees with all the paperwork 

submissions. 

Response: A number of federal 

agencies, including DOT, USCG, and 

BOEMRE have various responsibilities 

and authorities under a variety of 

statutes related to OCS matters. 

BOEMRE is not asking for duplication of 

paperwork that is already submitted to 

another government agency. Most of the 

information may be submitted 

electronically. 

Section-by-Section Discussion 

The industry trade organizations 

(Offshore Operators Committee, 

American Petroleum Institute, 

International Association of Drilling 

Contractors) and OCS operators 

submitted extensive lists of specific 

comments for most sections of the 

proposed rule. We responded to those 

comments in the ‘‘General Comments’’ 

section. The following table addresses 

more specific comments not already 

addressed. 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1903(b) ................ Note that, at § 250.1903(b), BOEMRE holds up ISO 14001 

as an example of other standards or guidelines that 

meet or exceed API RP 75, seemingly encouraging 

such an approach as ours. However, a certified, active 

ISO 14001 program will not comply with the proposed 

regulation.

As recognized in API RP 75, Section 1.3.1.1, some systems may have been developed using other guidelines. 

If an operator has already developed a system using 

other guidelines, when the system is assessed, the 

focus should be on assuring that the necessary program 

elements from API RP 75 and the requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in this final rule are addressed. 

250.1905 .................... Do DOI pipelines require separate hazards analyses, or is 

it acceptable to combine with the facility with which it is 

associated? 

It is up to the operator to decide to combine or do a separate hazard analysis for the DOI pipelines and associated facility. However, the analysis must comply with the 

API RP 75 and the requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in this final rule. 

250.1905 .................... The regulated community has varying degrees of understanding of the terms JHA and JSA. The JSAs are typically viewed as a tool to perform the OSHA required 

JHA. Does BOEMRE consider these terms the same? If 

not, please explain the difference from your understanding. The regulated community commonly understands JHA to be a broad analysis of the hazards for an 

overall operating procedure. A JSA is a review of a specific task at hand where the steps and hazards associated with a specific task are reviewed. To effect behavior change, we believe that a JSA is the more effective 

methodology than a JHA. However, it is not clear in the 

rulemaking which methodology BOEMRE is mandating. 

We note that BOEMRE Safety Alerts 276 and 282 have 

good descriptions of the difference between JHA and 

JSA.

The terms JSA and JHA are different; therefore, in this 

final rulemaking we will require only JSAs. We have defined JSA in the general comments section of the preamble. 

Recommendation: Please state the correlation to the appropriate section within API RP 75 such as ‘‘You must 

develop and implement a hazards analysis (facility level) 

as described in Section 3 of API RP 75.’’ For clarity, we 

recommend that job hazards analysis be changed to job 

safety analysis in all places in the regulation.

250.1905 .................... MODU, coiled tubing, and liftboat operations are contracted. Subpart O already requires operators to verify 

well-control certification of contractor employees. Few 

operators possess specialized knowledge that would 

trump the certification of contractor employees.

BOEMRE agrees with this comment pertaining to the current Subpart O regulation, in part. The operator is the 

responsible party for all well control activities and operations, whether or not using contract personnel. If contractors are used, the operator is responsible for 

verifying that its contractors have the skills and knowledge to perform these operations in a safe manner. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63619 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1905 .................... If a company contracts a MODU, the contractor would 

have to provide and support its own hazards analyses 

(and SEMS program) vs. the operator for which it is 

working. The MODUs should not be included in the list 

of facilities covered by this rule. The MODU operator 

should have a mechanical integrity and JSA program to 

cover operations on the rig.

BOEMRE disagrees. The operator must have a SEMS 

program. BOEMRE’s intent is to have a hazards analysis as detailed in API RP 75, Section 3 and the requirements in § 205.1911 of this final rule, of any MODU 

under BOEMRE’s jurisdiction. The MODUs are considered facilities when they are used for exploration, development, production, and transportation activities for oil 

and gas and sulphur from areas leased in the OCS. 

250.1905 .................... We do not understand the reference to internal audit and 

know of no facility specific audits that are required. We 

noted that proposed § 250.1910 refers to a SEMS audit, 

but that is on the overall program. Periodic analyses 

should be conducted as described in Section 3.4 of API 

RP 75. Does this mean hazards analyses must be updated (or revalidated) every 3 years in conjunction with 

the SEMS Audit? API RP 75 allows hazards analysis 

updates to be made at 5–10 year intervals based on risk.

We are incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 3, 

which includes periodic analysis, to update the hazards 

analysis for compliance. You must update your hazards 

analysis as appropriate with typical review periods. The 

final rule requires the first audit within 2 years of implementation of the SEMS program and every 3 years 

thereafter, however, BOEMRE may require additional 

independent third party audits or BOEMRE may conduct 

our own audits based on poor operator performance or 

accidents. 

Recommendation: Change the last sentence to: The hazards analyses (facility level) must be reviewed periodically and updated as appropriate when changes are 

warranted to verify that it is consistent with the current 

operations on the facility, consistent with the requirements in Section 3.4 of API RP 75.

250.1905 .................... We see no purpose in maintaining the hazards analysis on 

the facility. In many cases, the facility may be an unmanned facility with no storage capability. Does 

BOEMRE really expect a MODU to store a hazards 

analysis onboard the MODU from each and every operator who has performed such an analysis? As in API RP 

75, the hazard report (facility level) should be kept on 

file for the life of the facility. It is most appropriate that 

this file be kept in the operator’s office where design 

and other facility related information is kept since this 

data will need to be referred to in conjunction with the 

hazards analysis. For job hazards analysis (commonly 

referred to as Job Safety Analysis-JSA), this should be 

kept where it is readily accessible to the personnel actually reviewing the analysis prior to performing the job it 

covers.

The operator is responsible for deciding where to keep the 

hazards analysis for the life of the facility. BOEMRE is 

removing the requirement to maintain a hazards analysis on a facility. The JHAs were removed from the final 

rule and replaced with JSAs. The JSAs must be retained for 30 days on the facility for BOEMRE inspection 

and must be made available to BOEMRE upon request 

for 2 years. You must maintain a copy of all SEMS program documents at an onshore location for 6 years. 

Recommendation: The requirement for documentation 

should be changed to the following: You must document 

and maintain current analyses for each operation covered by this section for the life of the operation. Hazards 

analysis (facility level) should be retained in the operator’s records where the facility design information is located. The JHA (operations/task level) should be kept in 

a location where it is readily accessible to personnel for 

review prior to conducting the operation or task the analysis covers.

BOEMRE disagrees with the recommendation. Please see 

previous response. 

250.1905 .................... We suggest deleting ‘‘property damage’’ from the potential 

consequences included in the purpose of the facility 

level hazards analysis in § 250.1905. The philosophy 

adopted with respect to property damage, also referred 

to as ‘‘asset protection’’ should be at the operator’s discretion, provided that the property damage does not 

subsequently lead to worker injuries, fatalities, or coastal 

or marine environmental impacts.

This specific reference to ‘‘property damage’’ is not in the 

final rule. BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API 

RP 75, which speaks to this issue. 

250.1905 .................... We recommend the language in § 250.1905 be modified to 

state ‘‘You must ensure a hazards analysis (facility 

level) and a JHA (operations/task level) is developed 

and implemented for all your facilities’’ rather than ‘‘You 

must develop.’’ The reason for this recommendation is 

that since MODUs are included as facilities in this subpart, it will then be clear that operators are only responsible to ensure the third-party contractors have performed a hazards analysis prior to conducting operations on the operator’s lease.

The final rule requires the operator to ensure the development and implementation of a hazards analysis in accordance with API RP 75 and to perform a JSA at the 

task level in accordance with § 250.1911. These must 

be included in the SEMS program. In order to comply 

with this rule, an operator and its contractors need to 

agree on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins 

work at the operator’s facilities. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1905 .................... Production contractor can have a Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) 

Standard that outlines the general guidelines on how to 

perform proper LOTO; but to generate a Hazard Assessment of a facility, the contractor would need to have 

access to the drawings and/or facility to address site 

specific equipment and issues. In some cases, contractors merely provide a resource. This resource is supervised by the client onsite.

The operator must develop and implement a hazards analysis for all of their operations in accordance with the 

Section 3, Hazards Analysis and § 250.1911. In order to 

comply with this rule, an operator and its contractors 

need to agree on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

250.1905 .................... We urge BOEMRE to revise § 250.1905 to make clear that 

drilling vessels or utility vessels are not required to be 

managed under our SEMS.

BOEMRE disagrees. When a drilling vessel is under 

BOEMRE’s jurisdiction, it is the operator’s responsibility 

to have a SEMS program. In order to comply with this 

rule, an operator and its contractors need to agree on 

appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies 

and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

250.1905(a) ................ Language in § 250.1905(a) should be revised to state: 

‘‘You must ensure an initial hazards analysis (facility 

level) is or has been performed on each facility on or 

before (THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE 

DATE OF THE FINAL RULE)’’.

Proposed § 250.1905 is reflected in the final rule at 

§ 250.1911. The requirement to perform a hazards analysis for each facility within 1 year of the effective date of 

the final rule was retained. A previous hazards analysis 

may be used as long as it meets the requirements of 

API RP 75 and § 250.1911 in the final rule. 

250.1905(a) ................ If an operator has not previously conducted a hazards 

analysis on all of his platforms, it may be impossible to 

complete a hazards analysis of all of his platforms within 

1 year of the effective date of the final rule. A provision 

should be included for providing a prioritized list of facilities to the Regional Supervisor along with the date that 

each hazards analysis will be completed. This could be 

either in the rulemaking or a companion NTL.

BOEMRE disagrees. The final rule requires the operator to 

have its SEMS program in place within 1 year of the effective date of the rule. The hazards analysis requirement must be in accordance with the provisions of API 

RP 75, Section 3 and the requirements in this final rule 

under § 250.1911, and included in the SEMS program. 

250.1905(a) ................ According to § 250.1905(a), we must do a separate Hazards Analysis for every platform that we operate. Under 

our IMS, we get to the same place by doing a comprehensive hazards analysis (actually a more rigorous 

‘‘risk assessment’’) of all of our operations, with evaluation and ranking of risks and planned mitigations.

There is nothing in the rule that prevents an operator from 

using the same hazards analysis for similar platforms. 

However, if one or more facilities are similar but have 

distinct differences that require discrete policies and procedures for safe operations meeting the SEMS elements, then you must develop a separate SEMS for 

each of those facilities. 

250.1905(a) ................ Element 1, ‘‘Hazards Analysis at the facility level’’ is already being achieved by following API RP 14C as a 

guideline for Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing 

of Surface Safety Systems. The JSA/JHA along with the 

‘‘Stop Work Authority’’ is already being utilized Gulfwide. Furthermore, egress is identified in the platform 

submission process; chemicals and flammables kept on 

the facility are identified as part of the MSDS requirements; and mitigation of possible safety and health effects on employees are also already being performed.

BOEMRE agrees. The API RP 14C is a good guideline for 

conducting a hazards analysis for a production facility 

and it is referenced in API RP 75. However, the hazards 

analyses must follow API RP 75, Section 3, with clarification in § 250.1911. 

250.1905(a)(1)(ii) ....... We do not understand the requirement that special attention should be given to any incident in which you were 

issued an INC, civil or criminal penalty; nor do we understand what ‘‘special attention’’ should cover; nor do 

we understand what length of time we should consider. 

Further, we have no idea how the enforcement action of 

a regulatory agency relates to hazards analysis. We 

agree that previous incidents related to the operation, to 

the extent known by the operator, should be evaluated 

regardless of whether or not they resulted in an enforcement action. It should be noted that in many cases, a facility may have had multiple previous operators and a 

complete history of previous incidents may not have 

been provided to the current operator.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75. The 

operator must follow the guidelines under API RP 75, 

Section 3, as clarified in § 250.1911. If BOEMRE evaluates a SEMS program, the operator must submit to 

BOEMRE a revised SEMS program that addresses any 

identified deficiencies. 

Recommendation: Strike the sentence ‘‘Special * * * penalty’’.This provision was amended, striking ‘‘special attention’’ 

while requiring the hazard analysis to address previous 

incidents. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63621 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1905(a)(1)(iv) ...... It is not clear what BOEMRE’s expectations are for a hazard review to cover coastal and marine environmental 

impact. These potential impacts are already covered in 

the environmental analysis conducted by BOEMRE for 

lease sales and exploration and development plans. The 

operator addresses these impacts in their EP, DOCD, 

and OSRPs. This requirement is duplicative of analysis 

already conducted in accordance with the BOEMRE 

regulations in 30 CFR Part 250, subpart B, and 30 CFR 

Part 254.

The requirements for a hazards analysis are in API RP 75, 

Section 3 with clarification in § 250.1911. 

Recommendation: Strike coastal and marine environmental impacts from the accident scenarios list.The rule was changed to say ‘‘human and marine environment.’’ 

250.1905(a)(2) ........... Based on experience, a hazards analysis team is composed of (at least) individual(s) with experience in the 

operations being evaluated, and individual(s) who are 

experienced in the hazards analysis methodology. The 

rule states that these individuals need to have experience with both. That may be an impractical requirement.

The hazards analysis team must meet the requirements 

included in API RP 75, Section 3 and requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in the final rule under 

§ 250.1911. 

Recommendation: Change the second sentence to: ‘‘at 

least one person needs to be experienced’’.

BOEMRE agrees and has made the change to the final 

rule. 

250.1905(b) ................ There should be some prioritization in jobs/tasks to be 

evaluated. Everything an operator does is primarily a 

job/task. Routine jobs/tasks may be covered under operating procedures and the hazards analysis may be included in those procedures; therefore, a JSA may not 

be necessary. Jobs/tasks that are not routinely done 

and not covered by operating procedures should have a 

JSA. Jobs/tasks should be selected for analysis in priority order. We suggest the following prioritization: 

BOEMRE agrees that an operator can prioritize its JSA to 

maximize safety as long as it meets the provisions of 

the final rule. BOEMRE removed JHA from the final rule. 

In the final rulemaking, JSAs are done for the immediate 

tasks at hand (not used for administrative or domestic 

services). If the particular activity is conducted on a recurring basis, and the parameters do not change, the 

person in charge of the activity may decide that a JSA 

for each individual activity is not required. 

1. Jobs with highest rate of accidents or greatest potential for 

injuries 

2. New jobs or 

non-routine jobs 

3. Changes in 

process and 

procedures 

Recommendation: Remove section (b)(2) ........................... The requirement for an index was removed. 

250.1905(b) ................ The rulemaking also seems to envision that a ‘‘book’’ of 

JHAs/JSAs is maintained at the job site. While this may 

be true for jobs/tasks that are routinely performed, in 

many cases a JSA is completed for a non-routine task 

(e.g., an unusual lifting operation). The best JSAs are 

prepared by the workers on location and are handwritten. They should be kept in a manner that the workers can easily access them. The real value in the JSA is 

the ‘‘process’’ of the workers involved in the specific task 

actually discussing the hazards, agreeing on the individual roles and responsibilities and completing the JSA 

document. While it is important that JSAs for both routine and non-routine tasks be available for review by the 

workers until the job is completed, they may not be in a 

nice, neat, properly indexed book. We have no idea how 

the prescriptive documentation details in (b)(2) relate to 

keeping workers safe. They should be allowed to use 

whatever documentation technique works for them.

We removed the requirement to maintain a book/index, 

but we require operators to keep a copy of the JSA for 

30 days onsite and for 2 years at a location of the operator discretion and make them available to BOEMRE 

upon request. 

The requirements for JSAs are in the final rule, 

§ 250.1911. 

Recordkeeping and Documentation requirements are in 

§ 250.1928. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63622 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1905(b) ................ The only element in the proposed regulation that attempts 

to address worker behavior is the task-specific ‘‘hazards 

analysis.’’ However, there is a lot of confusion throughout the regulated community about the terms ‘‘JHA’’ and 

‘‘JSA.’’ We typically use the term ‘‘JHA’’ to mean a 

broad analysis of the hazards associated with a job or 

process. Such analysis is typically done by a diverse 

team and may be done in an office setting or at the job 

site. Many times, this analysis is included with a facilitylevel hazards analysis or operating procedures and in 

many cases covers routine tasks. We typically use the 

term ‘‘JSA’’ to be the analysis done by onsite workers 

immediately prior to performing a task, many times a 

non-routine task. Some workers start with a ‘‘go-by’’ and 

mark it up for the specific task at hand and others start 

with a blank piece of paper or form. We believe that the 

application of JSA has the best opportunity to impact 

worker behavior since it is the workers themselves that 

are identifying the hazards and developing plans, procedures, safeguards, etc., to avoid an incident.

The final rule distinguishes between a broad facility-based 

hazards analysis conducted in accordance with API RP 

75, Section 3 and a task level JSA, § 250.1911, as required in the final rule. 

250.1905(b) ................ Specific examples of practices within our IMS would be 

unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: 

We presently conduct JSAs for work with at least some 

level of risk, but not for every work project and activity.

The operator is required to follow API RP 75 as incorporated by reference and perform JSA’s for those activities identified in it’s SEMS program, as addressed in 

§ 250.1911. There are routine tasks performed in the 

offshore environment that may meet the requirements of 

SEMS under the Safe Work Practices and Operating 

Procedures elements. However, for such activities that 

deviate from their norm due to a change in environment, 

personnel, or equipment-related factors, or other activities that are non-routine procedures, a JSA must be 

conducted that identifies and accounts for routine variations or the uniqueness of the activity. 

250.1905(b) ................ A commenter is concerned by the proposed requirement 

for a task-level JHA. While we understand that this may 

be more correctly described as a JSA, we believe that 

there needs to be a better understanding of both what 

constitutes a JSA, and for what tasks a JSA should be 

developed. Does BOEMRE expect a JSA for operation 

of a copy machine? 

BOEMRE replaced the term JHA with JSA in the final rule. 

In the final rulemaking, JSAs are done for the immediate 

tasks at hand (not used for administrative or domestic 

services). 

250.1905(b) ................ Section 250.1905(b) states that a JHA must be performed 

for ‘‘each’’ work project and activity. BOEMRE must clarify this paragraph. There are many projects and activities that are considered ‘‘routine.’’ Our company wholeheartedly agrees that a thorough analysis should always 

be performed on all ‘‘non-routine’’ projects and activities. 

Our only concern is that a requirement for a JHA on all 

projects and activities would be overwhelming. The way 

the rule is written an operator would be required to perform a JHA for a simple activity such as obtaining tubing 

pressures or adjusting a level in a vessel.

There is nothing in the rule that prevents an operator from 

using the same JSA for a particular activity that is conducted on a recurring basis as long as the parameters 

of the activity do not change. 

250.1905(b)(2) ........... We further believe that the record retention requirements 

for the JSA and related index are unduly burdensome 

and contrary to BOEMRE’s stated intent that the programs not become a paperwork exercise. The proposal 

also creates concern regarding ‘‘ownership’’ of the JSAs/ 

index once a MODU is no longer under contract for the 

operator under whose contract they were developed 

Recommended: Strike this section. 

The operator may use programs already in existence to 

comply with provisions of this final rule, as long as your 

SEMS program addresses all the elements in API RP 

75 and the requirements in the final rule. 

250.1906(a) ................ We assume that the 13 requirements for procedures can 

be covered collectively by other management systems, 

especially with regards to chemicals and materials. The 

scope of these requirements (7, 9–13) goes beyond API 

RP 75, as well as OSHA PSM and EPA RMP.

The operator may use programs already in existence to 

comply with provisions of this final rule. BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 5 with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in 

§ 250.1913 to address operating procedures. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63623 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1906(a) ................ Coupled with the requirement in § 250.1905 to develop a 

SEMS for MODUs, § 250.1906(a)(1) and (a)(5) would 

now require the operator to develop procedures for 

some drilling facilities that we neither own nor operate. 

This would significantly add to the documentation burden on the operators. We do not believe this would benefit the operator, the owner of the facility, or the personnel on the rig. Operators hire contractors that have 

safety programs in place and are in compliance with applicable laws, but do not dictate to them how to achieve 

that. The MODUs already have operations manuals developed in conformance with flag State requirements 

and/or IMO MODU Code and fall under the jurisdiction 

of the USCG. The proposed rule duplicates these requirements. Most operators do not have the resources 

or the expertise to develop operational procedures for 

drilling operations and depend on the contracted company who are the experts to develop their own procedures and safety systems.

BOEMRE requires operating procedures for a MODU 

under BOEMRE’s jurisdiction. The operator’s operating 

procedures need to include provisions for evaluating operating procedures in their contractor plans. Under 

§ 250.1914 of the final rule operators must ensure that 

contractors have their own written safe work practices. 

Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator’s SEMS program. Operator and contractor must 

document their agreement on appropriate contractor 

safety and environmental policies and practices before 

the contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

Recommendation: Change to ‘‘implement written production facility operating procedures’’.

250.1906(a) ................ It is easier to have site specific procedures that the operator can provide training to the contractor (preferably before the contractor employees begin work), and verify 

competency so that once the contractor’s employees 

reach the facility, there exists a clear understanding of 

what is to be done, and how to do it.

The operator is responsible for developing and implementing all operating procedures. Procedures should be 

site-specific for the task at hand e.g., drilling, cementing, 

coiled tubing. How operators decide to implement such 

operating procedures is up to them, as long as they are 

in compliance with API RP 75, Section 5, and the requirements in § 250.1913 of the final rule. 

250.1906(a) ................ Our company agrees that operating procedures are a valuable tool in regards to paragraphs (1) through (13). Our 

only concern is that a written procedure for paragraphs 

(1) through (13) must be site specific. For example, a 

written procedure for paragraph (1) (initial startup) could 

only be followed for the facility that it was written for.

BOEMRE understands that standardizing procedures with 

respect to safe operations makes good sense where appropriate. An operator may do so regarding like facilities 

but it is the operator’s responsibility to identify any differences existing among similar facilities and identify 

those differences within their SEMS program. BOEMRE 

may require the operator to submit a complete SEMS 

for a particular facility should it deem the impact of the 

differences outweighs the similarities of the facilities. 

250.1906(a)(1) ........... Initial startup, startup following a turnaround, or startup 

after an emergency shutdown are redundant and encompass the same elements. We suggest they be combined.

BOEMRE disagrees and retained this paragraph in the 

final rule. We incorporated by reference API RP 75, 

Section 5 to address these terms. 

250.1906(a)(3) ........... What does BOEMRE envision as ‘‘temporary operations?’’ 

Please define or explain.

This paragraph was deleted from the final rule. Section 5 

of API RP 75 does not define ‘‘temporary operations.’’ 

250.1906(a)(4) ........... Does the BOEMRE mean Emergency Shutdown Operations in (4)? If not, then please define ‘‘emergency operations’’.BOEMRE agrees that it should be addressed as ‘‘emergency shutdown operations’’. 

250.1906(a)(7) ........... Bypassing and flagging should be included in the individual operating procedure; it is not a separate operating procedure in and of itself.BOEMRE disagrees that ‘‘bypassing and flagging out of 

service’’ should be a separate operating procedure in 

and of itself. 

250.1906(a)(7) ........... We recommend the wording in § 250.1906(a)(7) be 

changed from ‘‘bypassing and flagging’’ to ‘‘bypassing 

and flagging out of service’’.

BOEMRE agrees that it should be addressed as ‘‘bypassing and flagging out of service.’’ 

250.1906(a)(8) ........... ‘‘Safety and environmental consequences of deviating 

from your equipment operating limits and steps required 

to correct or avoid this deviation;’’ is already covered by 

API RP 14C and is included in the individual operating 

procedures and is not a separate operating procedure in 

and of itself.

BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and the operator 

must comply with the provisions of operating procedures 

listed in § 250.1913(a)(8) and API RP 75, Section 5. 

Recommendation: Strike (a)(8) ............................................ BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and the operator 

must comply with the provisions of operating procedures 

listed in § 250.1913(a)(8) and API RP 75, Section 5. 

250.1906(a)(8–12) ..... The intent of API RP 75 is to take environmental factors 

into consideration during startup, normal operations, 

temporary operations * * * not developing procedures 

specific to these issues. Specific environmental issues 

are covered under and or overlap with Hazardous Material Regulations, CERCLA, RCRA, H2S regulations, and 

NPDES. These sections should be removed.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75. However, operators still must comply with other Federal laws 

and regulations. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63624 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1906(a)(13) ......... ‘‘Coastal and marine environmental impacts identified 

through your hazards analysis’’ is taken into account in 

the operating procedures themselves, they are not a 

separate operating procedure. Environmental impact 

identification is also covered in NPDES, air permit, and 

oil spill regulations and response plans. This section 

should be removed.

The overriding goal of SEMS is to protect the human and 

marine environment. 

250.1906(b) ................ Reword § 250.1906(b) to read, ‘‘Employees will have access to the appropriate procedures for their specific job/ 

role in the operations.’’ This is subtle, but procedures for 

specific roles should be available to those specific employees, rather than all employees having access to all 

procedures.

BOEMRE disagrees and is keeping this and is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 5. 

250.1906(b) ................ We assume that procedures maintained electronically are 

considered accessible.

See API RP 75, Section 13 and § 250.1928. 

250.1906(b) ................ Please state what you mean as ‘‘accessible.’’ The facility 

where the work is conducted may be manned or unmanned. We suggest that the operating procedures be 

kept at the nearest manned facility.

The API RP 75 does not address this issue and the operator should define, in their SEMS, where operating procedures are to be kept. However, you must be able to 

provide your SEMS to BOEMRE upon request in a timely fashion. 

250.1906(d) ................ What specifically is meant by, ‘‘develop and implement 

safe and environmentally sound work practices for identified hazards during operations?’’ Is this meant to be 

Safe Work Practices (e.g., Hot Work, Confined Space, 

SIMOPS, etc.), or some other processes? This seems to 

be the intent of this whole element, if not all of the 

SEMS rule.

The intent of the SEMS rule is to ensure safe work practices for all operations on an OCS facility. 

250.1907 .................... Is the intent of the mechanical integrity element to cover 

critical equipment as referred to in API RP 75? The way 

it is worded this element may cover more: ‘‘Your mechanical integrity program must encompass all equipment and systems used to prevent or mitigate uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons, toxic substances, or 

other materials that may cause environmental or safety 

consequences.’’ What are the types or severity of such 

consequences? 

The final rule incorporates by reference API RP 75, Section 8 that addresses critical equipment and includes requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in 

§ 250.1916. It is the operator’s responsibility to meet the 

intent of SEMS as well as its requirements. The overriding goal of SEMS is to protect the human and marine 

environment. The inventory of harmful substances on 

offshore facilities is well known but will also evolve over 

time so it is incumbent upon the operator to keep all 

harmful substances controlled and contained. 

250.1907 .................... Does BOEMRE expect each operator to implement a mechanical integrity program for each MODU that we contract to work on our lease that we neither own nor operate? The MODU operator should have a mechanical integrity program for his equipment. The operator should 

verify that the MODU operator has such a program.

Recommendation: You must develop and implement written procedures that provide instructions to ensure the 

mechanical integrity and safe operation of equipment 

through inspection, testing, and quality assurance for 

equipment on your facility used to prevent or mitigate 

uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons, toxic substances, or other materials that may cause environmental or safety consequences. For MODUs operating 

on your lease, you must verify that the MODU operator 

has a mechanical integrity program that meets the requirement in this subpart. These procedures must address the following: 

BOEMRE requires operating procedures for a MODU 

under BOEMRE’s jurisdiction. The operator’s operating 

procedures need to include provisions for evaluating operating procedures in their contractor plans. Under 

§ 250.1914 of the final rule operators must ensure that 

contractors have their own written safe work practices. 

Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator’s SEMS program. Operator and contractor must 

document their agreement on appropriate contractor 

safety and environmental policies and practices before 

the contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

250.1907 .................... Include the requirements in § 250.1907(i) in § 250.1907(a) BOEMRE disagrees and in the final rule will keep both 

sets of requirements separate. 

250.1907 .................... A contractor can have a mechanical integrity program for 

contractor owned equipment (tools, vehicles, etc.), but 

to address the operator’s equipment, again, it is more 

practical for the operator to develop this program, then 

train the contractor in implementation.

BOEMRE agrees. The operator must have a mechanical 

integrity program in accordance with the requirements of 

API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916. 

250.1907 .................... This entire element is already being addressed. Paragraph 

(a) is already addressed by API RP 14C. Paragraph (b) 

(training) is already being addressed as part of the subpart O requirement. Paragraphs (c) through (i) is being 

addressed through the requirements of API RP 14C 

along with the monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual testing of the surface and sub-surface safety system.

BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O addresses training related 

to well control and production safety. We incorporated 

by reference API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916 to 

address mechanical integrity. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63625 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1907(a) ................ We suggest replacing ‘‘manufacturers design and material 

specifications’’ with ‘‘applicable design and material 

specifications.’’ The design, procurement, fabrication, 

etc., of equipment are not necessarily just based on 

manufacturers’ specifications but could be based on 

API, company, or other applicable design and material 

specifications.

We disagree; we believe that the manufacturer’s design 

and material specifications are the most appropriate 

guidance to use. 

250.1907(b) ................ Please note that there are typically no manufacturers recommended inspection intervals for fixed equipment 

(pressure vessels, piping, pipelines).

Maintenance intervals should be allowed to be extended 

based on component history, operating experience, and 

risk-based decision making.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916 to address mechanical integrity. 

The operator’s maintenance program must be structured 

to enhance safety and protect the environment and 

must sustain ongoing mechanical integrity. Testing and 

inspection procedures must follow commonly accepted 

standards and codes, such as API 510 and the manufacture’s recommendations. 

250.1907(b) ................ Equipment may be maintained by employees, contractors, 

or a mix. Some specialized equipment is actually maintained by the manufacturer’s representatives who periodically travel to offshore facilities to perform required 

maintenance. Therefore, our employees do not need to 

be trained to do the actual maintenance work for all 

equipment in the mechanical integrity program.

The operator must have mechanical integrity in accordance with API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916, in their 

SEMS program. Your contractors must conduct operations in accordance with your SEMS program. 

Recommended: Replace (b) with the following: The training of maintenance workers in the application of the procedures, relevant hazards, and safe work practices.

250.1907(c) ................ We recommend deleting the language ‘‘meet the manufacturer’s recommendations’’ in § 250.1907(c). Many of our 

inspection and testing requirements, while meeting regulations, are risk-based in approach.

We disagree, we believe that the manufacture’s recommendations are appropriate to use. 

250.1907(c) ................ Specific examples of practices within our IMS would be 

unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: 

We presently feel free to inspect or test some equipment more frequently than necessary to gain some 

extra level of comfort, but we do not expect to be locked 

into a greater frequency.

The operator is required to meet or exceed the inspection 

frequencies in 30 CFR part 250. 

250.1907(d) ................ Is electronic documentation of the person performing the 

inspection or test acceptable? Electronic work order systems are often used to schedule and document inspections and tests.

To address recordkeeping and documentation, we incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 13, and additional reporting and documentation requirements in 

§ 250.1928. Electronic records are acceptable to 

BOEMRE for most records. 

250.1907(d) ................ We recommend adding, ‘‘Electronic documentation of the 

same information will suffice to meet this requirement’’ 

to § 250.1907(d). The requirement for ‘‘signature’’ on inspection or test documentation should be modified to 

encompass operators’ use of electronic work management systems. Work orders, assigned to and completed 

by individuals within the software should be acceptable.

BOEMRE kept this paragraph in the final rule. The final 

rule will also address mechanical integrity documentation as described in API RP 75, Section 8. Electronic 

records are acceptable to BOEMRE for most records, 

including electronic signatures. 

250.1907(d) ................ The last sentence in § 250.1907(d) should be modified to 

place an ‘‘or’’ between inspection and test, therefore 

changing the language to read ‘‘and the results of the 

inspection or test’’.

BOEMRE agrees with this comment and made the text 

change in new § 250.1916(d). 

250.1907(e) ................ Correction of deficiencies before further use will prevent 

use of risk-based decision making, and the subsequent 

shut-in of operations may present additional hazards. 

Would this apply in the case of waiting on parts and 

while mitigation measures are put in place? Does it 

cover deficiencies that may not affect operations integrity? Run to failure should be a viable option for some 

components. Suggest this requirement be based on risk. 

This is not a requirement in API RP 75.

Deficiencies are addressed in API RP 75, Section 8 and 

§ 250.1916(e). Under the final rule, the procedures for 

Mechanical Integrity must address the correction of deficiencies associated with equipment and systems that 

are outside the manufacturer’s recommended limits before further use. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63626 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1907(e) ................ Specific examples of practices within our IMS that would 

be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: 

We presently decide whether to take a piece of equipment out of service based upon our judgment of actual 

risk (likelihood and consequence of failure).

Under § 250.1916(e) of the final rule the operator must 

document the procedures to correct critical equipment 

deficiencies or operations. The operator may continue to 

use an IMS, if it meets the requirements of API RP 75 

and the final rule and the operator addresses any deficiencies. We cannot accept only ‘‘judgment’’ as a means 

of the operator determining risk. The operator must account for what factors were considered in taking equipment out of service. This does not have to be an exhaustive analysis but it does need to reflect that all relevant SEMS elements were considered. Documenting 

the ‘‘likelihood and consequence of failure’’ comports 

with the intent of SEMS. 

250.1907(f)–(i) ............ How is this requirement different from (a), nor how it is to 

be implemented.

Recommendation: Strike (f). 

How is this requirement different from (a), nor how it is to 

be implemented.

Recommendation: Strike (g). Since BOEMRE has outlined 

prescriptive requirements for the inspection and testing 

and the documentation of those inspections and tests, 

we do not understand what the requirement in (h) is and 

how it is different from (c) and (d) above or how to implement it. 

Recommendation: Strike (h). 

BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and is incorporating by reference API RP 75 and requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in the final rule. The operator must follow the requirements of API RP 75, Section 8 and the requirements in § 250.1916 for mechanical integrity. Paragraph (a) of § 250.1916 provides an 

overview of the requirements, while the subsequent 

paragraphs provide more details. 

We suggest this be included under (a). 

Recommendation: Strike (i) and include under (a). 

250.1908 .................... There is no mention if the MOC is for either permanent 

and temporary changes or just permanent changes. 

Please clarify.

The operator must follow the requirements of API RP 75, 

Section 4 and § 250.1912 of the final rule for MOC, 

which requires procedures for any changes related to 

equipment, operating procedures, personnel changes, 

materials, and operating conditions, except for replacement in kind. This applies to permanent and temporary 

changes. 

250.1908 .................... A production contractor can have a MOC process, but in 

order for the process to work, the operator (client) must 

be part of the process. The scenario of the lessee/operator having a MOC process that the contractor can be a 

part of is a better model.

The operator is responsible for developing and implementing a MOC in accordance with API RP 75, Section 

4 and § 250.1912 of the final rule. The operator is responsible for coordinating with the contractor regarding 

MOC. The operator must ensure that their contractor 

embraces safety principles that support their SEMS program. The MOC is a cooperative activity that makes all 

parties responsible for its success. 

250.1908(a)(2) ........... A process for changing operating procedures has already 

been established in § 250.1906(c). The MOC process 

should simply identify that operating procedures either 

need to be changed (or don’t) as a result of changes to 

the facility. The actual change to the operating procedures should not have to go through the MOC process.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 for MOCs and Section 5 for Operating Procedures 

and requirements under §§ 250.1912 and 250.1913 of 

the final rule. Under §§ 250.1912 and 250.1913, the operator must address MOC for operating procedures. 

250.1908(a)(3) ........... Section 250.1908 proposes issuing MOCs for personnel 

changes, but does not define which personnel that encompasses. It would be quite onerous if a MOC was required for every single individual that was changed out 

on a facility. To provide clarity as to those personnel 

changes that would require a MOC, we propose adding 

the following language to § 250.1908(3): ‘‘Personnel with 

specific knowledge or experience who supervise or operate, or support operations of a facility which would 

lead to a loss of knowledge or experience’’.

BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and it is the operator’s responsibility to address personal changes. 

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912, to address 

MOCs for changes in personnel. API RP 75, Section 4 

includes the suggested language. The definition of contractors in § 250.1914(a) does not include those providing domestic services. 

250.1908(a)(4) ........... What does BOEMRE envision as a change in material that 

requires a MOC that is not already covered under equipment? 

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address 

MOCs. The operator must adopt these requirements in 

the SEMS. Materials that are not covered under equipment could include process chemicals and maintenance 

materials; these are mentioned in API RP 75. 

250.1908(a)(5) ........... We assume that changes in operating conditions include 

such things as changes to the operating envelope (pressure, temperature, flow rates, material chemistry, etc.) 

as described in the facility design basis or a change in 

the chemistry of the product that was not considered in 

the equipment specification. If our assumption is not 

correct, please clarify.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address 

MOCs. API RP 4.2e addresses changes in operating 

conditions. The operator must adopt these requirements 

in the SEMS. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63627 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1908(c) ................ What does BOEMRE envision by the following requirement: ‘‘You must review all changes prior to their implementation?’’ BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4, and requirements under § 250.1912 to address 

MOCs. Section 250.1912(c) requires the operator to review all changes prior to their implementation and API 

RP 75 section 4.3 addresses this review related to 

changes in personnel. This review is required to ensure 

the safety of personnel. 

250.1908(c) ................ Specific examples of practices within our IMS that would 

be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: 

We presently allow immediate approval of work considered to be for emergency situations without prior MOC 

review and approval, subsequently working through 

MOC as a follow-up.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address 

MOCs. The operator may continue to use an IMS, if it 

meets the requirements of API RP 75 and the final regulation. Emergency situations are addressed in the final 

rule under § 250.1918 and requires the operator to have 

emergency response and control plans in place and 

ready for immediate implementation. 

250.1908(f) ................. We assume that the documentation for this step will be 

under § 250.1906(c).

If the management of change results in change in the operating procedure, this change must be documented as 

provide in § 250.1912(f) in the final rule. 

250.1909 .................... The final rule must distinguish between ‘‘contractor employees’’ and ‘‘contracted employees’’.While BOEMRE does not directly regulate the operator/ 

contactor relationship, it is the responsibility of both the 

operator and contractor to conduct activities so that they 

comport with the operator’s SEMS. 

250.1909 .................... 1. How does this part relate to subpart O? 1. Subpart O specifically applies to personnel involved in 

well control and production safety system operations, 

while subpart S applies to all aspects of OCS operations 

under BOEMRE jurisdiction. 

2. This section could conflict with subpart O and become 

detrimental to operators.

2. BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O complements a SEMS 

program. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in 

API RP 75 Section 7 as incorporated by reference and 

the requirements in § 250.1915. 

250.1909 .................... BOEMRE already has regulations in place to address 

training and competency assessments for both operator 

employees and contractors. 30 CFR Part 250, subpart 

O, Well Control and Production Safety Training, clearly 

states that operators must ensure that both employees 

and contract personnel understand and can properly 

perform their duties; § 250.1503(b)(3) requires operators 

to have procedures ‘‘for verifying that all employees and 

contractor personnel engaged in well control or production safety operations can perform their assigned duties.’’ In fact, BOEMRE periodically assesses the Subpart O program by auditing and testing as described in 

§ 250.1507(d), which states ‘‘BOEMRE or its authorized 

representative may conduct testing at either onshore or 

offshore locations. Tests will be designed to evaluate 

the competency of your employees or contract personnel in performing their assigned well control and production safety duties. You are responsible for the costs 

associated with this testing, excluding salary and travel 

costs for BOEMRE personnel’’.

BOEMRE disagrees. The SEMS rule applies to contractors 

performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major 

renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. This section was renumbered as 

§ 250.1914 in the final rule. The operator is responsible 

for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the 

contract employer’s safety performance and programs 

and informs contract employers of the known potential 

fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the 

contractor’s work and the process. The operator may 

use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the 

SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915. 

We find that the proposed language in § 250.1909 is redundant with existing regulations under 30 CFR Part 

250, subpart O, and therefore, should be eliminated 

from the proposed rule. If you do not agree, then please 

clarify the relationship between this proposed rule and 

the requirements in subpart O and identify what contractor groups have otherwise not been addressed by 

the existing subpart O requirements. If BOEMRE has 

concerns regarding contractor selection or competency, 

then the appropriate regulation to address such concerns is within the subpart O program.

Recommendation: Strike § 250.1909 in its entirety. 

BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O complements a SEMS 

program. All personnel with the operator’s SEMS program need to be trained to competently perform their 

assigned duties. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915 in the final rule. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63628 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1909 .................... The current BOEMRE regulations under subpart O at 

§ 250.1500 require operators to ensure and document 

that their company and contract employees are competent to perform their assigned jobs. Therefore, the 

section on contractor selection and competency in the 

proposed rule is redundant and not needed. If BOEMRE 

felt it necessary, subpart O could be expanded to include any worker groups not already covered in the current rule. In the event BOEMRE proceeds with an entirely new rulemaking, we recommend a performancebased rule be written (like subpart O) to allow operators 

to utilize their existing safety and environmental management programs instead of a detailed, prescriptive 

program as proposed in this rulemaking. Companies 

could then certify to BOEMRE that their programs include the required elements and use their documentation and audit systems that are already in place and 

working.

Subpart O specifically applies to personnel involved in well 

control and production safety system operations The 

SEMS rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered process. This 

section was renumbered as § 250.1914 in the final rule. 

The operator is responsible for obtaining and evaluating 

information regarding the contract employer’s safety performance and programs and informing contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work and the 

process. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to substantially meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by 

reference and the requirements necessary to implement 

API RP 75 in § 250.1915. The contactor must ensure 

that all personnel not mentioned in subpart O are also 

competent in conducting their job and subscribe to safe 

work practices as identified in the operator’s SEMS program. 

250.1909 .................... While the proposed rule states the required SEMS program must include each of the 4 elements described, 

we believe the § 250.1909 ‘‘What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program for contractor selection?’’ 

is actually a 5th element that has been added without 

the justification and rationale used to validate inclusion 

of the other 4 elements.

BOEMRE disagrees; SEMS must include everyone working on a facility; criteria for contractor selection are an 

important part of that. Contractor criteria are addressed 

in Section 6.4 and Appendix A of API RP 75 as incorporated by reference. We included this in the final rule 

with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in 

§ 250.1914. 

250.1909 .................... If contractors are to be ‘‘accountable’’ for SEMS activities, 

their scale, complexity and scope of work should also be 

taken into account. Example: Contractor services vary 

from ‘‘Labor’’ (i.e., production operators), ‘‘Equipment’’ 

(i.e., Generators, machinery rentals) or both ‘‘Labor and 

Equipment’’ (i.e., drilling rig, welding machine, and welder), etc. A contractor supplying ‘‘Labor’’ services should 

not be required to have a SEMS program, but the competency to work within the clients program (i.e., perform 

JSAs, initiate MOC process, utilize Operating Procedures in performance of duties, perform level one visual 

Mechanical Integrity inspections in accordance with a 

lessee’s SEMS program). A contractor only supplying 

‘‘Equipment’’ should have a Mechanical Integrity Plan 

and Operating Procedures that accompany the equipment and limited hazards analysis pertaining to his 

equipment. A contractor supplying ‘‘Labor and Equipment’’ should have a SEMS program that covers his 

equipment and the operation thereof.

The operator is responsible for having a SEMS program in 

place. The operator is responsible for coordinating with 

the contractor regarding their SEMS program. The operator must ensure that their contractor embraces safety 

principles that support their SEMS program. 

250.1909 .................... There is no indication in the data used for the proposed 

rule that ‘‘Contractor Selection’’ contributed to the incidents analyzed by the BOEMRE.

Contractors perform a majority of the work on the OCS 

and the selection of skilled, knowledgeable, and trained 

contractor personnel by the operator is an important part 

of ensuring that the SEMS program works. 

250.1909 .................... The proposed rule would require the lessee/operator to 

develop a SEMS. However, § 250.1909 states that the 

lessee must document that their contractors have policies and practices that are consistent with the lessee’s 

plan. Furthermore, it states that a copy of the contractor’s SEMS program must be kept by the operator and 

the contractor at each facility where contract operations 

are being performed. Our company has 50 to 60 customers. To strive for consistency with 50 to 60 individual 

programs is unrealistic and places an unnecessary burden on all contract operators. Our company either manages or operates over 600 platforms in the GOM. The 

paperwork burden of supplying and maintaining a SEMS 

program for each facility (again, consistent with that individual customer) could only be done at a tremendous 

cost of not only man hours but monetary investment that 

may not be recoverable.

The operator is responsible for having a SEMS program in 

place. The operator is responsible for coordinating with 

the contractor regarding their SEMS program. The operator must ensure that their contractor embraces safety 

principles that support their SEMS program. 

Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor’s 

safety and environmental performance when selecting a 

contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have 

their own written safe work practices. Contractors may 

adopt appropriate sections of the operator’s SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their 

agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63629 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1909 .................... There is absolutely no need for further expansion of contractor selection and contractor documentation in any 

SEMS program. Subpart O already addresses contractor evaluations and contractor selection. This portion 

of the proposed rule is redundant and attempts to expand once again on the definition of ‘‘Production Operations’’.

Subpart O applies to personnel involved in well control 

and production safety system operations. Section 

250.1914 of the final rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered 

process, as well as Appendix A of API RP 75. The operator is responsible for verifying that contractor personnel 

can perform their assigned duties and informs contract 

employers of all hazards related to the contractor’s work 

and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of Subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75 Section 7 as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915 of the final rule. 

250.1909 .................... BOEMRE cannot expect the operator or lessee to evaluate, test, and document the competency of these hired 

professionals as they are by name certified to perform 

their tasks and possess unique knowledge. Additionally, 

contractor selection does not affect human factors.

BOEMRE disagrees. The operator is accountable for contractor personnel activities and equipment. BOEMRE 

does not expect the operator to test their contractors. 

BOEMRE does expect the operator to evaluate their 

contractor’s ability to perform the job that they are hired 

to do and to document that they have done so. 

Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor’s 

safety and environmental performance when selecting a 

contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have 

their own written safe work practices. Contractors may 

adopt appropriate sections of the operator’s SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their 

agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

250.1909 .................... We are concerned with the ambiguous language related to 

contractors and contracted personnel. BOEMRE fails to 

clearly distinguish between contracted individuals acting 

in the same capacity as an employee, and companies 

contracted to perform specialized services for a lessee, 

leading to perhaps unintended applications. For example, § 250.1909(a) of the proposed rule states, ‘‘A contractor is anyone performing work for the lessee.’’ This 

could be construed as including emergency response 

operations even though these are not integral to oil and 

gas exploration and production operations. We support 

the OOC comment that the section relating to contractors be stricken from the rule, as redundant with existing 

subpart O regulations. In the alternative, we request that 

the currently overbroad language be clarified to define 

contractors, and contracted personnel, and to confirm 

that the rule does not apply to emergency response 

contractors even though they are contracted to perform 

work for a lessee in the OCS.

BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O applies to personnel involved in well control and production safety system operations. Section 250.1914 of the final rule applies to 

contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered process and Appendix A of API RP 

75. The operator is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contract employer’s safety performance and safety programs and informs contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or 

toxic release hazards related to the contractor’s work 

and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7 as incorporated by reference. The API RP 75 defines contractor as ‘‘The individual, partnership, firm, or corporation retained by the 

owner or operator to perform work or provide supplies or 

equipment. The term contractor must also include subcontractors’’. 

250.1909 .................... The data used in the proposed rule makes no mention of 

problems regarding contractor competency, training, 

MOC, mechanical integrity, etc.

Contractors perform the majority of the work on the OCS 

and as such, selecting skilled, knowledgeable, and 

trained contractor personnel by the operator will help 

achieve safe OCS operations. 

Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor’s 

safety and environmental performance when selecting a 

contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have 

their own written safe work practices. Contractors may 

adopt appropriate sections of the operator’s SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their 

agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator’s facilities. 

250.1909(b) ................ 1. Are electronic copies of contractor’s competencies and 

SEMS programs acceptable? 

1. Electronic copies of contractor’s competencies and 

SEMS programs are acceptable. See API RP 75, Section 13 and § 250.1928. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63630 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

2. Do we need to keep competencies for each individual 

contractor? 

2. In § 250.1914 of the final rule, the SEMS must include 

procedures and verification that the operator’s contractor 

and employees understand and can perform their assigned duties, as well as Appendix A of API RP 75, 

which addresses contractor selection criteria. The operator is responsible for ensuring and validating the competency of their contractors; the method for doing so 

must be detailed in their SEMS program. The operator 

may request specific performance information from contractors. 

250.1910 .................... We recommend that the prescriptive language be replaced 

with the following: ‘‘You must audit your SEMS program 

in accordance with API RP 75, Section 12, Audit of 

Safety and Environmental Management Program Elements’’.

BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 

12 and requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 

in the final rule under § 250.1920 to address audits and 

documentation. The final rule gives the option of utilizing 

either an independent third party or your designated and 

qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf. 

250.1910(a) ................ We believe timing for audits should be based on performance and risk rather than a prescribed schedule as described in § 250.1910(a).BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75. Audit frequency is addressed in § 250.1920 of the final rule. The 

operators must have their SEMS programs audited by 

either an independent third party or your designated and 

qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 

75, Section 12 within 2 years of the initial implementation of the SEMS program and at least once every 3 

years thereafter. 

250.1910(b) ................ As part of our SEMS program, we audit all facilities (offshore and on) on a 3–5 year basis and roll up results of 

audits from each year to evaluate our program as a 

whole. We assume this is acceptable in accordance with 

this section.

Audit frequency is addressed in § 250.1920 of the final 

rule. The operators must have their SEMS programs audited by either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on 

your behalf according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 75, Section 12 within 2 years of the initial implementation of the SEMS program and at least 

once every 3 years thereafter. 

Which part of this audit process would the BOEMRE want 

to be invited to participate/observe? 

In § 250.1920(b), the operator must notify the BOEMRE 30 

days in advance to allow BOEMRE to participate in/observe the operators SEMS audit. BOEMRE may participate or observe the audit of any of the elements in the 

final rule. 

250.1910(b) ................ We recommend deleting language at § 250.1910(b) requiring notification to BOEMRE prior to conducting an audit.BOEMRE disagrees; we maintained this requirement in 

the final rule, so that BOEMRE may observe SEMS audits under § 250.1924(c). 

250.1910(b) ................ How does BOEMRE envision participating in an audit as 

just as an observer? These seem to be contradictory 

terms. If BOEMRE is merely going to observe and not 

do or say anything, then perhaps better wording would 

be ‘‘Representatives from BOEMRE may observe your 

SEMS audit.’’ Further, if BOEMRE is going to simply observe, what is the purpose of observing the audit? 

If BOEMRE decides to participate in a SEMS audit, our 

activities may include one or more of the following: 

• Observation. 

• Requesting documentation. 

• Revising SEMS program. 

• Other duties as needed. 

BOEMRE may participate as observers to verify compliance. BOEMRE may issue warnings, PINCs, or INCs, 

under § 250.1927. 

250.1910(b) ................ The wording in this section also seems to indicate that the 

SEMS audit will be conducted in a meeting style; otherwise, how will BOEMRE observe the audit? 

BOEMRE disagrees. In the final rule BOEMRE may participate in the audit in the field and office locations as 

needed. How BOEMRE participates in the audit will be 

based on how the operator conducts its audit. 

250.1910(b) and (c) ... Will the BOEMRE write INCs on the issues self-discovered 

on audits (either as a participant or following review of 

the audit report)? 

BOEMRE may write INCs based on the severity of the 

issues discovered during an audit (either as a participant 

or following the review of the audit report). If the 

BOEMRE discovers an issue when reviewing the audit 

report, we will consider whether the extent to which the 

operator has addressed the issue when deciding if we 

should write an INC. BOEMRE will consider all relevant 

factors when considering issuing an INC, including the 

fact that the operator self-discovered the deficiency. 

BOEMRE encourages operators to identify deficiencies 

during their audits and looks favorably on audits detailing such, before deciding if a self-discovered deficiency 

warrants receiving an INC. BOEMRE recognizes the intent of the operator’s audit is to find deficiencies and 

make the necessary corrections to enhance safety and 

BOEMRE does not intend for audits to be used as a punitive exercise. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63631 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1910(c) ................ When does BOEMRE consider the audit to be completed? 

We consider the audit to be completed when the final 

audit report is issued.

The audit is complete when any deficiencies in a SEMS 

program are corrected and documented. If there are no 

deficiencies, the audit is complete when the final audit 

report is issued and submitted to BOEMRE. 

250.1910(c) ................ Given the language in § 250.1910(d), it appears that 

BOEMRE does not envision receiving the actual SEMS 

audit report.

Recommendation: You must submit a report to the 

BOEMRE within 30 days after the issuance of the final 

SEMS report by your designated and qualified personnel or your independent third-party. The report need 

not be the full SEMS report but must outline * * *.

In § 250.1920 of the final rule, the operator must require 

the Independent Third Party to submit an audit report of 

the findings and conclusions of the audit to BOEMRE 

within 30 days of the audit completion date. The report 

must outline the results of the audit, including deficiencies identified. 

250.1910(c) ................ We agree with the BOEMRE proposal to periodically review the results of SEMS audits based on operator performance through unannounced or announced inspections. However, we are not supportive of the language 

at § 250.1910(c) that requires producing a separate report solely for BOEMRE purposes within 30 days of the 

completion of an audit. This is an administrative burden 

and does not meet the intent of the proposed regulation 

that the rule not be a paperwork exercise. We suggest 

adding language to § 250.1910(c) that BOEMRE could 

review audit reports during inspections or upon request 

that would provide BOEMRE unimpeded access to any 

audit findings at their discretion.

The audit reports are critical documents that BOEMRE 

needs to ensure that your audit protocols are true to the 

intent of this subpart and that any deficiencies have 

been addressed appropriately and in a timely manner. 

In § 250.1920 of the final rule, the operator must require 

the Independent Third Party or your designated and 

qualified personnel to submit an audit report of the findings and conclusions of the audit to BOEMRE within 30 

days of the audit completion date. The report must outline the results of the audit, including deficiencies identified. 

250.1910(d) ................ What does BOEMRE envision as the difference between 

verifying corrective actions from an audit in 

§ 250.1910(d) and § 250.1913? 

There is not a significant difference between the two sections in regards to verifying corrective actions. 

250.1910(e) ................ What is the purpose of retaining copies of the audit for 5 

years, when the program has to be audited every 3 

years? 

Recommendation: You must retain copies of either the 

independent third-party’s SEMS records or self audit for 

a minimum period of 3 years or until the completion of 

the next audit.

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 12 and § 250.1920 of the final rule will require independent Third Party or your designated and qualified 

personnel to conduct audits on your behalf. The final 

rule has additional recordkeeping requirements that are 

not in API RP 75. In § 250.1920 of the final rule, the operator must require the Independent Third Party or your 

designated and qualified personnel to submit an audit 

report of the findings and conclusions of the audit to 

BOEMRE within 30 days of the audit completion date 

and to keep copies of the audits for 6 years. Requiring 

the operators to keep the audits for 6 years ensures that 

they have copies of audits for at least 2 audit cycles for 

reference. 

250.1911 .................... We recommend that the prescriptive language be replaced 

with the following: ‘‘Your SEMS program procedures and 

documents must be maintained in accordance with API 

RP 75, Section 13, Records and Documentation’’.

BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 

13, and additional recordkeeping and documentation requirements in § 250.1928. 

250.1911 .................... Which records need to be kept to comply with this part? 

Which records need to be signed and dated? Only those 

records specifically referred to in this proposed rule? 

API RP 75 provides guidance and examples for this 

section.

The response to these questions are addressed in API RP 

75, which BOEMRE incorporated by reference, and additional recordkeeping and documentation requirements 

in § 250.1928. 

250.1911 .................... The proposed regulation has exhaustive prescriptive documentation and recordkeeping requirements imbedded 

throughout the rule. Existing programs will have to be 

rewritten by all operators to incorporate these prescriptive requirements. We do not believe that this level of 

prescriptive documentation and recordkeeping will increase safety. The API RP 75 has a records and documentation section. If BOEMRE is going to require documentation and recordkeeping, then again, we strongly 

recommend that Section 13 of API RP 75 be adopted in 

the final rulemaking.

BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 

13, and additional recordkeeping and documentation requirements in § 250.1928. 

250.1912(c) ................ When will BOEMRE evaluate the independent third-party? 

Before or after they are used for a SEMS audit? What is 

the evaluation criterion? 

If BOEMRE finds deficiencies in the third-party and they 

have already performed a SEMS audit, does that put 

the audit results in jeopardy or require a new audit be 

performed? 

The operator must use an independent third-party or your 

designated and qualified personnel performing independent third party functions. BOEMRE will not approve, 

but will evaluate, the independent third-party or your 

designated and qualified personnel; however, if there 

are deficiencies in the audit, we will take appropriate action. The independent third-party or your designated and 

qualified personnel must meet the requirements of 

§ 250.1926. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63632 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposed rule citation Comment received on proposed rule BOEMRE response to comment 

250.1913(a) ................ ‘‘Adequate’’ and ‘‘effective’’ are very subjective terms. 

What criteria will BOEMRE utilize to determine if a program is adequate and/or effective? Many operators currently have well-developed programs, but may still have 

injuries and incidents. Would these programs be 

deemed adequate and effective? 

In the final rule, BOEMRE removed the term ‘‘adequate’’ 

and adopted most of the recommended language. This 

is now in § 250.1924. 

Recommendation: (a) BOEMRE or its authorized representative may evaluate or visit your facility to determine whether your SEMS program is in place and being 

followed. These evaluations or visits may be random or 

based upon the OCS lease operator’s or contractor’s 

performance.

250.1913(a) ................ BOEMRE is in a much better position, than a third-party 

company to approve the lessee’s SEMS Programs for 

the following reasons: 

1. BOEMRE is a government agency and therefore 

does not have a conflict of interest. Whereas a 

third-party company is a for-profit entity and would 

be subject to the pressures of financial interest. Additionally, third- party companies could be approving 

programs that they have produced.

The final rule will require operators to use an independent 

third-party or designated and qualified personnel performing independent third party functions to audit a 

SEMS program. BOEMRE will not approve SEMS programs because the intent is to have a program that 

evolves and adapts, as needed. This allows operators to 

tailor the program to their individual needs and corporate cultures on an ongoing basis. 

2. BOEMRE has ready access to all offshore leases. Under § 250.1925 of the final rule, BOEMRE may conduct 

an audit if BOEMRE identifies safety or non-compliance 

concerns based on the results of our inspections and 

evaluations, or as a result of an event. 

250.1913(b) ................ What are the qualifications of the BOEMRE representatives conducting these evaluations? Are they familiar 

with management systems and auditing protocols? 

BOEMRE will use appropriate BOEMRE personnel with 

the proper credentials and training to ensure consistency. 

250.1914 .................... We have serious concerns about the consistency of enforcement actions. How will BOEMRE ensure the consistency of evaluation? BOEMRE continually works to address inconsistency. We 

have demonstrated improvements in this area for the 

last 10 years. BOEMRE has established internal processes to help ensure consistency in enforcement. 

250.1915 .................... 1. Please provide detailed instructions and examples for 

filling out MMS–131.

1. See Appendix I in preamble of the final rule. 

2. Who within BOEMRE is the form to be sent to and by 

what method * * * paper, electronic, etc.? 

2. The form may be sent to the Safety and Enforcement 

Branch by fax to (703) 787–1575, by e-mail to 

semp@BOEMRE.gov, or by mail to 381 Elden St., MS– 

4023, Herndon, VA 20170. 

3. By calendar year, we assume that you mean Jan 1 to 

Dec 31. If not, please clarify.

3. For this application, the BOEMRE considers a calendar 

year to cover the time from January 1st to December 

31st. 

4. Please state how BOEMRE will utilize the data .............. 4. BOEMRE uses the data collected in Form MMS–131 to 

calculate 20 annual, OCS-wide, performance indices. 

The indices provide information about performance and 

safety trends; they also allow OCS operators to compare their performance with industry averages. 

5. Please include provisions for holding the individual company data confidential.5. The information on Form MMS–131 is not protected 

from disclosure and is subject to FOIA should a member 

of the public request this information. 

6. We also point out the authority to require employers to 

collect and report work-hours and injury/incident data of 

this type actually rests with the USCG based on the 

MOU between USCG and OSHA dated 19 December 

1979. Furthermore, the collection and reporting of injuries and illnesses on the OCS falls under the currently 

pending USCG rulemaking (RIN 1625–AA18) issued on 

27 June 1995, and entitled Outer Continental Shelf Activities. Coordination by BOEMRE with the USCG is recommended to consolidate and coordinate their efforts 

and avoid any duplication of requirements and unnecessary burdens.

6. BOEMRE disagrees. The OSHA does not have authority for OCS oil and gas and sulphur activities. 

The following lists the citation for the 

proposed rulemaking and what the 

current citation is in the final 

rulemaking. 

Proposed rulemaking citation Final rulemaking citation 

§ 250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program? § 250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program? 

§ 250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS program? § 250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS program? 

§ 250.1902 When must I comply with the regulations in this subpart? § 250.1900(a). Must I have a SEMS program? 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63633 

Proposed rulemaking citation Final rulemaking citation 

§ 250.1903 May I use an industry standard to develop my SEMS program? Removed. 

§ 250.1904 What are my general responsibilities for SEMS? § 250.1909 What is management’s general responsibilities for the 

SEMS program? 

§ 250.1905 What criteria for Hazards Analyses must my SEMS program meet? § 250.1911 

§ 250.1906 What criteria for Operating Procedures must my SEMS 

program meet? 

§ 250.1913 

§ 250.1907 What criteria for Mechanical Integrity must my SEMS program meet? § 250.1916 

§ 250.1908 What criteria for Management of Change must my SEMS 

program meet? 

§ 250.1912 

§ 250.1909 What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program 

for contractor selection? 

§ 250.1914 What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program 

for safe work practices and contractor selection? 

§ 250.1910 What are my responsibilities when conducting a SEMS 

audit? 

§ 250.1920 

§ 250.1911 What are my documentation and recordkeeping requirements? § 250.1928 

§ 250.1912 What qualifications must an independent third-party or my 

designated and qualified personnel meet? 

§ 250.1926 

§ 250.1913 How will BOEMRE determine if my SEMS program is effective? § 250.1924 

§ 250.1914 What happens if BOEMRE finds shortcomings in my 

SEMS program? 

§ 250.1927 

§ 250.1915 What are my responsibilities for submitting OCS performance measure data? § 250.1929 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1903 Definitions. 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1904 Documents incorporated by reference. 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1910 What safety and environmental information is required? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1914 What criteria must be documented in 

my SEMS program for safe work practices and contractor selection? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1915 What criteria for training must be in my 

SEMS program? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1917 What criteria for pre-start up review 

must be in my SEMS program? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1918 What criteria for emergency response 

and control must be in my SEMS? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1919 What criteria for investigation of incidents must be in my SEMS program? 

[NEW SECTION] § 250.1925 May BOEMRE direct me to conduct additional audits? 

Appendix 1 

Instructions on How To Fill Out Form MMS– 

131—Performance Measures Data 

1. On the line titled, ‘‘Company Name(s),’’ 

enter the name(s) of the operating 

company(ies) that are the owners of the data 

that need to be entered on the remainder of 

this form. 

2. Directly across from your entry on 

‘‘Company Names,’’ please enter the name of 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

Region where your operating company(ies) 

have worked and generated the data to be 

entered on the remainder of this form. 

3. On the line titled, ‘‘Operator Code(s),*’’ 

please enter all the known operator codes for 

the company name or names that you have 

entered above. 

4. Directly across from your entry on 

‘‘Operator Codes,’’ please enter the Calendar 

Year the data to be entered on the remainder 

of the form was generated. 

5. On the line titled, ‘‘Contact Name,’’ 

please enter the name of your chosen contact 

person. This person should be 

knowledgeable about the data your company 

has submitted on this form as they will be 

the first person the BOEMRE contacts should 

the bureau have any questions about the data 

you have provided. 

6. Directly across from your entry on 

‘‘Contact Name,’’ please input an active, valid 

e-mail address for your ‘‘Contact Name.’’ 

7. Enter an active and valid telephone 

number on the line titled, ‘‘Telephone.’’ This 

telephone number should belong to your 

‘‘Contact Name.’’ 

8. Enter an active and valid fax number on 

the line titled, ‘‘Fax.’’ This fax number should 

be accessible to your ‘‘Contact Name.’’ 

9. Enter the date this form was submitted 

to the BOEMRE on the line titled, ‘‘Date 

Submitted.’’ 

10. On line A, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 

illnesses suffered by operating company 

employees while they were in engaged in 

production operations may be entered here. 

11. On line A, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 

illnesses suffered by operating company 

employees while they were engaged in 

drilling operations may be entered here. 

12. On line A, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 

illnesses suffered by operating company 

employees while they were engaged in 

construction operations may be entered here. 

13. On line B, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 

illnesses suffered by contract employees 

while they were engaged in production 

operations may be entered here. 

14. On line B, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63634 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

illnesses suffered by contract employees 

while they were engaged in drilling 

operations may be entered here. 

15. On line B, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee recordable 

injuries and illnesses accrued in each of the 

four quarters of the calendar year. Only the 

total number of recordable injuries and 

illnesses suffered by contract employees 

while they were engaged in construction 

operations may be entered here. 

16. On line C, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by operating 

company employees while they were 

engaged in production operations may be 

entered here. 

17. On line C, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by operating 

company employees while they were 

engaged in drilling operations may be 

entered here. 

18. On line C, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of company employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by operating 

company employees while they were 

engaged in construction operations may be 

entered here. 

19. On line D, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by contract 

employees while they were engaged in 

production operations may be entered here. 

20. On line D, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by contract 

employees while they were engaged in 

drilling operations may be entered here. 

21. On line D, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of contract employee DART 

recordable injuries and illnesses accrued in 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

Only the total number of DART recordable 

injuries and illnesses suffered by contract 

employees while they were engaged in 

construction operations may be entered here. 

22. On line E, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours that operating company 

employees worked on production operations 

during each of the four quarters of the 

calendar year. 

23. On line E, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours operating company 

employees worked on drilling operations 

during each of the four quarters of the 

calendar year. 

24. On line E, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours that operating company 

employees worked on construction 

operations during each of the four quarters of 

the calendar year. 

25. On line F, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Production Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours that contract employees 

worked on production operations during 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

26. On line F, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Drilling** Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours contract employees worked 

on drilling operations during each of the four 

quarters of the calendar year. 

27. On line F, in the column labeled, 

‘‘Construction Operations,’’ enter the total 

number of hours that contract employees 

worked on construction operations during 

each of the four quarters of the calendar year. 

28. On line G, enter the total number of 

EPA NPDES non-compliances experienced 

by the operating company during the 

calendar year. 

29. On line H, for oil spills of less than 

1 bbl: 

a. Count every occurrence of such a spill 

individually and tally that sum. 

b. On line 1, enter the total number of oil 

spills less than 1 bbl that you have tallied. 

c. For each individual spill, estimate the 

volume of oil lost. 

d. Sum the estimates for each spill and 

enter the final amount of oil lost (in bbls) on 

line 2. 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63635 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER15OC10.000</MATH>
63636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–C 

After reviewing and discussing the 

comments, BOEMRE decided to require 

each offshore operator to develop, 

implement, maintain, and operate under 

a SEMS program composed of all 

elements addressed in API RP 75, 

Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities, 

Third Edition, May 2004, Reaffirmed 

May 2008. 

In addition to the SEMS elements, we 

clarified hazards analysis and expanded 

recordkeeping and documentation 

requirements. We are also requiring 

operators to conduct a JSA for OCS 

activities identified in their SEMS 

program. In § 250.1911, we allow the 

operator to perform a single hazards 

analysis for simple and multiple similar 

facilities. The hazards analysis may 

apply to all such facilities after verifying 

that site-specific deviations are 

addressed in each of the elements of 

your SEMS program. The hazards 

analysis section in API RP 75 addresses 

the job task at the facility level. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2ER15OC10.001</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63637 

Therefore, BOEMRE is requiring JSAs as 

part of the SEMS program under 

§ 250.1911. A JSA is used to review sitespecific detailed job steps and uncover 

hazards associated with the specific job 

undertaken. The JSA defines the 

requirements for identifying, assessing, 

and controlling personal risks 

associated with work activities. 

Operators must complete a JSA prior to 

performing any activity identified in 

their SEMS program. The supervisor of 

the person in charge of the task must 

approve the JSA prior to the work 

commencing. The JSA is performed to 

identify and evaluate hazards of a job/ 

task for the purpose of hazards control 

or elimination that is currently not 

addressed in API RP 75, Section 3, 

Hazards Analysis element. 

The decision to require a SEMS 

program plus the JSA requirements is 

based on BOEMRE accident panel 

investigation reports, incident 

investigation findings, analyses of INC 

data, performance reviews with 

operators, and the fact that existing 

BOEMRE regulations do not address the 

SEMS elements as a separate and 

comprehensive approach. Since existing 

regulations (30 CFR part 250) do not 

address these elements as a separate and 

comprehensive approach, it is 

appropriate to require these SEMS 

elements. BOEMRE’s evaluation of 

safety information included the 

following: 

Accident Panel Investigation Reports 

BOEMRE prepares accident panel 

investigation reports for major 

accidents. An analysis of 42 accident 

panel reports from 2000 through 2009 

revealed that many fatalities and 

injuries occurred while performing 

routine tasks such as drilling, 

construction, coiled tubing operations, 

and crane and other lifting events. In 

addition, most of these accident panel 

reports’ recommendations related to one 

of the following four SEMS elements: 

Hazards Analysis, Management of 

Change, Operating Procedures, and 

Mechanical Integrity. 

The accident panel reports can be 

viewed at the following Web site: 

http://www.gomr.BOEMRE.gov/homepg/ 

offshore/safety/acc_repo/accindex.html. 

CONTRIBUTING CAUSES

BOEMRE report Hazards 

analysis 

Management of 

change 

Operating 

procedures 

Mechanical 

integrity 

Injury 

# 

Fatality 

# 

BOEMRE 2009–042 ........................................................ X X X X 1 1 

BOEMRE 2009–028 ........................................................ X .................... X X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2009–018 ........................................................ X .................... X X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2009–008 ........................................................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2008–056 ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2008–054 ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2008–053 ........................................................ .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2008–038 ........................................................ .................... X X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2008–016 ........................................................ X X X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2007–058 ........................................................ X X X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2007–045 ........................................................ X X X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2007–037 ........................................................ X .................... X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2006–070 ........................................................ X .................... X X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2006–058 ........................................................ X .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2006–047 ........................................................ X .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2006–039 ........................................................ .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2006–021 ........................................................ .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2006–002 ........................................................ X .................... X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2005–027 ........................................................ .................... X X X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2005–007 ........................................................ .................... .................... X X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2004–078 ........................................................ X X X .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2004–075 ........................................................ X .................... X X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2004–048 ........................................................ .................... .................... X X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2004–046 ........................................................ X X X .................... 3 ....................

BOEMRE 2004–010 ........................................................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2004–004 ........................................................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2003–068 ........................................................ .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2003–046 ........................................................ .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2003–023 ........................................................ .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2002–080 ........................................................ .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2002–076 ........................................................ X X .................... X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2002–075 ........................................................ X .................... .................... .................... .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2002–062 ........................................................ .................... X .................... .................... 2 1 

BOEMRE 2002–059 ........................................................ X .................... .................... X 1 1 

BOEMRE 2002–040 ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2001–084 ........................................................ .................... X .................... X .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2001–045 ........................................................ .................... X .................... X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2001–042 ........................................................ X X .................... X .................... 1 

BOEMRE 2001–010 ........................................................ X X .................... .................... 1 ....................

BOEMRE 2001–009 ........................................................ .................... X X .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2001–005 ........................................................ X X .................... .................... .................... ....................

BOEMRE 2000–089 ........................................................ X .................... .................... X .................... 1 

Total .......................................................................... 24 19 23 17 8 19 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

The table shows that the accidents 

covered by 20 of the 42 panel reports 

resulted in a combined 27 fatalities and 

injuries. The analysis done on the 

accidents identified six contributing 

causes that are related to the four 

elements: 

1. A lack of communication between 

the operator and contractor(s); 

2. A JSA was not conducted prior to 

beginning work, or there was a lack of 

written procedures; 

3. An onsite supervisor failed to 

enforce existing procedures or practices; 

4. A lack of written safe work 

procedural guidelines; 

5. Integrity of the facilities and 

equipment were not maintained 

according to recommended practices; 

and 

6. Workplace hazards were not 

identified or corrected. 

Some of these accidents could have 

been minimized or prevented if the 

operator had implemented a 

comprehensive SEMS. 

Incident Analysis 

BOEMRE also studied 1,930 incidents 

that occurred in OCS waters from 2001 

through 2009 to determine if those 

events were associated with any of the 

following 4 SEMS elements: Hazards 

Analysis, Management of Change, 

Operating Procedures, and Mechanical 

Integrity. Although these four elements 

have been identified by BOEMRE as 

contributing causes to these events, 

BOEMRE recognizes the value of the 

remaining API RP 75 elements as a 

critical part of a comprehensive safety 

management program helping to ensure 

that all elements are addressed 

completely. The events we reviewed 

included 44 fatalities, 440 injuries, 19 

losses of well control, 23 collisions, 597 

fires, 436 pollution events, and 371 

crane and other lifting events (e.g., 

hoists, winches, etc.). 

The majority of incidents occurring in 

the OCS were related to operational and 

maintenance procedures or human 

error. These incidents are not addressed 

by BOEMRE’s hardware-oriented 

compliance inspections. Additionally, 

of the incidents involving injuries, fires, 

and pollution on production facilities, 

only 25 were due to failure of a safety 

device. The majority of the 1,930 

incidents had at least 1 of the following 

4 elements as a contributing cause for 

the event occurring: 

SEMS element Number of 

incidents 

Hazards Analysis ...................... 412 

Management of Change ........... 203 

Operating Procedures .............. 609 

Mechanical Integrity .................. 726 

Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs) 

BOEMRE inspectors issue three 

General INCs (G–INCs) that potentially 

relate to elements within a SEMS. The 

following summarizes these INCs: 

• G–110 (Operations conducted in a 

safe and workmanlike manner), 

• G–111 (Equipment maintained in a 

safe condition), and 

• G–112 (Safety of personnel and all 

necessary precautions taken to correct 

and remove any hazards). 

BOEMRE issued 4,284 G–INCs during 

2003–2009 for drilling and production 

activities. Of these G–INCs issued, 4,116 

(approximately 96 percent) were related 

to 1 or more of the following 4 SEMS 

elements: 

• Hazards Analysis, 

• Management of Change, 

• Operating Procedures, and 

• Mechanical Integrity. 

The following table summarizes the 

G–INCs written for drilling and 

production activities: 

G–INCs Issued from 2003–2009 SEMS 

elements 

Drilling 

percentage 

Hazards Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 20 

Management of Change .................................................................................................................................................. 9 9 

Operating Procedures ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 18 

Mechanical Integrity ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 49 

Unrelated ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4 

BOEMRE evaluation of accident panel 

investigations and reports, incident 

analysis, and INCs indicates that in 

most cases, accidents can be traced to 

human error and/or organizational 

failures. For example, not following 

maintenance procedures as outlined in 

the SEMS program, could lead to the 

failure of critical equipment, which 

could lead to an accident. For that 

reason, it is important for operators to 

ensure that safe and environmentally 

sound operating practices are followed. 

Operations are safer when management 

systematically encourages individuals to 

be safety conscious, provides adequate 

resources, fosters safe worksite 

practices, promotes good housekeeping 

habits, and assures that workers are 

properly trained. 

This final rule will require operators 

to have their SEMS program audited by 

an independent third-party or 

designated and qualified personnel. All 

auditors must meet the qualifications as 

discussed in this final rule and the audit 

must be conducted according to the 

schedule in API RP 75, Section 12, and 

deficiencies addressed by the 

designated auditor. A knowledgeable 

and experienced independent thirdparty or designated and qualified 

personnel will audit an operator’s SEMS 

program to determine the extent the 

operator is complying with their SEMS 

program. These audits will be 

conducted in an office environment and 

in the field, and could cover both a 

broad range of activities or be focused 

on a particular area (i.e. records, gas 

compressors, blowout preventers, or 

documentation), as appropriate. If the 

auditor determines that a SEMS 

program does not meet the requirements 

in this subpart and API RP 75, the 

operator must submit a report to 

BOEMRE within 30 days of the audit 

completion date. The report must 

outline the results of the audit including 

deficiencies identified, a timetable or 

schedule for implementing corrections 

to deficiencies, and the person 

responsible for correcting each 

identified deficiency including their job 

title. BOEMRE will verify that corrective 

actions have been undertaken and that 

these actions effectively address the 

audit findings. 

BOEMRE may, at its discretion, 

evaluate independent third parties or 

designated and qualified personnel, 

meet with operators to periodically 

review the results of SEMS program 

audits, and conduct announced or 

unannounced evaluations to assess 

SEMS program compliance and 

effectiveness. The operators will be 

responsible for all costs associated with 

any independent third-party audit of 

their SEMS program. BOEMRE would 

be more likely to participate as an 

observer in the case where the thirdparty auditor is the same as the 

contractor who developed the SEMS 

program. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63639 

This final rule requires operators to 

verify that their contractors can perform 

their assigned duties. The operator is 

responsible for ensuring that all 

contractors and subcontractors have 

safety policies and procedures in place 

that support the implementation of the 

SEMS program and align with the 

principles of managing safety set forth 

in API RP 75. The operator must inform 

contractors of any known hazards on the 

facility that are related to the 

contractor’s work. This applies to 

contractors performing maintenance or 

repair, turnaround, major renovation, or 

specialty work on or adjacent to a 

covered process 

In this final rule, BOEMRE will 

require the operator to document and 

keep the last two SEMS audits 

conducted (onshore or offshore) and 

make them available to BOEMRE upon 

request. In addition, the operator must 

keep documentation and records for 2 

years (onshore or offshore) including the 

following: 

1. JSAs (must be kept onsite for 30 

days, electronic access onsite to the JSA 

would be sufficient to comply with this 

requirement). 

2. Management of change provisions. 

3. Injury/illness log. 

4. Evaluations completed on 

contractors. 

These records and documentation 

must be available to BOEMRE upon 

request. 

In this final rule, BOEMRE will 

require operators to submit Form MMS– 

131 on an annual basis, broken down 

quarterly, reporting the previous 

calendar year’s data, by March 31st. For 

example, on March 31, 2011, Form 

MMS–131 must be submitted with data 

from calendar year 2010. On March 31, 

2012, the data submitted will be from 

calendar year 2011. 

Form MMS–131 includes the number 

of hours worked by company and 

contract employees (people on the 

facility) during production, drilling, 

pipeline, and construction activities 

(including adding or removing 

equipment and/or facility 

modifications). Submitting this 

information will allow the BOEMRE to 

publish incident rate information that is 

more useful and representative of the 

industry’s safety record. The collected 

hours worked data will support 

BOEMRE’s Government Performance 

and Results Act (GPRA), the Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and the 

OCS Performance Measures Program. 

BOEMRE does not want the SEMS 

program to be a paperwork exercise 

conducted solely to meet regulatory 

requirements. BOEMRE understands 

that the development and 

implementation of this type of program 

may place an additional burden on 

some OCS operators, in the short term. 

A SEMS program that includes all API 

RP 75 elements will benefit operators by 

integrating safety across all aspects of 

the operating environment. 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) 

This final rule is a significant rule, as 

determined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), under 

Section 3(f)(4) of EO 12866 due to its 

novel legal and policy issues, and is 

therefore subject to OMB review. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

While the final rule will affect a 

substantial number of small entities, it 

will not have a significant economic 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

Small operators that operate under 

this rule fall under the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) 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 70 percent (91 operators) of 

the operators on the OCS are considered 

small. Therefore, this final rule will 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities. This rule will not have a 

significant economic effect on small 

operators. Costs related to complying 

with this regulation are relatively small 

compared to the costs associated with 

operating offshore on an annual basis. 

Assumptions 

BOEMRE made the following 

assumptions concerning the costs 

associated with the requirements in the 

final rulemaking: 

• Because of the wide variation in 

company size, we grouped operators 

into three classes (High, Moderate, and 

Low Activity). 

• We used the results of 13 years of 

voluntary SEMS Performance Measures 

reporting by OCS operators and 

determined that a minimum 70 of the 

130 operators are using SEMS. We 

believe that this number is higher based 

on previous Annual Performance 

Review Meetings conducted by the 

BOEMRE where voluntary SEMS was 

discussed. 

• We used actual costs from safety 

management system vendors for our 

estimated costs for industry. 

• We assumed no new capital costs 

will be incurred for the estimated 70 

operators who are currently using SEMS 

to comply with this final rule, as their 

systems are already developed and 

funds they expend to manage and 

implement this program should not 

change significantly. However, we 

calculated additional costs for 

compliance with JSAs, documentation, 

maintenance, and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

• The estimated cost for the 60 

remaining operators to implement, 

develop, and manage the SEMS program 

is based on the operator having an 

Internet-based system, which is the 

most common approach used by 

operators. 

• The cost for auditing a SEMS 

program is part of the entire program, 

per API RP 75, as audits are an 

integrated part of maintenance of all 

elements combined, and the time 

involved cannot be easily separated out. 

• Many smaller operators can use a 

template from a safety management 

system vendor that will meet their 

needs for compliance with the final 

regulation. In most cases, the operators 

will not need to spend additional 

money to customize a template for their 

use. 

High, Moderate, and Low Activity 

Definitions 

Oil and gas operators in the OCS vary 

substantially in size and the degree to 

which they are engaged in extracting oil 

from the OCS. The scale of operations 

for the 130 OCS oil and gas operators 

ranges from as little as 1 complex to 

nearly 500 facilities; and from as little 

as 15,000 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) 

annual production to more than 300 

Million (MM) BOE annual production. 

Because of this variation in activity, 

BOEMRE divides operators into high, 

moderate, and low activity for 

measuring performance. We used these 

size categories to estimate costs 

associated with developing, managing, 

and fulfilling reporting requirements for 

the final SEMS rule. BOEMRE uses the 

following criteria for categorizing 

operators: 

High activity Moderate activity Low activity 

Annual Production ............................... >= 10 MMBOE .................................... 1 MMBOE < 10 MMBOE .................... < 1 MMBOE. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63640 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

High activity Moderate activity Low activity 

In-service components ......................... >= 1,000 components ......................... 100 < 1,000 components .................... < 100 components. 

Development of SEMS Program 

After reviewing the voluntary SEMS 

submissions received from 1996 to 2009 

(OCS Performance Measures Data, Form 

MMS–131), an average of 70 of 130 

operators, or 54 percent, reported 

having a SEMS-type program in-place. 

The other 60 operators, or 46 percent, 

may not have a SEMS program in-place 

or may have a SEMS program, but are 

not participating in the voluntary SEMS 

program. 

The following table shows a 

breakdown by operator activity category 

(high, moderate, low): 

Activity category 

Number of 

operators without 

SEMS 

Number of 

operators with 

SEMS 

Number of 

operators with 

partial SEMS 

Total number of 

operators by 

activity 

Percent of 

operators with 

SEMS 

High Activity Operators .................................... 0 13 0 13 100 

Moderate Activity Operators ............................ 12 29 10 41 71 

Low Activity Operators ..................................... 48 28 12 76 37 

Total .......................................................... 60 70 22 130 54 

As shown in the table, 54 percent of 

all OCS operators have a comprehensive 

and/or partial SEMS program in place. 

A partial SEMS includes the following 

elements; Hazard Analysis, Management 

of Change, Mechanical Integrity, 

Operating Procedures, Training, Safe 

Work Practices. At a September 2009 

SEMS workshop held in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, BOEMRE was informed that 

moderate and low activity operators are 

implementing a partial SEMS consisting 

of six elements previously discussed. 

They will need to address the other 

seven elements in order to be in 

compliance with the final rule. All high 

activity operators, over 70 percent of the 

moderate activity operators, and almost 

40 percent of the low activity operators 

are using a SEMS program. 

Based on information received from 

consultants and vendors, the cost for an 

operator to buy a generic SEMS 

template is approximately $2,500. If an 

operator decided to modify the generic 

SEMS template to make it specific to its 

use, the cost will be an additional 

$10,000. As mentioned in the 

assumptions, it will not be necessary for 

many operators to spend the additional 

$10,000 to customize a SEMS program. 

If the 60 operators without a SEMS 

program decide to buy a SEMS 

template, the cost will be $150,000 

($2,500 × 60). If all 60 operators needed 

to modify the generic plan templates for 

their specific OCS operations, which is 

unlikely, it will cost an additional 

$600,000 ($10,000 × 60). The total cost 

for all 60 operators to buy a template 

and then modify the template to their 

philosophy is estimated to be $750,000 

($150,000 + $600,000). 

SEMS Implementation 

This section provides the estimated 

cost for industry to implement a SEMS. 

The following table shows a breakdown 

of the average number of facilities and 

components for the 3 operator activity 

levels: 

Activity 

category 

Average 

number of 

Components 

per Complex 

Average 

number of 

Complexes 

High .......... 21 139 

Moderate ... 15 29 

Low ........... 16 6 

We describe the costs for the 60 

operators in the moderate and low 

activity categories that will have to 

implement a SEMS Program, and all of 

the costs for the high, moderate, and 

low activity categories to maintain their 

SEMS. 

High Activity Operators 

BOEMRE determined, based on 

Annual Performance Reviews and 

voluntary submissions of Form MMS– 

131, that all high activity operators 

already have a SEMS program in place. 

Maintenance Costs for a High Activity 

Operator 

The estimated average cost for each 

high activity operator to maintain their 

SEMS program is approximately 

$1,670,000 a year. The estimated cost 

for all 13 high activity operators to 

maintain their SEMS program is 

$21,710,000 per year. 

General ..................................... $ 50,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 75,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 300,000 

Management of Change ........... 150,000 

Operating Procedures .............. 100,000 

Safe Work Practices ................. 125,000 

Training .................................... 200,000 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 225,000 

Pre-Startup ............................... 125,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 175,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 95,000 

Audits* ..................................... 20,000 

Records and Documentation ... 30,000 

Total ......................................... $1,670,000 

* audits are conducted every 3 years at an 

estimated cost of $60,000 per audit ($60,000/ 

3 = $20,000 per year). 

Moderate Activity Operators 

BOEMRE calculated the cost for a 

moderate activity operator to implement 

and manage a SEMS program based on 

the 13 SEMS elements, as follows: 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR A MODERATE ACTIVITY OPERATOR

Element Basis Estimated cost 

General ................................ The General section includes implementation, planning 

and management review and approval of the SEMS 

Program.

$18,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, analysis, 

report development, and cost of meetings. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63641 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR A MODERATE ACTIVITY OPERATOR—Continued 

Element Basis Estimated cost 

Safety and Environmental 

Information.

This section outlines the minimum safety and environmental information needed for any facility, such as 

design data on facility process (e.g., flow diagrams) 

and mechanical components (e.g., piping and instrument diagrams). The information is used to perform a 

hazards analysis.

$22,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, evaluation, 

and documentation update of the design data on the 

facility process and mechanical components. 

Hazards Analysis ................. Operators will need a facility risk assessment for each 

facility. After the initial facility risk assessments are 

prepared, the cost will be less because a hazards 

analysis is required only for changes in the process 

or the equipment on a facility. The JSA at the task 

level includes data collection, analysis, and report development. This cost is included in the hazards analysis.

$102,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes annual updates. 

Management of Change 

(MOC).

The cost is based on one change request per month, 

but it is also dependent on the complexity of the 

change—something minor will not cost as much as 

something more complex. The MOC cost is determined by the physical state of the facilities, the status 

of technology, and the turnover of personnel.

$30,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes MOC data collection, evaluation, and documentation update. 

Operating Procedures .......... An operator will need to evaluate the operating procedures of its facility each year. The operating procedure cost is determined by the maintenance of such 

procedures. For most operators, no formal evaluation 

is necessary since changes will be identified through 

the JSA process and managed through the MOC 

process.

$20,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, evaluation, 

documentation update, and recordkeeping. 

Safe Work Practices ............ An operator will need to evaluate its safe work practices each year to minimize safety and environmental 

risks associated with operations. Safe work practices 

should address all personnel.

$28,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, evaluation, 

inspection report development, and inspection plan 

update. 

Training ................................ An operator will need to develop provisions for ensuring 

that its employees and their supervisors are taught 

how to conduct operations safely, to recognize unsafe methods of operations, and to identify potential 

environmental and safety hazards.

$30,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes job description review, 

training program development, and tracking of training and maintenance of training records. The cost of 

training is not included in this assessment, only the 

cost of managing the program. Well control and production safety training is implemented following the 

enforcement of subpart O. 

Mechanical Integrity ............. Based on the assumption that mechanical integrity is 

achieved through preventive maintenance. The preventive maintenance program is defined prior to the 

commissioning of the facility. We did not include the 

cost of maintenance in this assessment, only the cost 

of managing the program.

$40,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes the quality assurance inspection plan, evaluation of schedule appropriateness, 

communication of maintenance program, salaries, 

maintenance and inspection reports, and recordkeeping. 

Pre-startup Review .............. An operator will need to include provisions to verify that 

the facility will function according to design, that personnel have been properly trained, and that safe 

work practices are in place.

$25,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes the pre-startup risk register per 

facility, pre-startup review checklists per facility, 

records of pre-startup reviews conducted, and evaluation of pre-startup procedures. 

Emergency Response and 

Control.

An operator will need to include provisions to require 

that all emergency response and control plans be in 

place and ready for immediate implementation. Specific types of plans include, but are not limited to, 

emergency evacuation and oil spill contingency plans.

$30,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes initial identification of risks and 

possible emergencies, development of response requirements and comparison to existing plans, ensuring that drills are performed as planned, and manually tracking and evaluating risk changes. Costs of 

emergency response and drills are not included in 

the assessment, only the cost of managing the procedures. 

Investigation of Incidents ..... An operator will need to include procedures for investigating all incidents with serious or potentially serious safety and environmental consequences.$20,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes incident and near miss registers, collecting data, analyzing, developing, and 

presentation of reports. Only the cost of preventative 

measures such as near miss tracking is included in 

the evaluation. 

Audits ................................... The operators are required to have an independent 

third-party or designated and qualified personnel 

audit of their SEMS program to determine if the program elements were properly implemented and maintained.

$12,000 every 3 years or $4,000 per year. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR A MODERATE ACTIVITY OPERATOR—Continued 

Element Basis Estimated cost 

Records and Documentation The operators are required to have documentation that 

describes the 13 elements of their SEMS program 

and the interaction between the elements.

$6,000 per year, based on the requirements of 

§ 250.1928 and API RP 75, Section 13. 

The estimated cost for one moderate 

activity operator to implement SEMS is 

$375,000. The estimated cost for the 12 

moderate activity operators to 

implement SEMS is $4,500,000 

($375,000 × 12 operators). The itemized 

cost is: 

Implementation Costs for a Moderate 

Activity Operator 

General ..................................... $18,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 22,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 102,000 

Management of Change ........... 30,000 

Operating Procedures .............. 20,000 

Safe Work Practices ................. 28,000 

Training .................................... 30,000 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 40,000 

Pre-Startup ............................... 25,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 30,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 20,000 

Audits ....................................... 4,000 

Records and Documentation ... 6,000 

Total .................................. 375,000 

Implementation Costs for a Moderate 

Activity Operator (Partial SEMS) 

The estimated cost for one moderate 

activity operator with a partial SEMS to 

implement a comprehensive SEMS is 

$124,000. The estimated cost for the 10 

moderate activity operators to 

implement SEMS is $1,240,000 

($124,000 × 10 operators). The itemized 

cost is: 

General ..................................... $18,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 22,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 0 

Management of Change ........... 0 

Operating Procedures .............. 0 

Safe Work Practices ................. 0 

Training .................................... 0 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 0 

Pre-Startup ............................... 25,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 30,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 20,000 

Audits ....................................... 3,000 

Records and Documentation ... 6,000 

Total .................................. 124,000 

Maintenance Costs for a Moderate 

Activity Operator 

The estimated average cost for each 

moderate activity operator to maintain 

their SEMS program is approximately 

$223,000 a year. The estimated cost for 

the 41 moderate activity operators to 

maintain their SEMS program is 

$9,143,000 ($223,000 × 41). 

General ..................................... $3,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 12,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 34,000 

Management of Change ........... 21,000 

Operating Procedures .............. 17,000 

Safe Work Practices ................. 17,000 

Training .................................... 25,000 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 27,000 

Pre-Startup ............................... 16,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 24,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 17,000 

Audits * .................................... 4,000 

Records and Documentation ... 6,000 

Total .................................. 223,000 

* Audits are conducted every 3 years at an 

estimated cost of $12,000 per audit ($12,000/ 

3 years = $4,000 per year). 

Low Activity Operators 

BOEMRE calculated the cost for a low 

activity operator to implement and 

manage a SEMS program based on the 

13 SEMS elements, as follows: 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR A LOW ACTIVITY OPERATOR

Element Basis Estimated cost 

General .................................................... The General section entails implementation, planning and management review and approval of 

the SEMS.

$5,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, 

analysis, report development, and cost of 

meetings. 

Safety and Environmental Information .... This section outlines the minimum safety and environmental information needed for any facility, 

such as design data on facility process (e.g., 

flow diagrams) and mechanical components 

(e.g., piping and instrument diagrams). The information is used to perform a hazards analysis.

$8,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, 

evaluation, and documentation update of the 

design data on the facility process and mechanical components. 

Hazards Analysis ..................................... Operators will need to do a facility risk assessment for each facility when the rule is implemented. After the initial facility risk assessments are prepared, the cost will be less because a hazards analysis is required only for 

changes in the process or the equipment on a 

facility. The job safety analysis at the task level 

includes data collection, analysis, and report 

development. This cost is included in the hazards analysis.

$25,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes annual updates. 

Management of Change (MOC) .............. Based on one change request per month but the 

cost is dependent on the complexity of the 

change. The MOC cost is determined by the 

physical state of the facilities, the status of 

technology, and the turnover of personnel.

$20,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes MOC data collection, evaluation, and documentation update. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63643 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR A LOW ACTIVITY OPERATOR—Continued 

Element Basis Estimated cost 

Operating Procedures .............................. An operator will need to evaluate the operating 

procedures of their facility each year. The operating procedure cost is determined by the 

maintenance of such procedures. For most operators, no formal evaluation is necessary 

since changes will be identified through the 

JSA process and managed through the MOC 

process.

$10,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, 

evaluation, documentation update, and recordkeeping. 

Safe Work Practices ................................ An operator will need to evaluate the safe work 

practices each year to minimize safety and environmental risks associated with operations. 

Safe work practices should address all personnel.

$12,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes data collection, 

evaluation, and an inspection report development and inspection plan update. 

Training .................................................... An operator will need to develop provisions for 

ensuring that their employees and their supervisors be taught how to conduct operations 

safely, to recognize unsafe methods of operations, and to identify potential environmental 

and safety hazards.

$14,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This also includes job description review, training program development, and tracking of training and maintenance of training 

records. The cost of training is not included in 

this assessment, only the cost of managing the 

program. Training is well implemented following the enforcement of subpart O. 

Mechanical Integrity ................................. This is based on the assumption that mechanical 

integrity is achieved through preventive maintenance. The preventive maintenance program is 

defined prior to the commissioning of the facility. We did not include the cost of maintenance 

in this assessment, only the cost of managing 

the program.

$20,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes the quality assurance inspection plan, evaluation of schedule appropriateness, communication of maintenance program, salaries, maintenance and inspection reports, and recordkeeping. 

Pre-startup Review .................................. An operator will need to include provisions to 

verify that the facility will function according to 

design, that personnel have been properly 

trained and that safe work practices are in 

place.

$8,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes the pre-startup risk register per facility, pre-startup review checklists 

per facility, records of pre-startup reviews conducted and evaluation of pre-startup procedures. 

Emergency Response and Control ......... An operator will need to include provisions to require that all emergency response and control 

plans be in place and ready for immediate implementation. Specific types of plan include, 

but are not limited to, emergency evacuation 

and oil spill contingency plans.

$15,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes initial identification of 

risks and possible emergencies, development 

of response requirements and comparison to 

existing plans, ensuring that drills are performed as planned, and tracking and evaluating risk changes. Costs of emergency response and drills are not included in the assessment, only the cost of managing the procedures 

Investigation of Incidents ......................... An operator will need to include procedures for 

investigating all incidents with serious or potentially serious safety and environmental consequences.

$10,000 per year (includes the year to implement 

SEMS). This includes incident and near miss 

registers, collecting data, analyzing, and developing and presentation of reports. Only the 

cost of preventative measures such as near 

miss tracking is included in the evaluation. 

Audits ....................................................... The operators are required to have an independent third-party audit or their designated 

and qualified personnel of their SEMS program 

to determine if the program elements were 

properly implemented and maintained.

$9,000 every 3 years or $3,000 per year. 

Records and Documentation ................... The operators are required to have documentation that describes the 13 elements of their 

SEMS program and the interaction between 

the elements.

$4,000 per year, based on the requirements of 

§ 250.1928 and API RP 75, Section 13. 

The estimated cost for a low activity 

operator to implement SEMS is 

$154,000. The cost for the 48 low 

activity operators to implement SEMS is 

$7,392,000 ($154,000 × 48 operators). 

The itemized cost to implement SEMS 

for a low activity operator is: 

Implementation Costs for a Low 

Activity Operator 

General ..................................... $5,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 8,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 25,000 

Management of Change ........... 20,000 

Operating Procedures .............. 10,000 

Safe Work Practices ................. 12,000 

Training .................................... 14,000 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 20,000 

Pre-Startup ............................... 8,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 15,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 10,000 

Audits ....................................... 3,000 

Records and Documentation ... 4,000 

Total .................................. 154,000 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Implementation Costs for a Low 

Activity Operator (Partial SEMS) 

The estimated cost for one low 

activity operator with a partial SEMS to 

implement a comprehensive SEMS is 

$636,000. The estimated cost for the 12 

low activity operators to implement 

SEMS is $636,000 ($53,000 × 12 

operators). The itemized cost is: 

General ..................................... $5,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 8,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 0 

Management of Change ........... 0 

Operating Procedures .............. 0 

Safe Work Practices ................. 0 

Training .................................... 0 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 0 

Pre-Startup ............................... 8,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 15,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 10,000 

Audits ....................................... 3,000 

Records and Documentation ... 4,000 

Total .................................. 53,000 

Maintenance Cost for a Low Activity 

Operator 

The estimated cost for each low 

activity operator to maintain their SEMS 

program is approximately $77,000 a 

year. The cost for the 76 low activity 

operators to maintain SEMS is 

$5,852,000. 

General ..................................... $2,000 

Safety and Environmental ....... 3,000 

Hazards analysis ...................... 14,000 

Management of Change ........... 7,000 

Operating Procedures .............. 4,000 

Safe Work Practices ................. 5,000 

Training .................................... 9,000 

Mechanical Integrity ................ 11,000 

Pre-Startup ............................... 5,000 

Emergency Response and Control ........................................ 7,000 

Investigation of Incidents ........ 3,000 

Audits * .................................... 3,000 

Records and Documentation ... 4,000 

Total .................................. 77,000 

* Audits are conducted every 3 years at an 

estimated cost of $9,000 per audit ($9,000/3 

years = $3,000 per year). 

Burden Cost to Submit to BOEMRE 

The following are the estimated costs 

for complying with the submissions to 

BOEMRE and associated recordkeeping. 

The burden hours that these costs are 

based on are addressed in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section. 

• All JSAs conducted will require a 

supervisor and/or third-party approval, 

which will cost $4,233,050 each year. 

• Operators must demonstrate and 

explain, if required, the policies and 

procedures included in your SEMS, 

which will cost $4,272 each year. 

• Make available to BOEMRE 

evaluations documentation and 

supporting information, which will cost 

$23,140 each year. 

• On an annual basis, operators must 

submit Form MMS–131 (Performance 

Measures Data) to BOEMRE and 

maintain a contractor employee injury/ 

illness log in the operation area, which 

will cost approximately $115,700. 

• Operators must notify the BOEMRE 

when an operator plans to conduct an 

audit of its SEMS program in order for 

BOEMRE to have the opportunity to 

participate or observe, must submit 

plans, submit audit reports 

documenting all findings/conclusions/ 

deficiencies, which will cost 

approximately $19,135 each year. 

• Recordkeeping and documentation 

requirements will cost $57,850 each 

year. 

The total cost for required paperwork 

being submitted to BOEMRE will be 

approximately $4,443,147. 

Summary of Annual Costs To 

Implement and Maintain SEMS 

The total cost to implement and 

maintain SEMS is approximately 

$92,910,811. A summary of all the costs 

are shown in the following table: 

SEMS IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

Cost * 

IMPLEMENTATION of your SEMS: 

Buy/develop and implement SEMS Plan for operators without a SEMS (60 operators) ............................................................ $750,000 

Implementation cost .....................................................................................................................................................................

High activity operator cost (already implemented) ....................................................................................................................... 0 

Moderate activity operator cost ($375,000 × 12) ......................................................................................................................... 4,500,000 

Moderate activity operator cost ($124,000 × 10 operators) (Partial SEMS) ............................................................................... 1,243,000 

Low activity operator cost ($154,000 × 48) .................................................................................................................................. 7,392,000 

Low activity operator cost ($53,000 × 12) (Partial SEMS) .......................................................................................................... 636,000 

TOTAL FIRST YEAR COST ................................................................................................................................................. 14,521,000 

MAINTENANCE of your SEMS: 

Maintain SEMS (Annual Cost after Implementation) ...................................................................................................................

High activity operator cost ($1,670,000 × 13) .............................................................................................................................. 21,710,000 

Moderate activity operator cost ($223,000 × 41) ......................................................................................................................... 9,143,000 

Low activity operator cost ($77,000 × 76) .................................................................................................................................... 5,852,000 

** Conduct required independent third-party audits ..................................................................................................................... 291,000 

Paperwork Burden required by BOEMRE (annual cost) ............................................................................................................. 41,393,811 

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 78,389,811 

* Rounded to the nearest $1,000. 

** Required independent audits—approximately 20 percent per operator per category: 3 required audits for high operator ($20,000 per audit × 3 

audits = $60,000); 8 required audits for moderate operator ($12,000 per audit × 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. 

Benefits of SEMS 

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 provide absolute 

quantification of the benefits of the lives 

saved and risks avoided due to this 

regulation, the BOEMRE believes that 

implementation of a comprehensive 

SEMS program will avoid accidents that 

could result in injuries, fatalities, and 

serious environmental damage based 

upon BOEMRE’s incident analysis. In 

addition, an increase in a system’s level 

of safety leads to reduced material 

losses and enhanced productivity. 

Some additional benefits include: 

• Avoiding incident investigation 

costs and operational disruptions. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63645 

Improved communication and risk 

mitigation will prevent many accidents 

from occurring. 

• Reduction of the direct and indirect 

costs of accidents. Repair costs, damage 

claims, increased insurance premiums, 

and civil penalties are a few of the 

potential economic consequences of an 

accidental mishap. 

• Establishing a marketable safety 

record. A record of consistently safe 

operations can attract new business and 

investment. 

• Improved employee morale and 

productivity. Promoting communication 

between management and the rest of the 

organization prevents 

disenfranchisement and lifts morale. 

Again, while it is difficult to quantify 

with any degree of certainty the human 

safety and environmental benefits of a 

comprehensive SEMS program, the 

financial burden estimated for 

developing and managing a SEMS 

program is minor compared to the costs 

associated with major accidents. For 

example, in 1987, prior to industry 

having developed 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. A SEMS plan would have 

implemented several procedures and 

evaluations that may have prevented 

these accidents. A SEMS plan is not a 

guarantee of avoiding all accidents, but 

BOEMRE believes that requiring a 

comprehensive SEMS program, that 

includes all 13 elements, will reduce the 

likelihood of the types of accidents and 

incidents discussed in the preamble and 

will raise the safety awareness of all 

personnel in the office and field. 

The requirement for SEMS will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on voluntary participation in the 

SEMS program and annual performance 

reviews, the BOEMRE estimates that 

over 40 percent of the small entities 

currently operating on the OCS have 

implemented some form of a SEMS 

program. These small entities (28 low 

activity and 29 moderate activity 

operators) implemented SEMS because 

it improved the efficiency and safety of 

their OCS operations. The cost for each 

of the remaining small entities to 

implement (approximately $154,000) 

and maintain (approximately $77,000) 

SEMS is very small compared to the 

average annual revenues these entities 

will generate ($28,000,000) from the 

production of oil and gas. BOEMRE 

estimated the annual revenue by 

multiplying the average production for 

a small entity (700,000 BOE) times a 

conservative price for a barrel of oil 

($40). These costs should be less for 

operators that have already addressed 

this type of information. Therefore, this 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities. 

Your comments are important. 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 businesses. If 

you wish to comment on the actions of 

BOEMRE, 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 Subtitle E—Congressional 

Review 

This final rule is not a major rule 

under the Small Business Regulatory 

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

et seq., also known as the Congressional 

Review Act). 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. 

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, 

adjusted for inflation. 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) 

This rule contains a collection of 

information that was submitted to the 

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 

and Gas and Sulphur Operations. The 

OMB approved the collection under 

Control Number 1010–0186, expiration 

date 10/31/2013, 465,099 hours, 

$12,933,000 non-hour cost burdens. 

Respondents primarily are an estimated 

130 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. This rulemaking adds a 

new subpart to the 30 CFR Part 250 

regulations. BOEMRE will use the 

information to: Evaluate the effect of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

industry’s continued improvement of 

safety and environmental management 

of the OCS; develop an industry average 

that helps to describe how well the 

offshore oil and gas industry is 

performing; and judge the 

reasonableness of company requests for 

any specific regulatory relief. 

BOEMRE 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. 

Section 250.198 lists all of the 30 CFR 

Part 250 incorporated documents. The 

section is revised to include the new 30 

CFR Part 250, Subpart S, incorporated 

document added under this regulation. 

As stated in the preamble, we 

received 61 comments, of which 99 

percent made some mention of the IC 

burden. Generally, these commenters 

said that the IC requirements were too 

burdensome and that the rule was too 

prescriptive and should follow API RP 

75. BOEMRE is incorporating by 

reference API RP 75 to replace virtually 

all of the requirements in the proposed 

rule. The incorporation of this 

document allows the operators to 

address the diversity of operations 

while developing their SEMS program. 

Also, all the commenters remarked that 

the burden hour estimates were too low; 

therefore, we increased the burdens to 

reflect this concern. In response to the 

comments, BOEMRE has included a 

new IC requirement in the final rule, 

adjusted hour burdens, and non-hour 

cost burdens as follows: 

a. In §§ 250.1900–250.1929 under 

Operator Activity in the proposed rule, 

the burden hours were increased. 

1. High Activity operator burden is 

increased from the proposed rule due to 

incorporating API RP 75 in its entirety, 

which will increase the hour burden 

(+217,204 hours). 

2. Moderate Activity operator burden 

is increased from the proposed rule due 

to incorporating API RP 75 in its 

entirety, which will increase the hour 

burden and non-hour costs (+64,042 

hours; $2,580,000). 

3. Low Activity operator burden is 

increased from the proposed rule due to 

incorporating API RP 75 in its entirety, 

which will increase the hour burden 

and non-hour costs (+44,384 hours; 

$5,472,000). 

b. In § 250.1911(b), the designated 

person in charge of the activity must 

have approval to conduct a JSA. This 

requirement will help determine that all 

physical requirements, environmental 

conditions, personal protective 

equipment, and safety factors relating to 

a specific job or task have been 

identified properly (+47,450 hours). 

c. In § 250.1914(d), a contractor 

employee injury/illness log must be 

kept in the operation area. This 

requirement is needed to assist in filling 

out Form MMS–131; therefore, we 

consider this burden as part of the form 

burden. (Current OMB approved burden 

per form is 8 hours; this rulemaking 

increases the burden per form by an 

additional 2 hours per form (+260 

hours). 

d. In § 250.1924(b), BOEMRE has 

added necessary requirements 

pertaining to verification of the accuracy 

of industry’s SEMS documentation 

(+260 burden hours)). 

e. In § 250.1925(a) there is a new nonhour cost burden that will require an 

operator to pay for all costs associated 

with an BOEMRE directed audit. This 

cost is based on a potential of 26 

BOEMRE directed audits a year 

(+$291,000). 

f. For clarity purposes, we placed the 

majority of all the recordkeeping and 

documentation requirements in one 

regulatory requirement, § 250.1928. This 

will help respondents determine their 

requirements at a glance (+650 hours). 

The following table provides a 

breakdown of the burdens. 

Citation 30 CFR 250 

subpart S Reporting and recordkeeping requirement 

Non-hour cost burdens 

Hour burden 

Average number 

of annual 

responses 

Annual burden 

hours 

1900–1929 .......................... High Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, and 

maintain all documentation and records pertaining to 

your SEMS program, according to API RP 75 in its 

entirety. Make your SEMS available to BOEMRE 

upon request. As part of your SEMS, you must also 

develop and implement written JSAs for each OCS 

activity identified or discussed in your SEMS. NOTE: 

Based on previous information, High Activity Operators already have a SEMS in place.

18,708 .............. 13 operators ..... 243,204 

1900–1929 .......................... Moderate Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, 

and maintain all documentation and records pertaining to your SEMS program, according to API RP 

75 in its entirety. Make your SEMS available to 

BOEMRE upon request. As part of your SEMS, you 

must also develop and implement written JSAs for 

each OCS activity identified or discussed in your 

SEMS.

2,528 ................ 41 operators ..... 103,648 

Moderate Activity Operator Implementation. (One time 

cost to implement SEMS).

$375,000 per 

moderate activity implementation × 

12 operators 

= $4,500,000 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63647 

Citation 30 CFR 250 

subpart S Reporting and recordkeeping requirement 

Non-hour cost burdens 

Hour burden 

Average number 

of annual 

responses 

Annual burden 

hours 

1900–1929 .......................... Low Activity Operator: Have a SEMS program, and 

maintain all documentation and records pertaining to 

your SEMS program, according to API RP 75 in its 

entirety. Make your SEMS available to BOEMRE 

upon request. As part of your SEMS, you must also 

develop and implement written JSAs for each OCS 

activity identified or discussed in your SEMS.

899 ................... 76 operators ..... 68,324 

Low Activity Operator Implementation. (One time cost 

to implement SEMS).

$154,000 per 

low activity 

implementation × 48 operators = 

$7,392,000. 

1900 .................................... Develop and implement a SEMS program (One time 

implementation cost of SEMS template).

$2,500 per implementation 

× 60 operators 

= $150,000. 

1900 .................................... In-house modification (one time implementation cost) 

of the generic SEMS program to meet needs of specific company.

$10,000 per implementation 

× 60 operators 

= $600,000. 

1911(b) ................................ Supervisor approval to conduct a JSA .......................... 10 mins. ............ 130 operators × 

365 days × 6 

= 284,700 *.

47,450 

1900(b); 1914(d); 1928(d), 

(e); 1929.

Submit Form MMS–131. Maintain a contractor employee injury/illness log in the operation area, retain 

for 2 years, and make available to BOEMRE upon 

request (this requirement is included in the form burden). Inform contractors of hazards.

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

1920 .................................... Notify BOEMRE with audit schedule 30 days prior to 

conducting your audit.

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

once every 3 

years = 43.

43 (rounded) 

1920(c); 1925(a), (c) ........... Submit to BOEMRE after completed audit, report of 

findings and conclusions, including deficiencies and 

required supporting information/documentation.

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

1920(d) ................................ Submit a copy of your plan that will address deficiencies identified in audit, including a correction 

schedule with appropriate supporting information.

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

1924(b); ............................... Make available to BOEMRE 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 BOEMRE directed 

audit approximately 20 percent per operator per category: 3 required audits for high operator ($20,000 

per audit × 3 audits = $60,000); 8 required audits for 

moderate operator ($12,000 per audit × 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.

26 BOEMRE directed audits—for a 

total of = 

$291,000. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63648 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Citation 30 CFR 250 

subpart S Reporting and recordkeeping requirement 

Non-hour cost burdens 

Hour burden 

Average number 

of annual 

responses 

Annual burden 

hours 

1928 .................................... (1) Document and keep all SEMS audits for 6 years (at 

least 2 full audit cycles) at an onshore location, and 

make available to BOEMRE upon request. (2) JSAs 

must have documented results in writing and kept 

onsite for 30 days; retain records for 2 years and 

make available upon request to BOEMRE. (3) All 

MOC records (API RP Sec 4) must be documented, 

dated, and retained for 2 years and make available 

to BOEMRE upon request.

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

TOTAL BURDEN ......... ......................................................................................... ........................... 285,469 ............ 465,099 

$12,933,000 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. 

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 the Department 

of the Interior; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation and 

Enforcement; Attention: Regulations 

and Standards Branch; Mail Stop 4024; 

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. 

BOEMRE 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 BOEMRE ‘‘Categorical Exclusion’’ 

in that its impacts are limited to 

administrative, economic or 

technological effects. Further, the 

BOEMRE 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. 

Each section and subsection has also 

been reviewed to ensure that no 

potentially relevant extraordinary 

circumstances apply to the proposed 

action that would 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: 

a. Have significant impacts on public 

health or safety. 

e. Establish a precedent for future 

action or represent a decision in 

principle about future actions with 

potentially significant environmental 

effects. 

f. Have a direct relationship to other 

actions with individually insignificant 

but cumulatively significant 

environmental effects. 

The first extraordinary circumstance 

does not apply since rule promulgation 

will not contribute to any significant 

and adverse impacts on public health 

and safety. The SEMS program is likely 

to improve OCS safety, given the 

available incident data trends and 

associated 10 years of analysis. The 

second extraordinary circumstance does 

not apply since the promulgation of the 

rule or the eventual implementation of 

SEMS by operators does not set 

precedent for future actions or decisions 

by BOEMRE. The last extraordinary 

circumstance does not apply since there 

is no direct relationship between this 

rulemaking and other actions that could 

together contribute to cumulatively 

significant effects. 

Most subsections of the rule address 

strictly administrative, technical, and/or 

procedural matters. Specific examples 

include definitions of terminology, 

scope and timing of documentation, 

recordkeeping, and 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 and technical 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 and 

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. Subsections 

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 30 CFR 

250.1918, BOEMRE 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 of and refine the skills, 

knowledge, and abilities of personnel. 

BOEMRE 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. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63649 

C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153– 

154). 

Effects on the 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: October 1, 2010. 

Wilma A. Lewis, 

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals 

Management. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 

Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) 

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: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334. 

■ 2. Amend § 250.198 by adding new 

paragraph (h)(80) to read as follows: 

§ 250.198 Documents Incorporated by 

Reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(80) API RP 75, Recommended 

Practice for Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities, 

Third Edition, May 2004, Reaffirmed 

May 2008, Product No. G07503; 

incorporated by reference at § 250.1900, 

§ 250.1900(c), § 250.1902(c), § 250.1903, 

§ 250.1909, § 250.1920(a) and (b). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 250.199(e)(17) to read as 

follows: 

§ 250.199 Paperwork Reduction Act 

statements—information collection. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

30 CFR subpart, title and/or BOEMRE form (OMB Control No.) Reasons for collecting information and how used 

*******

(17) Subpart S, Safety and Environmental Management Systems 

(1010–0186), including Form MMS–131, Performance Measures 

Data.

The SEMS program will describe management commitment to safety 

and the environment, as well as policies and procedures to assure 

safety and environmental protection while conducting OCS operations (including those operations conducted by contractor and subcontractor personnel). The information collected is the form to gather 

the raw Performance Measures Data relating to risk and number of 

accidents, injuries, and oil spills during OCS activities. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 4. Add new subpart S to read as 

follows: 

Subpart S—Safety and Environmental 

Management Systems (SEMS) 

Sec. 

250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program? 

250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS 

program? 

250.1902 What must I include in my SEMS 

program? 

250.1903 Definitions. 

250.1904 Documents incorporated by 

reference 

250.1905 through 250.1908 [Reserved] 

250.1909 What is management’s general 

responsibilities for the SEMS program? 

250.1910 What safety and environmental 

information is required? 

250.1911 What criteria for hazards analyses 

must my SEMS program meet? 

250.1912 What criteria for management of 

change must my SEMS program meet? 

250.1913 What criteria for operating 

procedures must my SEMS program 

meet? 

250.1914 What criteria must be 

documented in my SEMS program for 

safe work practices and contractor 

selection? 

250.1915 What criteria for training must be 

in my SEMS program? 

250.1916 What criteria for mechanical 

integrity must my SEMS program meet? 

250.1917 What criteria for pre-startup 

review must be in my SEMS program? 

250.1918 What criteria for emergency 

response and control must be in my 

SEMS program? 

250.1919 What criteria for investigation of 

incidents must be in my SEMS program? 

250.1920 What are the auditing 

requirements for my SEMS program? 

250.1921 through 250.1923 [RESERVED] 

250.1924 How will BOEMRE determine if 

my SEMS program is effective? 

250.1925 May BOEMRE direct me to 

conduct additional audits? 

250.1926 What qualifications must an 

independent third party or my 

designated and qualified personnel 

meet? 

250.1927 What happens if BOEMRE finds 

shortcomings in my SEMS program? 

250.1928 What are my recordkeeping and 

documentation requirements? 

250.1929 What are my responsibilities for 

submitting OCS performance measure 

data? 

§ 250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program? 

You must develop, implement, and 

maintain a safety and environmental 

management system (SEMS) program. 

Your SEMS program must address the 

elements described in § 250.1902, 

American Petroleum Institute’s 

Recommended Practice for 

Development of a Safety and 

Environmental Management Program for 

Offshore Operations and Facilities (API 

RP 75) (incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 250.198), and other 

requirements as identified in this 

subpart. 

(a) You must comply with the 

provisions of this subpart and have your 

SEMS program in effect on or before 

November 15, 2011, except for the 

submission of Form MMS–131 as 

required in § 250.1929. 

(b) You must submit Form MMS–131 

on an annual basis beginning March 31, 

2011. 

(c) If there are any conflicts between 

the requirements of this subpart and API 

RP 75 (incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 250.198), you must follow 

the requirements of this subpart. 

(d) Nothing in this subpart affects 

safety or other matters under the 

jurisdiction of the Coast Guard. 

§ 250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS 

program? 

The goal of your SEMS program is to 

promote safety and environmental 

protection by ensuring all personnel 

aboard a facility are complying with the 

policies and procedures identified in 

your SEMS. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(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, inspection, and 

maintenance of all new and existing 

facilities, including mobile offshore 

drilling units (MODU) while under 

BOEMRE jurisdiction and Department 

of Interior (DOI) regulated pipelines. 

(b) All personnel involved with your 

SEMS program must be trained to have 

the skills and knowledge to perform 

their assigned duties. 

§ 250.1902 What must I include in my 

SEMS program? 

You must have a properly 

documented SEMS program in place 

and make it available to BOEMRE upon 

request as required by § 250.1924(b). 

(a) Your SEMS program must meet the 

minimum criteria outlined in this 

subpart, including the following SEMS 

program elements: 

(1) General (see § 250.1909) 

(2) Safety and Environmental 

Information (see § 250.1910) 

(3) Hazards Analysis (see § 250.1911) 

(4) Management of Change (see 

§ 250.1912) 

(5) Operating Procedures (see 

§ 250.1913) 

(6) Safe Work Practices (see 

§ 250.1914) 

(7) Training (see § 250.1915) 

(8) Mechanical Integrity (Assurance of 

Quality and Mechanical Integrity of 

Critical Equipment) (see § 250.1916) 

(9) Pre-startup Review (see 

§ 250.1917) 

(10) Emergency Response and Control 

(see § 250.1918) 

(11) Investigation of Incidents (see 

§ 250.1919) 

(12) Auditing (Audit of Safety and 

Environmental Management Program 

Elements) (see §§ 250.1920) 

(13) Recordkeeping (Records and 

Documentation) and additional 

BOEMRE requirements (see § 250.1928). 

(b) You must also include a job safety 

analysis (JSA) for OCS activities 

identified or discussed in your SEMS 

program (see § 250.1911(b)). 

(c) Your SEMS program must meet or 

exceed the standards of safety and 

environmental protection of API RP 75 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 250.198). 

§ 250.1903 Definitions. 

Definitions listed in this section apply 

to this subpart and supersede 

definitions in API RP 75, Appendices D 

and E (incorporated by reference as 

specified in § 250.198). 

Designated and qualified personnel 

means employees (not contractors) that 

are knowledgeable of your program, and 

have actual work experience and 

training in implementing and auditing a 

SEMS or a similar program in an 

offshore oil and gas environment. 

Personnel means direct employee(s) 

of the operator and contracted workers 

who are involved with or affected by 

specific jobs or tasks. 

§ 250.1904 Documents Incorporated by 

Reference. 

The effect of incorporation by 

reference of a document into the 

regulations in this part is that the 

incorporated document is a 

requirement. When a section in this part 

incorporates all of a document, you are 

responsible for complying with the 

provisions of that entire document, 

except to the extent that section 

provides otherwise. If any incorporated 

document uses the word ‘‘should’’, it 

means must for purposes of these 

regulations. 

§§ 250.1905 through 250.1908 [Reserved] 

§ 250.1909 What are management’s 

general responsibilities for the SEMS 

Program? 

You, through your management, must 

require that the program elements 

discussed in API RP 75 (incorporated by 

reference as specified in § 250.198) and 

in this subpart are properly documented 

and are available at field and office 

locations, as appropriate for each 

program element. You, through your 

management, are responsible for the 

development, support, continued 

improvement, and overall success of 

your SEMS program. Specifically you, 

through your management, must: 

(a) Establish goals and performance 

measures, demand accountability for 

implementation, and provide necessary 

resources for carrying out an effective 

SEMS program. 

(b) Appoint management 

representatives who are responsible for 

establishing, implementing and 

maintaining an effective SEMS program. 

(c) Designate specific management 

representatives who are responsible for 

reporting to management on the 

performance of the SEMS program. 

(d) At intervals specified in the SEMS 

program and at least annually, review 

the SEMS program to determine if it 

continues to be suitable, adequate and 

effective (by addressing the possible 

need for changes to policy, objectives, 

and other elements of the program in 

light of program audit results, changing 

circumstances and the commitment to 

continual improvement) and document 

the observations, conclusions and 

recommendations of that review. 

(e) Develop and endorse a written 

description of your safety and 

environmental policies and 

organizational structure that define 

responsibilities, authorities, and lines of 

communication required to implement 

the SEMS program. 

(f) Utilize personnel with expertise in 

identifying safety hazards, 

environmental impacts, optimizing 

operations, developing safe work 

practices, developing training programs 

and investigating incidents. 

(g) Ensure that facilities are designed, 

constructed, maintained, monitored, 

and operated in a manner compatible 

with applicable industry codes, 

consensus standards, and generally 

accepted practice as well as in 

compliance with all applicable 

governmental regulations. 

(h) Ensure that management of safety 

hazards and environmental impacts is 

an integral part of the design, 

construction, maintenance, operation, 

and monitoring of each facility. 

(i) Ensure that suitably trained and 

qualified personnel are employed to 

carry out all aspects of the SEMS 

program. 

(j) Ensure that the SEMS program is 

maintained and kept up to date by 

means of periodic audits to ensure 

effective performance. 

§ 250.1910 What safety and environmental 

information is required? 

(a) You must require that SEMS 

program safety and environmental 

information be developed and 

maintained for any facility that is 

subject to the SEMS program. 

(b) SEMS program safety and 

environmental information must 

include: 

(1) Information that provides the basis 

for implementing all SEMS program 

elements, including the requirements of 

hazard analysis (§ 250.1911); 

(2) process design information 

including, as appropriate, a simplified 

process flow diagram and acceptable 

upper and lower limits, where 

applicable, for items such as 

temperature, pressure, flow and 

composition; and 

(3) mechanical design information 

including, as appropriate, piping and 

instrument diagrams; electrical area 

classifications; equipment arrangement 

drawings; design basis of the relief 

system; description of alarm, shutdown, 

and interlock systems; description of 

well control systems; and design basis 

for passive and active fire protection 

features and systems and emergency 

evacuation procedures. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63651 

§ 250.1911 What criteria for hazards 

analyses must my SEMS program meet? 

You must ensure the development 

and implementation of a hazards 

analysis (facility level) and a job safety 

analysis (operations/task level) for all of 

your facilities. For this subpart, facilities 

include all types of offshore structures 

permanently or temporarily attached to 

the seabed (i.e., mobile offshore drilling 

units; floating production systems; 

floating production, storage and 

offloading facilities; tension-leg 

platforms; and spars) used for 

exploration, development, production, 

and transportation activities for oil, gas, 

or sulphur from areas leased in the OCS. 

Facilities also include DOI regulated 

pipelines. You must document and 

maintain current analyses for each 

operation covered by this section for the 

life of the operation at the facility. The 

analyses must be updated when an 

internal audit is conducted to ensure 

that it is consistent with the current 

operations on your facility. Hazards 

analysis requirements for simple and 

nearly identical facilities, such as well 

jackets and single well caissons, may be 

fulfilled by performing a single hazards 

analysis which you can apply to all 

such facilities after you verify that any 

site specific deviations are addressed in 

each of the elements of your SEMS 

program. 

(a) Hazards Analysis (facility level). 

For a hazards analysis (facility level), 

you must perform an initial hazards 

analysis on each facility on or before 

November 15, 2011. The hazards 

analysis must be appropriate to the 

complexity of the operation and must 

identify, evaluate, and manage the 

hazards involved in the operation. 

(1) The hazards analysis must address 

the following: 

(i) Hazards of the operation; 

(ii) Previous incidents related to the 

operation you are evaluating, including 

any incident in which you were issued 

an Incident of Noncompliance or a civil 

or criminal penalty; 

(iii) Control technology applicable to 

the operation your hazards analysis is 

evaluating; and 

(iv) A qualitative evaluation of the 

possible safety and health effects on 

employees, and potential impacts to the 

human and marine environments, 

which may result if the control 

technology fails. 

(2) The hazards analysis must be 

performed by a person(s) with 

experience in the operations being 

evaluated. These individuals also need 

to be experienced in the hazards 

analysis methodologies being employed. 

(3) You should assure that the 

recommendations in the hazards 

analysis are resolved and that the 

resolution is documented. 

(b) Job Safety Analysis (JSA). You 

must develop and implement a JSA for 

OCS activities identified or discussed in 

your SEMS program. 

(1) You must keep a copy of the most 

recent JSA (operations/task level) at the 

job site and it must be readily accessible 

to employees. 

(2) Your JSA must identify, analyze, 

and record: 

(i) The steps involved in performing 

a specific job; 

(ii) the existing or potential safety and 

health hazards associated with each 

step; and 

(iii) the recommended action(s)/ 

procedure(s) that will eliminate or 

reduce these hazards and the risk of a 

workplace injury or illness. 

(3) The supervisor of the person in 

charge of the task must approve the JSA 

prior to the commencement of the work. 

§ 250.1912 What criteria for management 

of change must my SEMS program meet? 

(a) You must develop and implement 

written management of change 

procedures for modifications associated 

with the following: 

(1) Equipment, 

(2) Operating procedures, 

(3) Personnel changes (including 

contractors), 

(4) Materials, and 

(5) Operating conditions. 

(b) Management of change procedures 

do not apply to situations involving 

replacement in kind (such as, 

replacement of one component by 

another component with the same 

performance capabilities). 

(c) You must review all changes prior 

to their implementation. 

(d) The following items must be 

included in your management of change 

procedures: 

(1) The technical basis for the change; 

(2) Impact of the change on safety, 

health, and the coastal and marine 

environments; 

(3) Necessary time period to 

implement the change; and 

(4) Management approval procedures 

for the change. 

(e) Employees, including contractors 

whose job tasks will be affected by a 

change in the operation, must be 

informed of, and trained in, the change 

prior to startup of the process or affected 

part of the operation; and 

(f) If a management of change results 

in a change in the operating procedures 

of your SEMS program, such changes 

must be documented and dated. 

§ 250.1913 What criteria for operating 

procedures must my SEMS program meet? 

(a) You must develop and implement 

written operating procedures that 

provide instructions for conducting safe 

and environmentally sound activities 

involved in each operation addressed in 

your SEMS program. These procedures 

must include the job title and reporting 

relationship of the person or persons 

responsible for each of the facility’s 

operating areas and address the 

following: 

(1) Initial startup; 

(2) Normal operations; 

(3) All emergency operations 

(including but not limited to medical 

evacuations, weather-related 

evacuations and emergency shutdown 

operations); 

(4) Normal shutdown; 

(5) Startup following a turnaround, or 

after an emergency shutdown; 

(6) Bypassing and flagging out-ofservice equipment; 

(7) Safety and environmental 

consequences of deviating from your 

equipment operating limits and steps 

required to correct or avoid this 

deviation; 

(8) Properties of, and hazards 

presented by, the chemicals used in the 

operations; 

(9) Precautions you will take to 

prevent the exposure of chemicals used 

in your operations to personnel and the 

environment. The precautions must 

include control technology, personal 

protective equipment, and measures to 

be taken if physical contact or airborne 

exposure occurs; 

(10) Raw materials used in your 

operations and the quality control 

procedures you used in purchasing 

these raw materials; 

(11) Control of hazardous chemical 

inventory; and 

(12) Impacts to the human and marine 

environment identified through your 

hazards analysis. 

(b) Operating procedures must be 

accessible to all employees involved in 

the operations. 

(c) Operating procedures must be 

reviewed at the conclusion of specified 

periods and as often as necessary to 

assure they reflect current and actual 

operating practices, including any 

changes made to your operations. 

(d) You must develop and implement 

safe and environmentally sound work 

practices for identified hazards during 

operations and the degree of hazard 

presented. 

(e) Review of and changes to the 

procedures must be documented and 

communicated to responsible personnel. 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

designed to minimize the risks 

associated with operating, maintenance, 

and 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 and environmental performance. 

Operators must ensure that contractors 

have their own written safe work 

practices. Contractors may adopt 

appropriate sections of the operator’s 

SEMS program. Operator and contractor 

must document their agreement on 

appropriate contractor safety and 

environmental policies and practices 

before the contractor begins work at the 

operator’s facilities. 

(a) A contractor is anyone performing 

work for the lessee. However, these 

requirements do not apply to 

contractors providing domestic services 

to the lessee or other contractors. 

Domestic services include janitorial 

work, food and beverage service, 

laundry service, housekeeping, and 

similar activities. 

(b) You must document that your 

contracted employees are 

knowledgeable and experienced in the 

work practices necessary to perform 

their job in a safe and environmentally 

sound manner. Documentation of each 

contracted employee’s expertise to 

perform his/her job and a copy of the 

contractor’s safety policies and 

procedures must be made available to 

the operator and BOEMRE upon request. 

(c) Your SEMS program must include 

procedures and verification for selecting 

a contractor as follows: 

(1) Your SEMS program must have 

procedures that verify that contractors 

are conducting their activities in 

accordance with your SEMS program. 

(2) You are responsible for making 

certain that contractors have the skills 

and knowledge to perform their 

assigned duties and are conducting 

these activities in accordance with the 

requirements in your SEMS program. 

(3) You must make the results of your 

verification for selecting contractors 

available to BOEMRE upon request. 

(d) Your SEMS program must include 

procedures and verification that 

contractor personnel understand and 

can perform their assigned duties for 

activities such as, but not limited to: 

(1) Installation, maintenance, or repair 

of equipment; 

(2) construction, startup, and 

operation of your facilities; 

(3) turnaround operations; 

(4) major renovation; or 

(5) specialty work. 

(e) You must: 

(1) Perform periodic evaluations of 

the performance of contract employees 

that verifies they are fulfilling their 

obligations, and 

(2) maintain a contractor employee 

injury and illness log for 2 years related 

to the contractor’s work in the operation 

area, and include this information on 

Form MMS–131. 

(f) You must inform your contractors 

of any known hazards at the facility 

they are working on including, but not 

limited to fires, explosions, slips, trips, 

falls, other injuries, and hazards 

associated with lifting operations. 

(g) You must develop and implement 

safe work practices to control the 

presence, entrance, and exit of contract 

employees in operation areas. 

§ 250.1915 What criteria for training must 

be in my SEMS program? 

Your SEMS program must establish 

and implement a training program so 

that all personnel are trained to work 

safely and are aware of environmental 

considerations offshore, in accordance 

with their duties and responsibilities. 

Training must address the operating 

procedures (§ 250.1913), the safe work 

practices (§ 250.1914), and the 

emergency response and control 

measures (§ 250.1918). You must 

document the qualifications of your 

instructors. Your SEMS program must 

address: 

(a) Initial training for the basic wellbeing of personnel and protection of the 

environment, and ensure that persons 

assigned to operate and maintain the 

facility possess the required knowledge 

and skills to carry out their duties and 

responsibilities, including startup and 

shutdown. 

(b) Periodic training to maintain 

understanding of, and adherence to, the 

current operating procedures, using 

periodic drills, to verify adequate 

retention of the required knowledge and 

skills. 

(c) Communication requirements to 

ensure that whenever a change is made 

to operating procedures (§ 250.1913), 

the safe work practices (§ 250.1914), or 

the emergency response and control 

measures (§ 250.1918), personnel will be 

trained in or otherwise informed of the 

change before they are expected to 

operate the facility. 

(d) How you will verify that the 

contractors are trained in the work 

practices necessary to perform their jobs 

in a safe and environmentally sound 

manner, including training on operating 

procedures (§ 250.1913), the safe work 

practices (§ 250.1914), or the emergency 

response and control measures 

(§ 250.1918). 

§ 250.1916 What criteria for mechanical 

integrity must my SEMS program meet? 

You must develop and implement 

written procedures that provide 

instructions to ensure the mechanical 

integrity and safe operation of 

equipment through inspection, testing, 

and quality assurance. The purpose of 

mechanical integrity is to ensure that 

equipment is fit for service. Your 

mechanical integrity program must 

encompass all equipment and systems 

used to prevent or mitigate uncontrolled 

releases of hydrocarbons, toxic 

substances, or other materials that may 

cause environmental or safety 

consequences. These procedures must 

address the following: 

(a) The design, procurement, 

fabrication, installation, calibration, and 

maintenance of your equipment and 

systems in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s design and material 

specifications. 

(b) The training of each employee 

involved in maintaining your 

equipment and systems so that your 

employees can implement your 

mechanical integrity program. 

(c) The frequency of inspections and 

tests of your equipment and systems. 

The frequency of inspections and tests 

must be in accordance with BOEMRE 

regulations and meet the manufacturer’s 

recommendations. Inspections and tests 

can be performed more frequently if 

determined to be necessary by prior 

operating experience. 

(d) The documentation of each 

inspection and test that has been 

performed on your equipment and 

systems. This documentation must 

identify the date of the inspection or 

test; include the name and position, and 

the signature of the person who 

performed the inspection or test; 

include the serial number or other 

identifier of the equipment on which 

the inspection or test was performed; 

include a description of the inspection 

or test performed; and the results of the 

inspection test. 

(e) The correction of deficiencies 

associated with equipment and systems 

that are outside the manufacturer’s 

recommended limits. Such corrections 

must be made before further use of the 

equipment and system. 

(f) The installation of new equipment 

and constructing systems. The 

procedures must address the application 

for which they will be used. 

(g) The modification of existing 

equipment and systems. The procedures 

must ensure that they are modified for 

the application for which they will be 

used. 

(h) The verification that inspections 

and tests are being performed. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 63653 

procedures must be appropriate to 

ensure that equipment and systems are 

installed consistent with design 

specifications and the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(i) The assurance that maintenance 

materials, spare parts, and equipment 

are suitable for the applications for 

which they will be used. 

§ 250.1917 What criteria for pre-startup 

review must be in my SEMS program? 

Your SEMS program must require that 

the commissioning process include a 

pre-startup safety and environmental 

review for new and significantly 

modified facilities that are subject to 

this subpart to confirm that the 

following criteria are met: 

(a) Construction and equipment are in 

accordance with applicable 

specifications. 

(b) Safety, environmental, operating, 

maintenance, and emergency 

procedures are in place and are 

adequate. 

(c) Safety and environmental 

information is current. 

(d) Hazards analysis 

recommendations have been 

implemented as appropriate. 

(e) Training of operating personnel 

has been completed. 

(f) Programs to address management 

of change and other elements of this 

subpart are in place. 

(g) Safe work practices are in place. 

§ 250.1918 What criteria for emergency 

response and control must be in my SEMS 

program? 

Your SEMS program must require that 

emergency response and control plans 

are in place and are ready for immediate 

implementation. These plans must be 

validated by drills carried out in 

accordance with a schedule defined by 

the SEMS training program (§ 250.1915). 

The SEMS emergency response and 

control plans must include: 

(a) Emergency Action Plan that 

assigns authority and responsibility to 

the appropriate qualified person(s) at a 

facility for initiating effective emergency 

response and control, addressing 

emergency reporting and response 

requirements, and complying with all 

applicable governmental regulations; 

(b) Emergency Control Center(s) 

designated for each facility with access 

to the Emergency Action Plans, oil spill 

contingency plan, and other safety and 

environmental information (§ 250.1910); 

and 

(c) Training and Drills incorporating 

emergency response and evacuation 

procedures conducted periodically for 

all personnel (including contractor’s 

personnel), as required by the SEMS 

training program (§ 250.1915). Drills 

must be based on realistic scenarios 

conducted periodically to exercise 

elements contained in the facility or 

area emergency action plan. An analysis 

and critique of each drill must be 

conducted to identify and correct 

weaknesses. 

§ 250.1919 What criteria for investigation 

of incidents must be in my SEMS program? 

To learn from incidents and help 

prevent similar incidents, your SEMS 

program must establish procedures for 

investigation of all incidents with 

serious safety or environmental 

consequences and require investigation 

of incidents that are determined by 

facility management or BOEMRE to 

have possessed the potential for serious 

safety or environmental consequences. 

Incident investigations must be initiated 

as promptly as possible, with due regard 

for the necessity of securing the incident 

scene and protecting people and the 

environment. Incident investigations 

must be conducted by personnel 

knowledgeable in the process involved, 

investigation techniques, and other 

specialties that are relevant or 

necessary. 

(a) The investigation of an incident 

must address the following: 

(1) The nature of the incident; 

(2) The factors (human or other) that 

contributed to the initiation of the 

incident and its escalation/control; and 

(3) Recommended changes identified 

as a result of the investigation. 

(b) A corrective action program must 

be established based on the findings of 

the investigation in order to analyze 

incidents for common root causes. The 

corrective action program must: 

(1) Retain the findings of 

investigations for use in the next hazard 

analysis update or audit; 

(2) Determine and document the 

response to each finding to ensure that 

corrective actions are completed; and 

(3) Implement a system whereby 

conclusions of investigations are 

distributed to similar facilities and 

appropriate personnel within their 

organization. 

§ 250.1920 What are the auditing 

requirements for my SEMS program? 

(a) You must have your SEMS 

program audited by either an 

independent third-party or your 

designated and qualified personnel 

according to the requirements of this 

subpart and API RP 75, Section 12 

(incorporated by reference as specified 

in § 250.198) within 2 years of the initial 

implementation of the SEMS program 

and at least once every 3 years 

thereafter. The audit must be a 

comprehensive audit of all thirteen 

elements of your SEMS program to 

evaluate compliance with the 

requirements of this subpart and API RP 

75 to identify areas in which safety and 

environmental performance needs to be 

improved. 

(b) Your audit plan and procedures 

must meet or exceed all of the 

recommendations included in API RP 

75 section 12 (incorporated by reference 

as specified in § 250.198) and include 

information on how you addressed 

those recommendations. You must 

specifically address the following items: 

(1) Section 12.1 General. 

(2) Section 12.2 Scope. 

(3) Section 12.3 Audit Coverage. 

(4) Section 12.4 Audit Plan. You must 

submit your written Audit Plan to 

BOEMRE at least 30 days before the 

audit. BOEMRE reserves the right to 

modify the list of facilities that you 

propose to audit. 

(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. 

(6) Section 12.6 Audit Team. The 

audit that you submit to BOEMRE must 

be conducted by either an independent 

third party or your designated and 

qualified personnel. The independent 

third party or your designated and 

qualified personnel must meet the 

requirements in § 250.1926. 

(c) You must require your auditor 

(independent third party or your 

designated and qualified personnel) to 

submit an audit report of the findings 

and conclusions of the audit to 

BOEMRE within 30 days of the audit 

completion date. The report must 

outline the results of the audit, 

including deficiencies identified. 

(d) You must provide the BOEMRE a 

copy of your plan for addressing the 

deficiencies identified in your audit 

within 30 days of completion of the 

audit. Your plan must address the 

following: 

(1) A proposed schedule to correct the 

deficiencies identified in the audit. 

BOEMRE will notify you within 14 days 

of receipt of your plan if your proposed 

schedule is not acceptable. 

(2) The person responsible for 

correcting each identified deficiency, 

including their job title. 

(e) BOEMRE may verify that you 

undertook the corrective actions and 

that these actions effectively address the 

audit findings. 

§§ 250.1921 through 250.1923 

[Reserved] 

§ 250.1924 How will BOEMRE determine if 

my SEMS program is effective? 

(a) BOEMRE or its authorized 

representative may evaluate or visit 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
63654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

your facility to determine whether your 

SEMS program is in place, addresses all 

required elements, and is effective in 

protecting the safety and health of 

workers, the environment, and 

preventing incidents. BOEMRE or its 

authorized representative may evaluate 

your SEMS program, including 

documentation of contractors, 

independent third parties, your 

designated and qualified personnel, and 

audit reports, to assess your SEMS 

program. These evaluations or visits 

may be random or based upon the OCS 

lease operator’s or contractor’s 

performance. 

(b) For the evaluations, you must 

make the following available to 

BOEMRE upon request: 

(1) Your SEMS program; 

(2) The qualifications of your 

independent third-party or your 

designated and qualified personnel; 

(3) The SEMS audits conducted of 

your program; 

(4) Documents or information relevant 

to whether you have addressed and 

corrected the deficiencies of your audit; 

and 

(5) Other relevant documents or 

information. 

(c) During the site visit BOEMRE may 

verify that: 

(1) Personnel are following your 

SEMS program, 

(2) You can explain and demonstrate 

the procedures and policies included in 

your SEMS program; and 

(3) You can produce evidence to 

support the implementation of your 

SEMS program. 

(d) Representatives from BOEMRE 

may observe or participate in your 

SEMS audit. You must notify the 

BOEMRE at least 30-days prior to 

conducting your audit as required in 

§ 250.1920, so that BOEMRE may make 

arrangements to observe or participate 

in the audit. 

§ 250.1925 May BOEMRE direct me to 

conduct additional audits? 

(a) If BOEMRE identifies safety or 

non-compliance concerns based on the 

results of our inspections and 

evaluations, or as a result of an event, 

BOEMRE may direct you to have an 

independent third-party audit of your 

SEMS program, in addition to the 

regular audit required by § 250.1920, or 

BOEMRE may conduct an audit. 

(1) If BOEMRE direct you to have an 

independent third-party audit, 

(i) You are responsible for all of the 

costs associated with the audit, and 

(ii) The independent third-party audit 

must meet the requirements of 

§ 250.1920 of this part and you must 

ensure that the independent third party 

submits the findings and conclusions of 

a BOEMRE-directed audit according to 

the requirements in § 250.1920 to 

BOEMRE within 30 days after the audit 

is completed. 

(2) If BOEMRE conducts the audit, 

BOEMRE will provide a report of the 

findings and conclusions within 30 days 

of the audit. 

(b) Findings from these audits may 

result in enforcement actions as 

identified in § 250.1927. 

(c) You must provide the BOEMRE a 

copy of your plan for addressing the 

deficiencies identified in the BOEMREdirected audit within 30 days of 

completion of the audit as required in 

§ 250.1920. 

§ 250.1926 What qualifications must an 

independent third party or my designated 

and qualified personnel meet? 

(a) You must either choose an 

independent third-party or your 

designated and qualified personnel to 

audit your SEMS program. You must 

take into account the following 

qualifications when selecting the thirdparty or your designated and qualified 

personnel: 

(1) Previous education and experience 

with SEMS, or similar management 

related programs. 

(2) Technical capabilities of the 

individual or organization for the 

specific project. 

(3) Ability to perform the independent 

third-party functions for the specific 

project considering current 

commitments. 

(4) Previous experience with 

BOEMRE regulatory requirements and 

procedures. 

(5) Previous education and experience 

to comprehend and evaluate how the 

company’s offshore activities, raw 

materials, production methods and 

equipment, products, byproducts, and 

business management systems may 

impact health and safety performance in 

the workplace. 

(b) You must have procedures to 

avoid conflicts of interest related to the 

development of your SEMS program 

and the independent third party auditor 

and your designated and qualified 

personnel. 

(c) BOEMRE may evaluate the 

qualifications of the independent third 

parties or your designated and qualified 

personnel. This may include an audit of 

documents and procedures or 

interviews. BOEMRE may disallow 

audits by a specific independent thirdparty or your designated and qualified 

personnel if they do not meet the 

criteria of this section. 

§ 250.1927 What happens if BOEMRE finds 

shortcomings in my SEMS program? 

If BOEMRE determines that your 

SEMS program is not in compliance 

with this subpart we may initiate one or 

more of the following enforcement 

actions: 

(a) Issue an Incident(s) of 

Noncompliance; 

(b) Assess civil penalties; or 

(c) Initiate probationary or 

disqualification procedures from serving 

as an OCS operator. 

§ 250.1928 What are my recordkeeping 

and documentation requirements? 

(a) Your SEMS program procedures 

must ensure that records and documents 

are maintained for a period of 6 years, 

except as provided below. You must 

document and keep all SEMS audits for 

6 years and make them available to 

BOEMRE upon request. You must 

maintain a copy of all SEMS program 

documents at an onshore location. 

(b) For JSAs, the person in charge of 

the activity must document the results 

of the JSA in writing and must ensure 

that records are kept onsite for 30 days. 

You must retain these records for 2 

years and make them available to 

BOEMRE upon request. 

(c) You must document and date all 

management of change provisions as 

specified in § 250.1912. You must retain 

these records for 2 years and make them 

available to BOEMRE upon request. 

(d) You must keep your injury/illness 

log for 2 years and make them available 

to BOEMRE upon request. 

(e) You must keep all evaluations 

completed on contractor’s safety 

policies and procedures for 2 years and 

make them available to BOEMRE upon 

request. 

(f) You must keep all records in an 

orderly manner, readily identifiable, 

retrievable and legible, and include the 

date of any and all revisions. 

§ 250.1929 What are my responsibilities 

for submitting OCS performance measure 

data? 

You must submit Form MMS–131 on 

an annual basis by March 31st. The form 

must be broken down quarterly, 

reporting the previous calendar year’s 

data. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25665 Filed 10–7–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2