1010-AD15 - published proposed rule

74FR28639.pdf

30 CFR Part 250, Subpart S, Safety and Environmental Management Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations

1010-AD15 - published proposed rule

OMB: 1014-0017

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 1014-0017 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
affiliate thereof, the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and any affiliate
thereof, any Federal Home Loan Bank;
the term ‘‘regulated entities’’ means,
collectively, the Federal National
Mortgage Association and any affiliate
thereof, the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and any affiliate
thereof, and the Federal Home Loan
Banks.
Safety and Soundness Act means the
Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as
amended by the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,
Division A of the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008, Public
Law 110–289, 122 Stat. 2654 (2008).

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

§ 1233.3

Reporting.

(a) Timeframe for reporting. (1) A
regulated entity shall submit to the
Director a written report relating to any
fraud or possible fraud occurring in
connection with a loan, a series of loans
or other financial instruments that the
regulated entity has purchased or sold,
and shall do so promptly after
identifying such fraud or possible fraud
or is notified about such fraud or
possible fraud by law enforcement or
other government authority.
(2) In addition to submitting a report
in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, in any situation that would
have a significant impact on the
regulated entity, the regulated entity
shall immediately report any fraud or
possible fraud to the Director by
telephone or electronic communication.
(b) Format for reporting. (1) The
report shall be in such format and shall
be filed in accordance with such
procedures that the Director may
prescribe.
(2) The Director may require a
regulated entity to provide such
additional or continuing information
relating to such fraud or possible fraud
as the Director deems appropriate.
(3) A regulated entity may satisfy the
reporting requirements of this section by
submitting the required information on
a form or in another format used by any
other regulatory agency, provided it has
first obtained the prior written approval
of the Director.
(c) Retention of records. A regulated
entity shall maintain a copy of any
report submitted to the Director and the
original or business record equivalent of
any supporting documentation for a
period of five years from the date of
submission.
(d) Nondisclosure. (1) A regulated
entity may not disclose to any person
that it has submitted a report to the
Director pursuant to this section, unless

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

it has first obtained the prior written
approval of the Director.
(2) The restriction in paragraph (d)(1)
of this section does not prohibit a
regulated entity from—
(i) Disclosing or reporting such fraud
or possible fraud pursuant to legal
requirements, including reporting to
appropriate law enforcement or other
governmental authorities; or
(ii) Taking any legal or business
action it may deem appropriate,
including any action involving the party
or parties connected with the fraud or
possible fraud.
(e) No waiver of privilege. A regulated
entity does not waive any privilege it
may possess under any applicable law
as a consequence of reporting fraud or
possible fraud under this part.
§ 1233.4 Internal controls, procedures, and
training.

(a) In General. Each regulated entity
shall establish and maintain adequate
and efficient internal controls and
procedures and an operational training
program to assure an effective system to
detect and report fraud in connection
with the purchase or sale of a loan or
other financial instrument.
(b) Examination. The examination by
FHFA of fraud reporting programs of
each regulated entity must include an
evaluation of the extent to which
internal policies, procedures, and
training programs of the regulated entity
minimize risks from fraud and to the
extent that fraud or possible fraud is
consistently reported to FHFA.
§ 1233.5
reports.

Protection from liability for

As provided by section 1379E of the
Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C.
4642(b)), a regulated entity that, in good
faith, submits a report pursuant to this
part, and any entity-affiliated party,
that, in good faith, submits or requires
a person to submit a report pursuant to
this part, shall not be liable to any
person under any provision of law or
regulation, any constitution, law, or
regulation of any State or political
subdivision of any State, or under any
contract or other legally enforceable
agreement (including any arbitration
agreement) for such report, or for any
failure to provide notice of such report
to the person who is the subject of such
report, or any other persons identified
in the report.
§ 1233.6

Supervisory action.

Failure by a regulated entity to
comply with this part may subject the
regulated entity or the board members,
officers, or employees thereof to
supervisory action by FHFA, including

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

28639

but not limited to, cease-and-desist
proceedings and civil money penalties.
CHAPTER XVII—OFFICE OF FEDERAL
HOUSING ENTERPRISE OVERSIGHT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT

PART 1731—[REMOVED]
2. Remove part 1731.
Dated: June 4, 2009.
James B. Lockhart III,
Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
[FR Doc. E9–14189 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010–AD15
[Docket ID MMS–2008–OMM–0003]

Safety and Environmental Management
Systems for Outer Continental Shelf
Oil and Gas Operations
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The MMS proposes to require
operators to develop and implement a
Safety and Environmental Management
System to address oil and gas operations
in the Outer Continental Shelf. The
Safety and Environmental Management
System would consist of four
elements—Hazards Analysis,
Management of Change, Operating
Procedures, and Mechanical Integrity—
that, until now, have not been covered
in our regulations. The MMS analyzed
accident panel investigation reports,
incident reports, and incidents of
noncompliance and determined that the
root cause of most safety and
environmental accidents and incidents
is one or more of these four elements.
The MMS believes that requiring
operators to implement a Safety and
Environmental Management System
will reduce the risk and number of
accidents, injuries, and spills during
Outer Continental Shelf activities.
DATES: Submit comments by September
15, 2009. The MMS may not fully
consider comments received after this
date. Submit comments to the Office of
Management and Budget on the
information collection burden in this
proposed rule by July 17, 2009. This
does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to MMS on the
proposed regulations.

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28640

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

You may submit comments
on the rulemaking by any of the
following methods. Please use the
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
1010-AD15 as an identifier in your
message. See also Public Availability of
Comments under Procedural Matters.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Under the tab
‘‘More Search Options,’’ click
‘‘Advanced Docket Search,’’ then select
‘‘Minerals Management Service’’ from
the agency drop-down menu, then click
the submit button. In the Docket ID
column, select MMS–2008–OMM–0003
to submit public comments and to view
supporting and related materials
available for this rulemaking.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket after the close of the
comment period, is available through
the site’s ‘‘User Tips’’ link. The MMS
will post all comments.
• Mail or hand-carry comments to the
Department of the Interior; Minerals
Management Service; Attention:
Regulations and Standards Branch
(RSB); 381 Elden Street, MS–4024,
Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. Please
reference ‘‘Safety and Environmental
Management Systems for Outer
Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Operations, 1010–AD15’’ in your
comments and include your name and
return address.
• Send comments on the information
collection in this rule to: Interior Desk
Officer 1010–AD15, Office of
Management and Budget; 202–395–6566
(fax); e-mail: oira_docket@omb.eop.gov.
Please also send a copy to MMS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions on technical issues contact
David Nedorostek, Safety and
Enforcement Branch at
david.nedorostek@mms.gov or (703)
787–1029.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
22, 2006, MMS published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
in the Federal Register (71 FR 29277) to
seek comments and information on how
to improve our regulatory approach to
Safety and Environmental Management
Systems (SEMS) for operations
conducted in the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS). The ANPR examined a
variety of approaches to implementing
SEMS from voluntary to mandatory, and
from partial SEMS to comprehensive
SEMS.
During the ANPR comment period,
eight comments were received from the
public. One comment recommended
keeping SEMS voluntary. Three
comments recommended keeping SEMS

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

ADDRESSES:

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

voluntary, but if MMS decided to
mandate a SEMS, it should be a partial
SEMS requirement due to the number of
accidents that are related to the four
critical elements identified. A partial
SEMS would consist of: Hazards
Analysis, Management of Change,
Operating Procedures, and Mechanical
Integrity. The other four comments
received recommended that MMS move
forward with a comprehensive SEMS
approach, i.e., the 12 elements listed in
American Petroleum Institute’s (API)
Recommended Practice (RP) 75,
Development of a Safety and
Environmental Management Program
for Offshore Operations and Facilities,
Third Edition, May 2004. A
comprehensive SEMS would consist of:
• Safety and environmental
information;
• Hazards analysis;
• Management of change;
• Operating procedures;
• Safe work practices;
• Training;
• Mechanical integrity;
• Pre-startup review;
• Emergency response and control;
• Investigations of incidents;
• Auditing; and
• Records and documentation.
Most comments expressed that API
RP 75 provides excellent guidance on
developing a SEMS plan, and allows
operators and contractors to tailor the
program to their individual needs and
corporate cultures. The commenters do
not support MMS approving SEMS
plans, rather, a third party should
determine or certify whether a SEMS
plan is viable, because MMS may not
have the resources and expertise to
approve a minimum of one plan for
each OCS operator.
After reviewing and discussing the
comments, MMS proposes to require
each offshore lessee/operator to
develop, implement, maintain, and
operate under a SEMS program
composed of the four elements. This
decision was based on incident
investigation findings, and performance
reviews with operators which confirmed
that the majority of the accidents on the
OCS are related to the four elements in
the proposed rule (i.e., Hazards
Analysis, Management of Change,
Operating Procedures, and Mechanical
Integrity). Since the existing regulations
(30 CFR 250) do not specifically address
these four elements, MMS finds that it
is appropriate to cover these SEMS
elements in its rule. Each SEMS
program would be tailored to the scale
and complexity of the company’s
operation, and structured to include
accountability for contractors and
subcontractors. The SEMS program

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

would describe management
commitment to safety and the
environment, as well as policies and
procedures to assure safety and
environmental protection while
conducting OCS operations (including
those operations conducted by
contractor and subcontractor personnel).
As company management and worker
attitudes play a critical role in
determining the safety of operations and
environmental protection, a SEMS
program would play a major role in
focusing the attention of top
management on safety and the marine
and coastal environments. This will
assure to the greatest extent possible, a
broad organizational commitment to
human safety and environmental
protection.
The MMS proposes that the SEMS
program contain the four elements
mentioned above which are described in
greater detail as:
Hazards Analyses
This element would require that a
hazards analysis (facility level) be
conducted for all facilities. The purpose
of the analysis is to identify, evaluate,
and where unacceptable, reduce the
likelihood and/or minimize the
consequences of uncontrolled releases
of oil and gas and other safety or
environmental incidents. With respect
to analysis methods, MMS suggests that
operators use API RP 14 C,
Recommended Practice for Analysis,
Design, Installation, and Testing of
Basic Surface Safety Systems for
Offshore Production Platforms, Seventh
Edition, March 2001; or API RP 14J,
Recommended Practice for Design and
Hazards Analysis for Offshore
Production Facilities, Second Edition,
May 2001, as guides, as well as other
accepted documents and practices. In
addition, this element would also
require that a job hazard analysis
(operations/task level) be performed to
identify and evaluate hazards of a job/
task for the purpose of hazards control
or elimination.
Management of Change (MOC)
This element would require lessees/
operators to document and analyze all
proposed facility changes to determine
possible adverse safety and
environmental impacts, with the
exception of replacement in kind. There
are a number of specific topics to be
covered in this analysis, including
changes in: facilities and procedures,
personnel, work practices, equipment
(including addition of new equipment
or modifications to existing equipment),
and the safety and environmental
implications of these changes.

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Operating Procedures
This element would require OCS oil
and gas operators’ management officials
to include requirements for written
facility operating procedures designed
to enhance efficient, safe, and
environmentally sound operations.
While operating procedures are
reviewed as part of MOC procedures,
MMS would also recommend that these
procedures be reviewed separately to
ensure that they reflect current
practices.
Mechanical Integrity
This element would require that
procedures are in place to ensure that
equipment is designed, fabricated,
installed, tested, inspected, monitored,
and maintained in a manner consistent
with appropriate service requirements,
manufacturer’s recommendations, and
industry standards to promote safe and

environmentally sound operations in
the OCS.
The proposed decision to require a
SEMS program consisting of the four
elements is based on incident
investigation findings, an analyses of
Incidents of Noncompliance (INC) data,
performance reviews with operators,
and the fact that existing MMS
regulations do not address these four
elements. Requiring operators to
implement these four elements of an
integrated SEMS program would
address human factor issues in safety
and environmental protection. Most
industrial accidents and spills result
from human error or organizational
errors, not device or equipment failure.
These four elements would address
these types of accidents by encouraging
the use of sound management principles
and safety procedures.
The MMS’s evaluation of safety
information, which led us to the

28641

decision to require a SEMS program,
included the following:
Accident Panel Investigation Reports
Accident panel investigation reports
are prepared by MMS for select major
accidents. An analysis of 33 accident
panel reports prepared by MMS from
2000–2007 revealed that many fatalities
and injuries occurred while performing
routine tasks such as drilling,
construction, coil tubing operations, and
crane and other lifting events.
In addition, most of these accident
panel reports made recommendations
that relate to one of the following four
SEMS elements: Hazards Analysis,
Management of Change, Operating
Procedures, and Mechanical Integrity.
The accident panel reports can be
viewed at the following Web site
address:http://www.gomr.mms.gov/
homepg/offshore/safety/acc_repo/
accindex.html

CONTRIBUTING CAUSES
Hazards
analysis

Operating
procedures

Mechanical
integrity

Management
of change

Injury
number

Fatality
number

X
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................

........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
........................
X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
X
X
X
X
X
........................
........................
........................
X

X
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
........................
........................
........................
........................
X
X
X
........................
X
........................
........................
X
X
X
X
X
X
........................

1
1
1
1
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
........................
........................
1
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
........................
........................
........................
........................
1
1
1
1
........................
........................
1
1
........................
........................
........................
1

Total = 19

Total = 18

Total = 12

Total = 15

Total = 7

Total = 14

MMS report

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS
MMS

2007–058
2007–045
2007–037
2006–070
2006–058
2006–047
2006–039
2006–021
2006–002
2005–027
2005–007
2004–078
2004–075
2004–048
2004–046
2004–010
2004–004
2003–068
2003–046
2003–023
2002–080
2002–076
2002–075
2002–062
2002–059
2002–040
2001–084
2001–045
2001–042
2001–010
2001–009
2001–005
2000–089

........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................

Total = 33 .........................................

The table shows that the accidents
covered by 16 of the 33 panel reports
resulted in a combined 21 fatalities and
injuries. The analysis done on the
accidents identified six contributing

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

causes that are related to the four
elements: (1) A lack of communication
between the operator and contractor(s);
(2) no job hazard analysis was
conducted prior to beginning work, or

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

there was a lack of written procedures;
(3) an onsite supervisor failed to enforce
existing procedures or practices; (4) a
lack of written safe work procedural
guidelines; (5) integrity of the facilities

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28642

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

and equipment were not maintained
according to recommended practices;
and (6) workplace hazards were not
identified or corrected. The MMS
maintains that at least some of these
accidents could have been minimized or
even prevented if the operator had
implemented a SEMS.
Incident Analysis
The MMS also conducted a study of
1,443 incidents that occurred in OCS
waters from 2001–2007 to determine if
these events were associated with any of
the 4 SEMS elements. The events
reviewed included 41 fatalities, 302
injuries, 10 losses of well control, 11
collisions, 476 fires, 356 pollution
events, and 224 crane and other lifting
events (e.g., hoists, winches, etc.).

The majority of incidents occurring in
the OCS were related to operational and
maintenance procedures or human
error. These incidents are not addressed
by the hardware-oriented compliance
inspections used by MMS OCS
inspectors. Additionally, of the 1,443
incidents involving injuries, fires, and
pollution on or from production
facilities, only 25 were due to failure of
a safety device. The majority of the
1,443 incidents had at least 1 of the
following 4 elements as a contributing
cause for the event occurring:

Mechanical Integrity ..................
Operating Procedures ..............

475
481

OCS Spill Analysis

The MMS performed a root cause
analysis of OCS spills over 50 barrels
(bbls) from 2001–2007 with respect to
the 4 elements. While root causes could
be linked to failing to properly
implement 1 of 4 elements, operating
procedures and mechanical integrity
contributed to the greatest number of
Number of
incidents
these spills, and the 4 elements together
could account for over 3⁄4 of the OCS
108 spills.

SEMS element
Management of Change ...........
Hazards Analysis ......................

185

2001
Total OCS spills >50 bbl—Multiple spills, each >50 bbl, may occur during a
single event. Spill categories include: crude/condensate; refined petroleum (diesel, mineral oil); synthetic-based fluids; and chemical (e.g.,
ZnBr, Glycol). ...............................................................................................
Spills Related to Weather/Hurricanes ..............................................................
Spill Events Unrelated to Weather ..................................................................
Suggested Root Cause—Related to API RP 75:

Number of
incidents

SEMS element

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Sums

8
..........
8

13
4
9

11
..........
11

26
15
9

42
35
7

16
4
12

5
1
4

..........
..........
..........

Hazards Analysis ......................................................................................

..........

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

..........

Operating Procedures ...............................................................................

Mechanical Integrity ..................................................................................

Incidents of Noncompliance (INCs)
The MMS inspectors issue three
General INCs (G-INCs) that potentially
relate to elements within a SEMS. The
following summarizes these INCs:
• G–110 (Operations conducted in a
safe and workmanlike manner),

• G–111 (Equipment maintained in a
safe condition), and
• G–112 (Safety of personnel and all
necessary precautions taken to correct
and remove any hazards).
The MMS issued 3,132 of these types
of G–INCs during 2003–2007 for drilling
and production activities. Of these 3,132
G–INCs, 2,964 (approximately 95

percent) were directly related to one or
more of the following four SEMS
elements: Hazards Analysis (including
job hazard analysis), Operating
Procedures, Mechanical Integrity, and
Management of Change. The following
table depicts the G–INCs written for
drilling and production activities:

G–INCS ISSUED FROM 2003–2007
Drilling
percentage

SEMS elements

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

Management of Change ..............................................................................................................................................
Hazards Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................
Operating Procedures ..................................................................................................................................................
Mechanical Integrity .....................................................................................................................................................

The MMS also reviewed records of
violations of Environmental INCs (E–
INCs). The E–INCs focus on water
quality as it relates to mud/oil/chemical
spills and marine debris (E–100 thru E–
202). Over the past 7 years, MMS has
issued about 150 E–INCs for noncompliant production and drilling

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

operations during field inspections each
year. The data indicate no discernible
trend of improvement by industry over
the past 7 years (see the following tables
covering 2001–2007).
The MMS has issued many other INCs
that relate to environmental protection,
including those that address flaring and

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

10
25
26
39

Production
percentage
11
16
24
49

venting violations, broad-based noncompliance with lease stipulations,
approved plans, and permit
applications. Similar trends to those
previously described for the issuance of
E–INCs are also observed in the
issuance of other INCs that address
environmental concerns.

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28643

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
RATIO OF TOTAL PRODUCTION OPERATION E–INCS AND NUMBER OF COMPONENTS INSPECTED PER YEAR
Total
E–INCs

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................

Components
inspected

156
173
134
141
122
133
111

66,065
68,355
66,056
67,267
61,520
56,930
46,384

Ratio *
0.0024
0.0025
0.0020
0.0021
0.0020
0.0023
0.0024

* Rounded.

RATIO OF TOTAL DRILLING OPERATION E–INCS AND NUMBER OF WELLS SPUD PER YEAR
Total
E–INCs

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................

Wells spud
19
4
10
11
10
8
7

1,264
941
893
915
817
763
607

Ratio *
0.015
0.004
0.011
0.012
0.012
0.010
0.012

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

* Rounded.

As a result of MMS research
conducted on accident panel
investigations and reports, incident
analysis, and INCs, it appears that
equipment failure is rarely the primary
cause of the incident or accident. This
is due to technological advances which
have provided industry with very
efficient and reliable equipment for
finding, producing, and transporting
offshore oil and gas. However, in most
cases, accidents and oil spills can be
traced to human error and/or
organizational failures. For that reason,
operators must ensure that safe and
environmentally sound operating
practices are followed. The MMS finds
it important to focus our efforts on
ensuring that those who use the
equipment do so safely and responsibly.
More progress can be made toward
achieving our goal of clean and safe
OCS operations by concentrating on
human behavior. The MMS regulations,
historically, have focused on the
installation, operation, testing, and
inspection of safety and pollution
prevention equipment, and risk based
safety practices related to personnel.
Ensuring proper equipment operation,
however, does not necessarily ensure
clean and safe operations. The research
consistently points to the
disproportionate contribution of human
and organizational errors to accidents
and oil spills. The MMS believes that
operations are safer when management
systematically encourages individuals to
be safety conscious, provides adequate
resources, fosters safe worksite
practices, promotes good housekeeping

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

habits, and assures that workers are
properly trained. The MMS believes that
if OCS oil and gas operations are better
planned and organized, then the
likelihood of injury to workers and the
risk of environmental pollution will be
further reduced.
While this proposed rule requires
each offshore lessee/operator to
develop, implement, maintain, and
operate a SEMS program consisting of
the 4 elements identified in this
proposed rule, nothing prohibits the
lessee/operator from adopting a more
comprehensive SEMS approach as set
forth in API RP 75. The MMS
encourages industry to incorporate the
comprehensive elements in their SEMS
program.
In addition to industry complying
with the 4 elements and electing to
model their SEMS program after a
comprehensive SEMS program such as
API RP 75, lessees and operators are
also encouraged to consider
implementing the International
Organization of Standardization (ISO)
9001, Quality Management Systems—
Requirements; and ISO 14001,
Environmental Management Systems—
Requirements.
This proposed rule would require
lessees and operators to have their
SEMS program audited at least once
every 3 years by either an independent
third party or by qualified personnel
designated within the company. A
knowledgeable and experienced auditor
would audit the SEMS program to
determine if an OCS lessee and operator
is complying with the SEMS plan.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

These audits would be conducted in an
office environment and/or in the field,
and cover both a broad range of
activities or be focused on a particular
area (e.g., records, gas compressors,
blowout preventers, or documentation)
as appropriate. Auditors must meet the
qualifications as proposed in this rule.
The MMS may, at our discretion,
evaluate independent third parties, meet
with lessees and operators to
periodically review the results of SEMS
program audits, and conduct announced
or unannounced evaluations with MMS
personnel and/or independent third
parties to determine SEMS plan
compliance and effectiveness. The MMS
would be more inclined to conduct a
SEMS evaluation on an operator that
has a history of poor performance. Poor
performance may be based on the
number and/or type of incidents of noncompliance, civil or criminal penalties,
injuries, fatalities, accidents, fires,
losses of well control, explosions,
collisions, pollution incidents, and/or
damage to the marine environment.
Lessees and operators would be
responsible for all costs associated with
any independent third party evaluation
of their SEMS plan.
In this proposed rule, MMS would
require operators, on an annual basis, to
submit the number of hours worked for
all company and contract employees
(people on the facility) during
production, drilling, pipeline, and
construction activities (which includes
the adding or removing of equipment
and/or facility modifications). This
information is submitted on Form

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

28644

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

MMS–131 on an annual basis. We use
the ‘‘hours worked’’ information to
calculate Occupational Safety and
Health Administration-style safety and
health indices. The MMS considers the
information to be significant to help us
evaluate industry’s continued
improvement of safety and
environmental management in the OCS.
Information on Form MMS–131
includes company identification,
number of company/contractor injuries
and/or illnesses suffered, company/
contractor hours worked, EPA National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit non-compliances and
oil spill volumes for spills less than 1
barrel. All pieces of information are
reported as collected during one
calendar year. We use the information
obtained from this form to develop
industry average incident rates that help
to describe how well the offshore oil
and gas industry is performing. Using
the produced data allows MMS to better
focus our regulatory and research
programs on areas where the
performance measures indicate that
operators are having difficulty meeting
our expectations.
Additionally, operators can use the
data to make individual comparisons
and evaluate trends. Knowing how the
offshore industry as a whole is doing,
and where their own company ranks,
provides company management with
information to focus on safety and
environmental improvement efforts.
This information also provides offshore
operators with a credible data source to
demonstrate how industry and
individual operators are performing.
The MMS does not want the SEMS
program to be a paperwork exercise
conducted solely to meet regulatory
requirements. Such an effort would
defeat the purpose of the proposed rule,
which is to promote an attitude, or
performance mentality, that helps to
achieve operational safety and
environmental protection through
awareness and planning. The MMS
knows that many lessee/operators have
already integrated similar management
programs into their operations and
expects that most of the remaining
operators have some type of informal or
undocumented management program
that addresses safety and environmental
policies and procedures. The MMS
understands that the development and
implementation of this type of program
may place an additional burden on
some OCS operators, in the short-term.
However, MMS believes that a SEMS
program would benefit all lessees/
operators in that it would identify and
mitigate hazards, assure safe work
practices, manage changes, and properly

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

train offshore employees and
contractors.
Comments on this proposed SEMS
rule are requested. Commenters are
encouraged to submit detailed
comments with justifications or
background information supporting
their responses. In addition, we intend
to conduct at least one public workshop
on this proposed SEMS rule during the
upcoming comment period. We will
announce the time and location in a
separate document.
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)
This proposed rule is not a significant
rule as determined by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and is
not subject to review under E.O. 12866.
(1) This proposed rule would not have
an annual effect of $100 million or more
on the economy. The MMS estimates
that it would cost OCS oil and gas
lessees and operators $12,673,967 to
comply with the requirements in the
proposed rulemaking. This estimate
includes the initial startup and
development costs for lessees and
operators to develop and implement the
proposed four elements of a SEMS. This
is a one-time cost of approximately
$4,590,000. The MMS estimates that
annual recurring cost of the proposed
rulemaking to be approximately
$8,083,967 for maintaining SEMS after
implementation. Details on the
estimated costs for this rulemaking are
further discussed in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act section. The proposed
rulemaking would not adversely affect
in a material way the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
(2) This proposed rule would not
create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency.
(3) This proposed rule would not alter
the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights or obligations of their recipients.
(4) This proposed rule would not raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandate, the President’s
priorities, or the principles set forth in
E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
While the proposed rule would affect
a substantial number of small entities, it
would not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Small lessees/operators that operate
under this rule fall under the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes 211111, Crude
Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction,
and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells.
For these NAICS code classifications, a
small company is one with fewer than
500 employees. Based on these criteria,
an estimated 70 percent (91 operators)
of them are considered small. This
proposed rule, therefore, would affect a
substantial number of small entities.
Assumptions
In order to more accurately represent
costs associated with implementing this
rule, MMS made the following
assumptions concerning the costs
associated with the requirements in the
proposed rulemaking.
• Because of the wide variation in
company size, we have grouped
operators into three classes (High,
Moderate, and Low Activity).
• We have used the results of 10 years
of voluntary SEMS Performance
Measures reporting by OCS operators to
determine that 70 of the 130 operators,
at a minimum, are using SEMS. We
suspect, however, that this number is
higher based on previous Annual
Performance Review Meetings where
voluntary SEMS was a discussion topic.
• We have used actual costs from
safety management system vendors to
derive our estimated costs for industry.
• We assume there are no new costs
for the estimated 70 operators who are
currently using SEMS, as their systems
have already been developed and they
are expending funds to manage this
process. However, we have calculated
costs associated with compliance that
require new work on their behalf and
continued maintenance/recordkeeping
activities.
• The estimated cost for the 60
remaining operators to implement,
develop, and manage the SEMS program
is based on the operator having an
internet-based system, which has been
determined to be the most common
approach used by operators.
• Many operators are of such a
modest size that a purchased template
from a safety management system
vendor would meet their needs and
would comply with the proposed
regulation. They would not need to
spend additional money to customize a
template for their use.
High, Moderate, and Low Activity
Definitions
Oil and gas operators in the OCS vary
substantially in size and the degree in
which they are engaged in extracting oil

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28645

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
from the OCS. Of the 130 identified
operators, there is a range in OCS oil
and gas activity from as little as 1
complex to nearly 500 facilities; and
from as low as 15,000 barrels of oil
equivalent (BOE) annual production to
more than 300 million BOE annual
production. Because of this tremendous
variation in activity, MMS divides
operators into high, moderate, and low
activity for the purpose of measuring
their performance. Using these same
criteria (following this paragraph), we
have used these size categories to
estimate costs associated with
developing, managing, and fulfilling
reporting requirements for the proposed
SEMS rule.
The criteria that categorizes an
operator as a high, moderate, or low
activity is as follows:

• An operator that qualifies under the
high activity category would need to
meet the following criteria:
• Produce at least 10 million or more
BOE (MMBOE) per year.
• Operate a minimum of 1,000 inservice components or more during the
year.
• An operator that qualifies under the
moderate activity category would need
to meet the following criteria:
• Produce at least 1 MMBOE, but less
than 10 MMBOE, per year.
• Operate a minimum of 100 inservice components, but less than 1,000
in-service components during the year.
• An operator that qualifies under the
low activity category would need to
meet the following criteria:
• Produce less than 1 MMBOE per
year.

• Operate less than 100 in-service
components during the year.
Development of SEMS Program
After reviewing the voluntary SEMS
submittals (OCS Performance Measures
Data, Form MMS–131) received from
1996–2006, an average of 70 operators
(54 percent = 70/130) reported having a
SEMS-type program in-place. The other
60 operators (46 percent = 60/130) may
not have a SEMS program in-place or
may have a SEMS program but are not
participating in the voluntary SEMS
program.
The following table shows a
breakdown by operator activity category
(high, moderate, low):

Number of
operators without
SEMS

Activity category

Number of
operators with
SEMS

High ..................................................................................................................................
Moderate ..........................................................................................................................
Low ..................................................................................................................................

0
12
48

13
29
28

13
41
76

Total ..........................................................................................................................

130

As shown from the table, all high
activity operators have a SEMS program
in-place; the moderate activity shows
over 70 percent are currently
participating in a SEMS program; and
finally, the low activity shows almost 40
percent are using a SEMS program.
Information received from consultants
and vendors stated that the cost for an
operator to buy a generic SEMS
template is approximately $2,500. If an
operator decided to modify the generic
SEMS template to make it specific to
their use, the cost would be an

additional $10,000. As mentioned in the
assumptions, many operators would not
spend the additional $10,000 to
customize a SEMS program for their use
because it would not be necessary.
If the 60 operators without a SEMS
program decided to buy a SEMS
template, the cost would be $150,000
($2,500 × 60). If all 60 operators needed
to modify the generic plans for their
specific OCS operations, which would
be unlikely, an additional cost of
$600,000 ($10,000 × 60) would be
incurred to perform these modifications.

The total for all 60 operators to buy a
template and then modify the template
to their philosophy is estimated at
$750,000 ($150,000 + $600,000).
SEMS Implementation
This section provides the estimated
cost for industry to implement a SEMS.
The following table shows a breakdown
of the average number of facilities and
components for the 3 operator activity
levels:

Activity category
High ..........................................................................................................................................................................
Moderate ..................................................................................................................................................................
Low ..........................................................................................................................................................................

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

Total number
of operators
by activity

The total cost for implementing the
SEMS program considers only the 60
operators that do not have a functional
SEMS program. The other 70 operators
are already managing their SEMS
program throughout the company.
Moderate Activity Category
A breakdown of the cost to implement
and manage a SEMS program consisting
of the four elements (i.e., hazards
analysis, management of change,
operating procedures, and mechanical

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

integrity) was calculated for a moderate
activity operator as follows:
• A hazards analysis for a moderate
activity operator at the complex level
(facility risk assessment) would cost
approximately $102,000 for 29 facilities.
This is a one-time implementation cost.
In following years, this cost would be
less because the rule requires that a
hazards analysis be performed for
changes in the process or the equipment
on a facility. We estimate that the
annual cost for a moderate activity

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Average no. of
components
(per complex)

Average no. of
complexes

21
15
16

139
29
6

operator to update a hazards analysis for
the 29 facilities would be approximately
$10,000 for 3 facilities (10 percent of 29
facilities).
• The job hazard analysis at the task
level includes data collection, analysis,
and report development. This cost is
included in the hazards analysis.
• The MOC cost is based on one
change request per month and it is
dependent on the complexity of the
change. The MOC cost will be
determined by the physical state of the

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

28646

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

facilities, the status of technology, and
the turnover of personnel. The MOC
would cost approximately $20,000 per
year (includes the year to implement
SEMS) which also includes MOC data
collection, evaluation, and
documentation update.
• Based on information from
consultants and vendors, a lessee/
operator would need to evaluate the
operating procedures of their facility
each year. Also, the operating procedure
cost would be determined by the
maintenance of such procedures. For
most operators, no formal evaluation is
necessary since changes will be
identified through the job hazard
analysis process and managed through
the MOC process. Operating procedures
will cost approximately $18,000 per
year (includes the year to implement
SEMS) which also includes data
collection, evaluation, documentation
update, and recordkeeping.
• The mechanical integrity cost is
based on the assumption that
mechanical integrity is achieved
through preventive maintenance. The
preventive maintenance program is
defined prior to the commissioning of
the facility. The cost of maintenance is
not included in this assessment, only
the cost of managing the program.
Mechanical integrity will cost
approximately $20,000 per year
(includes the year to implement SEMS),
which includes the quality assurance
inspection plan, evaluation of schedule
appropriateness, communication of
maintenance program, salaries,
maintenance and inspection reports,
and recordkeeping.
• Auditing of the SEMS program is
required once every 3 years and this
cost would be approximately $15,000,
for an average of $5,000 per year. This
cost includes developing audit
protocols, planning, performing audits,
and recordkeeping. This is an annual
cost after implementation of SEMS.
• The cost for report development,
meetings, data collection,
recordkeeping, and analysis would be
approximately $13,000 per year. This is
an annual cost after implementation of
SEMS.
The estimated cost for a moderate
activity operator to implement SEMS is
$160,000. The estimated cost for the 12
moderate activity operators to
implement SEMS is $1,920,000
($160,000 × 12 operators). The itemized
cost is:
•
•
•
•

Hazards analysis ......................
Management of Change ...........
Operating Procedures ..............
Mechanical Integrity ................

$102,000
20,000
18,000
20,000

Total ......................................

$160,000

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

The estimated average cost for a
moderate activity operator to maintain
their SEMS program is $86,000 a year.
The estimated cost for the 12 moderate
activity operators to initially maintain
their SEMS program is $1,032,000. The
itemized cost is:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Hazards analysis ......................
Management of Change ...........
Operating Procedures ..............
Mechanical Integrity ................
Audits .......................................
Report development and meetings ............................................

$10,000
20,000
18,000
20,000
5,000

Total ......................................

$ 86,000

13,000

Once all moderate operators have a
SEMS program implemented, the
estimated cost to maintain their SEMS
program will be approximately
$3,526,000 ($86,000 per operator × 41
moderate activity operators =
$3,526,000).
Low Activity Category
A breakdown of the cost to implement
and manage a SEMS program consisting
of the four elements (i.e., hazards
analysis, management of change,
operating procedures, and mechanical
integrity) was calculated for a low
activity operator as follows:
• A hazards analysis for a low activity
operator at the complex level (facility
risk assessment) would cost
approximately $22,000 for 6 facilities.
This is a one-time implementation cost.
In following years, this cost would be
less because the rule requires that a
hazards analysis be performed for
changes in a process or equipment on a
facility. We estimate that the annual
cost for a low activity operator to update
a hazards analysis would be
approximately $2,000 for 1 facility.
• The job hazard analysis at the task
level includes data collection, analysis,
report development, and recordkeeping.
This cost is already included in the
hazards analysis.
• The MOC cost is based on one
change request per month and it is
dependent on the complexity of the
change. The MOC cost would be
determined by the physical state of the
facilities, the status of technology, and
the turnover of personnel. The MOC
would cost approximately $5,000 per
year (includes the year to implement
SEMS) which also includes MOC data
collection, evaluation, documentation
update, and recordkeeping.
• Based on information from
consultants and vendors, a lessee/
operator would need to evaluate the
operating procedures of their facility
each year. Also the operating procedure
cost would be determined by the
maintenance of such procedures. For

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

most operators, no formal evaluation is
necessary since changes will be
identified through the job hazard
analysis process and managed through
the MOC process. Operating procedures
will cost approximately $5,000 per year
(includes the year to implement SEMS)
which also includes data collection,
evaluation, documentation update, and
recordkeeping.
• The mechanical integrity cost is
based on the assumption that
mechanical integrity is achieved
through preventive maintenance. The
preventive maintenance program is
defined prior to the commissioning of
the facility. The cost of maintenance is
not included in this assessment, only
the cost of managing the program.
Mechanical integrity will cost
approximately $8,000 per year (includes
the year to implement SEMS), which
also includes the quality assurance
inspection plan, evaluation of schedule
appropriateness, communication of
maintenance program, maintenance,
salaries, inspection reports, and
recordkeeping.
• Auditing of the SEMS program is
required once every 3 years and this
cost would be approximately $6,000, for
an average of $2,000 per year. This cost
includes developing audit protocols,
planning, performing audits, and
recordkeeping. This is an annual cost
after implementation of SEMS.
• The cost for report development,
meetings, recordkeeping, and data
collection and analysis would be
approximately $6,000 per year. This is
an annual cost after implementation of
SEMS.
The estimated cost for a low activity
operator to implement SEMS is $40,000.
The cost for the 48 low activity
operators to implement SEMS is
$1,920,000 ($40,000 × 48 operators). The
itemized cost is:
•
•
•
•

Hazards analysis ......................
Management of Change ...........
Operating Procedures ..............
Mechanical Integrity ................

$ 22,000
5,000
5,000
8,000

Total ......................................

$40,000

The estimated cost for a low activity
operator to maintain their SEMS
program is $28,000 a year. The cost for
the 48 low activity operators to maintain
SEMS is $1,344,000. The itemized cost
is:
•
•
•
•
•
•

$ 2,000
5,000
5,000
8,000
2,000

Total ......................................

$ 28,000

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

6,000

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Once all low operators have a SEMS
program implemented, the cost to
maintain their SEMS program will be
approximately $2,128,000 ($28,000 per
operator × 76 low activity operators =
$2,128,000).

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

Cost to Submit to MMS
The following are the estimated costs
for complying with the proposed
submittals to MMS and associated
recordkeeping. The burden hours, that
these costs are based on, are addressed
in the Paperwork Reduction Act section.
• A letter notifying the Regional
Supervisory Field Office (RSFO) when
an operator plans on conducting an
audit of their SEMS program in order for
MMS to participate as observers would
cost approximately $3,827 each year
(see proposed § 250.1910). This cost is
based on one-third of all 130 operators
sending a notification letter each year,
with an estimated burden time of 1
hour.
• A report must be sent to the RSFO
within 30 days of the audit completion
date, once every 3 years. The report
must outline the results of the audit
including deficiencies identified, a
time-table or schedule for implementing
corrections to deficiencies, and the
person responsible for correcting each
identified deficiency including their job
title (see proposed § 250.1910). The
annual cost would be approximately
$15,308. This cost is based on one-third
of the all 130 operators submitting a
report each year.
• On an annual basis, Form MMS–
131 (Performance Measures Data) must
be submitted to MMS which would cost
approximately $92,560. This cost is
based on all 130 operators with an
estimated time of 8 hours per response.
• The MMS would conduct
evaluations of SEMS programs. We
would require you to demonstrate and
explain the procedures and policies in
your program and produce evidence, if
needed, to support your explanation
which would cost approximately $4,272
a year (see proposed § 250.1913). This
cost is based on conducting six
evaluations a year.
The total cost for required paperwork
being submitted to MMS would be
approximately $115,967.
Summary of Annual Costs to Implement
and Maintain SEMS
The total cost to implement and
maintain SEMS is approximately
$12,673,967. This total includes an
estimated $2,314,000 for high activity
operators (13) to maintain their SEMS
program. We estimated the cost to
maintain SEMS for the high activity
operator to be $178,000 per year. This

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

estimated cost is greater than the low
and moderate activity operators because
of the increased complexity of their
operations. We did not discuss this cost
in detail because all the high activity
operators already have a SEMS program
in place. A summary of all the costs are
shown below.
Buy/develop and implement SEMS Plan for operators without a SEMS Implementation cost .............
• High activity operator
cost (already implemented) .............................
Moderate activity operator
cost ($160,000 × 12) .........
• Low activity operator cost
($40,000 × 48) ...................
Total first year cost ......
Maintain SEMS (Annual
Cost after Implementation).
• High activity operator
cost ($178,000 × 13) .........
• Moderate activity operator cost ($86,000 × 41) ...
• Low activity operator cost
($28,000 × 76) ...................
Submittals required by
MMS (annual cost) ...........
Total annual costs after
implementation .........

$ 750,000
$ -01,920,000
1,920,000
$4,590,000

$2,314,000
3,526,000
2,128,000
115,967
$8,083,967

Benefits of SEMS
The ultimate goal of SEMS is to
promote safety and environmental
protection in the OCS during all
offshore activities. Moreover, increasing
a system’s level of safety leads to
reduced material losses and enhanced
productivity. This supports the concept
that safety is good for business.
Some further benefits include:
• Logical prioritization of safety
needs—SEMS emphasizes risk
mitigation actions that provide the
biggest impact on safety.
• More efficient maintenance
scheduling and resource utilization—
Effective hazard reporting in SEMS
allows proactive scheduling of
maintenance tasks when resources are
available, increasing the likelihood that
maintenance is performed on time and
more efficiently.
• Compliance with legal
responsibilities for safety—MMS
certification requirements mandate a
number of safety processes and
standards that can be included in an
organization’s SEMS.
• Avoiding incident investigation
costs and operational disruptions—
Improved communication and risk
mitigation will prevent many accidents
from occurring.
• Reduction of the direct and indirect
costs of accidents—Civil penalties,

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

28647

repair costs, damage claims, and
increased insurance premiums are a few
of the potential economic consequences
of an accidental mishap.
• Establishing a marketable safety
record—A record of consistently safe
operations can be used to attract new
business and investment.
• Continuous improvement of
operational processes—SEMS allows for
lessons learned to be incorporated into
the system and lead to superior
operations.
• Improved employee morale and
productivity—Promoting
communication between management
and the rest of the organization prevents
disenfranchisement and lifts morale.
The financial burden estimated for
developing and managing a SEMS
program is minor compared to the costs
associated with major accidents. For
example, in 1987 prior to industry
having developed a safety management
template for offshore operations, the
Mississippi Canyon 311, A (Bourbon),
platform in the Gulf of Mexico was
tilted to one side by an extensive
underground blowout. The cost
associated with this incident alone was
$274,000,000. In 1989, a fire associated
with a pipeline repair killed 7 people
and destroyed a major production
facility. A SEMS plan would have
implemented several procedures and
evaluations that may have prevented
these accidents. A SEMS plan is not a
guarantee of avoiding all accidents but
MMS believes that a mandatory SEMS
program (4 elements) will reduce the
likelihood of the types of accidents and
incidents discussed here and in the
Preamble and will also serve to raise the
safety awareness of all personnel in the
office and field.
The proposed requirement for SEMS
would not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities. The MMS estimates that over
40 percent of the small entities currently
operating on the OCS have already
implemented a SEMS program that
meets the requirements under these
proposed regulations. These small
entities (28 low activity and 10 medium
activity operators) implemented SEMS
because it improved the efficiency and
safety of their OCS operations. The cost
for the remaining 60 percent of small
entities to implement (approximately
$52,500) and maintain (approximately
$28,000) SEMS is very small compared
to the average annual revenues they
would generate ($28,000,000) from the
production of oil and gas. The MMS
estimated the annual revenue by
multiplying the average production for
a small entity (700,000 BOE) times a
conservative price for a barrel of oil

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28648

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

($40). Therefore, this proposed
rulemaking would not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number
of small entities.
Your comments are important. The
Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were
established to receive comments from
small businesses about Federal agency
enforcement actions. The Ombudsman
will annually evaluate the enforcement
activities and rate each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on the actions of
MMS, call 1–888–734–3247. You may
comment to the Small Business
Administration without fear of
retaliation. Allegations of
discrimination/retaliation filed with the
SBA will be investigated for appropriate
action.

implications. This proposed rule would
not substantially and directly affect the
relationship between the Federal and
State governments. To the extent that
State and local governments have a role
in OCS activities, this proposed rule
would not affect that role. A Federalism
Assessment is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The proposed rule is not a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. This proposed rule:
a. Would not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
b. Would not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or
local government agencies, or
geographic regions.
c. Would not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
13175)
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we
have evaluated this proposed rule and
determined that it has no substantial
effects on federally recognized Indian
tribes. There are no Indian or tribal
lands in the OCS.

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This proposed rule would not impose
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. The
proposed rule would not have a
significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. A statement containing
the information required by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.
Takings Implication Assessment (E.O.
12630)
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this
proposed rule does not have significant
takings implications. The proposed rule
is not a governmental action capable of
interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. A Takings
Implication Assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this
proposed rule does not have federalism

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

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

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This proposed rule contains a
collection of information that has been
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). As
part of our continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burdens,
MMS invites the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on any
aspect of the reporting and
recordkeeping burden. If you wish to
comment on the information collection
aspects of this proposed rule, you may
send your comments directly to OMB
(see the ADDRESSES section of this
notice). Please identify your comments
with 1010–AD15. Send a copy of your
comments to the Regulations and
Standards Branch (RSB), Attn:
Comments; 381 Elden Street, MS–4024;
Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. Please
reference 30 CFR Part 250, Subpart S,
Safety and Environmental Management
Systems for Outer Continental Shelf Oil
and Gas Operations, 1010–AD15 in
your comments. You may obtain a copy
of the supporting statement for the new
collection of information by contacting
the Bureau’s Information Collection
Clearance Officer at (202) 208–7744.
The PRA provides that an agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB is required to make a decision

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed regulations
between 30 to 60 days after publication
of this document in the Federal
Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it by July 17, 2009. This
does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to MMS on the
proposed regulations.
The title of the collection of
information for the rule is 30 CFR Part
250, Subpart S, Safety and
Environmental Management Systems for
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas
Operations. Respondents are
approximately 130 Federal OCS lessees,
operators, and/or other independent
third-parties. The MMS will use the
information to: Evaluate the effect of
industry’s continued improvement of
safety and environmental management
of the OCS; develop an industry average
that helps to describe how well the
offshore oil and gas industry is
performing; and judge the
reasonableness of company requests for
any specific regulatory relief. Responses
to this collection are mandatory. The
frequency of response varies, but is
primarily annual. The information
collection (IC) does not include
questions of a sensitive nature. The
MMS will protect proprietary
information according to the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522) and its
implementing regulations (43 CFR Part
2), and 30 CFR 250.197, Data and
information to be made available to the
public or for limited inspection, and 30
CFR Part 252, OCS Oil and Gas
Information Program.
During 1997, MMS, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and representatives of the OCS
oil and gas industry worked together to
develop a suite of consensus formulas
for gauging the industry’s safety and
environmental performance. This
resulted in the initiation of OMB
approved Form MMS–131, Performance
Measures Data. With this new subpart,
MMS will continue to use the
information collected on Form MMS–
131 to calculate annually, OCS-wide,
performance indices based on those
consensus formulas to provide the
public with information about
performance trends, and allow OCS
lease operators to compare their
performance with industry averages.
The results will be posted by MMS for
use by the public.
This rule and IC request also include
the hours and requirements already
approved for Form MMS–131 in OMB
Control Number 1010–0112, (280 hours,
expiration 3/31/11). This collection is
voluntary, but the rulemaking will make
this and the new requirements

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
mandatory. The current collection
under 1010–0112 will be discontinued

Citation 30 CFR 250 subpart S

when the final regulations become
effective.

Reporting and recordkeeping requirement

28649

The following table details the IC
burden for the proposed new
requirements in subpart S.
Average number of
annual responses

Hour burden

Annual burden
hours

Non-hour cost burdens
1900 ............................................

Develop and implement a SEMS program.
(One time implementation cost of SEMS
template).

$2,500 per implementation × 60 operators = $150,000.

1900 ............................................

In-house modification (one time implementation cost) of the generic SEMS program to
meet needs of specific company.

$10,000 per implementation × 60 operators = $600,000.

1900–1915 ..................................

High Activity Operator: Maintain all records
pertaining to your SEMS program (e.g., operating procedures, MOC, mechanical integrity, 3rd party and qualified personnel
info, any supporting documentation, etc.),
and retain for 5 years; hazards analysis
records retain for the life of the operation;
upon request, make available to MMS.
Moderate Activity Operator: Maintain all
records pertaining to your SEMS program
(e.g., operating procedures, MOC, mechanical integrity, 3rd party and qualified personnel info, any supporting documentation,
etc.), and retain for 5 years; hazards analysis records retain for the life of the operation; upon request, make available to
MMS.

1900–1915 ..................................

Moderate Activity Operator Implementation.
(One time cost to implement SEMS).
1900–1915 ..................................

Low Activity Operator: Maintain all records
pertaining to your SEMS program (e.g., operating procedures, MOC, mechanical integrity, 3rd party and qualified personnel
info, any supporting documentation, etc),
and retain for 5 years; hazards analysis
records retain for the life of the operation;
upon request, make available to MMS.
Low Activity Operator Implementation. (One
time cost to implement SEMS).

1910 ............................................

13 ......................................

26,000

966

41 ......................................

39,606

$160,000 per moderate activity implementation × 12
operators = $1,920,000.
315

76 ......................................

23,940

$40,000 per low activity implementation × 48 operators =
$1,920,000.
130 operators/once every
3 years = 43 responses.
130 operators/once every
3 years = 43 responses.

43 (rounded)

6 ........................................

130 ....................................

1,040

Total burden ..................................................................................................................................

472 Responses ................

90,849 Hours

1910 ............................................

1913 ............................................

1915 ............................................

Notify RSFO with audit schedule in timely
manner.
Submit audit report, once in every 3 years,
within 30 days of audit including required
information; retain records for 5 years;
upon request, make available to MMS.
Demonstrate and explain, as required, the
policies and procedures included in your
SEMS program; produce supporting documentation if required.
Submit Form MMS–131 ..................................

2,000

1
4

172

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

$4,590,000 Non-Hour Cost Burdens

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

28650

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969
This rule does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. A
detailed statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not
required because the rule is covered by
a categorical exclusion. This rule is
excluded from the requirement to
prepare a detailed statement because it
qualifies as a regulation of an
administrative and procedural nature, in
that the proposed rule only requires that
industry develop a SEMS program. (For
further information see 43 CFR
46.210(i)). We have also determined that
the rule does not involve any of the
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43
CFR 46.215 that would require further
analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act.

rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that you find
unclear, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.

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

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

The MMS specifically solicits
comments on the following questions:
(a) Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for MMS to
properly perform its functions, and will
it be useful?
(b) Are the estimates of the burden
hours of the proposed collection
reasonable?
(c) Do you have any suggestions that
would enhance the quality, clarity, or
usefulness of the information to be
collected?
(d) Is there a way to minimize the
information collection burden on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other forms of
information technology?
In addition, the PRA requires agencies
to estimate the total annual reporting
and recordkeeping non-hour cost
burden resulting from the collection of
information. Other than the four nonhour cost burdens for developing the
program that are listed in the burden
table, we have not identified any other
costs, and we solicit your comments on
this item. For reporting and
recordkeeping only, your response
should split the cost estimate into two
components: (a) Total capital and
startup cost component, and (b) annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of services component. Your estimates
should consider the costs to generate,
maintain, and disclose or provide the
information. You should describe the
methods you use to estimate major cost
factors, including system and
technology acquisition, expected useful
life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you
incur costs. Generally, your estimates
should not include equipment or
services purchased:
(1) Before October 1, 1995;
(2) To comply with requirements not
associated with the information
collection;
(3) For reasons other than to provide
information or keep records for the
Government; or
(4) As part of customary and usual
business or private practices.

Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O.
12988, and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write
all rules in plain language. This means
that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the

On form * * *

Data and information not immediately available are * * *

Excepted data will be made available * * *

*
*
(7) MMS–131, Performance Measures Data ....

*
*
*
Company Name(s); Operator Code(s); Contact
Name; E-mail Address; Telephone (Number); Fax (Number).

*
*
Aggregate data collected yearly will be published one month after submission deadline;
no individual company’s data will be made
available to the public.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

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

Jkt 217001

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR 250

Dated: June 4, 2009.
Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals
Management.

For the reasons stated in the
preamble, Minerals Management
Service (MMS) proposes to amend 30
CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND
SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for 30 CFR
part 250 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.

2. In § 250.197, redesignate, in the
table, paragraphs (a)(7) through (10) as
paragraphs (a)(8) through (11), and add
new paragraph (a)(7) to the table for
Form MMS–131, Performance Measures
Data, to read as follows:
§ 250.197 Data and information to be made
available to the public or for limited
inspection.

*
*
(a) * * *

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28651

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
*

*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 250.198 by adding the
following document to the table in

paragraph (e) in alphanumerical order to
read as follows:

Title of documents

§ 250.199 Paperwork Reduction Act
statements-information collection.

4. Revise § 250.199(e)(17) to read as
follows:

*
*
(e) * * *

Incorporated by reference at

*
*
*
*
API RP 75 Development of a Safety and Environmental Management 250.1903.
Program, for Offshore Operations and Facilities, Third Edition, May
2004, Product No. G07503.
*

§ 250.198 Documents incorporated by
reference.

(e) * * *

30 CFR subpart, title and/or MMS Form (OMB Control Number)

Reasons for collecting information and how used

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(17) Subpart S, Safety and Environmental Management Systems The information collected is to gather the raw Performance Measures
(1010-xxxx), including Form MMS–131, Performance Measures Data.
Data relating to risk and number of accidents, injuries, and oil spills
during OCS activities. We use the information obtained from this
form to develop an industry average that helps to describe how well
the offshore oil and gas industry is performing in a safe manner.
*

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

Subpart S—Safety and Environmental
Management Systems (SEMS)
Sec.
§ 250.1900 Must I have a SEMS program?
§ 250.1901 What is the goal of my SEMS
program?
§ 250.1902 When must I comply with the
regulations in this subpart?
§ 250.1903 May I use an industry standard
to develop my SEMS program?
§ 250.1904 What are my general
responsibilities for SEMS?
§ 250.1905 What criteria for Hazards
Analyses must my SEMS program meet?
§ 250.1906 What criteria for Operating
Procedures must my SEMS program
meet?
§ 250.1907 What criteria for Mechanical
Integrity must my SEMS program meet?
§ 250.1908 What criteria for Management of
Change must my SEMS program meet?
§ 250.1909 What criteria must be
documented in my SEMS program for
contractor selection?
§ 250.1910 What are my responsibilities
when conducting a SEMS audit?
§ 250.1911 What are my documentation and
recordkeeping requirements?
§ 250.1912 What qualifications must an
independent third party or my
designated and qualified personnel
meet?
§ 250.1913 How will MMS determine if my
SEMS program is effective?
§ 250.1914 What happens if MMS finds
shortcomings in my SEMS program?

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

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

5. Add new subpart S to read as
follows:

VerDate Nov<24>2008

§ 250.1900

Must I have a SEMS program?

You must develop, implement, and
maintain a SEMS program. Your SEMS
program must address the following
four elements:
(a) Hazards Analysis (including job
hazard analysis), (b) Operating
Procedures, (c) Management of Change,
and (d) Mechanical Integrity.
§ 250.1901
program?

What is the goal of my SEMS

(a) The goal of your SEMS program
must be to promote safety and
environmental protection in the OCS
during all offshore activities.
(b) To accomplish this goal, you must
ensure that your SEMS program
identifies, addresses, and manages
safety and environmental hazards and
impacts during the design, construction,
startup, operation, inspection, and
maintenance of new and existing OCS
facilities and DOI regulated pipelines.
§ 250.1902 When must I comply with the
regulations in this subpart?

You must comply with the provisions
of this subpart on or before [THE DATE
1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE].

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

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

Your SEMS program must meet the
minimum criteria outlined in this
subpart and should be modeled after the
requirements in:
(a) API RP 75, Development of a
Safety and Environmental Management
Program, for Offshore Operations and
Facilities, Third Edition, May 2004
(incorporated by reference as specified
in § 250.198).
(b) Other standards or guidelines (e.g.,
ISO 9001, 14001) that meet or exceed
the API RP 75 standard.
§ 250.1904 What are my general
responsibilities for SEMS?

(a) You are responsible for the
development, support, and continued
improvement of your SEMS program.
(b) You must provide resources to
implement and maintain your SEMS
program.
(c) You must appoint a management
official to serve as the operator’s
Management System Coordinator who
will be responsible for the following:
(1) Establishing, implementing, and
maintaining SEMS program procedures,
(2) Reporting to your management
annually on the performance of the
SEMS program and the need for
improvement, and
(3) Reinforcing awareness of safety
and environmental protection

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28652

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

requirements throughout the
organization.

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

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

You must develop and implement a
hazards analysis (facility level) and a job
hazard analysis (operations/task level)
for all of your facilities. For this subpart,
facilities include all types of offshore
structures permanently or temporarily
attached to the seabed (i.e., mobile
offshore drilling units; floating
production systems; floating
production, storage and offloading
facilities; tension-leg platforms; and
spars) used for exploration,
development, production, and
transportation activities for oil, gas, or
sulphur from areas leased in the OCS.
Facilities also include DOI regulated
pipelines. The purpose of both the
facility level and operations/task level
hazards analyses is to identify accident
scenarios which could lead to worker
injuries, fatalities, property damage,
discharges and emissions, coastal and
marine environmental impacts, or other
adverse consequences. You must
document and maintain current
analyses for each operation covered by
this section for the life of the operation
at the facility. The analyses must be
updated when an internal audit is
conducted to assure that it is consistent
with the current operations on your
facility.
(a) Hazards Analysis (facility level).
For a hazards analysis (facility level),
you must perform an initial hazards
analysis on each facility on or before
[THE DATE 1 YEAR AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE]. The hazards analysis must be
appropriate to the complexity of the
operation and must identify, evaluate,
and manage the hazards involved in the
operation.
(1) The hazards analysis must address
the following:
(i) Hazards of the operation;
(ii) Previous incidents related to the
operation you are evaluating. Special
attention should be given in your
hazards analysis to any incident in
which you were issued an Incident of
Noncompliance, civil, or criminal
penalty;
(iii) Control technology applicable to
the operation your hazards analysis is
evaluating;
(iv) A qualitative evaluation of the
possible safety and health effects on
employees, and potential impacts to the
coastal and marine environments,
which may result if the control
technology fails; and
(2) The hazards analysis must be
performed by a person(s) with

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

experience in the operations being
evaluated. These individuals also need
to be experienced in the hazards
analysis methodologies being employed.
(3) You should assure that the
recommendations in the hazards
analysis are resolved and that the
resolution is documented.
(b) Job Hazard Analysis (operations/
task level). Job hazard analysis
(operations/task level) must be
conducted for each work project and
activity.
(1) You must keep a copy of the most
recent job hazard analysis at the job site,
and they must be readily accessible to
employees.
(2) You must complete and maintain
an index naming the task, the date the
job hazard analysis was completed, and
the date the analysis was revised.
§ 250.1906 What criteria for Operating
Procedures must my SEMS program meet?

(a) You must develop and implement
written operating procedures that
provide instructions for conducting safe
and environmentally sound activities
involved in each operation addressed in
your SEMS program. These procedures
must address the following:
(1) Initial startup;
(2) Normal operations;
(3) Temporary operations;
(4) Emergency operations;
(5) Normal shutdown;
(6) Startup following a turnaround, or
after an emergency shutdown;
(7) Bypassing and flagging;
(8) Safety and environmental
consequences of deviating from your
equipment operating limits and steps
required to correct or avoid this
deviation;
(9) Properties of, and hazards
presented by, the chemicals used in the
operations;
(10) Precautions you will take to
prevent the exposure of chemicals used
in your operations to personnel and the
environment. The precautions must
include control technology, personal
protective equipment, and measures to
be taken if physical contact or airborne
exposure occurs;
(11) Raw materials used in your
operations and the quality control
procedures you used in purchasing
these raw materials;
(12) Control of hazardous chemical
inventory; and
(13) Coastal and marine
environmental impacts identified
through your hazards analysis.
(b) Operating procedures must be
accessible to all employees involved in
the operations.
(c) Operating procedures must be
reviewed as often as necessary to assure

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

they reflect any changes made to your
operations.
(d) You must develop and implement
safe and environmentally sound work
practices for identified hazards during
operations.
§ 250.1907 What criteria for Mechanical
Integrity must my SEMS program meet?

You must develop and implement
written procedures that provide
instructions to ensure the mechanical
integrity and safe operation of
equipment through inspection, testing,
and quality assurance. The purpose of
mechanical integrity is to ensure that
equipment is fit-for-service. Your
mechanical integrity program must
encompass all equipment and systems
used to prevent or mitigate uncontrolled
releases of hydrocarbons, toxic
substances, or other materials that may
cause environmental or safety
consequences. These procedures must
address the following:
(a) The design, procurement,
fabrication, installation, calibration, and
maintenance of your equipment and
systems in accordance with the
manufacturer’s design and material
specifications.
(b) The training of each employee
involved in maintaining your
equipment and systems so that your
employees can implement your
mechanical integrity program.
(c) The frequency of inspections and
tests of your equipment and systems
must be in accordance with MMS
regulations and meet the manufacturer’s
recommendations. Inspections and tests
can be performed more frequently if
determined to be necessary by prior
operating experience.
(d) The documentation of each
inspection and test that has been
performed on your equipment and
systems. This documentation must
identify the date of the inspection or
test, the name and position, and include
the signature of the person who
performed the inspection or test, the
serial number or other identifier of the
equipment on which the inspection or
test was performed, a description of the
inspection or test performed, and the
results of the inspection test.
(e) The correction of deficiencies
associated with equipment and systems
that are outside the manufacturer’s
recommended limits before further use.
(f) The installation of new equipment
and constructing systems. The
procedures must address the application
for which they will be used.
(g) The modification of existing
equipment and systems. The procedures
must assure that they are modified for

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules
the application for which they will be
used.
(h) The verification that inspections
and tests are being performed. The
procedures must be appropriate to
assure that equipment and systems are
installed consistent with design
specifications and the manufacturer’s
instructions.
(i) The assurance that maintenance
materials, spare parts, and equipment
are suitable for the applications for
which they will be used.
§ 250.1908 What criteria for Management
of Change must my SEMS program meet?

(a) You must develop and implement
written management of change
procedures for modifications associated
with the following:
(1) Equipment,
(2) Operating procedures,
(3) Personnel changes (including
contractors),
(4) Materials, and
(5) Operating conditions.
(b) Management of change procedures
do not apply to situations involving
replacement in kind (such as,
replacement of one component by
another component with the same
performance capabilities).
(c) You must review all changes prior
to their implementation.
(d) The following items must be
included in your management of change
procedures:
(1) The technical basis for the change;
(2) Impact of the change on safety,
health, and the coastal and marine
environments;
(3) Necessary time period to
implement the change; and
(4) Management approval procedures
for the change.
(e) Employees, including contractors
whose job tasks will be affected by a
change in the operation, must be
informed of, and trained in, the change
prior to startup of the process or affected
part of the operation; and
(f) If a management of change results
in a change in the operating procedures
of your SEMS program, such changes
must be documented and dated.

dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

§ 250.1909 What criteria must be
documented in my SEMS program for
contractor selection?

Your SEMS program must document
contractor selection criteria. When
selecting a contractor, you must obtain
and evaluate information regarding the
contractor’s safety and environmental
performance.
(a) A contractor is anyone performing
work for the lessee. However, these
requirements do not apply to
contractors providing domestic services

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

to the lessee or other contractors.
Domestic services include janitorial
work, food and beverage service,
laundry service, housekeeping, and
similar activities.
(b) You must document that your
contracted employees are competent in
the work practices necessary to perform
their job in a safe and environmentally
sound manner, and have policies and
practices in place that are consistent
with your SEMS program.
Documentation of each contracted
employee’s competency to perform his/
her job and a copy of the contractor’s
SEMS program must be kept by the
operator and the contractor at the
facility where the contracted operations
are being performed.
§ 250.1910 What are my responsibilities
when conducting a SEMS audit?

(a) You must perform an audit of your
entire SEMS program at least once every
3 years to evaluate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart, and to
identify areas in which safety and
environmental performance needs to be
improved. You must have your SEMS
program audited by either an
independent third party or your
designated and qualified personnel (see
§ 250.1912).
(b) Representatives from MMS may
participate in your SEMS audit as
observers. You must notify the Regional
Supervisory Field Office (RSFO) at least
30 days prior to conducting your audit
so that MMS may make arrangements to
participate in the audit.
(c) You must submit a report to the
RSFO within 30 days of the audit
completion date. The report must
outline the results of the audit including
deficiencies identified, a timetable or
schedule for implementing corrections
to deficiencies, and the person
responsible for correcting each
identified deficiency including their job
title.
(d) The MMS may verify that
corrective actions have been undertaken
and that these actions effectively
address the audit findings. Upon
request, you must make available for
MMS review:
(1) Your SEMS program, including
information about your contractors;
(2) The qualifications of your
designated and qualified personnel or
your independent third party;
(3) The SEMS report prepared by your
designated and qualified personnel or
your independent third party;
(4) The SEMS audits conducted of
your program; and
(5) Other supporting documents or
information.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

28653

(e) You must retain copies of either
the independent third party’s SEMS
records or self audit for a period of 5
years.
§ 250.1911 What are my documentation
and recordkeeping requirements?

(a) Your SEMS program procedures
must ensure that records and documents
are maintained for a period of 5 years
in an effective manner. Effective
document and record control includes
the means of identifying, collecting,
indexing, filing, storing, maintaining,
and retrieving the documents and
records.
(b) Records must be dated, signed,
and include information on compliance
with applicable legal requirements and
the results of SEMS audits and reviews.
Details of deficiencies, corrective and
preventative actions, participation in
training, permits, licenses, or other
forms of legal authorization, inspection
and calibration activity, and results of
operational controls (maintenance,
design, and manufacture) should also be
included.
§ 250.1912 What qualifications must an
independent third party or my designated
and qualified personnel meet?

(a) An independent third party or
designated and qualified personnel
must possess the following
qualifications:
(1) Previous experience with SEMS,
or similar management related
programs;
(2) Technical capabilities of the
individual or organization for the
specific project;
(3) In-house availability of or access to
technology, including computer
programs or hardware to be used for this
specific project;
(4) Ability to perform the independent
third party functions for the specific
project considering current
commitments;
(5) Previous experience with MMS
regulatory requirements and procedures;
and
(6) Procedures to avoid conflicts of
interest with the SEMS program they are
reviewing.
(b) You must document the
qualifications for the independent third
party or your designated and qualified
personnel.
(c) The MMS reserves the right to
evaluate independent third parties as
needed.
§ 250.1913 How will MMS determine if my
SEMS program is effective?

(a) The MMS or its authorized
representative may evaluate or visit
your facility to determine whether your
SEMS program is in place, adequate,

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

28654

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Proposed Rules

and effective in protecting the safety
and health of workers, the environment,
and preventing incidents. These
evaluations or visits may be random or
based upon the OCS lease operator’s or
contractor’s performance.
(b) The MMS or its authorized
representative may evaluate your SEMS
program, including documentation of
contractors, independent third parties,
and designated and qualified personnel,
and audit reports to assess your SEMS
program.
(1) You must be prepared to explain
and demonstrate the procedures and
policies included in your SEMS
program and produce evidence to
support your explanation.
(2) The MMS or its authorized
representative may conduct a site visit
on your facility to verify that personnel
are following your SEMS program and
can explain and demonstrate the
procedures and policies included in
your SEMS program and produce
evidence to support their explanation
for a specific task.
(3) If MMS directs you to do an
evaluation, you will be responsible for
all costs associated with the evaluation
of your SEMS program.
§ 250.1914 What happens if MMS finds
shortcomings in my SEMS program?

If MMS determines that your SEMS
program is not in compliance with this
subpart, we may initiate one or more of
the following enforcement actions:
(a) Issue an Incident(s) of
Noncompliance;
(b) Require you to revise and submit
to MMS your plan to address identified
deficiencies in your SEMS program;
(c) Assess civil/criminal penalties; or
(d) Initiate probationary or
disqualification procedures from serving
as an OCS operator.
§ 250.1915 What are my responsibilities
for submitting OCS performance measure
data?

You must submit Form MMS–131 on
an annual basis, for the previous
calendar year, by March 31 of each year.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with PROPOSALS-1

[FR Doc. E9–14211 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

VerDate Nov<24>2008

15:23 Jun 16, 2009

Jkt 217001

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 799
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–0490; FRL–8416–8]
RIN 2070–AJ34

Testing of Certain Nonylphenol and
Nonylphenol Ethoxylate Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On June 6, 2007, the
Environmental Law and Policy Center,
the Sierra Club, the Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen’s Associations,
the Washington Toxics Coalition,
Physicians for Social Responsibility,
and UNITE HERE (hereinafter
‘‘petitioners’’), petitioned EPA under
section 21 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to initiate
rulemaking proceedings under section 4
and section 6 of TSCA for the
substances nonylphenol (NP) and
nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs). EPA
granted the petitioners’ request for
chronic aquatic toxicity testing and a
few other aspects of the petitioners’
TSCA section 4 request, but denied all
of the petitioners’ section 6 requests.
Subsequently, on October 24, 2007, the
petitioners filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of
California challenging EPA’s denial of
their TSCA section 21 petition. The
lawsuit was mediated and, in an
agreement signed on December 30,
2008, the parties settled the case. EPA
is now providing this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for
aquatic and sediment toxicity testing
under TSCA section 4 for these
substances, and is also requesting
comment on gathering data under TSCA
and through other means to facilitate the
evaluation of industrial laundry worker
exposure to NPEs.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 15, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–0490, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document
Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg.,

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–0490.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the DCO’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2007–0490. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be
made available on-line at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
in regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301

E:\FR\FM\17JNP1.SGM

17JNP1

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Document
Subject	Extracted Pages
Author	U.S. Government Printing Office
File Modified	2009-06-17
File Created	2009-06-17