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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-25665

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 15, 2010
- **Citation:** 75 FR 63610

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 250
[Docket ID BOEM-2010-0046]
RIN 1010-AD15
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Safety and Environmental Management Systems

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule establishes a new subpart under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) regulations to require operators to develop and implement Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) for oil and gas and sulphur operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This rulemaking will incorporate in its entirety and make mandatory the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice 75, Development of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities, with respect to operations and activities under the jurisdiction of BOEMRE. This final rule will apply to all OCS oil and gas and sulphur operations and the facilities under BOEMRE jurisdiction including drilling, production, construction, well workover, well completion, well servicing, and DOI pipeline activities. The importance of this final rule is highlighted by the Deepwater Horizon event on April 20, 2010. Although the cause of the event is presently under investigation, it further illustrates the importance of ensuring safe operations on the OCS. BOEMRE believes that requiring operators to implement SEMS will reduce the risk and number of accidents, injuries, and spills during OCS activities.

DATES:

Effective Date:
This rule becomes effective on November 15, 2010. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in the regulation is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Nedorostek, (703) 787-1029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 22, 2006, the former Minerals Management Service published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (71 FR 29277), and then on June 17, 2009, BOEMRE (formerly MMS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
Federal Register
entitled “Safety and Environmental Management Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Operations” (74 FR 28639). The comment period for that proposed rule closed on September 15, 2009. In response to several requests, BOEMRE issued a National Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL No. 2009-N05) on August 12, 2009, announcing a public meeting on September 2, 2009, in New Orleans, Louisiana, to discuss the proposed rule.

Summary of the Final Rule

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference, and making mandatory, the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice for Development of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities (API RP 75), Third Edition, May 2004, reaffirmed May 2008. This recommended practice, including its appendices, constitutes a complete Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS) program. On May 22, 2006, BOEMRE published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the
Federal Register
(71 FR 29277) related to requiring a SEMS program. This was followed on June 17, 2009, by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

The ANPR discussed several options for implementing a SEMS program. One of these options was a comprehensive safety and environmental management approach by addressing all elements of API RP 75. API RP 75 consists of 13 sections, one of which is a “General” section. This relates to the 12 elements identified in the ANPR and states the overall principles for the SEMS program and establishes management's general responsibilities for its success. This General element is critical to the successful implementation of the SEMS program in API RP 75, and BOEMRE is including it by incorporating by reference the entirety of API RP 75.

The NPR proposed regulatory text premised on the four critical elements of API RP 75 (hazards analysis, management of change, operating procedures, and mechanical integrity). BOEMRE noted all elements of API RP 75 in the proposed rule, stating that a SEMS program should be modeled after the requirements of API RP 75, but did not propose to incorporate all elements of API RP 75. However, several comments suggested that BOEMRE should incorporate by reference and require implementation of all elements of API RP 75. BOEMRE has determined that for the SEMS program to be most effective, the entirety of API RP 75 needs to included in the program and has required as much in the final rule. BOEMRE also believes that adoption of API RP 75 in its entirety is consistent with the direction of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996, which directs agencies, wherever possible, to adopt private standards.

This final rule will therefore require the operator (a lessee, the owner or holder of operating rights, or the designated operator) to integrate a comprehensive SEMS program into the management of their OCS operations, thereby providing for the prevention of waste and conservation of natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf. In addition, BOEMRE is highlighting certain requirements from API RP 75 and further describing those requirements in the regulatory text to clarify compliance requirements. It is the intent of this rule to hold the operator accountable for the overall safety of the offshore facility, including ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors have safety policies and procedures in place that support the implementation of the operator's SEMS program and align with the principles of managing safety set forth in API RP 75. Nothing in this final rule shall affect the Coast Guard's authority and jurisdiction over vessels and offshore facilities. This final rule will require all elements of API RP 75 as follows:

(1) General, with additional clarification in § 250.1909,

(2) Safety and Environmental Information, with additional clarification in § 250.1910,

(3) Hazards Analysis, with additional clarification in § 250.1911,

(4) Management of Change, with additional clarification in § 250.1912,

(5) Operating Procedures, with additional clarification in § 250.1913,

(6) Safe Work Practices, with additional clarification in § 250.1914,

(7) Training, with additional clarification in § 250.1915,

(8) Assurance of Quality and Mechanical Integrity of Critical Equipment, (Mechanical Integrity), with additional clarification in § 250.1916,

(9) Pre-startup Review, with additional clarification in § 250.1917,

(10) Emergency Response and Control, with additional clarification in § 250.1918,

(11) Investigation of Incidents, with additional clarification in § 250.1919,

(12) Audit of Safety and Environmental Management Program Elements, (Auditing), with additional clarification in §§ 250.1920, 1924, and 1925, and

(13) Records and Documentation, (Recordkeeping and Documentation), with additional BOEMRE requirements in § 250.1928.

BOEMRE also carried over other provisions that were contained in the proposed rule. Therefore, in implementing a comprehensive SEMS program that incorporates all of API RP 75, the operator needs to include the following in its SEMS program:

(1) Recordkeeping and documentation regarding specification of the amount of time records are to be kept;

(2) Clarification of the differences between hazards analysis (facility level) and job safety analysis (task level);

(3) Procedures to verify that contractors are conducting their activities in accordance with the operator's SEMS program and an evaluation to ensure that contractors have the skills and knowledge to perform their assigned duties;

(4) An independent third-party or your designated and qualified personnel must conduct all SEMS audits;

(5) Audit documentation must be submitted to BOEMRE;

(6) Other documentation to be made available to BOEMRE upon request;

(7) OCS performance measures data (Form MMS-131).

The following table provides a summary of the individual provisions and their associated cost for implementation and annual maintenance of a SEMS program. No costs are identified for implementation of a SEMS program by high activity operators because all high activity operators currently have a SEMS program. Implementation costs for moderate and low activity operators that have a partial SEMS program are lower than those operators without a SEMS program.

Elements

Implementation
(moderate)

Partial

Full

Implementation
(low)

Partial

Full

Maintenance
(high)

Maintenance
(moderate)

Maintenance
(low)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total

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

Total One-time Implementation: $655,000.
Total Annual Maintenance: $1,970,000.

BOEMRE may enforce non-compliance with any of the requirements of 30 CFR part 250 subpart S, in a variety of ways. BOEMRE may issue incidents of non-compliance (INCs) following an inspection where BOEMRE determines that a facility is conducting operations that do not comply with the requirements of subpart S, or after a BOEMRE directed independent third-party SEMS audit. If BOEMRE identifies non-compliance with subpart S as a result of a regularly scheduled SEMS audit and all deficiencies discovered during the course of the audit are sent to BOEMRE with a schedule for their correction, then BOEMRE will consider this in deciding whether to issue an INC. However, if the operator does not meet its schedule of corrections, BOEMRE will be more likely to issue an INC.

If non-compliance resulting from an inspection or BOEMRE-directed audit poses actual harm or threat to the human and marine environment, BOEMRE will proceed with a civil penalty review of that violation(s) subject to 30 CFR part 250, subpart N—Outer Continental Shelf Civil Penalties. Should non-compliance with subpart S display serious and pervasive safety management concerns, BOEMRE may restrict or revoke the operator's privilege to operate on the OCS as a designated operator or lessee operator through probationary or disqualification actions as detailed in § 250.135.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments

In response to the proposed rule, BOEMRE received 61 sets of comments, of which 57 were from individual entities (companies, industry organizations, or private citizens). Some of the 61 comments were duplicates, not related to the proposed rule, or the same company submitting multiple comments. All of the comments received are posted on the BOEMRE Web site at:
http://www.BOEMRE.gov/federalregister/PublicComments/AD15SafetyEnvMgmtSysforOCSOilGasOperations.htm.

Multiple comments stated that they do not support the proposed rule as written because it will eliminate the flexibility needed for any safety management system to work effectively, including flexibility inherent in the API RP 75 approach.

Five comments received recommended that BOEMRE should move forward to implement its plan to require a SEMS for oil and gas and sulphur operations on the OCS and that the proposed rule should require that offshore operators implement all elements of API RP 75. Other comments suggested various combinations of the API RP 75 elements.

The majority of the comments received stated that SEMS should remain voluntary and the proposed rule, as written, would increase documentation and recordkeeping requirements and would not address human factors (
i.e.,
errors, behavior, etc.). Several comments recommended that BOEMRE incorporate the JSA into current 30 CFR part 250 regulations to address human factors as an alternative to incorporating the four elements.

Numerous comments received from drilling, production, and service contractors stated that BOEMRE already

has regulations in place to address employee training and competency assessments in 30 CFR part 250, subpart O—Well Control and Production Safety Training, and recommended that BOEMRE strike the section relating to contractors from the rule because it is redundant with the existing subpart O regulations.

A few comments received from industry trade organizations (API, International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), Offshore Operators Committee (OOC)) stated that the proposed rule as written will require lessees and operators to modify existing SEMS programs and that rewriting these programs would not prevent accidents or increase safety.

In response to the comments we address the general comments and those that pertain to several sections of the rule first. Following that, we have a section-by-section discussion of the specific comments received and our response to those comments, including any changes made to the final rule.

General Comments

Contractor Selection Criteria

Comment:
Nearly every comment addressed contractor selection criteria. They stated that BOEMRE already has regulations in place (30 CFR part 250, subpart O—Well Control and Production Safety Training) that address training and competency assessment for contractors. In addition, they stated that BOEMRE was requiring contractors to have a SEMS program.

Response:
We incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 7, which addresses training. Subpart O addresses training and competency for contractors. The operator may use the training requirements in subpart O to meet part of the requirements of Section 7. As part of their SEMS program, operators must establish and implement training programs so that all personnel are trained to work safely and are aware of environmental considerations offshore, in accordance with their duties. The SEMS program must address contractor training to ensure and verify that contractors have their own written safe work practices and contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. The operator must have a SEMS program and is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and safety programs to ensure that skilled, knowledgeable, and properly trained personnel are working on the OCS. In order to comply with this rule, an operator must ensure that its contractors are conducting their operations in accordance with the operator's SEMS program. The operator must work with the contractor regarding appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

Jurisdictional Authority

Comment:
Most comments expressed concern that BOEMRE had overstepped its jurisdictional authority by imposing management safety system requirements in the proposed rule on mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs). Comments questioned BOEMRE's authority to require an operator to have a SEMS on a MODU.

Response:
BOEMRE has jurisdictional authority to adopt and implement this rule. The final rule will require operators to have a SEMS for a MODU when it is under BOEMRE's jurisdiction such as during drilling, well workover, well completion, and servicing operations.

The U.S. Offshore Industry Safety Record

Comment:
Most comments expressed the view that the safety and environmental protection record of the offshore industry is excellent, and that imposing these new requirements is not justified.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees that the final SEMS regulation is not justified in light of the available incident data and the trends identified through analyzing this data as discussed in the ANPR and preamble of the proposed SEMS rule. This analysis covers 10 years (from 2000 to 2009) of OCS oil and gas operations, including Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs), accident panel investigation reports, incident analysis, and OCS spill analysis. It shows that the majority of INCs and accidents during that period were related to human factors and not to equipment failure. Thus, additional regulations are needed to address how operators can reduce the risk of incidents during OCS activities.

The ANPR and the proposed rule describe numerous incidents that indicate the need for a comprehensive SEMS program. The recent Deepwater Horizon incident is a significant reminder of the risk of offshore operations and the need to regularly evaluate measures that help ensure safe operations. A SEMS program will augment existing safety requirements.

Root Cause

Comment:
Most comments stated that BOEMRE's assertion that “root cause analysis” points to the need for requiring the four proposed SEMS elements, is not supported by the BOEMRE's incident analysis.

Response:
BOEMRE believes that the SEMS regulation is justified given the available incident data trends and associated analysis discussed in the ANPR and preamble of the proposed and final SEMS rule. As mentioned previously, the analysis covered over 10 years and demonstrates that requiring operators to implement a SEMS program is likely to improve OCS safety. BOEMRE incident analysis supports adopting all 13 elements. Voluntary data submitted by industry should not be construed as BOEMRE data as it is incomplete and unverified. BOEMRE data is the only source of industry-wide data available.

Job Safety Analysis/Job Hazards Analysis

Comment:
Most comments claimed that the job safety analysis/job hazards analysis is the only significant portion of the proposed rule that could affect the behavioral issues related to an incident.

Response:
BOEMRE agrees that a JSA/JHA does address behavioral change with the goal of minimizing accidents, but disagrees that it is the only portion of the rule that bears on behavior. In the final rule, BOEMRE is incorporating all elements of API RP 75, much of which addresses behavioral issues and additional regulatory requirements to clarify expectations for compliance.

Mandated SEMS Program

Comment:
Most comments strongly disagree that a mandated SEMS program as proposed is needed. The comments stated that a mandated program will not reduce OCS incidents any more than a voluntary SEMS program. As such, they recommend BOEMRE keep SEMS voluntary.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. In 1998, operators accounting for 98 percent of OCS production reported that they were covered under a SEMS. By 2006, this number decreased to approximately 60 percent (see API RP 75 implementation survey at:
http://www.BOEMRE.gov/semp/Reports/survey98.htm)
. A voluntary SEMS program has not been adopted by all operators. The only way to ensure the adoption of a SEMS program by all operators is to require that all operators implement such a program.

Comment:
The other option proposed by some comments was to mandate a program for those operators who have a historical record of poor performance.

Response:
BOEMRE does not agree that this is the most effective approach.

The purpose of requiring a SEMS program is to reduce the risk and number of incidents during OCS activities, which is not solely based or determined by an operator's past record of poor performance.

Withdraw Proposed Rule

Comment:
Many comments stated that BOEMRE should withdraw the proposed rule immediately and reevaluate the cost/benefits of mandating a program that, as recently as 2003, was determined by the agency to be performing well as a voluntary program.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. The only way to ensure SEMS programs are used across the entire OCS is to require a program for all operators. As of 2009, only 54 percent of OCS operators had a SEMS program, and not all of the 54 percent include the entirety of APR RP 75 in their SEMS program.

Underestimated Cost

Comment:
Most comments expressed that BOEMRE significantly underestimated the cost of developing, revising, and implementing the SEMS program. Comments also stated that BOEMRE dramatically underestimated the major new documentation and reporting burden that the rule will impose on offshore operators.

Response:
BOEMRE re-evaluated the cost burden on industry by interviewing parties experienced in the development of SEMS programs, vendors that submit information for operators, and operators with designated personnel who work on SEMS issues. Based on this information, we have increased the non-hour cost and hour burdens. Should OCS companies have documented data that shows a higher cost to industry, they may submit comments at any time on the paperwork burden as stated in § 250.199(d).

New Reporting, Documentation, and Recordkeeping Requirements

Comment:
Several comments claim that this proposed rule attempts to prescribe new reporting, documentation, and recordkeeping requirements far above current levels in API RP 75, that will adversely impact OCS operators' businesses, both operationally and financially, while bringing little benefit towards improving safety of offshore operations.

Response:
BOEMRE changed the reporting and recordkeeping requirements from the proposed rule to the final rule. We are now incorporating all elements of API RP 75, with requirements in § 250.1928 to enhance documentation and recordkeeping. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements in this final rule are primarily submissions of documents that are directed by the adoption of API RP 75 and used to comply with this recommended practice. The reporting to BOEMRE is necessary to ensure the bureau has the appropriate documentation to monitor compliance with this rule.

Comment:
The operator can only supply the information on the Form MMS-131 by collecting and consolidating information from their contractors, suppliers, and vendors and, in turn, any subcontractors or other workers involved in OCS operations. This is not a current practice and it will require a significant amount of time to establish and maintain a reporting system. Further complications will arise since a significant portion of work may be contracted out as “lump sum” turnkey projects where individual worker hours are not provided to the operator.

Response:
Such information is critical to the effective implementation of a SEMS program. While operators may not currently require contractors, suppliers, and vendors to submit this information, it is not unreasonable to expect them to provide it to the operator. Regarding “lump sum” turnkey projects, individual worker hours could be estimated as a normal practice. For example, a contractor may have workers who stay offshore for 2 weeks at a time and work 12 hour shifts. Therefore, a crew of 20 people, could be estimated to work a total of 240 hours per day for 14 continuous days (240 hours × 14 days = 3, 360 hours).

Comment:
While most contractors on the OCS probably collect information regarding employee work hours and injuries/illnesses for their own use, they typically do so either on a quarterly or annual basis, not the per-contract basis which would be necessitated by the proposed action.

Response:
Operators will need to work with their contractors to establish the best approach to provide the information required by this rule.

Comment:
Collection and reporting of information that only becomes available post-contract is problematic. For example: Will the operator be expected to report days of continuing restricted work activity for a contractor's employee injured while working for the operator after the termination of the contract?

Response:
Once the contract has been terminated, the contractor's employee is no longer working for the operating company in question. Form MMS-131 only requests that an operating company provide information for contractors under their employment during the calendar year. Operating companies will only be required to provide information tallied for the portion of the year the contractor is under the operating company's employment, not for the entire year.

Comment:
There is no consistent industry practice of collecting information regarding work hours and injuries/illnesses from sub-contractors and other (possibly occasional) workers. The proposed action would require the establishment of such an information collection and reporting system. The collection of such information regarding occasional workers (
e.g.,
equipment repair specialists), particularly those providing services on a per-job (rather than hourly) basis will be particularly challenging.

Response:
In § 250.1914(e)(2), BOEMRE requires the operator to keep an injury/illness log, retain it for 2 years, and include this information on Form MMS-131. The operating company is responsible for collecting and submitting this data and will need to work with their contractors to establish a process for doing so.

Comment:
BOEMRE has not, with this proposed version of Form MMS-131, provided the necessary instructions and definitions for the user to understand the information collection and comply with the reporting requirement. The instructions and definitions should be made available, with the proposed form, for public comment. The information collection should not be authorized until clear and unambiguous instructions are provided.

Response:
There is no need to make proposed Form MMS-131 available for public comment since it was previously made available for comment in the proposed rule. However, in light of your comment concerning the instructions, the BOEMRE is providing explicit instructions to guide respondents on completing the form. See Appendix 1 of the final rule.

Comment:
Cost and time estimates are more in line with the printing of manuals and instructions and not actual or historical costs we have as operators experienced for the development, implementation, and long term support of a new program.

Response:
BOEMRE re-evaluated the cost burden on industry by interviewing parties experienced in the development of SEMS programs, vendors that submit information for operators, and operators with designated personnel who work on SEMS issues. Based on this information, we have increased the non-hour cost and hour burdens. If OCS companies

have documented data that shows a higher cost to industry, they may submit comments at any time on the paperwork burden as stated in § 250.199(d).

Comment:
The proposed rule does not take into consideration the impact that the requirements and administrative burden will force on small independent contractors and service suppliers who perform a large portion of the field work typically carried out on OCS facilities.

Response:
The operators must submit Form MMS-131 to BOEMRE, not small independent contractors and service suppliers. BOEMRE foresees that the primary impact for these groups is that they are now expected to provide information on the man-hours. That task may be as simple as taking note of the time specific employees report in and out of a specific work site and tracking that data. Operators will need to work with their contractors to establish the best approach to provide the information required by this rule.

Comment:
We ask that BOEMRE appropriately acknowledge the entire burden being imposed by this rulemaking on the industry and account for it within its information collection budget.

Response:
This is discussed in more detail in the Procedural Matters of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act section. If OCS companies have documented data that shows a higher paperwork burden than what BOEMRE estimates, they may submit comments at any time on the paperwork burden as stated in § 250.199(d).

Unnecessary Burden on BOEMRE

Comment:
Most comments claim that implementing this proposed rule will create an additional burden to regional BOEMRE staff that will require additional inspector/auditor training and increased workloads.

Response:
While this is additional work, we consider this regulation critical to improve safety on the OCS. BOEMRE will adjust inspector training and workload as necessary to ensure effective implementation of the rule.

Where BOEMRE Believes the Industry Is Falling Short of Expectations

Comment:
Several comments would like to know specifically where BOEMRE believes the industry is falling short of BOEMRE's expectations regarding safety and why the BOEMRE has not shared this information in the rulemaking.

Response:
The proposed rule was developed based upon 33 accident panel investigations, 1,443 incident analyses, and 3,132 INCs issued by the agency. Additional information about these items is publicly available at:
http://www.BOEMRE.gov/incidents/index.htm
and
http://www.gomr.BOEMRE.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/acc_repo/accindex.html
.

For the SEMS program to be most effective, the entirety of API RP 75 needs to be part of the program, which the final rule requires.

Remove Prescriptive Language

Comment:
A few comments pointed out that if BOEMRE intends to require that each SEMS conform to API RP 75, then the highly prescriptive language should be removed and the final rule should simply reference the appropriate sections in API RP 75. They recommend that BOEMRE incorporate by reference API RP 75 into the regulations and require compliance with the existing recommended practice. In addition, the comments state that the proposed rule, as written, not only represents an abrupt change from past direction of the BOEMRE, but it also penalizes those operators that took the initiative and developed programs patterned after the API RP 75 model. For operators that implement API RP 75 and continue to evolve their systems to keep abreast of changing operations, having the BOEMRE implement a 4 element SEMS will require them to go back and modify or change those systems to comply with new BOEMRE prescriptive requirements. These changes to programs that are working effectively will add minimal if any added value.

Response:
The final rule incorporates, and thus prescribes, all of API RP 75, as well as requirements as detailed in 30 CFR 250 subpart S for recordkeeping and documentation, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria, and audit requirements.

Implementation

Comment:
A commenter pointed out that the rule calls for the program to be implemented within 1 year after the final rule becomes effective. For operators that do not already have a written SEMS program that covers all of the elements, it will be impossible to develop the SEMS program, conduct all of the hazards analyses (facility), complete job hazards analysis for every job, write complete operating procedures, establish a mechanical integrity program, and establish an audit program for everyone on their facilities. Even for those operators that have a SEMS in place, it is likely to take more than 1 year to compare their existing program to the prescriptive requirements in this rulemaking and make all of the required modifications. Therefore, if a mandatory program is adopted, the commenter recommends that a phased-in approach to implementation be adopted.

Response:
BOEMRE believes that 1 year is a sufficient amount of time for operators to develop their SEMS program, even if they do not already have a program in place. The final rule incorporates by reference, and thus prescribes, the entirety of API RP 75 together with related requirements for recordkeeping and documentation, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, and contractor selection criteria. BOEMRE believes that 1 year is a sufficient amount of time for operators to put these related requirements of the program in place.

Three Alternatives for Consideration

Comment:
A comment suggested that in lieu of pursuing the rulemaking in its current form, the BOEMRE should consider the following three alternatives:

1. Suspend the rulemaking and continue with the voluntary program currently in place.

2. Suspend the rulemaking and return to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

3. Abandon the concept of a new prescriptive section in the regulation and simply include the following language in § 250.107:

(e) You must have a safety and environmental management program in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute's Recommended Practice for Development of a Safety and Environmental Management Program for Offshore Operations and Facilities (API RP 75), incorporated by reference as specified in § 250.198.

(1) At a minimum, your safety and environmental management program must include:

(i) Hazards Analysis. You must perform a hazards analysis for all OCS facilities to identify, evaluate, and, where unacceptable, reduce the likelihood and minimize the consequences of uncontrolled releases and other safety or environmental incidents. This includes having a job safety analysis process. Human factors should be considered in this analysis,

(ii) Management of Change. You must establish procedures to identify and control hazards associated with change and maintain the accuracy of safety information,

(iii) Operating Procedures. You must have written facility operating procedures designed to enhance

efficient, safe, and environmentally sound operations,

(iv) Mechanical Integrity. You must ensure that procedures are in place and implemented so that critical equipment for any facility subject to this recommended practice is designed, fabricated, installed, tested, inspected, monitored, and maintained in a manner consistent with appropriate service requirements, manufacturer's recommendations, BOEMRE requirements, or industry standards, and

(v) Documentation. You must establish a documentation system to ensure that records and documents are maintained in a manner sufficient to implement your safety and environmental management program. Records or documentation may be in either paper or electronic form. You must make this documentation available for BOEMRE inspection upon request. * * *

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees with all three of the proposed alternatives. Not all operators on the OCS voluntarily submit Form MMS-131. A comprehensive SEMS program is important. The final rule incorporates, and thus prescribes, API RP 75, and requirements for recordkeeping and documentation necessary to implement API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf.

Potential Adverse Impacts to Drilling Contractors

Comment:
A commenter expressed concerned that any prescriptive imposition of mandatory SEMS elements upon operators has the potential to adversely impact drilling contractors' SEMS, if a careful balance between the operators' perceived need to impose those SEMS elements against the contractors' need to manage their own SEMS is not achieved. Clearly the goal should be that a drilling contractor should move between operators with little, if any, modification to the contractor's SEMS.

Response:
The final rule does not require that a contractor have a SEMS program. The final rule requires operators to ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices and provides that they may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. The operator must have a SEMS program and is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contractor's safety performance and programs. An operator and contractor should agree on appropriate contractor's safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

BOEMRE Meetings With Industry

Comment:
Several comments state that BOEMRE should have held meetings with industry so that industry comments and views could have been placed on the record. An informal “workshop” without public recording of industry views is insufficient to reflect the depth of concern held by exploration and production companies operating on the OCS and the numerous other companies that support their activities. Even though BOEMRE held a public meeting in September 2009, it did not have official recording of comments.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. BOEMRE has publicized its views that a SEMS rule is needed since 1993 at a variety of industry conferences and meetings. At these meetings, BOEMRE explained that the agency supported implementation of a comprehensive SEMS program. These meetings presented the industry with numerous opportunities for dialog with BOEMRE regarding this type of program. In 1994, API RP 75 was developed with input from industry. In addition, the BOEMRE published its views in an ANPR in 2006, which discussed BOEMRE's consideration of a comprehensive API RP 75-based program, and an NPR in 2009. At the September 2009 meeting, attendees were encouraged to submit written comments.

Rule Lacks Specifics

Comment:
Several comments stated that the proposed rule lacks specificity in some areas, as well as in the discussion on hazard/safety analyses. It is the commenters' concern that without specifics, there will be inconsistency with regard to interpretation, which will be difficult on the industry, as well as BOEMRE, to implement and enforce.

Response:
The final rule incorporates, at an appropriate level of detail, requirements necessary for recordkeeping and documentation to implement API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf.

Agency Jurisdiction

Comment:
Several comments stated that it is not clear that BOEMRE is expanding its reach into other agencies' jurisdiction, and do not understand how this will help safety. BOEMRE's proposal to handle enforcement issues on MODUs, where the USCG has jurisdiction and has done a very good job over the years with their limited resources, is a duplication of efforts and a power grab by BOEMRE. Requiring mandatory reporting to BOEMRE when Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the appropriate agency is another area of duplication and another power grab by BOEMRE. The comments stated that they may be misreading the information, but it also appeared that BOEMRE is attempting to take over jurisdiction of Department of Transportation (DOT) regulated pipelines. If this is the case, here is another attempt at duplication or a power grab by BOEMRE.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. A SEMS will and should apply to MODUs when they are under BOEMRE's jurisdiction (
i.e.,
drilling, well workover, well completion, servicing operations). The final rule clarifies that the SEMS program must address DOI regulated pipelines only. BOEMRE, DOT, and USCG establish the requirements for workplace safety on the OCS with requirements that pertain to personal protection equipment, tripping and slipping hazards, deck openings, means of escape, fire extinguishers, and other workplace safety items. The OSHA requirements do not apply to OCS operations.

Support for the Proposed Rule

Comment:
Some comments supported BOEMRE in requiring OCS oil and gas operators to implement SEMS rules, which are intended to reduce human error and organizational failures. The analysis summarized in the proposed rule indicates that the elements are associated with contributing causes of most incidents, hence the rationale for focusing on them. Comments requested that this regulation require, rather than simply encourage, that offshore operators implement all elements of the API RP 75, as identified in the rulemaking notice.

Response:
Upon review of all the comments and the requirements of API RP 75, BOEMRE agrees that a SEMS program should be comprehensive to reduce human error and organizational failures. Therefore, BOEMRE incorporated all elements of API RP 75 with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 and regulatory language to clarify expectations for compliance.

Comment Period

Comment:
The comment period to such a significant, formal rule, was not long enough and it is recommended that further discussions with industry be carried out prior to any final rulemaking.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. BOEMRE published an ANPR in 2006 notifying industry that we were considering requiring a comprehensive SEMS program and seeking comment. The proposed rule was published on June 17, 2009, with a 90-day comment period. BOEMRE also held a workshop on September 2, 2009 at which attendees were encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed rule. This comment period is consistent with comment periods for other rules of this magnitude. Thus, sufficient response time was afforded for interested parties to submit comments.

General Comments

Comment:
A SEMS approach is more applicable to production facilities; MODU, liftboat, and coiled tubing operations are inherently more hazardous than production facility operations, and lead to more well control incidents.

Response:
BOEMRE believes that SEMS has merit for all OCS operations including, but not limited to, production, drilling, well completion, well workover, well servicing, and coiled tubing. For SEMS to be properly implemented, it needs to address all OCS operations. Liftboats are under the jurisdiction of the USCG and are not covered by this regulation.

Comment:
Support a more focused SEMS program for production facility management (excluding MODU operations), preferably one that is voluntary. Such a program, with elements of hazards analysis and management of change, probably could be helpful especially for smaller operators.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees. A SEMS should apply to MODUs and all other facilities under BOEMRE's jurisdiction. The final rule will require operators to have a SEMS for operations and activities onboard a MODU when it is under BOEMRE's jurisdiction such as drilling, well workover, well completion, and servicing operations.

Comment:
Does the definition of facility in this section apply to all the sections in subpart S?

Response:
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, including the definitions from Appendix D of API RP 75, except as revised in the final rule.

Comment:
How does BOEMRE perceive the difference between a Job Hazards Analysis (JHA) and a Job Safety Analysis (JSA)?

Response:
A JSA is one form of hazards analysis. Hazards analysis is performed to identify and evaluate hazards for the purpose of their elimination or control. A JSA is a process used to review site-specific detailed job steps and uncover hazards associated with the specific job undertaken. To alleviate any confusion, BOEMRE replaced the term JHA with JSA in the final rule.

Comment:
Is the JHA for each general operation or for the immediate task at hand?

Response:
BOEMRE removed the term JHA from the final rule. In the final rulemaking, JSAs are required for the immediate tasks at hand and are not required for general operations.

Comment:
What is BOEMRE's expectation for what triggers an internal audit and updating a facility hazards analysis?

Response:
The final rule requires operators to have their SEMS program audited by either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel, according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 75, Section 12. The first audit must be within 2 years of the initial implementation of the SEMS program and at least once every 3 years thereafter. However, BOEMRE may issue additional guidance on this after the final rule is implemented. BOEMRE may direct specific operators to conduct additional independent third-party audits or BOEMRE may conduct an audit, if we identify safety or non-compliance concerns based on the results of inspections and evaluations, or as a result of an event.

The operator must update the appropriate elements of their SEMS program, if there are deficiencies identified in the audit. For updating a hazards analysis for a facility, we incorporated by reference the requirements of API RP 75, Section 4.4, which requires that if a management of change is conducted due to changes in personnel, facility and operating conditions, then the operator must conduct a hazard analysis on those changes. For simple and nearly identical facilities, such as well jackets and single well caissons, the operator may use the same single hazards analysis after verifying that any site-specific deviations have been identified and addressed (
see
§ 250.1911).

Comment:
Recommend in proposed section § 250.1907 “What criteria for Mechanical Integrity must my SEMS program meet?” that “manufacturer's recommended limits” should be changed to manufacturers and/or engineering design limits.

Response:
We disagree; we believe that the manufactures recommended limits are the most appropriate guidance to use.

Comment:
What are BOEMRE's definitions of temporary operations, personnel change, and facility?

Response:
See the scope of “facilities” addressed in § 250.1911 and Appendix D of API RP 75, incorporated by reference, which includes a definition of “facility.” As to personnel change, we are now incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4, which defines “personnel change” in Section 4.3. The term “temporary operations” was removed from the final rule. It is the operator's responsibility to ensure all contractors subscribe to basic safety workplace principles that meet the spirit and intent of the operator's SEMS program.

Comment:
Does BOEMRE support API RP 75 guidance on MOC as being sufficient to direct operators in developing an effective MOC process?

Response:
The guidance provided in API RP 75, Section 4, which we incorporated by reference in the final rule, along with the requirement in § 250.1912 of the final rule provides sufficient guidelines and procedures on when and how to develop a MOC process.

Comment:
How does BOEMRE perceive the difference between documenting the inspection and tests that have been performed, and verification that inspections and tests are being performed?

Response:
BOEMRE will evaluate all of the documentation provided to verify that the inspections and tests were performed and that the operator continues to perform the inspections and tests, as described in their SEMS. BOEMRE is vigilant about operator documentation and may use a variety of tools to determine the validity of operator records and that the operator is conducting all prescribed and appropriate tests, as identified in their SEMS.

Comment:
Are there contractor groups that BOEMRE believes are not being addressed by existing subpart O requirements—identify. We believe this is redundant with the existing subpart O program.

Response:
BOEMRE does not regulate contractors; we regulate operators. Subpart O applies to well control and production safety, whereas this SEMS final rule applies to operators who are performing or who have contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or

specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. The training requirements of subpart O may be used to partially meet the SEMS requirements.

Comment:
Can you provide detailed instructions and examples for filling out Form MMS-131?

Response:
The form and instructions are in Appendix 1 which is incorporated by reference into the rule and is also set forth in the preamble of the final rule.

Comment:
BOEMRE fails to recognize that our voluntary safety and environmental programs are effective.

Response:
The voluntary programs may be effective for those who follow the guidance completely. However, more needs to be done to promote safety of the environment and the personnel working on the OCS by ensuring that everyone complies with API RP 75 and the requirements of this final rule.

Comment:
BOEMRE fails to understand that our safety record is good and is only getting better.

Response:
The record of incidents that cause injuries, fatalities, fires, collisions, loss of well control, or explosions demonstrates the need for regular evaluation and improvement of safety standards.

Comment:
BOEMRE fails to understand that the prescriptive SEMS program will not address many of the incidents/accidents that the regulation is based on.

Response:
BOEMRE does not agree that the voluntary program has been as effective as it could be. Industry wide adoption of SEMS is crucial to enhancing safety in the OCS.

Comment:
BOEMRE wrote prescriptive requirements for all or part of 8 of the 12 SEMS elements in lieu of just following API RP 75.

Response:
BOEMRE is incorporating all elements of API RP 75 in the final rule, with clarification of the proposed rule's requirements for JSA, recordkeeping and documentation requirements, contractor selection criteria, and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf.

Comment:
The proposed rule changes the wording and expands on API RP 75, Section 5, dealing with environmental and occupation safety and health considerations. These requirements overlap with hazardous materials regulations, OPA 90, RCRA, NPDES, etc. How does BOEMRE think the addition of these requirements will impact safety performance more than the existing regulations of other agencies?

Response:
SEMS is a safety management system that will enhance the effectiveness of other laws and regulations.

Comment:
BOEMRE should use an alternative compliance approach, i.e., those operator/lessees that have established Safety and Environmental Management Program (SEMP) (identified by BOEMRE as 56 percent or 73 of the 130 operators) and are within the BOEMRE standard of compliance as recognized in the annual Safe Award program that would be exempt from the proposed rule.

Response:
We believe that there are varying degrees of commitment and compliance with the voluntary SEMP program and that a mandatory program is the best way to ensure that operators implement a comprehensive approach to safety. Operators that have a comprehensive SEMS program in place addressing all of API RP 75 are already addressing many of the requirements in this final rule.

Comment:
Some operators have existing processes that address changes. Consideration should be given to these existing processes and not develop a prescribed MOC process for changes that are already covered.

Response:
BOEMRE changed the final rule by incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4, to address MOCs. You may use your existing MOC process if it meets the requirements of API RP 75 and § 250.1912.

Comment:
We believe that the one size fits all approach to this rule does not take into account the diversity of operations that exists in the OCS.

Response:
SEMS is not a one size fits all program. In fact, SEMS encourages operators to consider unique circumstances and conditions. BOEMRE changed the final rule by incorporating all elements of API RP 75 and requirements for recordkeeping and documentation necessary to implement API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria, and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf to allow for the diversity of operations that exists on the OCS and within the company/operation.

Comment:
Please clarify if the parts of the proposed elements can be accomplished through other management systems; in other words, a comprehensive SEMS program can cover each of the proposed items without these necessarily being part of a single system.

Response:
In the final rule, we are requiring all operators to follow the elements of API RP 75 and requirements for recordkeeping and documentation, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria, and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf. As recognized in API RP 75, Section 1.3.1.1, some systems may have been developed using other guidelines. If a system was developed using other guidelines, when that system is assessed, the operator should focus on assuring that all the program elements from API RP 75 and this final rule are addressed.

Comment:
What data will be made available to the public? What measures will be in place to protect sensitive company data from being made public?

Response:
BOEMRE requires a copy of Form MMS-131 from an operator. The information on the Form MMS-131 is not protected from disclosure and is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should a member of the public request this information. BOEMRE may request a copy of the operator's SEMS and audits. BOEMRE will protect proprietary information under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2); and 30 CFR 250.197.

Comment:
We further believe that the record retention requirements for the JSA and related index are unduly burdensome and contrary to BOEMRE's stated intent that the programs not become a paperwork exercise. The proposed rule also creates concern regarding “ownership” of the JSA/index once a MODU is no longer under contract for the operator under whose contract they were developed.

Response:
The retention in the final rule for the JSAs is now 30 days on-site and up to 2 years at a location of the operator's discretion. The JSA/index has been removed.

Comment:
A commenter believes that BOEMRE should have a separate section in the rulemaking that pertains only to hazards analysis for MODUs.

Response:
BOEMRE disagrees; the final rulemaking does not need a separate section for hazards analysis for MODUs. We incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 3, for hazards analysis requirements, with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in § 250.1901 and § 250.1911.

Comment:
How do we overcome human error?

Response:
The intent of this rule is to reduce human error by focusing on a comprehensive SEMS program and JSAs. One result of an effectively

implemented SEMS will be to reduce human error.

Comment:
If BOEMRE intends to require that each SEMS conform to API RP 75, then the highly prescriptive language should be removed and the final rule should simply reference the appropriate sections in API RP 75. Any exception or additions could be listed, similar to the approach taken in § 250.804.

Response:
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75 and requirements for recordkeeping and documentation necessary to implement API RP 75, JSAs for activities identified in the SEMS programs, contractor selection criteria and the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf.

Comment:
The rulemaking is confusing with respect to the 4 types of contractor requirements,
e.g.,
MODUs; contractors brought onto platforms for painting/cleaning, etc.; contract operating companies; individuals working side by side with employees under head company rules. The word “employee” needs to be clarified—just the operator's actual employees or whom?

Response:
We are replacing “employees” with “personnel” and defining “personnel” in § 250.1903 in the final rule. The term “Personnel” means direct employee(s) of the operator and contracted workers who are involved with or affected by specific jobs or tasks. All personnel involved with or affected by a SEMS specific task must be trained by skilled and knowledgeable personnel to perform their assigned duties.

Comment:
A comment expressed the concern that we are accepting duplicated work that is already required by DOT, OSHA, and USCG—killing trees with all the paperwork submissions.

Response:
A number of federal agencies, including DOT, USCG, and BOEMRE have various responsibilities and authorities under a variety of statutes related to OCS matters. BOEMRE is not asking for duplication of paperwork that is already submitted to another government agency. Most of the information may be submitted electronically.

Section-by-Section Discussion

The industry trade organizations (Offshore Operators Committee, American Petroleum Institute, International Association of Drilling Contractors) and OCS operators submitted extensive lists of specific comments for most sections of the proposed rule. We responded to those comments in the “General Comments” section. The following table addresses more specific comments not already addressed.

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

250.1903(b)
Note that, at § 250.1903(b), BOEMRE holds up ISO 14001 as an example of other standards or guidelines that meet or exceed API RP 75, seemingly encouraging such an approach as ours. However, a certified, active ISO 14001 program will not comply with the proposed regulation
As recognized in API RP 75, Section 1.3.1.1, some systems may have been developed using other guidelines. If an operator has already developed a system using other guidelines, when the system is assessed, the focus should be on assuring that the necessary program elements from API RP 75 and the requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in this final rule are addressed.

250.1905
Do DOI pipelines require separate hazards analyses, or is it acceptable to combine with the facility with which it is associated?
It is up to the operator to decide to combine or do a separate hazard analysis for the DOI pipelines and associated facility. However, the analysis must comply with the API RP 75 and the requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in this final rule.

250.1905
The regulated community has varying degrees of understanding of the terms JHA and JSA. The JSAs are typically viewed as a tool to perform the OSHA required JHA. Does BOEMRE consider these terms the same? If not, please explain the difference from your understanding. The regulated community commonly understands JHA to be a broad analysis of the hazards for an overall operating procedure. A JSA is a review of a specific task at hand where the steps and hazards associated with a specific task are reviewed. To effect behavior change, we believe that a JSA is the more effective methodology than a JHA. However, it is not clear in the rulemaking which methodology BOEMRE is mandating. We note that BOEMRE Safety Alerts 276 and 282 have good descriptions of the difference between JHA and JSA
The terms JSA and JHA are different; therefore, in this final rulemaking we will require only JSAs. We have defined JSA in the general comments section of the preamble.

Recommendation: Please state the correlation to the appropriate section within API RP 75 such as “You must develop and implement a hazards analysis (facility level) as described in Section 3 of API RP 75.” For clarity, we recommend that job hazards analysis be changed to job safety analysis in all places in the regulation

250.1905
MODU, coiled tubing, and liftboat operations are contracted. Subpart O already requires operators to verify well-control certification of contractor employees. Few operators possess specialized knowledge that would trump the certification of contractor employees
BOEMRE agrees with this comment pertaining to the current Subpart O regulation, in part. The operator is the responsible party for all well control activities and operations, whether or not using contract personnel. If contractors are used, the operator is responsible for verifying that its contractors have the skills and knowledge to perform these operations in a safe manner.

250.1905
If a company contracts a MODU, the contractor would have to provide and support its own hazards analyses (and SEMS program) vs. the operator for which it is working. The MODUs should not be included in the list of facilities covered by this rule. The MODU operator should have a mechanical integrity and JSA program to cover operations on the rig
BOEMRE disagrees. The operator must have a SEMS program. BOEMRE's intent is to have a hazards analysis as detailed in API RP 75, Section 3 and the requirements in § 205.1911 of this final rule, of any MODU under BOEMRE's jurisdiction. The MODUs are considered facilities when they are used for exploration, development, production, and transportation activities for oil and gas and sulphur from areas leased in the OCS.

250.1905
We do not understand the reference to internal audit and know of no facility specific audits that are required. We noted that proposed § 250.1910 refers to a SEMS audit, but that is on the overall program. Periodic analyses should be conducted as described in Section 3.4 of API RP 75. Does this mean hazards analyses must be updated (or revalidated) every 3 years in conjunction with the SEMS Audit? API RP 75 allows hazards analysis updates to be made at 5-10 year intervals based on risk
We are incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 3, which includes periodic analysis, to update the hazards analysis for compliance. You must update your hazards analysis as appropriate with typical review periods. The final rule requires the first audit within 2 years of implementation of the SEMS program and every 3 years thereafter, however, BOEMRE may require additional independent third party audits or BOEMRE may conduct our own audits based on poor operator performance or accidents.

Recommendation: Change the last sentence to: The hazards analyses (facility level) must be reviewed periodically and updated as appropriate when changes are warranted to verify that it is consistent with the current operations on the facility, consistent with the requirements in Section 3.4 of API RP 75

250.1905
We see no purpose in maintaining the hazards analysis on the facility. In many cases, the facility may be an unmanned facility with no storage capability. Does BOEMRE really expect a MODU to store a hazards analysis onboard the MODU from each and every operator who has performed such an analysis? As in API RP 75, the hazard report (facility level) should be kept on file for the life of the facility. It is most appropriate that this file be kept in the operator's office where design and other facility related information is kept since this data will need to be referred to in conjunction with the hazards analysis. For job hazards analysis (commonly referred to as Job Safety Analysis-JSA), this should be kept where it is readily accessible to the personnel actually reviewing the analysis prior to performing the job it covers
The operator is responsible for deciding where to keep the hazards analysis for the life of the facility. BOEMRE is removing the requirement to maintain a hazards analysis on a facility. The JHAs were removed from the final rule and replaced with JSAs. The JSAs must be retained for 30 days on the facility for BOEMRE inspection and must be made available to BOEMRE upon request for 2 years. You must maintain a copy of all SEMS program documents at an onshore location for 6 years.

Recommendation: The requirement for documentation should be changed to the following: You must document and maintain current analyses for each operation covered by this section for the life of the operation. Hazards analysis (facility level) should be retained in the operator's records where the facility design information is located. The JHA (operations/task level) should be kept in a location where it is readily accessible to personnel for review prior to conducting the operation or task the analysis covers
BOEMRE disagrees with the recommendation. Please see previous response.

250.1905
We suggest deleting “property damage” from the potential consequences included in the purpose of the facility level hazards analysis in § 250.1905. The philosophy adopted with respect to property damage, also referred to as “asset protection” should be at the operator's discretion, provided that the property damage does not subsequently lead to worker injuries, fatalities, or coastal or marine environmental impacts
This specific reference to “property damage” is not in the final rule. BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, which speaks to this issue.

250.1905
We recommend the language in § 250.1905 be modified to state “You must ensure a hazards analysis (facility level) and a JHA (operations/task level) is developed and implemented for all your facilities” rather than “You must develop.” The reason for this recommendation is that since MODUs are included as facilities in this subpart, it will then be clear that operators are only responsible to ensure the third-party contractors have performed a hazards analysis prior to conducting operations on the operator's lease
The final rule requires the operator to ensure the development and implementation of a hazards analysis in accordance with API RP 75 and to perform a JSA at the task level in accordance with § 250.1911. These must be included in the SEMS program. In order to comply with this rule, an operator and its contractors need to agree on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1905
Production contractor can have a Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Standard that outlines the general guidelines on how to perform proper LOTO; but to generate a Hazard Assessment of a facility, the contractor would need to have access to the drawings and/or facility to address site specific equipment and issues. In some cases, contractors merely provide a resource. This resource is supervised by the client onsite
The operator must develop and implement a hazards analysis for all of their operations in accordance with the Section 3, Hazards Analysis and § 250.1911. In order to comply with this rule, an operator and its contractors need to agree on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1905
We urge BOEMRE to revise § 250.1905 to make clear that drilling vessels or utility vessels are not required to be managed under our SEMS
BOEMRE disagrees. When a drilling vessel is under BOEMRE's jurisdiction, it is the operator's responsibility to have a SEMS program. In order to comply with this rule, an operator and its contractors need to agree on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before a contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1905(a)
Language in § 250.1905(a) should be revised to state: “You must ensure an initial hazards analysis (facility level) is or has been performed on each facility on or before (THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE)”
Proposed § 250.1905 is reflected in the final rule at § 250.1911. The requirement to perform a hazards analysis for each facility within 1 year of the effective date of the final rule was retained. A previous hazards analysis may be used as long as it meets the requirements of API RP 75 and § 250.1911 in the final rule.

250.1905(a)
If an operator has not previously conducted a hazards analysis on all of his platforms, it may be impossible to complete a hazards analysis of all of his platforms within 1 year of the effective date of the final rule. A provision should be included for providing a prioritized list of facilities to the Regional Supervisor along with the date that each hazards analysis will be completed. This could be either in the rulemaking or a companion NTL
BOEMRE disagrees. The final rule requires the operator to have its SEMS program in place within 1 year of the effective date of the rule. The hazards analysis requirement must be in accordance with the provisions of API RP 75, Section 3 and the requirements in this final rule under § 250.1911, and included in the SEMS program.

250.1905(a)
According to § 250.1905(a), we must do a separate Hazards Analysis for every platform that we operate. Under our IMS, we get to the same place by doing a comprehensive hazards analysis (actually a more rigorous “risk assessment”) of all of our operations, with evaluation and ranking of risks and planned mitigations
There is nothing in the rule that prevents an operator from using the same hazards analysis for similar platforms. However, if one or more facilities are similar but have distinct differences that require discrete policies and procedures for safe operations meeting the SEMS elements, then you must develop a separate SEMS for each of those facilities.

250.1905(a)
Element 1, “Hazards Analysis at the facility level” is already being achieved by following API RP 14C as a guideline for Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Surface Safety Systems. The JSA/JHA along with the “Stop Work Authority” is already being utilized Gulf-wide. Furthermore, egress is identified in the platform submission process; chemicals and flammables kept on the facility are identified as part of the MSDS requirements; and mitigation of possible safety and health effects on employees are also already being performed
BOEMRE agrees. The API RP 14C is a good guideline for conducting a hazards analysis for a production facility and it is referenced in API RP 75. However, the hazards analyses must follow API RP 75, Section 3, with clarification in § 250.1911.

250.1905(a)(1)(ii)
We do not understand the requirement that special attention should be given to any incident in which you were issued an INC, civil or criminal penalty; nor do we understand what “special attention” should cover; nor do we understand what length of time we should consider. Further, we have no idea how the enforcement action of a regulatory agency relates to hazards analysis. We agree that previous incidents related to the operation, to the extent known by the operator, should be evaluated regardless of whether or not they resulted in an enforcement action. It should be noted that in many cases, a facility may have had multiple previous operators and a complete history of previous incidents may not have been provided to the current operator
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75. The operator must follow the guidelines under API RP 75, Section 3, as clarified in § 250.1911. If BOEMRE evaluates a SEMS program, the operator must submit to BOEMRE a revised SEMS program that addresses any identified deficiencies.

Recommendation: Strike the sentence “Special * * * penalty”
This provision was amended, striking “special attention” while requiring the hazard analysis to address previous incidents.

250.1905(a)(1)(iv)
It is not clear what BOEMRE's expectations are for a hazard review to cover coastal and marine environmental impact. These potential impacts are already covered in the environmental analysis conducted by BOEMRE for lease sales and exploration and development plans. The operator addresses these impacts in their EP, DOCD, and OSRPs. This requirement is duplicative of analysis already conducted in accordance with the BOEMRE regulations in 30 CFR Part 250, subpart B, and 30 CFR Part 254
The requirements for a hazards analysis are in API RP 75, Section 3 with clarification in § 250.1911.

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

250.1905(a)(2)
Based on experience, a hazards analysis team is composed of (at least) individual(s) with experience in the operations being evaluated, and individual(s) who are experienced in the hazards analysis methodology. The rule states that these individuals need to have experience with both. That may be an impractical requirement
The hazards analysis team must meet the requirements included in API RP 75, Section 3 and requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in the final rule under § 250.1911.

Recommendation: Change the second sentence to: “at least one person needs to be experienced”
BOEMRE agrees and has made the change to the final rule.

250.1905(b)
There should be some prioritization in jobs/tasks to be evaluated. Everything an operator does is primarily a job/task. Routine jobs/tasks may be covered under operating procedures and the hazards analysis may be included in those procedures; therefore, a JSA may not be necessary. Jobs/tasks that are not routinely done and not covered by operating procedures should have a JSA. Jobs/tasks should be selected for analysis in priority order. We suggest the following prioritization:
BOEMRE agrees that an operator can prioritize its JSA to maximize safety as long as it meets the provisions of the final rule. BOEMRE removed JHA from the final rule. In the final rulemaking, JSAs are done for the immediate tasks at hand (not used for administrative or domestic services). If the particular activity is conducted on a recurring basis, and the parameters do not change, the person in charge of the activity may decide that a JSA for each individual activity is not required.

1. Jobs with highest rate of accidents or greatest potential for injuries
2. New jobs or non-routine jobs
3. Changes in process and procedures

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

250.1905(b)
The rulemaking also seems to envision that a “book” of JHAs/JSAs is maintained at the job site. While this may be true for jobs/tasks that are routinely performed, in many cases a JSA is completed for a non-routine task (e.g., an unusual lifting operation). The best JSAs are prepared by the workers on location and are handwritten. They should be kept in a manner that the workers can easily access them. The real value in the JSA is the “process” of the workers involved in the specific task actually discussing the hazards, agreeing on the individual roles and responsibilities and completing the JSA document. While it is important that JSAs for both routine and non-routine tasks be available for review by the workers until the job is completed, they may not be in a nice, neat, properly indexed book. We have no idea how the prescriptive documentation details in (b)(2) relate to keeping workers safe. They should be allowed to use whatever documentation technique works for them

We removed the requirement to maintain a book/index, but we require operators to keep a copy of the JSA for 30 days onsite and for 2 years at a location of the operator discretion and make them available to BOEMRE upon request.
The requirements for JSAs are in the final rule, § 250.1911.
Recordkeeping and Documentation requirements are in § 250.1928.

250.1905(b)
The only element in the proposed regulation that attempts to address worker behavior is the task-specific “hazards analysis.” However, there is a lot of confusion throughout the regulated community about the terms “JHA” and “JSA.” We typically use the term “JHA” to mean a broad analysis of the hazards associated with a job or process. Such analysis is typically done by a diverse team and may be done in an office setting or at the job site. Many times, this analysis is included with a facility-level hazards analysis or operating procedures and in many cases covers routine tasks. We typically use the term “JSA” to be the analysis done by onsite workers immediately prior to performing a task, many times a non-routine task. Some workers start with a “go-by” and mark it up for the specific task at hand and others start with a blank piece of paper or form. We believe that the application of JSA has the best opportunity to impact worker behavior since it is the workers themselves that are identifying the hazards and developing plans, procedures, safeguards, etc., to avoid an incident
The final rule distinguishes between a broad facility-based hazards analysis conducted in accordance with API RP 75, Section 3 and a task level JSA, § 250.1911, as required in the final rule.

250.1905(b)
Specific examples of practices within our IMS would be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: We presently conduct JSAs for work with at least some level of risk, but not for every work project and activity
The operator is required to follow API RP 75 as incorporated by reference and perform JSA's for those activities identified in it's SEMS program, as addressed in § 250.1911. There are routine tasks performed in the offshore environment that may meet the requirements of SEMS under the Safe Work Practices and Operating Procedures elements. However, for such activities that deviate from their norm due to a change in environment, personnel, or equipment-related factors, or other activities that are non-routine procedures, a JSA must be conducted that identifies and accounts for routine variations or the uniqueness of the activity.

250.1905(b)
A commenter is concerned by the proposed requirement for a task-level JHA. While we understand that this may be more correctly described as a JSA, we believe that there needs to be a better understanding of both what constitutes a JSA, and for what tasks a JSA should be developed. Does BOEMRE expect a JSA for operation of a copy machine?
BOEMRE replaced the term JHA with JSA in the final rule. In the final rulemaking, JSAs are done for the immediate tasks at hand (not used for administrative or domestic services).

250.1905(b)
Section 250.1905(b) states that a JHA must be performed for “each” work project and activity. BOEMRE must clarify this paragraph. There are many projects and activities that are considered “routine.” Our company wholeheartedly agrees that a thorough analysis should always be performed on all “non-routine” projects and activities. Our only concern is that a requirement for a JHA on all projects and activities would be overwhelming. The way the rule is written an operator would be required to perform a JHA for a simple activity such as obtaining tubing pressures or adjusting a level in a vessel
There is nothing in the rule that prevents an operator from using the same JSA for a particular activity that is conducted on a recurring basis as long as the parameters of the activity do not change.

250.1905(b)(2)

We further believe that the record retention requirements for the JSA and related index are unduly burdensome and contrary to BOEMRE's stated intent that the programs not become a paperwork exercise. The proposal also creates concern regarding “ownership” of the JSAs/index once a MODU is no longer under contract for the operator under whose contract they were developed
Recommended: Strike this section.

The operator may use programs already in existence to comply with provisions of this final rule, as long as your SEMS program addresses all the elements in API RP 75 and the requirements in the final rule.

250.1906(a)
We assume that the 13 requirements for procedures can be covered collectively by other management systems, especially with regards to chemicals and materials. The scope of these requirements (7, 9-13) goes beyond API RP 75, as well as OSHA PSM and EPA RMP
The operator may use programs already in existence to comply with provisions of this final rule. BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 5 with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in § 250.1913 to address operating procedures.

250.1906(a)
Coupled with the requirement in § 250.1905 to develop a SEMS for MODUs, § 250.1906(a)(1) and (a)(5) would now require the operator to develop procedures for some drilling facilities that we neither own nor operate. This would significantly add to the documentation burden on the operators. We do not believe this would benefit the operator, the owner of the facility, or the personnel on the rig. Operators hire contractors that have safety programs in place and are in compliance with applicable laws, but do not dictate to them how to achieve that. The MODUs already have operations manuals developed in conformance with flag State requirements and/or IMO MODU Code and fall under the jurisdiction of the USCG. The proposed rule duplicates these requirements. Most operators do not have the resources or the expertise to develop operational procedures for drilling operations and depend on the contracted company who are the experts to develop their own procedures and safety systems
BOEMRE requires operating procedures for a MODU under BOEMRE's jurisdiction. The operator's operating procedures need to include provisions for evaluating operating procedures in their contractor plans. Under § 250.1914 of the final rule operators must ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

Recommendation: Change to “implement written production facility operating procedures”

250.1906(a)
It is easier to have site specific procedures that the operator can provide training to the contractor (preferably before the contractor employees begin work), and verify competency so that once the contractor's employees reach the facility, there exists a clear understanding of what is to be done, and how to do it
The operator is responsible for developing and implementing all operating procedures. Procedures should be site-specific for the task at hand e.g., drilling, cementing, coiled tubing. How operators decide to implement such operating procedures is up to them, as long as they are in compliance with API RP 75, Section 5, and the requirements in § 250.1913 of the final rule.

250.1906(a)
Our company agrees that operating procedures are a valuable tool in regards to paragraphs (1) through (13). Our only concern is that a written procedure for paragraphs (1) through (13) must be site specific. For example, a written procedure for paragraph (1) (initial startup) could only be followed for the facility that it was written for
BOEMRE understands that standardizing procedures with respect to safe operations makes good sense where appropriate. An operator may do so regarding like facilities but it is the operator's responsibility to identify any differences existing among similar facilities and identify those differences within their SEMS program. BOEMRE may require the operator to submit a complete SEMS for a particular facility should it deem the impact of the differences outweighs the similarities of the facilities.

250.1906(a)(1)
Initial startup, startup following a turnaround, or startup after an emergency shutdown are redundant and encompass the same elements. We suggest they be combined
BOEMRE disagrees and retained this paragraph in the final rule. We incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 5 to address these terms.

250.1906(a)(3)
What does BOEMRE envision as “temporary operations?” Please define or explain
This paragraph was deleted from the final rule. Section 5 of API RP 75 does not define “temporary operations.”

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

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

250.1906(a)(7)
We recommend the wording in § 250.1906(a)(7) be changed from “bypassing and flagging” to “bypassing and flagging out of service”
BOEMRE agrees that it should be addressed as “bypassing and flagging out of service.”

250.1906(a)(8)
“Safety and environmental consequences of deviating from your equipment operating limits and steps required to correct or avoid this deviation;” is already covered by API RP 14C and is included in the individual operating procedures and is not a separate operating procedure in and of itself
BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and the operator must comply with the provisions of operating procedures listed in § 250.1913(a)(8) and API RP 75, Section 5.

Recommendation: Strike (a)(8)
BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and the operator must comply with the provisions of operating procedures listed in § 250.1913(a)(8) and API RP 75, Section 5.

250.1906(a)(8-12)

The intent of API RP 75 is to take environmental factors into consideration during startup, normal operations, temporary operations * * * not developing procedures specific to these issues. Specific environmental issues are covered under and or overlap with Hazardous Material Regulations, CERCLA, RCRA, H
2
S regulations, and NPDES. These sections should be removed

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

250.1906(a)(13)
“Coastal and marine environmental impacts identified through your hazards analysis” is taken into account in the operating procedures themselves, they are not a separate operating procedure. Environmental impact identification is also covered in NPDES, air permit, and oil spill regulations and response plans. This section should be removed
The overriding goal of SEMS is to protect the human and marine environment.

250.1906(b)
Reword § 250.1906(b) to read, “Employees will have access to the appropriate procedures for their specific job/role in the operations.” This is subtle, but procedures for specific roles should be available to those specific employees, rather than all employees having access to all procedures
BOEMRE disagrees and is keeping this and is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 5.

250.1906(b)
We assume that procedures maintained electronically are considered accessible
See API RP 75, Section 13 and § 250.1928.

250.1906(b)
Please state what you mean as “accessible.” The facility where the work is conducted may be manned or unmanned. We suggest that the operating procedures be kept at the nearest manned facility
The API RP 75 does not address this issue and the operator should define, in their SEMS, where operating procedures are to be kept. However, you must be able to provide your SEMS to BOEMRE upon request in a timely fashion.

250.1906(d)
What specifically is meant by, “develop and implement safe and environmentally sound work practices for identified hazards during operations?” Is this meant to be Safe Work Practices (e.g., Hot Work, Confined Space, SIMOPS, etc.), or some other processes? This seems to be the intent of this whole element, if not all of the SEMS rule
The intent of the SEMS rule is to ensure safe work practices for all operations on an OCS facility.

250.1907
Is the intent of the mechanical integrity element to cover critical equipment as referred to in API RP 75? The way it is worded this element may cover more: “Your mechanical integrity program must encompass all equipment and systems used to prevent or mitigate uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons, toxic substances, or other materials that may cause environmental or safety consequences.” What are the types or severity of such consequences?
The final rule incorporates by reference API RP 75, Section 8 that addresses critical equipment and includes requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in § 250.1916. It is the operator's responsibility to meet the intent of SEMS as well as its requirements. The overriding goal of SEMS is to protect the human and marine environment. The inventory of harmful substances on offshore facilities is well known but will also evolve over time so it is incumbent upon the operator to keep all harmful substances controlled and contained.

250.1907

Does BOEMRE expect each operator to implement a mechanical integrity program for each MODU that we contract to work on our lease that we neither own nor operate? The MODU operator should have a mechanical integrity program for his equipment. The operator should verify that the MODU operator has such a program
Recommendation: You must develop and implement written procedures that provide instructions to ensure the mechanical integrity and safe operation of equipment through inspection, testing, and quality assurance for equipment on your facility used to prevent or mitigate uncontrolled releases of hydrocarbons, toxic substances, or other materials that may cause environmental or safety consequences. For MODUs operating on your lease, you must verify that the MODU operator has a mechanical integrity program that meets the requirement in this subpart. These procedures must address the following:

BOEMRE requires operating procedures for a MODU under BOEMRE's jurisdiction. The operator's operating procedures need to include provisions for evaluating operating procedures in their contractor plans. Under § 250.1914 of the final rule operators must ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

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

250.1907
A contractor can have a mechanical integrity program for contractor owned equipment (tools, vehicles, etc.), but to address the operator's equipment, again, it is more practical for the operator to develop this program, then train the contractor in implementation
BOEMRE agrees. The operator must have a mechanical integrity program in accordance with the requirements of API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916.

250.1907
This entire element is already being addressed. Paragraph (a) is already addressed by API RP 14C. Paragraph (b) (training) is already being addressed as part of the subpart O requirement. Paragraphs (c) through (i) is being addressed through the requirements of API RP 14C along with the monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual testing of the surface and sub-surface safety system
BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O addresses training related to well control and production safety. We incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916 to address mechanical integrity.

250.1907(a)
We suggest replacing “manufacturers design and material specifications” with “applicable design and material specifications.” The design, procurement, fabrication, etc., of equipment are not necessarily just based on manufacturers' specifications but could be based on API, company, or other applicable design and material specifications
We disagree; we believe that the manufacturer's design and material specifications are the most appropriate guidance to use.

250.1907(b)

Please note that there are typically no manufacturers recommended inspection intervals for fixed equipment (pressure vessels, piping, pipelines)
Maintenance intervals should be allowed to be extended based on component history, operating experience, and risk-based decision making

BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916 to address mechanical integrity. The operator's maintenance program must be structured to enhance safety and protect the environment and must sustain ongoing mechanical integrity. Testing and inspection procedures must follow commonly accepted standards and codes, such as API 510 and the manufacture's recommendations.

250.1907(b)
Equipment may be maintained by employees, contractors, or a mix. Some specialized equipment is actually maintained by the manufacturer's representatives who periodically travel to offshore facilities to perform required maintenance. Therefore, our employees do not need to be trained to do the actual maintenance work for all equipment in the mechanical integrity program
The operator must have mechanical integrity in accordance with API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916, in their SEMS program. Your contractors must conduct operations in accordance with your SEMS program.

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

250.1907(c)
We recommend deleting the language “meet the manufacturer's recommendations” in § 250.1907(c). Many of our inspection and testing requirements, while meeting regulations, are risk-based in approach
We disagree, we believe that the manufacture's recommendations are appropriate to use.

250.1907(c)
Specific examples of practices within our IMS would be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: We presently feel free to inspect or test some equipment more frequently than necessary to gain some extra level of comfort, but we do not expect to be locked into a greater frequency
The operator is required to meet or exceed the inspection frequencies in 30 CFR part 250.

250.1907(d)
Is electronic documentation of the person performing the inspection or test acceptable? Electronic work order systems are often used to schedule and document inspections and tests
To address recordkeeping and documentation, we incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 13, and additional reporting and documentation requirements in § 250.1928. Electronic records are acceptable to BOEMRE for most records.

250.1907(d)
We recommend adding, “Electronic documentation of the same information will suffice to meet this requirement” to § 250.1907(d). The requirement for “signature” on inspection or test documentation should be modified to encompass operators' use of electronic work management systems. Work orders, assigned to and completed by individuals within the software should be acceptable
BOEMRE kept this paragraph in the final rule. The final rule will also address mechanical integrity documentation as described in API RP 75, Section 8. Electronic records are acceptable to BOEMRE for most records, including electronic signatures.

250.1907(d)
The last sentence in § 250.1907(d) should be modified to place an “or” between inspection and test, therefore changing the language to read “and the results of the inspection or test”
BOEMRE agrees with this comment and made the text change in new § 250.1916(d).

250.1907(e)
Correction of deficiencies before further use will prevent use of risk-based decision making, and the subsequent shut-in of operations may present additional hazards. Would this apply in the case of waiting on parts and while mitigation measures are put in place? Does it cover deficiencies that may not affect operations integrity? Run to failure should be a viable option for some components. Suggest this requirement be based on risk. This is not a requirement in API RP 75
Deficiencies are addressed in API RP 75, Section 8 and § 250.1916(e). Under the final rule, the procedures for Mechanical Integrity must address the correction of deficiencies associated with equipment and systems that are outside the manufacturer's recommended limits before further use.

250.1907(e)
Specific examples of practices within our IMS that would be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: We presently decide whether to take a piece of equipment out of service based upon our judgment of actual risk (likelihood and consequence of failure)

Under § 250.1916(e) of the final rule the operator must document the procedures to correct critical equipment deficiencies or operations. The operator may continue to use an IMS, if it meets the requirements of API RP 75 and the final rule and the operator addresses any deficiencies. We cannot accept
only
“judgment” as a means of the operator determining risk. The operator must account for what factors were considered in taking equipment out of service. This does not have to be an exhaustive analysis but it does need to reflect that all relevant SEMS elements were considered. Documenting the “likelihood and consequence of failure” comports with the intent of SEMS.

250.1907(f)-(i)

How is this requirement different from (a), nor how it is to be implemented
Recommendation: Strike (f).
How is this requirement different from (a), nor how it is to be implemented
Recommendation: Strike (g). Since BOEMRE has outlined prescriptive requirements for the inspection and testing and the documentation of those inspections and tests, we do not understand what the requirement in (h) is and how it is different from (c) and (d) above or how to implement it.
Recommendation: Strike (h).

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

We suggest this be included under (a).
Recommendation: Strike (i) and include under (a).

250.1908
There is no mention if the MOC is for either permanent and temporary changes or just permanent changes. Please clarify
The operator must follow the requirements of API RP 75, Section 4 and § 250.1912 of the final rule for MOC, which requires procedures for any changes related to equipment, operating procedures, personnel changes, materials, and operating conditions, except for replacement in kind. This applies to permanent and temporary changes.

250.1908
A production contractor can have a MOC process, but in order for the process to work, the operator (client) must be part of the process. The scenario of the lessee/operator having a MOC process that the contractor can be a part of is a better model
The operator is responsible for developing and implementing a MOC in accordance with API RP 75, Section 4 and § 250.1912 of the final rule. The operator is responsible for coordinating with the contractor regarding MOC. The operator must ensure that their contractor embraces safety principles that support their SEMS program. The MOC is a cooperative activity that makes all parties responsible for its success.

250.1908(a)(2)
A process for changing operating procedures has already been established in § 250.1906(c). The MOC process should simply identify that operating procedures either need to be changed (or don't) as a result of changes to the facility. The actual change to the operating procedures should not have to go through the MOC process
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 for MOCs and Section 5 for Operating Procedures and requirements under §§ 250.1912 and 250.1913 of the final rule. Under §§ 250.1912 and 250.1913, the operator must address MOC for operating procedures.

250.1908(a)(3)
Section 250.1908 proposes issuing MOCs for personnel changes, but does not define which personnel that encompasses. It would be quite onerous if a MOC was required for every single individual that was changed out on a facility. To provide clarity as to those personnel changes that would require a MOC, we propose adding the following language to § 250.1908(3): “Personnel with specific knowledge or experience who supervise or operate, or support operations of a facility which would lead to a loss of knowledge or experience”
BOEMRE disagrees with this comment and it is the operator's responsibility to address personal changes. BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912, to address MOCs for changes in personnel. API RP 75, Section 4 includes the suggested language. The definition of contractors in § 250.1914(a) does not include those providing domestic services.

250.1908(a)(4)
What does BOEMRE envision as a change in material that requires a MOC that is not already covered under equipment?
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address MOCs. The operator must adopt these requirements in the SEMS. Materials that are not covered under equipment could include process chemicals and maintenance materials; these are mentioned in API RP 75.

250.1908(a)(5)
We assume that changes in operating conditions include such things as changes to the operating envelope (pressure, temperature, flow rates, material chemistry, etc.) as described in the facility design basis or a change in the chemistry of the product that was not considered in the equipment specification. If our assumption is not correct, please clarify
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address MOCs. API RP 4.2e addresses changes in operating conditions. The operator must adopt these requirements in the SEMS.

250.1908(c)
What does BOEMRE envision by the following requirement: “You must review all changes prior to their implementation?”
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4, and requirements under § 250.1912 to address MOCs. Section 250.1912(c) requires the operator to review all changes prior to their implementation and API RP 75 section 4.3 addresses this review related to changes in personnel. This review is required to ensure the safety of personnel.

250.1908(c)
Specific examples of practices within our IMS that would be unacceptable under the proposed SEMS regulations: We presently allow immediate approval of work considered to be for emergency situations without prior MOC review and approval, subsequently working through MOC as a follow-up
BOEMRE is incorporating by reference API RP 75, Section 4 and requirements under § 250.1912 to address MOCs. The operator may continue to use an IMS, if it meets the requirements of API RP 75 and the final regulation. Emergency situations are addressed in the final rule under § 250.1918 and requires the operator to have emergency response and control plans in place and ready for immediate implementation.

250.1908(f)
We assume that the documentation for this step will be under § 250.1906(c)
If the management of change results in change in the operating procedure, this change must be documented as provide in § 250.1912(f) in the final rule.

250.1909
The final rule must distinguish between “contractor employees” and “contracted employees”
While BOEMRE does not directly regulate the operator/contactor relationship, it is the responsibility of both the operator and contractor to conduct activities so that they comport with the operator's SEMS.

250.1909
1. How does this part relate to subpart O?
1. Subpart O specifically applies to personnel involved in well control and production safety system operations, while subpart S applies to all aspects of OCS operations under BOEMRE jurisdiction.

2. This section could conflict with subpart O and become detrimental to operators
2. BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O complements a SEMS program. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75 Section 7 as incorporated by reference and the requirements in § 250.1915.

250.1909
BOEMRE already has regulations in place to address training and competency assessments for both operator employees and contractors. 30 CFR Part 250, subpart O, Well Control and Production Safety Training, clearly states that operators must ensure that both employees and contract personnel understand and can properly perform their duties; § 250.1503(b)(3) requires operators to have procedures “for verifying that all employees and contractor personnel engaged in well control or production safety operations can perform their assigned duties.” In fact, BOEMRE periodically assesses the Subpart O program by auditing and testing as described in § 250.1507(d), which states “BOEMRE or its authorized representative may conduct testing at either onshore or offshore locations. Tests will be designed to evaluate the competency of your employees or contract personnel in performing their assigned well control and production safety duties. You are responsible for the costs associated with this testing, excluding salary and travel costs for BOEMRE personnel”
BOEMRE disagrees. The SEMS rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on or adjacent to a covered process. This section was renumbered as § 250.1914 in the final rule. The operator is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and programs and informs contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915.

We find that the proposed language in § 250.1909 is redundant with existing regulations under 30 CFR Part 250, subpart O, and therefore, should be eliminated from the proposed rule. If you do not agree, then please clarify the relationship between this proposed rule and the requirements in subpart O and identify what contractor groups have otherwise not been addressed by the existing subpart O requirements. If BOEMRE has concerns regarding contractor selection or competency, then the appropriate regulation to address such concerns is within the subpart O program
Recommendation: Strike § 250.1909 in its entirety.

BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O complements a SEMS program. All personnel with the operator's SEMS program need to be trained to competently perform their assigned duties. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915 in the final rule.

250.1909
The current BOEMRE regulations under subpart O at § 250.1500 require operators to ensure and document that their company and contract employees are competent to perform their assigned jobs. Therefore, the section on contractor selection and competency in the proposed rule is redundant and not needed. If BOEMRE felt it necessary, subpart O could be expanded to include any worker groups not already covered in the current rule. In the event BOEMRE proceeds with an entirely new rulemaking, we recommend a performance-based rule be written (like subpart O) to allow operators to utilize their existing safety and environmental management programs instead of a detailed, prescriptive program as proposed in this rulemaking. Companies could then certify to BOEMRE that their programs include the required elements and use their documentation and audit systems that are already in place and working
Subpart O specifically applies to personnel involved in well control and production safety system operations The SEMS rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered process. This section was renumbered as § 250.1914 in the final rule. The operator is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and programs and informing contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to substantially meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7, as incorporated by reference and the requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in § 250.1915. The contactor must ensure that all personnel not mentioned in subpart O are also competent in conducting their job and subscribe to safe work practices as identified in the operator's SEMS program.

250.1909
While the proposed rule states the required SEMS program must include each of the 4 elements described, we believe the § 250.1909 “What criteria must be documented in my SEMS program for contractor selection?” is actually a 5th element that has been added without the justification and rationale used to validate inclusion of the other 4 elements
BOEMRE disagrees; SEMS must include everyone working on a facility; criteria for contractor selection are an important part of that. Contractor criteria are addressed in Section 6.4 and Appendix A of API RP 75 as incorporated by reference. We included this in the final rule with requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in § 250.1914.

250.1909
If contractors are to be “accountable” for SEMS activities, their scale, complexity and scope of work should also be taken into account. Example: Contractor services vary from “Labor” (i.e., production operators), “Equipment” (i.e., Generators, machinery rentals) or both “Labor and Equipment” (i.e., drilling rig, welding machine, and welder), etc. A contractor supplying “Labor” services should not be required to have a SEMS program, but the competency to work within the clients program (i.e., perform JSAs, initiate MOC process, utilize Operating Procedures in performance of duties, perform level one visual Mechanical Integrity inspections in accordance with a lessee's SEMS program). A contractor only supplying “Equipment” should have a Mechanical Integrity Plan and Operating Procedures that accompany the equipment and limited hazards analysis pertaining to his equipment. A contractor supplying “Labor and Equipment” should have a SEMS program that covers his equipment and the operation thereof
The operator is responsible for having a SEMS program in place. The operator is responsible for coordinating with the contractor regarding their SEMS program. The operator must ensure that their contractor embraces safety principles that support their SEMS program.

250.1909
There is no indication in the data used for the proposed rule that “Contractor Selection” contributed to the incidents analyzed by the BOEMRE
Contractors perform a majority of the work on the OCS and the selection of skilled, knowledgeable, and trained contractor personnel by the operator is an important part of ensuring that the SEMS program works.

250.1909
The proposed rule would require the lessee/operator to develop a SEMS. However, § 250.1909 states that the lessee must document that their contractors have policies and practices that are consistent with the lessee's plan. Furthermore, it states that a copy of the contractor's SEMS program must be kept by the operator and the contractor at each facility where contract operations are being performed. Our company has 50 to 60 customers. To strive for consistency with 50 to 60 individual programs is unrealistic and places an unnecessary burden on all contract operators. Our company either manages or operates over 600 platforms in the GOM. The paperwork burden of supplying and maintaining a SEMS program for each facility (again, consistent with that individual customer) could only be done at a tremendous cost of not only man hours but monetary investment that may not be recoverable

The operator is responsible for having a SEMS program in place. The operator is responsible for coordinating with the contractor regarding their SEMS program. The operator must ensure that their contractor embraces safety principles that support their SEMS program.
Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor's safety and environmental performance when selecting a contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1909
There is absolutely no need for further expansion of contractor selection and contractor documentation in any SEMS program. Subpart O already addresses contractor evaluations and contractor selection. This portion of the proposed rule is redundant and attempts to expand once again on the definition of “Production Operations”
Subpart O applies to personnel involved in well control and production safety system operations. Section 250.1914 of the final rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered process, as well as Appendix A of API RP 75. The operator is responsible for verifying that contractor personnel can perform their assigned duties and informs contract employers of all hazards related to the contractor's work and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of Subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75 Section 7 as incorporated by reference and § 250.1915 of the final rule.

250.1909
BOEMRE cannot expect the operator or lessee to evaluate, test, and document the competency of these hired professionals as they are by name certified to perform their tasks and possess unique knowledge. Additionally, contractor selection does not affect human factors
BOEMRE disagrees. The operator is accountable for contractor personnel activities and equipment. BOEMRE does not expect the operator to test their contractors. BOEMRE does expect the operator to evaluate their contractor's ability to perform the job that they are hired to do and to document that they have done so.

Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor's safety and environmental performance when selecting a contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1909
We are concerned with the ambiguous language related to contractors and contracted personnel. BOEMRE fails to clearly distinguish between contracted individuals acting in the same capacity as an employee, and companies contracted to perform specialized services for a lessee, leading to perhaps unintended applications. For example, § 250.1909(a) of the proposed rule states, “A contractor is anyone performing work for the lessee.” This could be construed as including emergency response operations even though these are not integral to oil and gas exploration and production operations. We support the OOC comment that the section relating to contractors be stricken from the rule, as redundant with existing subpart O regulations. In the alternative, we request that the currently overbroad language be clarified to define contractors, and contracted personnel, and to confirm that the rule does not apply to emergency response contractors even though they are contracted to perform work for a lessee in the OCS
BOEMRE disagrees. Subpart O applies to personnel involved in well control and production safety system operations. Section 250.1914 of the final rule applies to contractors performing maintenance or repair, turnaround, major renovation, or specialty work on, or adjacent to, a covered process and Appendix A of API RP 75. The operator is responsible for obtaining and evaluating information regarding the contract employer's safety performance and safety programs and informs contract employers of the known potential fire, explosion, or toxic release hazards related to the contractor's work and the process. The operator may use the training requirements of subpart O to meet the SEMS requirements in API RP 75, Section 7 as incorporated by reference. The API RP 75 defines contractor as “The individual, partnership, firm, or corporation retained by the owner or operator to perform work or provide supplies or equipment. The term contractor must also include subcontractors”.

250.1909
The data used in the proposed rule makes no mention of problems regarding contractor competency, training, MOC, mechanical integrity, etc
Contractors perform the majority of the work on the OCS and as such, selecting skilled, knowledgeable, and trained contractor personnel by the operator will help achieve safe OCS operations.

Under § 250.1914 in the final rule the operators must obtain and evaluate information regarding the contractor's safety and environmental performance when selecting a contractor. Operators must ensure that contractors have their own written safe work practices. Contractors may adopt appropriate sections of the operator's SEMS program. Operator and contractor must document their agreement on appropriate contractor safety and environmental policies and practices before the contractor begins work at the operator's facilities.

250.1909(b)
1. Are electronic copies of contractor's competencies and SEMS programs acceptable?
1. Electronic copies of contractor's competencies and SEMS programs are acceptable. See API RP 75, Section 13 and § 250.1928.

2. Do we need to keep competencies for each individual contractor?
2. In § 250.1914 of the final rule, the SEMS must include procedures and verification that the operator's contractor and employees understand and can perform their assigned duties, as well as Appendix A of API RP 75, which addresses contractor selection criteria. The operator is responsible for ensuring and validating the competency of their contractors; the method for doing so must be detailed in their SEMS program. The operator may request specific performance information from contractors.

250.1910
We recommend that the prescriptive language be replaced with the following: “You must audit your SEMS program in accordance with API RP 75, Section 12, Audit of Safety and Environmental Management Program Elements”
BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75, Section 12 and requirements necessary to implement API RP 75 in the final rule under § 250.1920 to address audits and documentation. The final rule gives the option of utilizing either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf.

250.1910(a)
We believe timing for audits should be based on performance and risk rather than a prescribed schedule as described in § 250.1910(a)
BOEMRE incorporated by reference API RP 75. Audit frequency is addressed in § 250.1920 of the final rule. The operators must have their SEMS programs audited by either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 75, Section 12 within 2 years of the initial implementation of the SEMS program and at least once every 3 years thereafter.

250.1910(b)
As part of our SEMS program, we audit all facilities (offshore and on) on a 3-5 year basis and roll up results of audits from each year to evaluate our program as a whole. We assume this is acceptable in accordance with this section
Audit frequency is addressed in § 250.1920 of the final rule. The operators must have their SEMS programs audited by either an independent third party or your designated and qualified personnel to conduct audits on your behalf according to the requirements of this subpart and API RP 75, Section 12 within 2 years of the initial implementation of the SEMS program and at least once every 3 years thereafter.

Which part of this audit process would the BOEMRE want to be invited to participate/observe?
In § 250.1920(b), the operator must notify the BOEMRE 30 days in advance to allow BOEMRE to participate in/observe the o

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2010-25665. Public record. Not legal advice.