Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Revisions to Safety and Environmental Management Systems, 20423-20443 [2013-07738]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20423-20443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07738]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

30 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID: BSEE-2012-0011]
RIN 1014-AA04


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf--Revisions to Safety and Environmental Management Systems

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE); 
Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule will revise and add several new requirements 
to regulations for Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS). 
These requirements pertain to developing and implementing stop work 
authority (SWA) and ultimate work authority (UWA), requiring an 
employee participation plan (EPP), and establishing guidelines for 
reporting unsafe working conditions. The rule establishes additional 
requirements for conducting job safety analyses (JSA) for activities 
identified in an operator's SEMS program. In addition, this final rule 
requires that SEMS programs be audited by an accredited audit service 
provider (ASP). This rulemaking will further support BSEE's efforts to 
reduce the occurrence of accidents, injuries, and spills during oil and 
gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

DATES: This rule becomes effective on June 4, 2013. You must comply 
with the provisions of this rule on or before June 4, 2014, except the 
auditing requirements under Sec.  250.1920. You must be in compliance 
with Sec.  250.1920 by June 5, 2015. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed

[[Page 20424]]

in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
June 4, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Petka, Office of Offshore 
Regulatory Programs, (703) 787-1736 or email sems@bsee.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    When Congress enacted the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) 
(43 U.S.C. 1332(6)), it declared that it is the policy of the United 
States to assure that operations on the OCS are conducted:
     Safely by well-trained personnel; and
     Using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient 
to prevent or minimize the likelihood of:
    [cir] blowouts, loss of well control, fires, or spillage, physical 
obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed;
    [cir] occurrences that may cause damage to the environment or to 
property; and
    [cir] occurrences that endanger life or health.

    Final regulations implementing a SEMS program were published on 
October 15, 2010, to accomplish these goals and to reduce the 
likelihood of another event like the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 
oil spill, 75 FR 63610. The regulations required operators to have a 
SEMS program in place as of November 15, 2011. A SEMS program is a 
comprehensive system to reduce human error and organizational failure.
    On September 14, 2011, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking in the Federal Register entitled, ``Oil and Gas and Sulphur 
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf--Revisions to Safety and 
Environmental Management Systems'' (76 FR 56683). These revisions to 30 
CFR 250, subpart S, grow out of and strengthen the existing SEMS 
framework. The previous SEMS final rule was published in October 2010. 
The current BSEE SEMS regulations incorporate by reference the entirety 
of the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 75 (API RP 
75), Third Edition, May 2004, reaffirmed May 2008. Many companies 
operating on the OCS were already in compliance with parts of the 
existing SEMS regulation when it was published in 2010. Through this 
final rule, being published today, BSEE supplements the requirements in 
API RP 75 to ensure that all companies are implementing current best 
practices and establishing well-functioning SEMS programs.
    This final rule incorporates ideas from comments that were received 
following publication of the proposed rule. This final rule will 
require operators to integrate new requirements into their existing 
SEMS program to enhance the program and facilitate oversight. These 
additional requirements provide several key ways for personnel to help 
ensure safe performance of oil and gas activities on the OCS:
    1. Job Safety Analysis (JSA)--Provides additional requirements for 
conducting a JSA.
    2. Auditing--Requires that all SEMS audits must be conducted by an 
audit service providers (ASPs), accredited by a BSEE-approved 
accreditation body (AB).
    3. Stop Work Authority (SWA)--Creates procedures that establish SWA 
and make responsible any and all personnel who witness an activity that 
is creating imminent risk or danger to stop work.
    4. Ultimate Work Authority (UWA)--Clearly defines requirements 
establishing who has the UWA on the facility for operational safety and 
decision-making at any given time.
    5. Employee Participation Plan (EPP)--Provides an environment that 
promotes participation by employees and management in order to 
eliminate or mitigate hazards on the OCS.
    6. Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions--Empowers all personnel to 
report to BSEE possible violations of safety or environmental 
regulations and requirements and threats of danger.

Background

    Pursuant to the OCSLA, the Federal government has a broad mandate 
to promote a culture of safety and environmental protection on the OCS. 
Acting on this mandate, BSEE's predecessor, the Minerals Management 
Service (MMS), advocated voluntary implementation of API RP 75. The 
MMS' goal was to assist in the development of a management system 
designed to promote safety and environmental protection during the 
performance of offshore oil and gas and sulphur operations. This system 
would be a tool for integrating and managing operations. By developing 
a management system based on API RP 75, owners and operators would be 
required to formulate policy and objectives concerning significant 
safety hazards and environmental impacts over which they had control 
and could be expected to have an influence. Ultimately, a SEMS program 
is intended to focus attention on the role of human error and poor 
organization in accidents, drive continuous improvement in the offshore 
industry's safety and environmental records, encourage the use of 
performance-based operating practices, and encourage collaboration 
between industry to promote the interests of offshore worker safety and 
environmental protection.
    Many operators voluntarily developed a SEMS program, as outlined by 
API RP 75. Prior to implementing the SEMS regulations, MMS carefully 
analyzed accident panel investigation reports, incident reports, and 
incidents of noncompliance. The MMS determined that the root cause of 
most safety and environmental accidents and incidents derived from four 
specific elements identified in API RP 75: Hazards Analysis; Management 
of Change; Operating Procedures; and Mechanical Integrity. The MMS 
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 22, 2006 (71 FR 
29277), soliciting comments on amending the agency's regulations to 
include SEMS. The MMS issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 
17, 2009 (74 FR 28639) that would require all operators to develop a 
management system minimally consisting of the four main elements 
identified by MMS as the root cause of most accidents.
    However, the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill 
highlighted potential faults in the existing OCS safety culture, 
convincing MMS of the need to require all operators to implement a 
comprehensive SEMS. On October 15, 2010, BOEMRE, the successor agency 
to MMS, published in the Federal Register the final rule, ``Oil and Gas 
and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf--Safety and 
Environmental Management Systems'' (75 FR 63610). That rule established 
a new Subpart S in 30 CFR part 250, requiring all OCS operators to have 
a SEMS program in place by November 15, 2011.
    Nearly a month before this deadline, on September 14, 2011, BOEMRE 
proposed revisions to SEMS to address safety concerns that were not 
covered in the first SEMS final rule issued in October 2010. The 
comment period for the proposed rule closed on November 14, 2011. In 
this final rule, BSEE is promulgating many of the changes that were 
proposed in the September 2011 proposed rule.
    On June 21, 2010, the MMS was renamed to BOEMRE. On October 1, 
2011, the Department of the Interior (DOI) reorganized BOEMRE, creating 
two new Bureaus, BSEE and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

[[Page 20425]]

The SEMS program and regulations fall under the authority of BSEE.

Summary of Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to the proposed rule, BSEE received 35 sets of comments 
from oil and gas companies (operators and contractors), industry 
associations, environmental organizations, and individuals. In the 
following section, we first address the general comments on the rule. 
These are followed by a Section-by-Section discussion of comments, 
including any changes made to the final rule based on comments. 
Comments that are not related to the proposed rule or that are outside 
the scope of this rulemaking are not addressed. All of the comments 
received are posted on www.regulations.gov, under docket number BOEM-
2011-0003.

General Comments

    Comment: A commenter suggested that BSEE reopen the comment period 
and hold a workshop to address the following issues:
    (1) The BSEE's vision for the regulatory program.
    (2) The BSEE's strategy for achieving that vision.
    (3) Migrating to a goal-setting regime that is less prescriptive, 
with fewer approvals.
    (4) How SEMS ``fits'' with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
    (5) How the SEMS regulations compare to other international 
regulatory regimes.
    (6) Experience with implementation of SEMS to date.
    Several other commenters also requested more time to comment on the 
proposed rule.
    Response: The BSEE does not believe it is necessary to allow more 
time to comment on the proposed rule. In the future, we intend to hold 
a workshop on SEMS to address implementation and other issues raised in 
the comments. The BSEE actively engages with members of the industry, 
non-government organizations, academia, trade organizations, standards 
committees, and members of the public to develop regulations and 
standards, and to encourage joint participation in research and 
workshops. All of these activities are used to implement BSEE's vision 
for safe, clean, and efficient OCS operations.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed rule appeared to 
indicate that a company's size does not matter in relation to safety, 
and that adverse consequences from an incident are the same regardless 
of the operator's size. Instead, the commenter felt that smaller 
operators have fewer financial resources compared to large operators. 
The commenter stated that in the event of a catastrophic incident, a 
small operator is more likely to seek bankruptcy protection and walk 
away from the problem than a larger operator. Additionally, the 
commenter believes the main lesson to be learned from the Deepwater 
Horizon explosion and oil spill is that the risk of another event stems 
from managing high pressure wells, not from operating in deepwater.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees that a small operator is more likely 
to walk away from a catastrophic incident than a larger operator. We 
stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that ``adverse consequences 
in the event of incidents are the same regardless of the operator's 
size.'' This statement reflects BSEE's concern that small, mid-size, or 
large OCS oil and gas operators working on the shelf or in deepwater on 
high-pressure or normal pressure wells can cause damage and loss of 
life resulting from an oil spill, fire, or explosion. Regarding small 
companies that declare bankruptcy, the OCSLA authorizes DOI to require 
lessees to provide financial assurance to cover their decommissioning 
obligations. Should a small operator attempt to avoid liability for a 
catastrophic incident, existing statutes govern the agency's rights in 
that proceeding.
    Comment: Some commenters urged BSEE to withdraw the proposed 
rulemaking and reconsider its approach toward using SEMS on the OCS. 
One commenter stated that the existing BSEE SEMS rule is flawed and 
expressed concern over the UWA, the definition of facility, contractor 
responsibilities and liabilities, and jurisdictional boundaries. A wide 
range of industry commenters also raised concerns regarding the 
jurisdiction of other Federal agencies. The commenters believed that 
the scope of the SEMS program should not be defined by Memoranda of 
Agreement (MOAs) and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) among Federal 
agencies. There is concern that ``unscrupulous'' parties may ``severely 
restrict'' their SEMS programs based on jurisdictional issues. Some 
commenters believe that the phrase ``activities that are regulated 
under BSEE jurisdiction'' creates ``considerable and unacceptable 
ambiguity.'' Some commenters believe that problems caused by 
jurisdictional questions can be avoided if SEMS takes a ``holistic'' 
approach to OCS safety regulations.
    Response: The BSEE has authority under the OCSLA to regulate safety 
and environmental matters associated with oil and gas development. 
Accordingly, BSEE's authority under the OCSLA is not limited simply 
because BSEE authority coincides with the authority of another 
government agency. In a number of areas, BSEE co-regulates offshore 
activity with other Federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard and EPA. 
None of the provisions of this rule affects or modifies the authority 
of these other agencies. The BSEE uses MOUs and MOAs with other 
agencies to coordinate the regulatory activities for specific types of 
equipment and processes, but these interagency agreements do not limit 
the scope of the SEMS program that must be maintained by the operator 
under these regulations. An operator's SEMS program should address all 
oil and gas activities subject to a lease and should not be limited to 
the components listed in the interagency agreements. To further 
clarify, BSEE has removed the phrase ``activities that are regulated 
under BSEE jurisdiction'' from the final rule.
    The concerns raised by the comments about UWA, definitions, and 
potential contractor liabilities are addressed in the Section-by-
Section discussion. The BSEE also addresses certain minor editorial 
flaws and redundancies in the existing regulation. For example, Sec.  
250.1920 now consolidates the audit frequency information into one 
subsection in order to improve readability.
    Comment: Another commenter expressed the view that the proposed 
rule has many elements requiring hazard recognition and formal 
reporting of unsafe conditions. Therefore, the commenter urged BSEE to 
consider including a requirement for operators to conduct and submit an 
independent, anonymous survey that validates the status of the existing 
safety culture, at least once every three years. The commenter believed 
that this proposed survey would provide evidence for how well the 
components of work stoppage, employee empowerment, employee 
participation, etc., have become engrained within the operating 
culture. The commenter stated that the results would provide further 
opportunities for initiating action planning and remedial measures. The 
commenter asserted that it would represent a viable ``link'' between 
the SEMS provisions and the reality of how those SEMS components need 
to be incorporated within a healthy safety culture.
    Response: The BSEE sees value in the comment concerning a periodic 
submission of a ``survey'' to validate the

[[Page 20426]]

existence and status of a safety culture within an operator's 
organization. The BSEE will take this comment under consideration for 
future guidance or future rulemaking. Such a requirement could be put 
into effect by BSEE in the future.

Contractor Safety and Environmental Management Systems Program

    Comment: Several comments stated that BSEE should better address 
the role of contractors in the SEMS program. There were suggestions to 
clarify the regulation regarding the role of contractors in improving 
safety and environmental performance. The comments also proposed that 
contractors should have their own separate SEMS and it should not be 
the operator's role to ensure that contractor employees are trained in 
the operator's SEMS program.
    Response: In response to these comments, BSEE is evaluating the 
possibility of requiring contractors to have a SEMS program while 
performing operations on the OCS. The BSEE may address this concept 
through future rulemaking. Currently, all personnel, which includes 
contractors, must be trained in accordance with the requirements of 
Sec.  250.1915. Operators must verify that contractors are trained in 
accordance with Sec.  250.1915 prior to performing a job. In accordance 
with Sec.  250.1914, operators must ensure that contractors have their 
own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate 
sections of an operator's SEMS program. Operators and contractors must 
document an agreement on appropriate contractor safety and 
environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work 
at an operator's facilities.
    Comment: The commenter stated that BSEE needs to explore the 
possibility of developing regulations that ensure worker and contractor 
qualifications (as in the Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by 
Pipeline (49 CFR part 195, subpart G)) in addition to including 
training requirements in the SEMS program. The commenter also stated 
that it is not enough for workers to be trained; the workers need to 
prove their capabilities and document the proof.
    Response: A SEMS program, under the existing regulations, must 
ensure that all personnel are trained in accordance with their duties 
and responsibilities to work safely and are aware of potential 
environmental impacts. Because technologies and practices change, and 
circumstances are diverse, BSEE favors a flexible approach. In the 
future, BSEE may consider a more prescriptive approach for establishing 
worker qualifications and evidence of capabilities.

Process Safety

    Comment: A few commenters stated that BSEE should explore the 
question of whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 
(OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) program will provide a superior 
approach to attaining process safety compared to the SEMS approach. The 
commenters stated that if PSM data shows a significant and meaningful 
reduction in process safety accidents, BSEE should consider 
implementing PSM requirements or incorporate elements of such an 
approach into future SEMS rulemakings.
    Another commenter stated that the proposed regulations do not fully 
draw upon the learning and best practices from PSM to handle low-
probability, high-consequence events that often become large disasters. 
The commenter believes that process safety requires more than a SEMS 
program and the new elements. The commenter proposed that BSEE 
regulations should also address safety critical elements and 
performance requirements for those elements. Additionally, the 
commenter stated that BSEE regulations should ensure that barrier 
management for all operations is identified, described, and managed 
based upon process safety management principles. The commenter asserted 
that such requirements would effectively address the low-probability, 
high-consequence events that management systems do not fully consider.
    Response: The BSEE evaluated the OSHA, Process safety management of 
highly hazardous chemicals, 29 CFR 1910.119 requirements. The elements 
in the PSM requirements are very similar to those included in SEMS 
(e.g., training, management of change, and auditing). However, BSEE 
determined that the SEMS approach is more appropriate because it was 
developed specifically for the offshore oil and gas industry and 
therefore addresses processes unique to OCS operations.
    The term ``critical equipment'' is used in the API RP 75 (defined 
in Appendix D) and Subpart S. A SEMS program addresses all types of 
operations and equipment on a variety of OCS facilities, including low-
probability, high-consequence events and high-probability, low-
consequence events. The SEMS requirement that the operator identify the 
``critical equipment'' on a facility and the requirement to conduct a 
hazards analysis are methods to prioritize hazards (low-probability, 
high-consequence events and high-probability, low-consequence events) 
and develop appropriate mitigation measures to address the identified 
hazards.

Goal Setting

    Comment: Several commenters stated that BSEE should establish a 
broader, ``holistic'' regulatory strategy for offshore facilities that 
is based on setting goals. As part of the overall strategy to 
transition to a goal-setting regulatory culture, the commenters stated 
that SEMS should be structured as a goal-setting safety management 
regime. One commenter elaborated on this suggestion by adding that SEMS 
should be based on operator (not regulator) responsibility, risk 
management (not prescription), and regulatory oversight (not regulator 
command-and-control). This commenter also stated that BSEE should allow 
operators to establish audit programs, JSA criteria, employee input 
programs, stop work procedures, and facility management procedures that 
are best suited to their organization and culture. Also, the commenter 
stated that BSEE should encourage operators to follow practices that 
are best for their particular circumstances, and monitor the operator's 
performance to evaluate their success.
    Response: The SEMS approach, consistent with API RP 75, integrates 
a variety of safety management initiatives that give the operator the 
flexibility to comply with regulatory requirements. Examples of similar 
provisions are: Subpart O performance-based training regulations; 
Subpart A, the use of alternate procedures or equipment at Sec.  
250.141; and the use of customizable field rules in Subparts D, E, and 
F. In Sec.  250.141, BSEE allows an operator to propose the use of new 
operational procedures or equipment not already addressed in our 
regulations. These ``alternate'' procedures and technologies provide a 
mechanism for the industry to develop and use alternate procedures and 
technologies, with approval from BSEE as long as the proposed alternate 
procedures and technologies provide an equivalent of higher of safety 
and environmental protection on the OCS. Additionally, Sec.  250.463 
(field drilling), Sec.  250.512 (field well-completion), and Sec.  
250.612 (field well-workover) requirements allow us to establish rules 
specific to a particular field that are different from what is required 
in the regulations if local geologic and engineering information show 
they are appropriate.

Overly Prescriptive

    Comment: One commenter stated that many elements of the proposed 
rule

[[Page 20427]]

were overly prescriptive, and unnecessarily and inappropriately 
restricted options for managing OCS activities. The commenter also 
viewed the existing SEMS rule as overly prescriptive. The commenter 
stated that a major contributor in this regard was BSEE's substitution 
of the word ``shall'' for ``should'' regarding the incorporation of API 
RP 75 into Subpart S. Commenters urged BSEE to make the regulations 
less prescriptive by completely re-writing 30 CFR part 250, subpart S, 
and the means by which it has incorporated the provisions of API RP 75 
into Subpart S.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with this comment in part. Regarding the 
prescriptive nature of the regulations as they incorporate API RP 75, 
we have removed the ``should''/``shall'' language from Sec.  250.1904. 
This language has also been removed from Sec.  250.198(a)(3) under the 
recently published rule on Increased Safety Measures for Energy 
Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (77 FR 50856).
    The overarching mechanism used by an operator to develop and 
implement its SEMS program provides avenues of flexibility, including 
the following:
    1. The operator may apply the JSA to recurring events;
    2. The operator has the freedom to select the individual with UWA; 
and
    3. The operator can determine training frequency, training 
methodology, and the training vendor, except in specific cases where 
certain training requirements are specified in Section 7 of API RP 75.
    The BSEE has removed prescriptive language related to training from 
proposed Sec. Sec.  250.1911(c) and 250.1933(g). There is no need to 
prescribe each aspect of an operator's SEMS training program or how 
frequently an operator must conduct periodic training. The final 
regulatory text in Sec.  250.1915 is sufficient to cover the detailed 
training requirements for an operator's SEMS programs. The introductory 
language establishes that all personnel must be trained to perform work 
safely. These changes allow operators to take responsibility for 
implementing their own training in accordance with the regulations.
    The main element of prescription that was added to Subpart S was 
the requirement to conduct a JSA for all tasks addressed in a SEMS. As 
discussed in the preamble of the proposed rule, JSAs are not covered in 
API RP 75. Nevertheless, SEMS maintains performance flexibility as 
evidenced by the discretion granted to operators to develop their EPP 
and SWA programs. We also eliminated the requirement that personnel 
must be given cards with BSEE hotline number for reporting unsafe 
working conditions.

Suggested Improvements for BSEE

    Comment: One commenter indicated that BSEE needs to make 
significant operational changes and increase oversight and inspection 
capabilities. The commenter also believes that BSEE should ensure a 
fundamental transformation in the offshore industry's safety culture.
    Response: Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, BSEE 
has developed rulemakings to enhance safety and environmental 
protection and to increase BSEE oversight (e.g., the final rule on 
Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (77 FR 50856)). The BSEE is also currently developing 
other rulemakings to address items such as the design, manufacture, 
repair, testing, operational verification, and capabilities of blowout 
preventers; and production safety systems, lifecycle analysis, quality 
assurance, and safety device testing.
    The BSEE understands the importance of improving the safety culture 
across the OCS. The BSEE's intent in implementing the SEMS program is 
the development and implementation of a safety culture within an 
organization, which is a step to enhancing a safety culture throughout 
the entire industry. It is BSEE's intent to use this rulemaking as a 
step to enhance safety culture throughout industry.

International Regulators

    Comment: A few commenters suggested that BSEE should align itself 
better with its international peers. These commenters asserted that 
safety management is a regulatory approach, not an element of a 
prescriptive regulatory regime. They believe that implementing the SEMS 
program must be accompanied not with layers of new regulations and 
approvals, but with regulatory reform consistent with the international 
consensus. They would also like BSEE to explain how SEMS compares to 
the regulatory regimes of international regulators with established 
(e.g., Norway, United Kingdom (UK), and/or the Netherlands) and 
emerging (e.g., Australia) safety regulations.
    Response: The BSEE actively participates in the International 
Regulators Forum and shares lessons learned among the Forum's member 
countries. The BSEE also participates in the Arctic Council's 
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group. The 
DOI Secretary is committed to the Arctic Council's initiatives, and 
BSEE supports the Secretary's commitment by contributing expertise at 
PAME meetings and conferences.
    Regarding other international regulators, there are significant 
differences between BSEE's SEMS program and the use of management 
systems by other regulatory bodies across the globe. The legal, 
political, and operational environments vary from one country to 
another. Some of these differences include: the number of offshore 
facilities in one area as compared to another; the structure of the 
various operating companies (multinational, small, independent); and 
whether and how labor or trade unions are involved in the different 
areas. These and other distinctions make it difficult to directly 
compare OCS management systems (i.e., SEMS) with those used in the 
United Kingdom (i.e., Safety Case), Norway, Australia, and/or the 
Netherlands. All of these regulatory regimes have tailored the use of 
management systems to the specific local conditions prevalent in their 
respective areas.

Compliance Metrics

    Comment: A commenter stated that BSEE has expressed a desire to 
have a risk-based inspection system and to ``develop metrics that 
demonstrate industry's degree of compliance with new regulatory 
requirements.'' Also, the commenter stated that the splitting of BOEMRE 
into BOEM and BSEE has created a departmentally mandated firewall 
between the Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs and the Economics 
Division (which is in BOEM), removing the technical and statistical 
expertise from the Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs in BSEE.
    Response: We believe that BSEE possesses the necessary expertise to 
develop the appropriate metrics that will demonstrate industry's degree 
of compliance. We generate annual incident statistics from reports 
received from OCS operators in accordance with the Incident Reporting 
Rule (71 FR 19640, April 17, 2006) and publish this information on our 
Web site. We will determine industry's degree of compliance with the 
SEMS regulatory requirements by conducting, participating in, or 
directing audits of operators' SEMS programs. We are currently working 
with the Center for Offshore Safety (COS) workgroups on developing 
indicators to gauge industry OCS performance and would appreciate 
additional ideas related to metrics (i.e., lagging or leading) from 
other stakeholders. The BSEE continues to

[[Page 20428]]

work with BOEM on functions that have interdependence.

Increased Financial Burden

    Comment: A commenter stated that increased regulation and the 
resulting enforcement significantly underestimate the regulatory burden 
and energy costs to consumers. The commenter also stated that current 
standards and self-regulation by Gulf of Mexico operators remain 
satisfactory. The commenter asserted that government regulations will 
ultimately hinder innovations that increase safety and productivity.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees with this comment. The SEMS program is 
a safety management system based on an industry standard that promotes 
innovation regarding operator safety. The commenter did not provide 
additional information to support the assertion that BSEE 
underestimated the regulatory burden or any increased costs. The 
Regulatory Impact Analysis assesses the costs of this rulemaking and 
provides further details. We consider this regulation critical to 
ensuring continuous safety improvements on the OCS.

Enhanced Drilling Safety

    Comment: One commenter suggested that these SEMS revisions 
explicitly state that U.S. flagged vessels covered by a Document of 
Compliance with the International Safety Management (ISM) program be 
considered substantially equivalent to the SEMS requirements without 
any further documentation.
    Response: The BSEE is aware of the differences in scope between the 
SEMS program and the requirements mandated within the ISM program. 
There is nothing in this rule preventing the operator from including 
ISM requirements in its SEMS program.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Final Rule

    The industry trade organizations (e.g., Offshore Operators 
Committee, American Petroleum Institute (API), and International 
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC)) and OCS operators submitted 
extensive lists of specific comments for most sections of the proposed 
rule. We responded to some of their comments in the General Comments 
section. The following addresses more specific comments not already 
discussed.

Definitions. (Sec.  250.105)

    Section 250.105 now contains a definition of ``facility'' for 
Subpart S purposes.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that there is no definition of 
``facility'' in the existing Sec.  250.105 that is applicable to 
Subpart S, nor is this term defined within Subpart S.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. The term ``facility'' was 
defined in Sec.  250.1911, which stated how this term is used 
throughout Subpart S. However, BSEE agrees with the comment about Sec.  
250.105. Therefore, to eliminate any confusion over this term, BSEE 
removed the definition of facility from Sec.  250.1911 and added it in 
the definition of facility under Sec.  250.105.

Reports and Investigations of Possible Violations (Sec.  250.193 
Includes Certain Language From Proposed Sec.  250.1933)

    The BSEE moved the language describing the process by which 
personnel may report unsafe working conditions from proposed Sec.  
250.1933 to Sec.  250.193. This change consolidates the reporting 
process for any possible violation into one section. The BSEE retained 
the language regarding operator procedural requirements for unsafe 
working conditions in Sec.  250.1933. The BSEE also changed the term 
``apparent violation'' to ``possible violation'' throughout the section 
and in the title. Under the final rule, personnel only need to identify 
that a violation may have occurred; they are not required to know 
whether a specific legal requirement was actually violated in order to 
report unsafe conditions. However, a report should contain sufficient 
information to establish a reasonable basis for BSEE to determine 
whether a violation or other hazardous or unsafe working condition 
exists.

Documents Incorporated by Reference (Sec.  250.198)

    The BSEE is incorporating three Center for Offshore Safety (COS) 
standards and one International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 
standard at Sec.  250.198. These standards address requirements for 
accreditation bodies, qualifications for audit teams and auditors, 
requirements for auditing, and requirements for accreditation of audit 
service providers. The BSEE believes these standards will substantially 
improve the SEMS auditing process.

Must I have a SEMS program? (Sec.  250.1900)

    The BSEE removed the deadline of November 15, 2011, for having a 
SEMS program that complies with Subpart S because that date has passed. 
However, removing the date does not excuse operators in existence 
before November 15, 2011, from compliance with the rule then in place. 
Removing the date simply removes reference in the regulatory text to a 
date that is now passed. The BSEE will take enforcement action against 
any operators that were operating before November 15, 2011, whose SEMS 
programs were not in compliance with Subpart S by November 15, 2011. 
Furthermore, as of that date, we expect all new operators to be in 
compliance with Subpart S from the first day of operation.
    The BSEE is revising paragraph (a) to make clear that Subpart S 
takes precedence over any conflicting language in the documents 
incorporated by reference. Additionally, the BSEE removed paragraph (b) 
because it is redundant with Sec.  250.1929.

What is the goal of my SEMS program? (Sec.  250.1901)

    The BSEE received a comment concerning the operations that may be 
performed by a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) and whether or not 
decommissioning must be covered by a SEMS program. The BSEE agrees that 
this issue needs clarification, and has revised Sec.  250.1901(a) 
accordingly. Decommissioning is encompassed within the meaning of 
operation. The SEMS program addresses facilities and all stages of OCS 
operations, from start to finish, which includes decommissioning. This 
requirement applies to all facilities, including MODUs when they are 
attached to the seabed.

What must I include in my SEMS program? (Sec.  250.1902)

    The BSEE developed additional requirements for Subpart S in this 
rulemaking. The final rule revised this section to include references 
to the following new sections and requirements: SWA (Sec.  250.1930); 
UWA (Sec.  250.1931); EPP (Sec.  250.1932); and guidelines for 
reporting unsafe working conditions (Sec.  250.1933). These are 
additional requirements that must be included in an operator's SEMS 
program.

Definitions (Sec.  250.1903)

    The BSEE added a list of acronyms and the following five new 
definitions: accreditation body (AB), audit service provider (ASP), 
corrective action plan (CAP), personnel, and ultimate work authority 
(UWA). The CAP definition was added to further increase the readability 
and clarity of the SEMS auditing requirements. The definition for MODU 
was removed from the final rule. The BSEE removed the definitions for 
Management and Designated and Qualified Personnel (DQP).
    Comment: Several comments stated that the MODU definition should be

[[Page 20429]]

consistent with the USCG's MODU definition.
    Response: The BSEE removed the definition of MODU from the final 
rule. The term MODU had been defined to mean a vessel capable of 
engaging in drilling, well workover, well completion, decommissioning, 
temporary and permanent abandonment, or well servicing operations for 
exploring or exploiting subsea oil, gas, or other mineral resources. 
The BSEE removed the definition of MODU because BSEE believes it is 
already clearly understood among operators that MODUs include vessels 
that are involved in other operations besides drilling.
    Comment: Other comments stated that the definition of Management 
appears to be intended for the proposed new Sec.  250.1932 and is not 
necessary as a definition in the regulations.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with the comment and has removed the 
definition of Management from Sec.  250.1903. Since BSEE removed the 
definition of Management, the EPP requirements under Sec.  250.1932 
were altered to reflect this change. Removal of this term allows the 
operator to decide who is considered management for the purposes of its 
SEMS program. The BSEE will hold the operator responsible for complying 
with its own determination of management as part of any SEMS audits 
conducted on the operator's program.
    Comment: It was suggested that the definition of Designated and 
qualified personnel be removed.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with this comment and made several 
changes to Sec.  250.1902 to enhance the SEMS auditing requirements. 
The BSEE removed the definition of Designated and qualified personnel 
from Sec.  250.1903 and all other sections within Subpart S. Operators 
are now required to have their SEMS program audited by an accredited 
ASP. The BSEE must approve the AB that accredits the ASP.
    Comment: A question was asked if the definitions of job and work 
were required in an operator's SEMS program.
    Response: The BSEE does not believe the terms job and work need to 
be defined for the purposes of Subpart S. These are terms commonly used 
by industry and BSEE does not feel there will be any confusion. 
However, an operator may define either or both of these terms in its 
SEMS program if it sees value in doing so.

Documents Incorporated by Reference (Sec.  250.1904 Current Section 
Title) Special Instructions (Sec.  250.1904 Final Rule Title)

    The BSEE replaced the title and language of Sec.  250.1904 because 
the existing language in Sec.  250.1904 was redundant with Sec.  
250.198. The new title is Special Instructions. The new language 
clarifies the terminology used in the COS and the ISO documents 
incorporated by reference for purposes of these regulations and allows 
them to be applied across the OCS. For Subpart S purposes, references 
in the COS documents to deepwater means all water depths, and 
references to COS member companies means all operators. For Subpart S 
purposes, references in the ISO/IEC (International Electrotechnical 
Commission) document to conformity assessment body (CAB) means an ASP.

What hazards analysis criteria must my SEMS program meet? (Sec.  
250.1911)

    The BSEE now requires the operator to prepare, conduct, and approve 
JSAs for OCS activities identified or discussed in its SEMS program. 
The JSA is a tool used to identify risks to personnel associated with 
their job activities. The JSAs are also used to determine the 
appropriate risk mitigation measures.
    The BSEE has added phrases related to environmental hazards and 
impacts to this section in order to ensure regulatory consistency 
throughout this section and Subpart S in general. The task level 
analysis should mirror that conducted at the facility level under Sec.  
250.1911(a)(1)(iv). This paragraph requires consideration of impacts to 
the human and marine environment. Therefore, BSEE added the phrases 
environmental hazards and environmental impacts to Sec. Sec.  
250.1911(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), respectively. These additions are 
consistent with the management of change requirement in Sec.  
250.1912(d)(2). The overall goal of SEMS under Sec.  250.1901(a) 
requires operators to include impacts and environmental hazards in 
their SEMS programs.
    The addition of these environmental references is also necessary in 
order to properly explain the context in which a single JSA may be used 
for recurring activities. The person in charge must consider several 
factors in making this determination, including changes in personnel, 
procedures, equipment, and/or environmental conditions associated with 
the activity. In accordance with Sec.  250.1915, the operator must 
provide training for all personnel on how to recognize and identify 
hazards and how to develop and implement JSAs prior to performing a job 
on the facility.
    The BSEE removed the phrase ``* * * that are regulated under BSEE 
jurisdiction * * *'' from paragraphs (b) and (c) in response to 
comments received on this subject and as further discussed in the 
General Comments section.
    Comments: Several comments were received concerning JSA training 
requirements, as well as questions regarding who has the authority to 
approve and sign a JSA. Commenters also stated that the entire JSA 
process is too demanding and onerous. Commenters were primarily 
concerned about the proposed rule's clarity in relation to JSAs. They 
believe that the JSA should not include all personnel affected by the 
activity being conducted.
    Response: The BSEE believes the proposed modifications to the JSA 
requirement will lead to safer OCS operations. The component of the 
training focused on JSA development and implementation should improve 
an operator's and contractor's ability to perform an activity in a safe 
manner. In addition, training will provide personnel a better 
understanding of how a SEMS program addresses particular hazards. The 
final rule does require the JSA to include all personnel involved with 
the job activity being conducted. The personnel performing the job must 
be aware of the hazards and sign the JSA. The immediate supervisor of 
the crew actually performing the job needs to conduct the JSA, sign the 
JSA, and make sure all personnel participating in the job sign the JSA. 
The individual designated as being in charge of the facility by the 
operator must approve and sign all JSAs. Having dual levels of 
involvement/approval in the JSA process provides an extra level of 
safety.
    Providing signatures is an indication by the individuals signing 
the JSA that they are aware of the hazards and will adhere to the 
recommended preventions and mitigations while performing and/or 
supervising the job. This requirement will help minimize the 
possibility of safety or environmental issues. Requiring signatures 
from all parties is appropriate. The BSEE has found that not performing 
a JSA, conducting an incomplete JSA, or not having all parties involved 
in the task participate in the JSA process has contributed to accidents 
or Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs). The BSEE believes that requiring 
signatures on the JSA will ensure a better understanding of the proper 
way to perform operations and will better ensure that all personnel 
involved in the job understand the risks, procedures,

[[Page 20430]]

and expectations of the task at hand before initiating work.
    The BSEE has accepted the commenter's recommendation to remove the 
phrase affected by from the JSA section of the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that electronic signatures should 
be accepted for JSAs.
    Response: The BSEE agrees. An electronic signature on the JSA is an 
acceptable alternative to a written signature, as long as the 
operator's SEMS program states that electronic signatures are 
acceptable.
    Comment: A commenter recommended revising the proposed Sec.  
250.1911(b) to read as follows: ``The JSA must include all personnel 
involved with the job activity.''
    Response: The BSEE agrees with this comment and has made this 
revision.

What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program for safe work 
practices and contractor selection? (Sec.  250.1914)

    To ensure consistent language throughout Subpart S, BSEE updated 
the language in this section to replace references to operator and 
lessee with you or your.

What training criteria must be in my SEMS program? (Sec.  250.1915)

    The BSEE now requires a SEMS program to establish and implement a 
training program so that all personnel are trained in accordance with 
their duties and responsibilities to work safely and are aware of 
environmental impacts. Training must address operating procedures 
(Sec.  250.1913), safe work practices (Sec.  250.1914), emergency 
response and control measures (Sec.  250.1918), SWA (Sec.  250.1930), 
UWA (Sec.  250.1931), EPP (Sec.  250.1932), and reporting unsafe 
working conditions (Sec.  250.1933); how to recognize and identify 
hazards (Sec.  250.1911); and how to construct and implement JSAs 
(Sec.  250.1911).
    Comment: One commenter stated that to reduce the ambiguity of the 
present and proposed provisions of Subpart S regulations, BSEE should 
articulate what training in a MODU owner's SEMS program is required for 
various rig activities and systems.
    Response: As stated in Sec.  250.1915, an operator's SEMS program 
must establish and implement a training program so that all personnel 
who perform activities on the OCS, including personnel on a MODU 
performing activities on the OCS, are trained in accordance with their 
duties to work safely and are aware of potential environmental impacts. 
An SWA training program will be required on a MODU if these workers are 
involved with a task or job. The required training imposed on the 
operator must be in accordance with Sec.  250.1915 and API RP 75.

What are the auditing requirements for my SEMS program? (Sec.  
250.1920)

    The BSEE's current regulations require operators to conduct a 
comprehensive SEMS audit within a 3-year cycle. This final rule 
clarifies that the cycle begins on the start date of each audit 
(including the initial implementation audit) and ends on the start date 
of the next audit. An operator's SEMS program must be audited by an 
accredited ASP according to the requirements of Subpart S. Operators 
must include the ASP's qualifications in their audit plans. Operators 
must also provide us with a copy of the audit report and their CAP. We 
extended the deadline for submitting audit reports and CAPs from within 
30 days of the audit completion date to within 60 days of the audit 
completion date in this final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the rule should retain the 
option to allow designated and qualified personnel to lead an audit. 
The commenter stated that there are not enough skilled and 
knowledgeable independent third party (I3P) auditors available to 
conduct these audits. In addition, the commenter stated that using 
designated and qualified personnel ensures that operator audits are 
conducted by personnel with the highest knowledge of the operator's 
SEMS program.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees in part with this comment. The option 
for the operator to use designated and qualified operator personnel to 
lead an audit was removed in this final rule from Subpart S and 
replaced with an accredited ASP. Consistent audits performed by well 
trained and experienced auditors are critical to ensuring that SEMS 
programs are successfully implemented and maintained on the OCS. As a 
result, we are adopting industry best practices related to SEMS audits 
and auditor qualifications. Industry is already voluntarily adopting 
these practices in many deepwater operations. We believe that the 
application of these requirements to all OCS operations will result in 
more robust and consistent SEMS audits.
    To ensure that a sufficient pool of auditors is available, the 
compliance date for this audit requirement is January 1, 2015, over 2 
years from the date this rule will become effective. This compliance 
date gives the industry sufficient time to develop an adequate number 
of qualified SEMS auditors.

What qualifications must the ASP meet? (Sec.  250.1921)

    The BSEE added this section to include the minimum qualifications 
that the ASP must meet. These qualifications were developed with 
consideration of guidelines issued by the COS. The ASP must be 
accredited by a BSEE-approved AB.
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the exclusion of those 
individuals already involved in program development will lead to the 
use of less qualified individuals who may not be equipped with the 
knowledge to properly evaluate the effectiveness of the SEMS program. 
The commenters believe that imposing these minimum qualifications could 
greatly reduce the potential for positive safety and environmental 
gains expected from full SEMS implementation.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with this comment in part and altered the 
final rule to mitigate this concern. Operators are now required to 
audit their SEMS program by using audit teams from an accredited ASP. 
The prohibition against qualified operator personnel participating in 
the audit was removed. Instead, the rule now requires that only the 
audit team lead must be an ASP employee, representative, or agent, and 
must not have any affiliation with the operator. The remaining team 
members may either be operator personnel or that of the ASP. This 
option gives the operator the flexibility to utilize in-house expertise 
on the audit team. This rule adopts the latest industry standards 
related to auditor qualifications.

What qualifications must an AB meet? (Sec.  250.1922)

    The BSEE has eliminated the I3P process in this final rule and 
added this section to implement a new process to handle approving 
auditor teams. The BSEE will now approve ABs which will accredit ASPs 
that have the necessary expertise and training to perform SEMS audits. 
The AB will be required to satisfy the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011. 
The ISO/IEC 17011 standard provides international guidelines for ABs.
    Comment: Several commenters support the concept of utilizing I3P 
auditors to assess SEMS compliance. One commenter stated that it is 
inconsistent with safety management principles for BSEE to approve 
I3Ps. Commenters believe auditors should be approved through the API 
COS program.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with this comment. The I3Ps were replaced 
by

[[Page 20431]]

ASPs. The BSEE will not review and approve audit teams. The BSEE will 
rely on ABs such as the COS to determine which ASPs meet the necessary 
qualifications and experience to perform SEMS audits. The BSEE will 
approve and evaluate ABs responsible for ASP certification. The BSEE 
has added new sections to the final rule to address the role of an ASP 
(Sec.  250.1921) and an AB (Sec.  250.1922). The rule also defines the 
functions and standards of the ABs regarding the accreditation process. 
Operators will be able to choose from a pool of accredited ASPs. 
Implementing the AB and ASP structure will ensure consistent 
measurement of SEMS performance and resolution of safety deficiencies 
within companies and across industry.

[Reserved] (Sec.  250.1923)

How will BSEE determine if my SEMS program is effective? (Sec.  
250.1924)

    The BSEE requires the operator to conduct SEMS audits using an 
accredited ASP. The BSEE, or its authorized representative, may 
evaluate any and all aspects of your SEMS program as outlined in 
Subpart S. These evaluations or visits may be random or may be based 
upon operator or contractor performance.

May BSEE direct me to conduct additional audits? (Sec.  250.1925)

    This section explains the circumstances under which BSEE may direct 
operators to conduct an audit and the timeframe for submitting audit 
reports for BSEE-directed audits. The BSEE updated this section to 
replace references to I3P with ASP and to ensure consistency with the 
new language and requirements of Sec. Sec.  250.1920 and 250.1921. 
Additionally, BSEE removed existing Sec.  250.1925(b), stating that 
audit findings may be used in enforcement actions, because it was 
redundant (also expressed in Sec.  250.1927). Removing paragraph (b) 
does not affect BSEE's ability to use audit findings to enforce 
regulations.

[Reserved] Sec.  250.1926

    This section was replaced with Sec.  250.1921.

What are my recordkeeping and documentation requirements? (Sec.  
250.1928)

    For documenting JSAs and SWA procedures, records must be kept 
onsite for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite 
for 30 days or until the operator releases the MODU, whichever comes 
first. The BSEE has removed from this section the requirements for 
training on SWA policies and a review of SWA procedures as a part of 
all meetings where the primary topic applies to facility safety, 
although the SWA procedures still must be reviewed at those meetings 
under Sec.  250.1930(e).
    Comment: One commenter stated that not all facilities have the 
capability to maintain records. Therefore, the commenter suggested that 
the language should allow records to be maintained at the nearest field 
office where such records are maintained.
    Response: In existing Sec.  250.1928(a), all SEMS program documents 
must be maintained at an onshore location. However, there are some 
records that BSEE believes are important to also maintain on the actual 
facility where the task, operation, or job has been performed. These 
records include those associated with SWA and JSA, as specified in 
Sec.  250.1928(b) and (f) of the final rule. If a facility does not 
have the capability to maintain onsite records for the period of time 
specified in the rule, then that facility needs to be modified. Records 
can be maintained electronically or as paper.
    Comment: A commenter stated that documentation cannot be expected 
to be retained on a MODU if the operator releases the MODU prior to the 
30-day required record-retention time frame.
    Response: The BSEE agrees. The BSEE modified the regulatory text to 
state that in the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite for 30 
days or until the operator releases the MODU, whichever comes first.

What must be included in my SEMS program for SWA? (Sec.  250.1930)

    This final rule will require operators to create and implement a 
SWA program. This program will ensure that all personnel are given the 
responsibility and authority to stop work when they witness an activity 
that creates an imminent risk or danger to the health or safety of an 
individual, to the public, or to the environment. The SWA will include 
authority to stop the specific task(s) or activity that poses an 
imminent risk or danger as defined in Sec.  250.1930(a).
    The rule provides further that individuals who receive notification 
to stop work must comply with the direction immediately. In supporting 
the safe execution of work and to promote a culture of safety at work, 
all personnel should have the responsibility and authority, without 
fear of reprisal, to stop work or decline to perform an assigned task 
when an immediate risk or danger exists. Personnel exercising the SWA 
should have discussions with co-workers, supervisors, and/or safety 
representatives to attempt to resolve any safety issues that are 
causing the imminent danger or risk. When a work stoppage occurs, the 
final rule provides that the person in charge of the conducted activity 
is responsible for ensuring the work is stopped in an orderly and safe 
manner. The final rule further provides that work may be resumed when 
the individual on the facility with UWA determines that the imminent 
danger or risk does not exist or no longer exists.
    The BSEE now requires the operator to conduct training on their SWA 
procedures as part of orientations for all new personnel who perform 
activities on the OCS. Additionally, the SWA procedures must be 
reviewed as part of all safety-focused meetings related to facilities 
subject to SEMS.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the SWA program should remain 
voluntary rather than mandatory. In past OCS accidents, the SWA program 
did not function as designed because personnel hesitated to implement 
this provision due to fear of reprisal.
    Response: The BSEE believes that a mandatory program is necessary 
to promote safety on the OCS and ensure that all personnel are aware of 
their responsibility to implement the program.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the individual with UWA on a 
facility may not always be the appropriate party to authorize the 
startup of activities following a work stoppage, and that the immediate 
task supervisor would be a more appropriate individual to make the 
decision.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. The individual with the UWA is 
responsible for overall facility safety and operations. Therefore, this 
individual is best qualified to make the decision regarding when a crew 
should return to work.
    Comment: There was a recommendation to remove the word drill at the 
end of proposed subsection (d) and make JSA plural.
    Response: The BSEE agrees and made the suggested corrections.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the term safety meetings is not 
defined and potentially includes non-safety topics when a brief 
introductory item related to safety is provided as a matter of course. 
The commenter suggested alternative language to this proposed 
subsection to read as follows: ``* * * review of the SWA policy must be 
completed as part of all meetings relating to facilities subject to 
SEMS for which safety is the primary topic of the meeting.''

[[Page 20432]]

    The commenter also proposed that the references in this section to 
SWA policy and program and SWA policy should be replaced with SWA 
procedures, which is the term used in Sec.  250.1930(a).
    Response: The BSEE agrees with the comments. The BSEE has always 
intended for this section to apply to meetings where safety is the 
primary subject. It is not intended that SEMS be included in meetings 
where safety is addressed as a passing or indirect reference. The 
regulatory text has been changed in Sec.  250.1930(e) to read as 
follows:
    ``You must conduct training on your SWA procedures as part of 
orientations for all new personnel who perform activities on the OCS. 
Additionally, the SWA procedures must be reviewed during meetings 
focusing on safety on facilities subject to this subpart.''
    Comment: Several commenters stated that most operations present 
some level of danger when they are being conducted. However, the 
commenters asserted that the risk can be managed and mitigated through 
the application of barriers or controls. The commenters stated that the 
draft text should therefore be qualified to show that SWA is applicable 
when a threat or danger is outside of the ordinary. Commenters also 
recommended changing the wording of SWA to not only address imminent 
risk or danger, but risk or danger that is also significant. The 
commenters recommend changing the wording to ``and witness any activity 
that creates an imminent and significant risk or danger.''
    Response: The BSEE agrees in part. Most OCS operations present a 
level of danger; however, the quantification of risk as significant is 
difficult. Consistent with the philosophy used in the development of 
the SEMS rule, BSEE made the determination that the operator has 
flexibility to determine which activities and associated risks need to 
be addressed in a SWA program; therefore, BSEE did not adopt this 
proposed change.

What must be included in my SEMS program for UWA? (Sec.  250.1931)

    The final rule now requires that an operator's SEMS program specify 
who has the UWA on the operator's facilities. This requirement could be 
met, for instance, by posting a notice in an easily accessible public 
location. The individual with UWA will be the individual on the 
facility with the final responsibility for making decisions. The 
individual with UWA has a key role in assuring that the operator's SEMS 
program is implemented in a manner that addresses personnel safety and 
environmental protection.
    Under the final rule, the operator's SEMS program must identify and 
designate the individual with the UWA on the facility. Only a single 
individual will have UWA at any given time, so operators must take into 
consideration all applicable USCG regulations that deal with 
designating a person in charge (in accordance with USCG regulations) of 
a MODU or a floating facility on the OCS.
    Section 250.1931(c) in the proposed rule was removed from the final 
rule. Since facility is now defined to include fixed and floating 
facilities, there was no need to explicitly state that the SEMS program 
applies to these facilities. The final rule requires that an operator 
implements all provisions of its SEMS program at all times on all 
facilities as defined in the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that for unmanned facilities where 
personnel may be working on a daily basis and not spending the night, 
the individual with UWA may not be located on that facility but located 
somewhere else (either offshore or onshore). To eliminate this 
confusion, the commenter recommended removing the requirement for the 
individual with UWA to be located on the facility.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. All facilities need to have an 
individual identified by the operator located onsite as the one with 
UWA. This requirement applies to unmanned facilities, as well as when a 
crew is performing work on those facilities.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed Subpart S 
regulation fails to address UWA in situations where multiple facilities 
are attached (e.g., a jack-up MODU performing drilling, well-workover, 
well-completion, or well-servicing operations over a fixed platform) or 
in close proximity to each other when conducting OCS operations.
    Response: The BSEE agrees. The intent of the regulation is to 
assure that the individual with UWA is identified in an operator's SEMS 
program for all facilities. Recognizing that compliance with this 
requirement is complex when facilities are attached or in close 
proximity to one another, this final rule clarifies that the operator 
needs to identify an individual with overall UWA for all the facilities 
involved in a common operation. The BSEE added the following sentence 
at the end of Sec.  250.1931(a), ``In the event that multiple 
facilities, including a MODU, are attached and working together or in 
close proximity to one another to perform an OCS operation, your SEMS 
program must identify the individual with the UWA over the entire 
operation, including all facilities.''
    Comment: One commenter stated that the bridging arrangements 
contemplated by the proposed API/IADC Technical Bulletin (TB) 97, Well 
Construction Interface Document, could be used in a flexible manner so 
as to assure the identification of the individual or position having 
UWA, both for stand-alone and for combined operations.
    Response: The BSEE will review the API/IADC TB 97 for possible 
incorporation by reference into our operating regulations when it is 
complete. For operations conducted from a MODU, TB 97 could present a 
viable alternative to meet the intent of the UWA regulation if this 
document is identified by an operator as being part of its SEMS 
program.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that rather than identify an 
individual person with UWA, identifying the position with UWA would be 
more appropriate. This specification would alleviate possible confusion 
associated with crew changes/rotations for the individual designated as 
having UWA. All personnel would know that a particular position retains 
the UWA rather than a specific individual.
    Response: The final rule states that the operator must identify the 
individual or position with UWA in its SEMS program. The operator has 
discretion to decide to identify an individual or a position with the 
UWA.
    Comment: One commenter suggested relocating the language in Sec.  
250.1931(c) to a different section of Subpart S.
    Response: This section does not apply to UWA and was removed from 
the rule because it is already covered in Sec.  250.1902. Because of 
this change, BSEE redesignated Sec.  250.1931(d) to now be Sec.  
250.1931(c).

What are my EPP requirements? (Sec.  250.1932)

    This rule now requires operators to develop and implement an EPP. 
Under this rule, an operator who performs regulated activities on the 
OCS will be required to consult with its employees regarding the 
development, implementation, and modification of its SEMS program. The 
operator will also have to develop a written plan of action regarding 
how appropriate onshore and offshore employees will participate in the 
SEMS program development and implementation. The operator will have to 
provide its personnel access to relevant sections of the SEMS program.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that this section is out of 
sequence with the overall compliance timeline of the

[[Page 20433]]

SEMS program. It requires employee participation in the plan with 
specific requirements for employee consultation and a written plan, 
among other things. The commenters noted that this new section will be 
effective at some future date that was not specified in the proposal. 
Therefore, the commenters asserted, it will be difficult to comply with 
this employee participation provision since the program elements will 
already be developed and implemented before the new EPP requirement is 
finalized and made effective. The commenters stated that industry 
believes that it could include affected employees in future SEMS 
modifications. Moreover, the commenters stated that appropriate 
employee participation will be evident through the audit of an 
operator's SEMS.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. The SEMS is a dynamic program. 
Requiring the operator to have an EPP will ensure that all employees 
understand and are involved in updating the SEMS program on an ongoing 
basis. The EPP adds value to the overall safety of OCS operations 
because this plan provides employees a stake in the development and 
implementation of an operator's SEMS program. This program engages 
employees in the field and in the office, bridging a significant gap 
between those actually performing OCS operations and those planning, 
managing, and/or monitoring these operations in an onshore office. The 
EPP requirements provide the operator with a significant amount of 
flexibility to tailor this plan to its specific needs. The final rule 
grants operators one year after the effective date to modify their 
recordkeeping policies to capture EPP information.
    Comment: One commenter stated that BSEE should require operators to 
fund worker safety expert(s) to participate in SEMS program development 
and implementation. The commenter stated that such experts should be 
selected by the workers, ideally by the applicable labor union.
    Response: Operators have complete discretion to hire outside 
experts, including those affiliated with labor unions, to assist in 
developing and/or implementing their SEMS program.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that BSEE revise this section 
so that you replaces management and your replaces their.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. These regulations require management 
to make the EPP available during an audit; either a BSEE-conducted 
audit or an ASP audit. The BSEE believes that management is the most 
appropriate party to be responsible for this duty. If the term 
management was replaced with the term ``you'' it would allow management 
to avoid this responsibility.
    However, BSEE agrees with the commenter's concern about who 
management is. As a result, BSEE has removed the definition of 
Management from Sec.  250.1903. Removing this definition allows the 
operator to decide who is considered management for the purposes of its 
EPP. The BSEE will hold the operator responsible to comply with its own 
determination of who management is as part of any SEMS audits conducted 
on its program.
    Comment: One commenter stated that an EPP is written into various 
sections of their overall SEMS. The commenter stated that the best way 
to prove that employees are participating in the SEMS program is 
through the audit process, as is already provided under existing rules. 
The commenter suggested that paragraph (d) be deleted.
    Response: The BSEE agrees in part. The BSEE has deleted paragraph 
(d) because it was redundant with Sec.  250.1924(b). However, per Sec.  
250.1924(b), BSEE still reserves the right to request a copy of the 
operator's SEMS program, which could include the EPP element. The BSEE 
may request these documents regardless of whether BSEE conducts an 
audit.
    Comment: One commenter stated that an EPP is necessary. However, 
the commenter stated, ``it is the responsibility of the employer to 
develop the SEMS for the operations to be conducted by his or her 
employees with their participation; this program must then be deemed 
acceptable by the entity controlling the work site in a manner that can 
be coordinated with other operations. A general consultation by all 
`management' (as defined in the regulations) is not needed, nor must it 
involve all `employees' at the work site.''
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. While an operator's management is 
tasked to include appropriate employees in the development and 
implementation of a SEMS, management must consult with all employees, 
including both the operator's office employees and employees working on 
offshore facilities.

What procedures must be included for reporting unsafe working 
conditions? (Sec.  250.1933--Certain language in Sec.  250.1933 was 
moved to Sec.  250.193 in the Final Rule)

    To address redundancies between the proposed language of this 
section and Sec.  250.193, certain requirements in the proposed rule 
were merged with Sec.  250.193. All personnel are permitted, under 
Sec.  250.193, to report to BSEE any hazardous or unsafe working 
conditions and any possible violations of an order, regulation, or any 
other provision of Federal law relating to offshore safety.
    Section 250.1933 of the final rule requires the operator to develop 
procedures for reporting unsafe working conditions. These procedures 
must take into account the existing USCG unsafe working conditions 
reporting requirements currently found at 33 CFR 142.7 and 46 CFR 
109.419.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested adding a requirement to the 
proposed language for personnel to first notify the operator of unsafe 
conditions so that such conditions can be addressed and remedied 
immediately.
    Response: The BSEE agrees with the comment but sees no need to 
revise the regulation. There is nothing in this requirement that 
prevents personnel from first notifying the operator of an unsafe 
working condition before they notify BSEE, regardless of whether the 
unsafe condition poses an imminent risk or danger. If personnel are 
conducting an activity and believe the activity poses an imminent risk 
or danger, they have the authority to stop work under Sec.  250.1930. 
Once SWA is activated, management on the facility will be aware of the 
unsafe condition.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the posting of a notice at 
each work location explaining personnel rights and contact information. 
These commenters prefer to post this information on their companies' 
Web site. They believe that posting the information on their Web sites 
will ensure that the information is readily accessible at all times 
from any location. They felt that the requirement to provide a card 
containing BSEE's telephone number for information and reporting of 
unsafe activities would not accomplish the intended purpose since these 
cards could be easily lost or misplaced. They believe the distribution 
of cards will also be very burdensome given the level of activity in 
the OCS and the constant changing of personnel. The commenters did not 
object to initial briefings or annual reminders regarding the reporting 
opportunity and will incorporate this into their current training 
requirements for personnel.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. The BSEE requires the posting 
of notices, convenient and understandable for workers, so that when 
personnel are working in a potentially unsafe environment, they have 
access to the information necessary to call or go online to notify BSEE 
anonymously of

[[Page 20434]]

questionable/unsafe activity. There is nothing in this requirement that 
prohibits an operator from developing a provision in its SEMS program 
that states this information must be posted on an operator's Web site 
in addition to posting a notice at the work site that contains the 
reporting information contained in Sec.  250.193.
    We agree with the comment concerning the distribution of cards. We 
have removed the requirement for personnel to carry an unsafe working 
condition notification card. Instead, a new BSEE Toll-free Safety 
Hotline number and reporting Web site were established and are listed 
in this regulation under Sec.  250.193.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed language in this 
section will apply to ``contractors providing domestic services to the 
lessee or other contractors, including domestic services include [sic] 
janitorial work, food and beverage service, laundry service, 
housekeeping, and similar activities * * *'' The commenter stated that 
the proposed language appears to be in conflict with existing Sec.  
250.1914(a), which excludes ``contractors providing domestic services 
to the lessee or other contractors'' from the definition of 
contractors.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. Section 250.193 allows all personnel, 
including contractors providing domestic services, to anonymously 
report to BSEE a possible violation of any order, standard, or 
regulation. The BSEE believes that the reporting requirement should 
include not only the contractors covered in Sec.  250.1914(a), but all 
contractors on a facility, including a MODU, since individuals involved 
with any level of responsibility, including housekeeping and janitorial 
duties, can witness an unsafe act.
    Comment: One commenter said that the training language in the 
proposed Sec.  250.1933 states that follow-up training must be provided 
``not less than once every 12 months thereafter.'' The proposed 
language of this subsection does not allow for a precise determination 
of the date by which follow-up training must be provided. The commenter 
asked whether 12 months means 365 days, or does it mean that the 
follow-up training must be conducted during the same month that the 
initial training was conducted, or either? Several commenters stated 
that the time allowed for initial training (within 30 days of 
employment) was inadequate and it should be increased.
    Response: The BSEE believes the existing training requirements in 
Sec.  250.1915 are adequate. Therefore, the training frequency 
requirements in the proposed Sec.  250.1933(g) have been removed from 
the final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed language of Sec.  
250.1933(g) and (h) only applies to employees and not to contractors. 
It is the commenter's understanding that the intent is to limit the 
applicability of these proposed subsections to operator employees.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. Proposed Sec.  250.1933(g) 
and (h) were removed from the final rule. However, BSEE maintains its 
position that training and safety requirements apply to all personnel 
as stated in Sec.  250.1915. The definition of personnel in Sec.  
250.1903 includes contractors.
    Comment: One commenter stated that this portion of the rule should 
be deleted since it is similar to the existing Sec.  250.193.
    Response: The BSEE agrees in part. The BSEE agrees that some parts 
of this section were redundant with Sec.  250.193 and moved the 
relevant language to Sec.  250.193.
    Comment: One commenter stated that BSEE should clarify whether the 
reporting hotline is toll-free. If not, then BSEE should say so and 
state that it is going to make provisions for assuming any usage 
charges associated with calls from offshore locations to the numbers 
provided in the regulations.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees. The final rule uses the term toll-
free; its common meaning is that there are no long-distance fees 
charged for calling the hotline. Since the area code for the hotline is 
not a traditional 1-800 prefix, toll-free must be retained in order to 
ensure that personnel who wish to call in a report know that the 
hotline will not charge long-distance fees. However, users may still be 
responsible to their own communication service provider for applicable 
charges.
    Comment: One commenter stated that BSEE should issue a supplemental 
notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the provisions of the proposed 
Sec.  250.1933(e) to indicate that information reported over the 
hotline may be shared with officials of other agencies having 
jurisdiction, particularly if the report alleges criminal activity.
    Response: The BSEE disagrees in part. A supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking is not necessary to resolve this concern. This 
language in the final rule has been moved to Sec.  250.193. When a 
possible violation is reported, BSEE will investigate the matter and 
take appropriate action, which could include referral to other 
agencies.

Procedural Matters

 Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 
13563)

    This final rule is a significant rule as determined by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) and is subject to review under E.O. 
12866.
    (1) This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million 
or more on the economy.
    (2) It will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
    (3) This final rule will not create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    (4) This final rule will not alter the budgetary effects of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or 
obligations of their recipients.
    (5) This final rule might raise novel legal or policy issues 
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
    The E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 
for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce 
burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public 
where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with 
regulatory objectives. The E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that 
regulations must be based on the best available science and that the 
rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.
    Executive Order 13563 requires each agency to account for ``among 
other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations.'' The BSEE is using the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
Burden Table for Subpart S to estimate the cumulative cost of SEMS 
regulations. Due to this rulemaking, BSEE estimates a program increase 
of 186,629 burden hours imposed on private sector operators and a non-
hour cost burden of $1,250,000. The total PRA hour burden inventory for 
the SEMS program required in 30 CFR 250 subpart S is estimated to be 
651,728 hours inclusive of this rulemaking. The total non-hour burden 
is estimated to be $1,250,000 for the cost of paying

[[Page 20435]]

independent parties to audit SEMS implementation.
    The full annual E.O. 13563 analysis costs of the SEMS requirements 
in Subpart S (this rulemaking and existing requirements) is summarized 
in the following Table.

                         E.O. 13563 Summary Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Est. annual
                                           Burden hours        cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRA @ $86/hr............................         651,728     $56,048,608
Non-Hour Cost Burden....................  ..............     $ 1,250,000
                                         -------------------------------
    TOTAL:..............................  ..............     $57,298,608
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BSEE has prepared an RIA for this rulemaking. The full analysis 
can be found on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. In 
the entry titled Enter Keyword or ID, enter BSEE-2012-0011 then click 
search. Follow the instructions to view the RIA and submit public 
comments for this rulemaking.
    The BSEE estimates the average annual cost of complying with this 
rulemaking is approximately $17 million, spread across all OCS oil and 
gas operators with active operations. The benefits of the SEMS 
provisions in this rulemaking will come from enhanced safety for 
offshore workers and greater protection of the marine environment. 
These benefits will be realized through additional employee 
participation in safety procedures, training programs, notification 
obligations as well as strengthened safety and SEMS auditing 
procedures.
    The protection of human life and the environment are the top 
priorities and objectives of this rule. It is difficult to quantify the 
benefits of lives saved and risks avoided due to this regulation. 
However, implementing these requirements will further the goal of 
avoiding accidents that may result in injuries, fatalities or serious 
environmental damage.
    The compliance cost for managing a comprehensive SEMS program is 
estimated to be very minor compared to the costs associated with major 
accidents. For example, in 1987, prior to industry's development of a 
safety management template for offshore operations, the Mississippi 
Canyon 311, A (Bourbon), platform in the Gulf of Mexico was tilted to 
one side by an extensive underground blowout. The cost associated with 
this incident alone was $274,000,000. In 1989, a fire associated with a 
pipeline repair killed 7 people and destroyed a major production 
facility. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill killed 11 
people, destroyed the drilling rig, and caused billions of dollars in 
damages. A SEMS plan will implement procedures and evaluations that may 
prevent or mitigate the adverse consequences of these types of events. 
The BSEE concludes that these additional requirements will further 
enhance the existing safety management program on OCS facilities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The BSEE has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA) in conjunction with this final rule.
    The FRFA for this final rule is available as part of the RIA. The 
FRFA can be found on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled Enter Keyword or ID, enter 
BSEE-2012-0011 then click search. Follow the instructions to view the 
RIA and FRFA, and submit public comments for this rulemaking.
    The changes in the final rule will affect lessees and operators of 
leases and pipeline right-of-way holders on the OCS. This group could 
include about 130 active Federal oil and gas lessees. Small lessees 
that operate under this rule fall under the Small Business 
Administration's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes 211111, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, and 213111, 
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. For these NAICS code classifications, a 
small company is one with fewer than 500 employees. Based on these 
criteria, an estimated 65 percent of these companies are considered 
small. This final rule, therefore, will affect a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Small entities are represented in all activity levels of OCS 
operations (high, moderate, and low based on the number of offshore 
complexes the entity operates). Small companies will bear approximately 
43 percent of the costs of this final rulemaking. While 43 percent is 
greater than small companies' percentage share of OCS leases, small 
companies hold 45 percent of leases in the shallow water depths where 
most production facilities are located (98 percent of active platforms 
are in shallow water).
    The operating risk for small companies to incur safety or 
environmental accidents is not lower than it is for larger-sized 
companies. Offshore operations are highly technical and can be 
hazardous. The risk level along with the adverse consequences in the 
event of incidents is the same regardless of the operator's size. The 
BSEE evaluated a number of alternatives based on the size of an 
operator including those provided through comments but was unable to 
identify provisions that will impose lesser requirements on some 
operators and still achieve the same safety objectives.
    The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments 
from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The 
Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate 
each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment 
on the actions of BSEE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the 
Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations 
of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business 
Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This final 
rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

[[Page 20436]]

The requirements will apply to all entities operating on the OCS.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. This final rule will not have a significant or unique 
effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have 
significant takings implications. The final rule is not a governmental 
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property 
rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have 
federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and 
directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State 
governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role 
in OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A 
Federalism Assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all 
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal 
standards.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this final rule 
and determined that it has no substantial effects on federally 
recognized Indian tribes.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    This rule contains a collection of information that was submitted 
to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The title of the information collection 
(IC) for this rule is 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart S, Safety and 
Environmental Management Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil, Gas, 
and Sulphur Operations. The OMB approved the collection under Control 
Number 1014-0017, expiration 3/31/2016, 651,728 hours, $1,250,000 non-
hour cost burdens. Respondents primarily are Federal OCS oil, gas, and 
sulphur lessees and/or operators or other independent third parties. 
The frequency of response varies, but is primarily annual. Responses to 
this IC are mandatory.
    The BSEE will protect proprietary information according to the 
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522) and its implementing 
regulations (43 CFR part 2), and 30 CFR 250.197, Data and information 
to be made available to the public or for limited inspection and 30 CFR 
part 252, OCS Oil and Gas Information Program. The BSEE will use the 
information to evaluate the effect of industry's continued improvement 
of OCS safety and environmental management and its compliance with the 
regulations. It should be noted that while this rulemaking adds 
additional burden hours to industry, the vast majority of these hours 
stem from expanding their current SEMS program, along with documenting 
and recordkeeping relative to these expanded requirements, and to 
address issues raised in testimony, hearings, and reports being 
released about the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.
    As stated in the preamble, BSEE received 35 sets of comments from 
individual entities (companies, industry organizations, or private 
citizens). In response to the comments, we made adjustments to both 
hour and non-hour cost burdens from the burdens published in the 
preamble of the proposed rule. The changes and reasons for making them 
are as follows:

--Sec. Sec.  250.1900-250.1933 Operator Activity: Changes from the 
proposed to final rule incorporate refresher training requirements to 
coincide with audits, once every 3 years. These changes result in the 
following burden increases:
    (1) High Activity operator (+10,504 hours).
    (2) Moderate Activity operator (+8,405 hours).
    (3) Low Activity operator (+2,128 hours).
--Sec.  250.1911(b)--Expanded the requirement to include additional 
signatures but we deem that the current and proposed hour burden is 
sufficient to adequately cover the requirement.
--Sec.  250.1922--Added a new requirement--Organization requests 
approval for AB; submits documentation for assessing, approving, 
maintaining, and withdrawing accreditation of ASP (+ 48 hours).
--Sec.  250.1925(a)--The BSEE directed audit non-hour cost burdens were 
adjusted to be aligned with the audit costs in Sec.  250.1920(a). We 
have determined that since an ASP will be part of the audit process, 
audits will be more objective; therefore, there will be less likelihood 
for as many BSEE-directed audits as was previously determined (-$15,000 
non-hour cost burdens).
--Sec.  250.1926--Removed independent third-party requirements [-129 
hours], but moved conflict of interest [+3 hours] to Sec.  250.1922, 
for a total net reduction (-126 hours).
--Sec.  250.1932(d), (e)--Removed the requirement, upon request, to 
provide BSEE a copy of your EPP; make plan available during an audit (-
43 hours).
--Sec.  250.1933(c)--[in this rule now Sec.  250.1933(a)] Removed the 
requirement for employees to report unsafe practices and/or health 
violation since we have reporting of violations in current Sec.  
250.193 (-1 burden hour).
--Sec.  250.1933(f) [in this rule now Sec.  250.1933(b)]--The 
requirement remains the same; recalculated the hour burden--Post notice 
where personnel can view their rights for reporting unsafe practices (-
863 hours).
--Sec.  250.1933(h)--Removed--Create and distribute to all personnel 
unsafe activities card with relevant information (-10,500 hours).

    The following requirement, Sec.  250.1920(a), was in the proposed 
rule but the non-hour cost burdens for the requirements were 
inadvertently omitted from the burden table.

--Sec. Sec.  250.1920(a), (b), and 250.1921--You must have your SEMS 
program audited by an ASP according to the requirements of this subpart 
and API RP 75, Section 12 (incorporated by reference as specified in 
Sec.  250.198) within two years of the initial implementation of the 
SEMS program and at least once every three years thereafter. [Since we 
revised the requirement to no longer allow for in-house qualified 
personnel to lead an audit, we added non-hour cost burdens for each 
operator activity to cover the costs of engaging ASPs to conduct audits 
once every 3 years (+$974,000 non-hour cost burdens)].


[[Page 20437]]


    This final rulemaking also removes all the non-hour cost burdens 
for the initial implementation of SEMS required by the existing Subpart 
S regulation. Operators were required to have their SEMS implemented by 
November 15, 2011, which was after this proposed rule was published, so 
BSEE had to account for the non-hour cost burdens in this proposed 
rule. Now that operators have implemented their SEMS, we no longer need 
to account for that non-hour cost burden; therefore, we removed the 
non-hour cost burdens pertaining to implementation (-$12,642,000).
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P

                                                  Burden Table
 [Italics show expansion/revision of existing requirements; bold indicates new requirements; current regulations
                                               are regular font.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Reporting and
  Citation 30 CFR 250     recordkeeping          Hour burden          Average number of      Additional  annual
       Subpart A           requirement                                annual responses         burden  hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
193...................  Report possible    Burden included under 30 CFR 250, Subpart A--   0
                         hazardous,         1010-0114.
                         unsafe working
                         conditions,
                         violations, or
                         non-compliance
                         issues; if
                         possible submit
                         information/
                         supporting
                         documentation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                          Reporting and
  Citation 30 CFR 250     recordkeeping          Hour burden          Average number of      Additional  annual
       Subpart S           requirement                                annual responses         burden  hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900-1933 Expanded....  High Activity      18,708................  13 operators..........  243,204
                         Operator: Have a  3,656.................                          47,528
                         SEMS program,
                         and maintain all
                         documentation
                         and records
                         pertaining to
                         your SEMS
                         program,
                         according to API
                         RP 75, ISO/IEC
                         17011 in their
                         entirety, the
                         COS-2-01, 03,
                         and 04 documents
                         as listed in
                         Sec.   250.198,
                         and all the
                         requirements as
                         detailed in 30
                         CFR 250, Subpart
                         S. Make your
                         SEMS available
                         to BSEE upon
                         request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900-1933 Expanded....  Moderate Activity  2,528.................  41 operators..........  103,648
                         Operator: Have a  2,393.................                          98,113
                         SEMS program,
                         and maintain all
                         documentation
                         and records
                         pertaining to
                         your SEMS
                         program,
                         according to API
                         RP 75, the three
                         COS documents in
                         their entirety,
                         and all the
                         requirements as
                         detailed in 30
                         CFR 250, Subpart
                         S. Make your
                         SEMS available
                         to BSEE upon
                         request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900-1933 Expanded....  Low Activity       899...................  76 operators..........  68,324
                         Operator: Have a  128...................                          9,728
                         SEMS program,
                         and maintain all
                         documentation
                         and records
                         pertaining to
                         your SEMS
                         program,
                         according to API
                         RP 75, the three
                         COS documents in
                         their entirety,
                         and all the
                         requirements as
                         detailed in 30
                         CFR 250, Subpart
                         S. Make your
                         SEMS available
                         to BSEE upon
                         request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1928(d), (e); 1929....  Submit Form BSEE-  10....................  130 operators.........  1,300
                         0131. Maintain a
                         contractor
                         employee injury/
                         illness log in
                         the operation
                         area, retain for
                         2 years, and
                         make available
                         to BSEE upon
                         request (this
                         requirement is
                         included in the
                         form burden).
                         Inform
                         contractors of
                         hazards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1911(b) Expanded......  Immediate          10 mins...............  130 operators x 365     47,450
                         supervisor must   1 min.................   days x 6 = 284,700*    4,745
                         conduct a JSA,
                         sign the JSA,
                         and ensure all
                         personnel
                         participating
                         sign the JSA.
                         The individual
                         designated as
                         being in charge
                         of facility
                         approves and
                         signs all JSAs
                         before job
                         starts.
                        NOTE: If activity
                         is repeated, the
                         1st signed JSA
                         is allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920(a), (b); 1921      ASP audit for      13 operators x $60,000 audit = $780,000/3 = $260,000
 Revised.                High Activity
                         Operator.
                        ASP audit for
                         Moderate
                         Activity
                         Operator.
                        ASP audit for Low
                         Activity
                         Operator.
                        NOTE: An audit
                         once every 3
                         years..
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           4l operators x $30,000 audit = $1,230,000/3 = $410,000
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           76 operators x $12,000 audit = $912,000/3 = $304,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920..................  Notify BSEE with   1.....................  130 operators/once      43 (rounded)
                         audit schedule                             every 3 years = 43
                         30 days prior to
                         conducting your
                         audit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920(c); 1925;........  Submit to BSEE     3.....................  44 operators..........  132
                         after completed
                         audit, an audit
                         report of
                         findings and
                         conclusions,
                         including
                         deficiencies and
                         required
                         supporting
                         information/
                         documentation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1920(d); 1925(b);       Submit/resubmit a  4.....................  10 submissions........  40
                         copy of your CAP
                         that will
                         address
                         deficiencies
                         identified in
                         audit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 20438]]

 
1922 NEW..............  Organization       16....................  3.....................  48
                         requests
                         approval for AB;
                         submits
                         documentation
                         for assessing,
                         approving,
                         maintaining, and
                         withdrawing
                         accreditation of
                         ASP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1922 NEW..............  Make available to  15 mins...............  12 requests...........  3
                         BSEE upon
                         request,
                         conflict of
                         interest
                         procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1924(b)...............  Make available to  2.....................  130 operators.........  260
                         BSEE upon
                         request,
                         evaluation
                         documentation
                         and supporting
                         information
                         relating to your
                         SEMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1924(c)...............  Explain and        8.....................  6 explanations........  48
                         demonstrate your
                         SEMS during site
                         visit if
                         required;
                         provide evidence
                         supporting your
                         SEMS
                         implementation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1925(a);..............  Pay for all costs  13 BSEE directed ASP audits--for a total of $276,000.
                         associated with
                         BSEE directed
                         ASP audit
                         approximately 10
                         percent per
                         operator per
                         category: 1
                         required audit
                         for high
                         operator
                         ($60,000 per
                         audit x 1 audit
                         = $60,000); 4
                         required audits
                         for moderate
                         operator
                         ($30,000 per
                         audit x 4 audits
                         = $120,000; and
                         8 required
                         audits for low
                         operator
                         ($12,000 per
                         audit per 8
                         audits =
                         $96,000) = 13
                         required audits
                         per year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1928 Expanded.........  (1) Document and   5.....................  130 operators.........  650
                         keep all SEMS
                         audits for 6
                         years (at least
                         2 full audit
                         cycles) at an
                         onshore
                         location. (2)
                         JSAs must have
                         documented
                         results in
                         writing and kept
                         onsite for 30
                         days, or until
                         release of the
                         MODU; retain
                         records for 2
                         years. (3) All
                         MOC records (API
                         RP Sec 4) must
                         be documented,
                         dated, and
                         retained for 2
                         years. (4) SWA
                         documentation
                         must be kept
                         onsite for 30
                         days; retain
                         records for 2
                         years. (5)
                         Documentation of
                         employee
                         participation
                         must be retained
                         for 2 years. (6)
                         All
                         documentation
                         included in this
                         requirement must
                         be made
                         available to
                         BSEE upon
                         request.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           2hrs/mo x 12 mos/yr =   1,007 manned            24,168
                                            24 hrs                  facilities
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           30 mins...............  2,447 unmanned          1,224 (rounded)
                                                                    facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1930(c) NEW...........  Document decision  8.....................  Once every 2 wks = 26   208
                         to resume SWA
                         activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1933(a) NEW...........  Procedures for     Burden covered under 30 CFR 250, Subpart A      0
                         personnel          1010-0114.
                         reports unsafe
                         practices and/or
                         possible
                         violations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1933(b) NEW...........  Post notice where  15 mins...............  3,454 facilities......  864
                         personnel can
                         view reporting
                         information
                         pertaining to
                         possible
                         violations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT SUBPART S BURDEN                                           285,469 Responses       465,099 Hours
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        $12,933,000 Non-Hour Cost Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW and EXPANDED BURDEN added to 30 CFR 250, Subpart S             6,946 responses         186,629 hours
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        $1,250,000 non-hour cost burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMBINED [current, new, and expanded] TOTAL SUBPART S              292,415 Responses       651,728 Hours
                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        $1,250,000 Non-Hour Cost Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ We calculated operators conducting six JSAs a day (3 JSAs for each 12-hour shift). Some contractors may
  perform none for a particular day, whereas others may conduct more than six per day. This estimate is an
  average.

BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. The public may comment, at any time, on the 
accuracy of the IC burden in this rule and may submit any comments to 
DOI/BSEE; ATTN: Regulations and Standards

[[Page 20439]]

Branch; HE-3313; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. The BSEE has analyzed 
this final rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy 
Act and 516 Departmental Manual 15. This final rule meets the criteria 
set forth in 43 CFR 46.210 for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in 
that this rule is ``* * * of an administrative, financial, legal, 
technical, or procedural nature * * *.'' This rule also meets the 
criteria set forth in 516 Departmental Manual 15.4(C)(1) for a BSEE 
Categorical Exclusion in that its impacts are limited to 
administrative, economic, or technological effects. Further, BSEE has 
analyzed this rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary 
circumstances that will require an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215.
    Most sections of the rule address strictly administrative, 
technical, and/or procedural matters. Specific examples include 
definitions of terminology, scope and timing of documentation, 
recordkeeping, transfer of information, and general descriptions of 
what is to be included in written procedures. The rule does not create 
the potential for environmental effects as a result of new 
technologies, technology configurations, or technological procedures as 
such measures are not part of the rule. For aspects of the rule dealing 
with mechanical integrity and inspections, the requirements are 
procedural as the rule covers the content of the written procedures. 
While the rule identifies the requirement, it allows the operator to 
choose the means to accomplish the end as long as it is consistent with 
the SEMS requirements.
    Other subsections require activities in addition to administrative 
tasks, advance planning, and procedural documentation, such as 
training, emergency response drills, and corrective procedural actions 
that address human errors identified in investigations. These 
requirements are also considered procedural in nature since the 
subsections describe general and ordered steps that operators must 
undertake to have and maintain a compliant SEMS program. Sections that 
require training or drilling of personnel are procedural in that they 
target the cognitive skills and knowledge of personnel (e.g., Sec.  
250.1915(b)) and/or clarify the purpose and/or scope of training (e.g., 
Sec.  250.1918(c)). For example, in Sec.  250.1918, BSEE requires 
training and drills for personnel to exercise elements in the Emergency 
Action Plan that focus on response, control, and evacuation procedures 
and reporting. The principal purpose of this is to ensure retention and 
refinement of the skills, knowledge, and abilities of personnel.
    Each section and subsection has also been reviewed to ensure that 
no potentially relevant extraordinary circumstances apply to the final 
action that will warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment 
or environmental impact statement. All extraordinary circumstances were 
considered in accordance with 43 CFR 46.215, but only the following 
ones are potentially applicable:
    (1) Have significant impacts on public health or safety.
    (2) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision 
in principle about future actions with potentially significant 
environmental effects.
    (3) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually 
insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.
    The BSEE has analyzed this rule to determine if it meets any of the 
extraordinary circumstances that will require an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as set forth in 516 
Departmental Manual 2.3, and Appendix 2. The BSEE concluded that this 
rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances 
as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215.

Data Quality Act

    In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554, app. C Sec.  515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).

Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition 
in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, 
Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Public Lands--
mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

     Dated: March 28, 2013.
Tommy P. Beaudreau,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is amending 30 CFR part 250 as 
follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF

0
1. The authority citation for 30 CFR part 250 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.


0
2. In Sec.  250.105, under the definition for ``facility,'' add 
paragraph (5) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.105  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Facility means:
* * * * *
    (5) As used in Subpart S of this part, all types of structures 
permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed (e.g., mobile 
offshore drilling units (MODUs); floating production systems; floating 
production, storage and offloading facilities; tension-leg platforms; 
and spars) that are used for exploration, development, and production 
activities for oil, gas, or sulphur in the OCS. Facilities also include 
DOI-regulated pipelines.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  250.193 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.193  Reports and investigations of possible violations.

    (a) Any person may report to BSEE any hazardous or unsafe working 
condition on any facility engaged in OCS activities, and any possible 
violation or failure to comply with:
    (1) Any provision of the Act,
    (2) Any provision of a lease, approved plan, or permit issued under 
the Act,
    (3) Any provision of any regulation or order issued under the Act, 
or
    (4) Any other Federal law relating to safety of offshore oil and 
gas operations.
    (b) To make a report under this section, a person is not required 
to know whether any legal requirement listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section has been violated.
    (c) When BSEE receives a report of a possible violation, or when a 
BSEE employee detects a possible violation, BSEE will investigate 
according to BSEE procedures and notify any other Federal agency(ies) 
for further investigation, as appropriate.
    (d) BSEE investigations of possible violations may include:

[[Page 20440]]

    (1) Conducting interviews of personnel;
    (2) Requiring the prompt production of documents, data, and other 
evidence;
    (3) Requiring the preservation of all relevant evidence and access 
for BSEE investigators to such evidence; and
    (4) Taking other actions and imposing other requirements as 
necessary to investigate possible violations and assure an orderly 
investigation.
    (e)(1) Reports should contain sufficient credible information to 
establish a reasonable basis for BSEE to investigate whether a 
violation or other hazardous or unsafe working condition exists.
    (2) To report hazardous or unsafe working conditions or a possible 
violation:
    (i) Contact BSEE by:
    (A) Phone at 1-877-440-0173 (BSEE Toll-free Safety Hotline),
    (B) Internet at www.bsee.gov, or
    (C) Mail to: U.S. DOI/BSEE, 1849 C Street NW., Mail Stop 5438, 
Herndon, VA 20240 Attention: IRU Hotline Operations.
    (ii) Include the following items in the report:
    (A) Name, address, and telephone number should be provided if you 
do not want to remain anonymous;
    (B) The specific concern, provision or Federal law, if known, 
referenced in (a) that a person violated or with which a person failed 
to comply; and
    (C) Any other facts, data, and applicable information.
    (f) When a possible violation is reported, BSEE will protect a 
person's identity to the extent authorized by law.

0
4. Amend Sec.  250.198 by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  250.198  Documents incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (m) International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1, ch. De 
la Voi-Creuse, Case postale 56, CH-1211, Geneva 20, Switzerland; 
www.iso.org; phone: 41-22-749-01-11.
    (1) ISO/IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 17011, 
Conformity assessment--General requirements for accreditation bodies 
accrediting conformity assessment bodies, First edition 2004-09-01; 
Corrected version 2005-02-15; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.  
250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 250.1922.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (n) Center for Offshore Safety (COS), 1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 
1370, Houston, TX 77056; www.centerforoffshoresafety.org; phone: 832-
495-4925.
    (1) COS Safety Publication COS-2-01, Qualification and Competence 
Requirements for Audit Teams and Auditors Performing Third-party SEMS 
Audits of Deepwater Operations, First Edition, Effective Date October 
2012; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.  250.1900, 250.1903, 
250.1904, and 250.1921.
    (2) COS Safety Publication COS-2-03, Requirements for Third-party 
SEMS Auditing and Certification of Deepwater Operations, First Edition, 
Effective Date October 2012; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.  
250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, and 250.1920.
    (3) COS Safety Publication COS-2-04, Requirements for Accreditation 
of Audit Service Providers Performing SEMS Audits and Certification of 
Deepwater Operations, First Edition, Effective Date October 2012; 
incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.  250.1900, 250.1903, 250.1904, 
and 250.1922.

0
5. Amend Sec.  250.1900 by:
0
a. Removing paragraphs (a) and (b),
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) as (a) and (b) respectively, 
and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1900  Must I have a SEMS program?

* * * * *
    (a) If there are any conflicts between the requirements of this 
subpart and API RP 75; COS-2-01, COS-2-03, or COS-2-04; or ISO/IEC 
17011 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198), you 
must follow the requirements of this subpart.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  250.1901, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1901  What is the goal of my SEMS program?

* * * * *
    (a) To accomplish this goal, you must ensure that your SEMS program 
identifies, addresses, and manages safety, environmental hazards, and 
impacts during the design, construction, start-up, operation 
(including, but not limited to, drilling and decommissioning), 
inspection, and maintenance of all new and existing facilities, 
including mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) when attached to the 
seabed and Department of the Interior (DOI) regulated pipelines.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  250.1902 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(12) and (13),
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) through (17); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (b).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  250.1902  What must I include in my SEMS program?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (12) Auditing (Audit of Safety and Environmental Management Program 
Elements) (see Sec.  250.1920)
    (13) Recordkeeping (Records and Documentation) and additional BSEE 
requirements (see Sec.  250.1928)
    (14) Stop Work Authority (SWA) (see Sec.  250.1930)
    (15) Ultimate Work Authority (UWA) (see Sec.  250.1931)
    (16) Employee Participation Plan (EPP) (see Sec.  250.1932)
    (17) Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions (see Sec.  250.1933).
    (b) You must include a job safety analysis (JSA) for OCS activities 
identified or discussed in your SEMS program (see Sec.  250.1911).
* * * * *

0
8. Revise Sec.  250.1903 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1903  Acronyms and definitions.

    Definitions listed in this section apply to this subpart and 
supersede definitions in API RP 75, Appendices D and E; COS-2-01, COS-
2-03, and COS-2-04; and ISO/IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference as 
specified in Sec.  250.198).
    (a) Acronyms used frequently in this subpart have the following 
meanings:
    AB means Accreditation Body,
    ASP means Audit Service Provider,
    CAP means Corrective Action Plan,
    COS means Center for Offshore Safety,
    EPP means Employee Participation Plan,
    ISO means International Organization for Standardization,
    JSA means Job Safety Analysis,
    MODU means Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit,
    OCS means Outer Continental Shelf,
    SEMS means Safety and Environmental Management Systems,
    SWA means Stop Work Authority,
    USCG means United States Coast Guard, and
    UWA means Ultimate Work Authority.
    (b) Terms used in this subpart are listed alphabetically as 
follows:
    Accreditation body (AB) means a BSEE-approved independent third-
party organization that assesses and accredits ASPs.
    Audit service provider (ASP) means an independent third-party 
organization that demonstrates competence to conduct SEMS audits in 
accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
    Corrective action plan (CAP) means a scheduled plan to correct 
deficiencies

[[Page 20441]]

identified during an audit and that is developed by an operator 
following the issuance of an audit report.
    Personnel means direct employee(s) of the operator and contracted 
workers.
    Ultimate Work Authority (UWA) means the authority assigned to an 
individual or position to make final decisions relating to activities 
and operations on the facility.

0
9. Revise Sec.  250.1904 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1904  Special instructions.

    (a) For purposes of this subpart, each and every reference in COS-
2-01, COS-2-03, and COS-2-04 (incorporated by reference as specified in 
Sec.  250.198) to the term deepwater means the entire OCS, including 
all water depths.
    (b) The BSEE does not incorporate by reference any requirement that 
you must be a COS member company. For purposes of this subpart, each 
and every reference in COS-2-01, COS-2-03, and COS-2-04 to the phrase 
COS member company(ies) means you, whether or not you are a COS member.
    (c) For purposes of this subpart, each and every reference in the 
relevant sections of COS-2-01, COS-2-03, and COS-2-04 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  250.198) to the Center for Offshore 
Safety or COS means accreditation body or AB.
    (d) For purposes of this subpart, each and every reference in ISO/
IEC 17011 (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198) to 
conformity assessment body (CAB) means ASP.

0
10. Amend Sec.  250.1911 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, the introductory text, and paragraphs 
(a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  250.1911  What hazards analysis criteria must my SEMS program 
meet?

    You must ensure that a hazards analysis (facility level) and a JSA 
(operations/task level) are developed and implemented for all of your 
facilities and activities identified or discussed in your SEMS. You 
must document and maintain a current analysis for each operation 
covered by this section for the life of the operation at the facility. 
You must update the analysis when an internal audit is conducted to 
ensure that it is consistent with your facility's current operations.
    (a) Hazards Analysis (facility level). The hazards analysis must be 
appropriate for the complexity of the operation and must identify, 
evaluate, and manage the hazards involved in the operation.
* * * * *
    (4) A single hazards analysis can be performed to fulfill the 
requirements for simple and nearly identical facilities, such as well 
jackets and single well caissons. You can apply this single hazards 
analysis to simple and nearly identical facilities after you verify 
that any site-specific deviations are addressed in each of your SEMS 
program elements.
    (b) JSA. You must ensure a JSA is prepared, conducted, and approved 
for OCS activities that are identified or discussed in your SEMS 
program. The JSA is a technique used to identify risks to personnel 
associated with their job activities. The JSAs are also used to 
determine the appropriate mitigation measures needed to reduce job 
risks to personnel. The JSA must include all personnel involved with 
the job activity.
    (1) You must ensure that your JSA identifies, analyzes, and 
records:
    (i) The steps involved in performing a specific job;
    (ii) The existing or potential safety, health, and environmental 
hazards associated with each step; and
    (iii) The recommended action(s) and/or procedure(s) that will 
eliminate or reduce these hazards, the risk of a workplace injury or 
illness, or environmental impacts.
    (2) The immediate supervisor of the crew performing the job onsite 
must conduct the JSA, sign the JSA, and ensure that all personnel 
participating in the job understand and sign the JSA.
    (3) The individual you designate as being in charge of the facility 
must approve and sign all JSAs before personnel start the job.
    (4) If a particular job is conducted on a recurring basis, and if 
the parameters of these recurring jobs do not change, then the person 
in charge of the job may decide that a JSA for each individual job is 
not required. The parameters you must consider in making this 
determination include, but are not limited to, changes in personnel, 
procedures, equipment, and environmental conditions associated with the 
job.
    (c) All personnel, which includes contractors, must be trained in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  250.1915. You must also 
verify that contractors are trained in accordance with Sec.  250.1915 
prior to performing a job.

0
11. In Sec.  250.1914, revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1914  What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program for 
safe work practices and contractor selection?

    Your SEMS program must establish and implement safe work practices 
designed to minimize the risks associated with operations, maintenance, 
modification activities, and the handling of materials and substances 
that could affect safety or the environment. Your SEMS program must 
also document contractor selection criteria. When selecting a 
contractor, you must obtain and evaluate information regarding the 
contractor's safety record and environmental performance. You must 
ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. 
Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of your SEMS program. You 
and your contractor must document an agreement on appropriate 
contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the 
contractor begins work at your facilities.
    (a) A contractor is anyone performing work for you. However, these 
requirements do not apply to contractors providing domestic services to 
you or other contractors. Domestic services include janitorial work, 
food and beverage service, laundry service, housekeeping, and similar 
activities.
* * * * *

0
12. In Sec.  250.1915, revise the section heading, the introductory 
text, and paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1915  What training criteria must be in my SEMS program?

    Your SEMS program must establish and implement a training program 
so that all personnel are trained in accordance with their duties and 
responsibilities to work safely and are aware of potential 
environmental impacts. Training must address such areas as operating 
procedures (Sec.  250.1913), safe work practices (Sec.  250.1914), 
emergency response and control measures (Sec.  250.1918), SWA (Sec.  
250.1930), UWA (Sec.  250.1931), EPP (Sec.  250.1932), reporting unsafe 
working conditions (Sec.  250.1933), and how to recognize and identify 
hazards and how to construct and implement JSAs (Sec.  250.1911). You 
must document your instructors' qualifications. Your SEMS program must 
address:
* * * * *
    (c) Communication requirements to ensure that personnel will be 
informed of and trained as outlined in this section whenever a change 
is made in any of the areas in your SEMS program that impacts their 
ability to properly understand and perform their duties and 
responsibilities. Training and/or

[[Page 20442]]

notice of the change must be given before personnel are expected to 
operate the facility.
    (d) How you will verify that the contractors are trained in the 
work practices necessary to understand and perform their jobs in a safe 
and environmentally sound manner in accordance with all provisions of 
this section.

0
13. Amend Sec.  250.1920 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(5), (b)(6), 
(c), and (d) and removing paragraph (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  250.1920  What are the auditing requirements for my SEMS program?

    (a) Your SEMS program must be audited by an accredited ASP 
according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 75, Section 12 
(incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198). The audit 
process must also meet or exceed the criteria in Sections 9.1 through 
9.8 of Requirements for Third-party SEMS Auditing and Certification of 
Deepwater Operations COS-2-03 (incorporated by reference as specified 
in Sec.  250.198) or its equivalent. Additionally, the audit team lead 
must be an employee, representative, or agent of the ASP, and must not 
have any affiliation with the operator. The remaining team members may 
be chosen from your personnel and those of the ASP. The audit must be 
comprehensive and include all elements of your SEMS program. It must 
also identify safety and environmental performance deficiencies.
    (b) * * *
    (5) Section 12.5 Audit Frequency, except your audit interval, must 
not exceed 3 years after the 2-year time period for the first audit. 
The 3-year auditing cycle begins on the start date of each 
comprehensive audit (including the initial implementation audit) and 
ends on the start date of your next comprehensive audit.
    (6) Section 12.6 Audit Team. Your audits must be performed by an 
ASP as described in Sec.  250.1921. You must include the ASP's 
qualifications in your audit plan.
    (c) You must submit an audit report of the audit findings, 
observations, deficiencies identified, and conclusions to BSEE within 
60 days of the audit completion date.
    (d) You must provide BSEE with a copy of your CAP for addressing 
the deficiencies identified in your audit within 60 days of the audit 
completion date. Your CAP must include the name and job title of the 
personnel responsible for correcting the identified deficiency(ies). 
The BSEE will notify you as soon as practicable after receipt of your 
CAP if your proposed schedule is not acceptable or if the CAP does not 
effectively address the audit findings.

0
14. Add Sec. Sec.  250.1921 and 250.1922 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1921  What qualifications must the ASP meet?

    (a) The ASP must meet or exceed the qualifications, competency, and 
training criteria contained in Section 3 and Sections 6 through 10 of 
Qualification and Competence Requirements for Audit Teams and Auditors 
Performing Third-party SEMS Audits of Deepwater Operations, COS-2-01, 
(incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198) or its 
equivalent;
    (b) The ASP must be accredited by a BSEE-approved AB; and
    (c) The ASP must perform an audit in accordance with 250.1920(a).


Sec.  250.1922  What qualifications must an AB meet?

    (a) In order for BSEE to approve an AB, the organization must 
satisfy the requirements of the International Organization for 
Standardization's (ISO/IEC 17011) Conformity assessment--General 
requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment 
bodies, First Edition 2004-09-01; Corrected Version 2005-02-15 
(incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.  250.198) or its 
equivalent.
    (1) The AB must have an accreditation process that meets or exceeds 
the requirements contained in Section 6 of Requirements for 
Accreditation of Audit Service Providers Performing SEMS Audits and 
Certification of Deepwater Operations, COS-2-04 (incorporated by 
reference as specified in Sec.  250.198) or its equivalent, and other 
requirements specified in this subpart. Organizations requesting 
approval must submit documentation to BSEE describing the process for 
assessing an ASP for accreditation and approving, maintaining, and 
withdrawing the accreditation of an ASP. Requests for approval must be 
sent to DOI/BSEE, ATTN: Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, 
381 Elden Street, HE-3314, Herndon, VA 20170.
    (2) An AB may be subject to BSEE audits and other requirements 
deemed necessary to verify compliance with the accreditation 
requirements.
    (b) An AB must have procedures in place to avoid conflicts of 
interest with the ASP and make such information available to BSEE upon 
request.

0
15. Amend Sec.  250.1924 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) and 
removing paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  250.1924  How will BSEE determine if my SEMS program is 
effective?

    (a) The BSEE, or its authorized representative, may evaluate or 
visit your facility(ies) to determine whether your SEMS program is in 
place, addresses all required elements, is effective in protecting 
worker safety and health and the environment, and preventing incidents. 
The BSEE, or its authorized representative, may evaluate any and all 
aspects of your SEMS program as outlined in this subpart. These 
evaluations or visits may be random and may be based upon your 
performance or that of your contractors.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Your audit team's qualifications.
* * * * *

0
16. Revise Sec.  250.1925 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1925  May BSEE direct me to conduct additional audits?

    (a) The BSEE may direct you to have an ASP audit of your SEMS 
program if BSEE identifies safety or non-compliance concerns based on 
the results of our inspections and evaluations, or as a result of an 
event. This BSEE-directed audit is in addition to the regular audit 
required by Sec.  250.1920. Alternatively, BSEE may conduct an audit.
    (1) If BSEE directs you to have an ASP audit, you are responsible 
for all of the costs associated with the audit, and
    (i) The ASP must meet the requirements of Sec. Sec.  250.1920 and 
250.1921 of this subpart.
    (ii) You must submit an audit report of the audit findings, 
observations, deficiencies identified, and conclusions to BSEE within 
60 days of the audit completion date.
    (2) If BSEE conducts the audit, BSEE will provide you with a report 
of the audit findings, observations, deficiencies identified, and 
conclusions as soon as practicable.
    (b) You must provide BSEE a copy of your CAP for addressing the 
deficiencies identified in the BSEE-directed audit within 60 days of 
the audit completion date. Your CAP must include the name and job title 
of the personnel responsible for correcting the identified 
deficiency(ies). The BSEE will notify you as soon as practicable after 
receipt of your CAP if your proposed schedule is not acceptable or if 
the CAP does not effectively address the audit findings.


Sec.  250.1926  [Removed and Reserved]

0
17. Remove and reserve Sec.  250.1926
0
18. Amend Sec.  250.1928 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);

[[Page 20443]]

0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (h); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (f) and (g).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  250.1928  What are my recordkeeping and documentation 
requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) For JSAs, the person in charge of the job must document the 
results of the JSA in writing and must ensure that records are kept 
onsite for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite 
for 30 days or until you release the MODU, whichever comes first. You 
must retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE 
upon request.
* * * * *
    (f) For SWA, you must document all training and reviews required by 
Sec.  250.1930(e). You must ensure that these records are kept onsite 
for 30 days. In the case of a MODU, records must be kept onsite for 30 
days or until you release the MODU, whichever comes first. You must 
retain these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon 
request.
    (g) For EPP, you must document your employees' participation in the 
development and implementation of the SEMS program. You must retain 
these records for 2 years and make them available to BSEE upon request.
* * * * *

0
20. Add Sec. Sec.  250.1930 through 250.1933 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1930  What must be included in my SEMS program for SWA?

    (a) Your SWA procedures must ensure the capability to immediately 
stop work that is creating imminent risk or danger. These procedures 
must grant all personnel the responsibility and authority, without fear 
of reprisal, to stop work or decline to perform an assigned task when 
an imminent risk or danger exists. Imminent risk or danger means any 
condition, activity, or practice in the workplace that could reasonably 
be expected to cause:
    (1) Death or serious physical harm; or
    (2) Significant environmental harm to:
    (i) Land;
    (ii) Air; or
    (iii) Mineral deposits, marine, coastal, or human environment.
    (b) The person in charge of the conducted work is responsible for 
ensuring the work is stopped in an orderly and safe manner. Individuals 
who receive a notification to stop work must comply with that direction 
immediately.
    (c) Work may be resumed when the individual on the facility with 
UWA determines that the imminent risk or danger does not exist or no 
longer exists. The decision to resume activities must be documented in 
writing as soon as practicable.
    (d) You must include SWA procedures and expectations as a standard 
statement in all JSAs.
    (e) You must conduct training on your SWA procedures as part of 
orientations for all new personnel who perform activities on the OCS. 
Additionally, the SWA procedures must be reviewed during all meetings 
focusing on safety on facilities subject to this subpart.


Sec.  250.1931  What must be included in my SEMS program for UWA?

    (a) Your SEMS program must have a process to identify the 
individual with the UWA on your facility(ies). You must designate this 
individual taking into account all applicable USCG regulations that 
deal with designating a person in charge of an OCS facility. Your SEMS 
program must clearly define who is in charge at all times. In the event 
that multiple facilities, including a MODU, are attached and working 
together or in close proximity to one another to perform an OCS 
operation, your SEMS program must identify the individual with the UWA 
over the entire operation, including all facilities.
    (b) You must ensure that all personnel clearly know who has UWA and 
who is in charge of a specific operation or activity at all times, 
including when that responsibility shifts to a different individual.
    (c) The SEMS program must provide that if an emergency occurs that 
creates an imminent risk or danger to the health or safety of an 
individual, the public, or to the environment (as specified in Sec.  
250.1930(a)), the individual with the UWA is authorized to pursue the 
most effective action necessary in that individual's judgment for 
mitigating and abating the conditions or practices causing the 
emergency.


Sec.  250.1932  What are my EPP requirements?

    (a) Your management must consult with their employees on the 
development, implementation, and modification of your SEMS program.
    (b) Your management must develop a written plan of action regarding 
how your appropriate employees, in both your offices and those working 
on offshore facilities, will participate in your SEMS program 
development and implementation.
    (c) Your management must ensure that employees have access to 
sections of your SEMS program that are relevant to their jobs.


Sec.  250.1933  What procedures must be included for reporting unsafe 
working conditions?

    (a) Your SEMS program must include procedures for all personnel to 
report unsafe working conditions in accordance with Sec.  250.193. 
These procedures must take into account applicable USCG reporting 
requirements for unsafe working conditions.
    (b) You must post a notice at the place of employment in a visible 
location frequently visited by personnel that contains the reporting 
information in Sec.  250.193.

[FR Doc. 2013-07738 Filed 4-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P