Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Safety and Environmental Management Systems, 63610-63654 [2010-25665]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63610-63654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25665]



[[Page 63609]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 199 / Friday, October 15, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 63610]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  250.1909,
    (2) Safety and Environmental Information, with additional 
clarification in Sec.  250.1910,
    (3) Hazards Analysis, with additional clarification in Sec.  
250.1911,
    (4) Management of Change, with additional clarification in Sec.  
250.1912,
    (5) Operating Procedures, with additional clarification in Sec.  
250.1913,
    (6) Safe Work Practices, with additional clarification in Sec.  
250.1914,
    (7) Training, with additional clarification in Sec.  250.1915,
    (8) Assurance of Quality and Mechanical Integrity of Critical 
Equipment, (Mechanical Integrity), with additional clarification in 
Sec.  250.1916,
    (9) Pre-startup Review, with additional clarification in Sec.  
250.1917,
    (10) Emergency Response and Control, with additional clarification 
in Sec.  250.1918,
    (11) Investigation of Incidents, with additional clarification in 
Sec.  250.1919,
    (12) Audit of Safety and Environmental Management Program Elements, 
(Auditing), with additional clarification in Sec. Sec.  250.1920, 1924, 
and 1925, and

[[Page 63611]]

    (13) Records and Documentation, (Recordkeeping and Documentation), 
with additional BOEMRE requirements in Sec.  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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Implementation        Implementation
                                                                   (moderate)               (low)           Maintenance     Maintenance     Maintenance
                          Elements                           --------------------------------------------     (high)        (moderate)         (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 non-compliance 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 Sec.  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: https://www.BOEMRE.gov/federalregister/PublicComments/AD15SafetyEnvMgmtSysforOCSOilGasOperations.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

[[Page 63612]]

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: https://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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 x 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 63614]]

have documented data that shows a higher cost to industry, they may 
submit comments at any time on the paperwork burden as stated in Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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: https://www.BOEMRE.gov/incidents/index.htm and https://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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 63616]]

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 non-compliance 
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 Sec.  250.1911).
    Comment: Recommend in proposed section Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  250.1901 and 
Sec.  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

[[Page 63618]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Comment received on   BOEMRE response to
    Proposed rule citation         proposed rule           comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
250.1903(b)...................  Note that, at Sec.   As recognized in
                                  250.1903(b),        API RP 75, Section
                                 BOEMRE holds up      1.3.1.1, some
                                 ISO 14001 as an      systems may have
                                 example of other     been developed
                                 standards or         using other
                                 guidelines that      guidelines. If an
                                 meet or exceed API   operator has
                                 RP 75, seemingly     already developed
                                 encouraging such     a system using
                                 an approach as       other guidelines,
                                 ours. However, a     when the system is
                                 certified, active    assessed, the
                                 ISO 14001 program    focus should be on
                                 will not comply      assuring that the
                                 with the proposed    necessary program
                                 regulation.          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     It is up to the
                                 require separate     operator to decide
                                 hazards analyses,    to combine or do a
                                 or is it             separate hazard
                                 acceptable to        analysis for the
                                 combine with the     DOI pipelines and
                                 facility with        associated
                                 which it is          facility. However,
                                 associated?          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        The terms JSA and
                                 community has        JHA are different;
                                 varying degrees of   therefore, in this
                                 understanding of     final rulemaking