[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56354-56365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19462]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
30 CFR Part 250
[Docket ID: BSEE-2022-0009; EEEE500000 223E1700D2 ET1SF0000.EAQ000]
RIN 1014-AA52
Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-
Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions
AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department), through
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is proposing
to revise certain regulatory provisions published in the 2019 final
well control rule for drilling, workover, completion, and
decommissioning operations. BSEE is proposing these revisions to
clarify blowout preventer (BOP) system requirements and to modify
certain specific BOP equipment capability requirements. This proposed
rule would provide consistency and clarity to industry regarding the
BOP equipment and associated operational requirements necessary for
BSEE review and approval and would further ensure operations are
conducted safely and in an environmentally responsible manner.
DATES: Send your comments on this proposed rule to BSEE on or before
November 14, 2022. BSEE may not consider or include in the
Administrative Record for the final rule comments that we receive after
the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an
address other than those listed below (see ADDRESSES).
Information Collection Requirements: If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of information contained in this
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this proposed
rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be submitted
to OMB by October 14, 2022. The deadline for comments on the
information collection burden does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to BSEE on the proposed regulations.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the rulemaking by any of the
following methods. Please use the Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
1014-AA52 as an identifier in your message.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In
the entry entitled, ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter BSEE-2022-0009 then
click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and
view supporting and related materials available for this rulemaking.
BSEE may post all submitted comments.
Mail or hand-carry comments to BSEE: Attention:
Regulations and Standards Branch, 45600 Woodland Road, VAE-ORP,
Sterling, VA 20166. Please reference RIN 1014-AA52, ``Oil and Gas and
Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer
Systems and Well Control Revisions,'' in your comments, and include
your name and return address.
Send comments on the information collection in this rule
to: Interior Desk Officer 1014-0028, Office of Management and Budget;
202-395-5806 (fax); email: [email protected]. Please send a
copy to BSEE at [email protected].
Public Availability of Comments: Before including your address,
phone number, email 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. For BSEE to withhold from disclosure your
personal identifying information, you must identify any information
contained in your comment submittal that, if released, would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of your personal privacy. You must also
briefly describe any possible harmful consequence(s) of the disclosure
of information, such as embarrassment, injury, or other harm. While you
may request that we withhold your personal identifying information from
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions, contact Kirk Malstrom,
Regulations and Standards Branch, (202) 258-1518, or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This rulemaking would revise certain regulatory provisions that
were published in the 2019 final rule entitled ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur
Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer Systems and
Well Control Revisions,'' 84 FR 21908 (May 15, 2019) (2019 WCR). On
January 20, 2021, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13990
(Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the accompanying ``President's Fact
Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review.'' Within the President's Fact
Sheet, DOI was specifically instructed to review the 2019 WCR to
evaluate potential revisions to promote and protect public health and
the environment, among other identified policy goals. This review
confirmed that the 2019 WCR contains many provisions that help ensure
that federally regulated outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas
operations are conducted safely and in an environmentally responsible
manner. Therefore, this proposed rule would address only select
provisions that would further promote the President's policies and
environmental objectives. At this time, BSEE is proposing a narrowly
focused rulemaking to address the identified regulatory requirements to
help improve operations that use a BOP, certain BOP capabilities and
functionalities, and BSEE oversight of such operations. The proposed
rule would:
Clarify BOP system requirements,
[[Page 56355]]
Remove the option for operators to submit failure data to
designated third parties,
Require accreditation of independent third party
qualifications,
Establish dual shear ram requirements for surface BOPs on
existing floating production facilities when an operator replaces an
entire surface BOP stack,
Require ROV open functions as originally required in the
2016 WCR, and
Require submittal of certain BOP test results if BSEE is
unable to witness the testing.
BSEE will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2019 WCR
and all BSEE regulations for necessary and appropriate rulemakings in
the future.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
B. Purpose and Summary of the Rulemaking
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes
III. Procedural Matters
I. Background
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
BSEE's authority for this rule flows from the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. OCSLA, enacted in 1953
and substantially revised in 1978, authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to lease the OCS for mineral development and to
regulate oil and gas exploration, development, and production
operations on the OCS. The Secretary has delegated authority to perform
certain of these functions to BSEE.
To carry out its responsibilities, BSEE regulates offshore oil and
gas operations to: enhance the safety of exploration for and
development of oil and gas on the OCS, ensure that those operations
protect the environment, and implement advancements in technology. BSEE
also conducts onsite inspections to assure compliance with regulations,
lease terms, and approved plans and permits. Detailed information
concerning BSEE's regulations and guidance to the offshore oil and gas
industry may be found on BSEE's website at: https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations.
BSEE's regulatory program covers a wide range of OCS facilities and
activities, including drilling, completion, workover, production,
pipeline, and decommissioning operations. Drilling, completion,
workover, and decommissioning operations are types of well operations
that offshore operators \1\ perform throughout the OCS. This rulemaking
is applicable to these listed operational activities that involve
certain BOP operations, capabilities, or functionalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BSEE's regulations at 30 CFR part 250 generally apply to ``a
lessee, the owner or holder of operating rights, a designated
operator or agent of the lessee(s)'' (30 CFR 250.105 (definition of
``you'')'' and ``the person actually performing the activity to
which the requirement applies'' (30 CFR 250.146(c)). For
convenience, this preamble will refer to these regulated entities as
``operators'' unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Purpose and Summary of the Rulemaking
After the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010, BSEE adopted several
recommendations from multiple investigation teams to improve the safety
of offshore operations. Subsequently, BSEE published the 2016 Blowout
Preventer Systems and Well Control Final Rule on April 29, 2016 (81 FR
25888) (2016 WCR). The 2016 WCR consolidated the equipment and
operational requirements for well control into one part of BSEE's
regulations; enhanced BOP and well design requirements; modified well-
control requirements; and incorporated certain industry technical
standards. Most of the 2016 WCR provisions became effective on July 28,
2016.
Although the 2016 WCR addressed a significant number of issues that
were identified during the analyses of the Deepwater Horizon incident,
BSEE recognized that BOP equipment and systems continue to improve and
that well control processes also evolve. Therefore, after the 2016 WCR
took effect, BSEE continued to engage with the offshore oil and gas
industry, Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), and other
stakeholders. During these engagements, BSEE identified issues, and
stakeholders expressed a variety of concerns regarding the
implementation of the 2016 WCR. BSEE completed a review of the 2016 WCR
and, on May 15, 2019, published the 2019 WCR in the Federal Register
(84 FR 21908). The 2019 WCR left most of the 2016 WCR unchanged.
Following publication of the 2019 WCR, BSEE continued to engage
with stakeholders to gather information to ensure an effective
implementation of the governing regulatory requirements. The Department
also identified areas for improvement to specific 2019 WCR provisions.
Furthermore, on January 20, 2021, the President issued E.O. 13990
(Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the accompanying ``President's Fact
Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review.'' Within the President's Fact
Sheet, DOI was specifically instructed to review the 2019 WCR to
evaluate potential revisions to promote and protect public health and
the environment, among other identified policy priorities. The
Department is proposing a narrowly focused rulemaking to address the
identified regulatory requirements to help improve operations that use
a BOP, certain BOP capabilities and functionalities, and BSEE oversight
of such operations.
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes
BSEE is proposing to revise the following regulations:
Subpart G--Well Operations and Equipment
What are the general requirements for BOP systems and system
components? (Sec. 250.730)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)
BSEE proposes to revise the paragraph (a) by modifying the current
requirement that the ``BOP system must be capable of closing and
sealing the wellbore in the event of flow due to a kick, including
under anticipated flowing conditions for the specific well
conditions,'' to a requirement that the ``BOP system must be capable of
closing and sealing the wellbore at all times to the well's maximum
kick tolerance design limits.'' Additional minor, non-substantive
wording and grammatical changes are proposed for readability to
accommodate this proposed revision.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
In the 2016 WCR, BSEE promulgated a revised final version of Sec.
250.730(a) requiring the BOP system to be capable of closing and
sealing the wellbore ``at all times'' under ``anticipated flowing
conditions for the specific well conditions.''
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
In the 2019 WCR, BSEE modified these requirements to codify BSEE
guidance developed in July 2016 based on experience implementing the
2016 WCR. In that posted guidance, BSEE clarified that the language of
the 2016 WCR required that ``the BOP system . . . be designed to shut-
in a well that is flowing due to a kick.'' A kick is defined as an
influx of formation fluids or gas unexpectedly entering the wellbore.
Flow from a kick represents the most critical and challenging
[[Page 56356]]
circumstances a BOP must address. Accordingly, BSEE considers the
capacity to close and seal under such conditions to correspond to the
capacity to close and seal under any conditions. Further, other
regulations contain requirements to ensure BOP functionality during
non-kick conditions. For example, the operator must verify the ability
of the BOP to function during a non-kick event through the regular
function and pressure testing required by Sec. 250.737. The operator
also is required to obtain independent third party certification that
the BOP is designed, tested, and maintained to perform under the
maximum environmental and operational conditions anticipated to occur
at the well under Sec. 250.731. In modifying the regulatory language
in 2019 to more clearly reflect BSEE's original 2016 intent, BSEE did
not view the revisions as weakening or altering the existing
requirement that the BOP system must function during all operations.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)
Based on BSEE's experience with the implementation of these
regulations, BSEE is proposing revisions to the general introductory
language to provide additional clarity. Since the 2019 WCR, BSEE
continues to receive questions and requests for clarity on this current
provision. Therefore, BSEE determined that further clarification is
necessary to help reduce any misconceptions or ambiguity. The proposed
revisions would restore language referencing the BOP system's capacity
to close and seal the wellbore at all times, while clarifying the
necessary context of that requirement within the well's maximum kick
tolerance design. Kick tolerance is defined as the maximum volume of
gas kick influx that can be safely taken into the well bore and
circulated out of the well without breaking down the surrounding
formation. It is used in well design to plan the position of the casing
shoes and ensures that protecting the formation integrity is an
integral part of the well barrier design.
The volume of influx can be directly converted to a loss of
hydrostatic pressure on the well prior to shut in. This loss of
pressure in the wellbore is a mechanism for well flow. Simply stated,
the larger the pressure change the greater the flow rate. The impact of
the change in pressure is unique to each well condition, e.g., a well
with prolific exposed formations will have a higher flow rate with the
same pressure change than a well with a lower permeability. The
methodology for calculating this flow rate follows similar logic to
that used in calculating worst case discharge rates, as well as in well
testing and production change estimations.
A BOP functions as a mitigation device, designed to backstop other
prevention mechanisms to keep a well from progressing to a full
blowout; its purpose is not to halt a full blowout once it has
commenced. Operators must ensure ram closure time and sealing integrity
within the operational and mechanical design limits of the well and
equipment. The anticipated flowrate is used to validate that the BOP
will function under flowing conditions while maintaining well
integrity, as clarified in the proposed text. The proposed
clarifications to paragraph (a) further support and reflect the
totality of the improved BOP equipment, procedures, and testing, while
acknowledging the safe and appropriate purpose and function of the BOP,
to clarify these requirements from the 2016 and 2019 WCRs.
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (c)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (c) by removing, throughout the
paragraph, the option for submission of failure reporting to a
designated third party. BSEE also would revise paragraph (c)(2) to
ensure that the operator starts a failure investigation and analysis
within 90 days of the failure instead of within 120 days.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
The 2016 WCR first established the process for failure analysis and
reporting. It required that an investigation and a failure analysis be
performed within 120 days of the failure to determine the cause of the
failure. BSEE also required that certain failure reports be sent to
BSEE headquarters to ensure that emerging trends occurring across
various Districts and Regions are recognized early and that potentially
serious issues can be addressed in a coordinated and uniform way
nationwide.
BSEE also noted in the 2016 WCR, however, that the U.S. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) had developed (with BSEE's assistance)
a voluntary near-miss reporting system for OCS facilities and
operations at www.SafeOCS.gov (SafeOCS). As a result of the publication
of the 2016 WCR, BSEE started using the BTS system for collecting
information similar to that collected through failure reporting.
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
BSEE reevaluated the timeframes set forth in the 2016 WCR for
performing the investigation and the failure analysis and determined
that certain operations would not be able to meet the original
deadlines. For example, investigations of certain failures cannot be
commenced safely until active operations progress to the point where
necessary actions--like retrieving a subsea BOP to the surface--can be
performed safely. Further, BSEE determined that shifting immediately to
investigation is not essential when the failure relates to a redundant
component that does not affect required BOP functionality. BSEE also
recognized that many investigations take a long time and require
contracting with specialty engineering firms, who are often located
overseas and whose workload may prohibit immediate analysis, as well as
transporting components to those firms. Therefore, BSEE revised the
timeframes to require that operators start their investigation and
their failure analysis within 120 days of the failure and complete the
investigation and the failure analysis within 120 days of starting the
process.
The 2019 WCR also added provisions allowing BSEE to designate a
third party to collect failure data and reports on behalf of BSEE and
to require that failure data and reports be sent to the designated
third party. These changes in the 2019 WCR codified BSEE guidance on
the 2016 WCR posted on the BSEE website at https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations/regulations/well-control-rule. Based on the
2019 WCR, BSEE currently is working through BTS, using SafeOCS, as the
designated third party for receipt of failure reports and data. Reports
submitted through SafeOCS are collected and analyzed by BTS and
protected from release under the Confidential Information Protection
and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), which permits BTS to handle
and store reported information confidentially.\2\ Information submitted
under this statute also is protected from release to other government
agencies, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and certain
records requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OMB identifies BTS as one of 14 CIPSEA statistical agencies;
BSEE is not a CIPSEA statistical agency. ``Implementation Guidance
for [CIPSEA]'', 72 FR 33362 at 33368 (June 15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (c)
BSEE has continued to evaluate and analyze the data collected by
the BTS system and is actively looking for trends in the failure data.
BSEE also conducts investigations into certain incidents to
[[Page 56357]]
verify/monitor BOP component root cause analysis. Upon further
evaluation of the use of a designated third party to collect and
analyze failure data and based in part on experience since the
implementation of the 2019 WCR, this proposed rule would remove the
option to send failure reports and data to a designated third party.
BSEE has found value in using BTS for monitoring failure analysis and
trend data. However, such a reporting arrangement limits BSEE's ability
to efficiently and effectively address all of the issues associated
with certain failures. For example, if BSEE does not become aware of
certain failure reports and trend data until it receives an annual
report from BTS, it limits BSEE's ability to address failures and
trends in a timely and meaningful manner. Receiving failure reports
directly would facilitate BSEE's timely review of the failure data to
help more quickly identify trends and respond to systematic issues
falling within BSEE's regulatory authority. Reviewing failure reports
could also highlight companies that have a higher-than-average number
of failures, which could be evidence of poor maintenance practices.
The proposed revisions to paragraph (c)(2) also would help ensure
the operator starts a failure investigation and analysis in a timely
manner. Based in part on experience gathered through implementation of
the 2019 WCR, BSEE reevaluated the timeframes set forth in the 2019 WCR
for performing the investigation and the failure analysis. BSEE
determined that most operators can initiate the failure investigation
and analysis more quickly without unnecessarily interrupting operations
and jeopardizing safety and environmental protection. Accordingly, BSEE
proposes to require that operators start the investigation and the
failure analysis within 90 days of the failure. This proposed revision
also would help limit the potential for evidence to dissipate over
time, e.g., through degradation of equipment or components,
accessibility of certain records, and availability or memory of
personnel.
What are the independent third party requirements for BOP systems and
system components? (Sec. 250.732)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (b) by adding that an independent
third party must be accredited by a qualified standards development
organization and that BSEE may review the independent third party
accreditation and qualifications to ensure that it has sufficient
capabilities to perform the required functions.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
BSEE introduced for the first time in the 2016 WCR the concept of
using BSEE Approved Verification Organizations (BAVOs) to provide
certain verifications, certifications, and inspections of BOP systems.
BSEE explained that the objective of the use of BAVOs was to help
ensure certain BOP equipment was monitored during its entire lifecycle
by an independent third party to verify compliance with BSEE
requirements, original equipment manufacturer recommendations, and
recognized engineering practices. Previously, the independent third
parties that performed such functions did not undergo a BSEE approval
process. BSEE introduced such a process based on a perception that
increased BSEE screening of the third parties would provide greater
assurances surrounding the performance of these functions. BSEE stated
that it would develop, and make available on its public website, a list
of BAVOs--consisting of qualified third party organizations that BSEE
determined were capable of performing the functions specified in the
regulations--to help BSEE ensure that BOP systems are designed and
maintained during their service life to minimize risk. BSEE never
published a list of BAVOs, however. In the absence of that action, the
2016 WCR required industry to continue using qualified independent
third parties to perform the identified functions to ensure that there
was no diminution of the safety and environmental protection under the
existing regulations.
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
In the 2019 WCR, BSEE removed all references to BAVOs and, where
appropriate, replaced them with references to independent third
parties. BSEE based these revisions on information from the Bureau's
increased interactions with independent third parties following
publication of the 2016 WCR and the successful use of such third
parties in lieu of BAVOs in the absence of a published BAVO list. BSEE
expected the majority of BAVOs would be drawn from the existing
independent third parties, who would continue to conduct the same
verifications, certifications, and inspections, yielding little actual
change in the implementation of the program. BSEE also clarified the
qualifications for independent third parties (i.e., the third parties
must be a technical classification society, a licensed professional
engineering firm, or a registered professional engineer capable of
performing the required actions), which aligned with the standards BSEE
had anticipated applying to the approval of BAVOs.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)
The proposed changes to paragraph (b) would provide an additional
layer of assurance that independent third parties are capable of
providing the required verifications and certifications and that BSEE
may review the independent third party accreditation and qualifications
to ensure that capability. These proposed revisions are derived in part
from BSEE's increased interaction and experience with independent third
party certification and verifications since the 2019 WCR, as well as
BSEE's awareness of certain stakeholder concerns about independent
third party qualifications. These revisions also would help increase
accountability of independent third parties. It is BSEE's continued
goal to ensure that independent third parties are properly qualified
and have proven competencies to perform all required actions.
What are the requirements for a surface BOP stack? (Sec. 250.733)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)(1)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (b)(1) by adding that an operator
also must follow the BOP requirements of Sec. 250.734(a)(1) when
replacing an entire surface BOP stack on an existing floating
production facility.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
The 2016 WCR added the requirement that surface BOPs installed on a
floating production facility after 2019 must satisfy the dual shear ram
requirements in Sec. 250.734(a)(1). BSEE expected industry to be
moving toward eventual use of dual shear rams in surface BOPs on new
floating production facilities already. However, BSEE explained several
practical concerns related to applying the dual shear ram requirement
to existing facilities. For example, the dual shear ram requirement, if
applied to existing floating production facilities, or facilities under
construction or in advanced stages of development, potentially could
have negative personnel safety and structural impacts due to the added
weight of the dual shear ram equipment and due to the height and
structural limits of those facilities. Accordingly, BSEE clarified in
the final rule that existing floating production facilities did not
need to
[[Page 56358]]
retrofit or replace their BOPs to meet the dual shear ram requirement.
In effect, this meant that--under the 2016 WCR--surface BOPs on
existing floating production facilities, or facilities installed on the
OCS before 2019, were not required to meet the dual shear ram
requirement unless those BOPs were removed or replaced after 2019.
BSEE further explained that these provisions reasonably balanced
the practical concerns related to requiring dual shear rams on BOPs at
existing floating facilities or those to be constructed in the near
term, with the importance of improving the capabilities of surface BOPs
on such facilities in the longer term. BSEE also explained that
existing floating production facilities generally are less likely to
have an event requiring a dual shear ram BOP (than, e.g., exploratory
drilling rigs), given that the majority of such facilities are located
in depleted fields, with lower pressures due to ongoing production from
those fields. In addition, there are large amounts of offset well data
for those existing facilities in depleted fields (due to the multiple
wells previously drilled into the same geologic formations and
reservoirs), which allows for better prediction of drilling parameters
and concomitant reduced risk of well control losses. Similarly, because
of the previous production of the reservoirs at such facilities, the
reservoir parameters and characteristics are generally well
established.
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
The 2019 WCR revised Sec. 250.733(b)(1) to require that, after
April 29, 2021, operators must follow the dual shear ram requirements
in Sec. 250.734(a)(1) for new floating production facilities installed
with a surface BOP. These revisions were based on comments seeking
clarity. Following publication of the 2016 WCR, stakeholders expressed
confusion about the requirements in this section that cross-reference
the Sec. 250.734 requirements regarding dual shear rams for subsea
BOPs, which did not take effect until 2021. BSEE made the compliance
dates the same for Sec. Sec. 250.733(b)(1) and 250.734(a)(1) (i.e.,
April 29, 2021) to avoid confusion. It also modified this provision to
apply only to new floating production facilities (installed after April
2021) with a surface BOP. BSEE justified the exemption of existing
facilities from these requirements, even if they are redeployed at
another location or the BOP is removed or replaced, for various
reasons, including, but not limited to, clearance and weight issues
associated with facility and BOP design limitations.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)(1)
Since the implementation of the 2019 WCR, BSEE has reviewed all
existing surface BOP stacks on floating production facilities and
evaluated facility limitations for expanding BOP systems to include
dual shear rams. Dual shear ram BOPs have one blind shear ram that is
able to cut certain equipment in the well (e.g., drill pipe and
wireline) and then seal the well, as well as a shear ram that is also
used for cutting similar equipment in the well. BSEE is aware that
certain existing floating production facilities cannot accommodate
additional BOP components without significant facility modifications,
which may present challenges due to facility design limitations.
However, BSEE also recognizes that dual shear rams provide additional
and redundant well control capabilities that ensure BOP function and
effectiveness during a well control event. In short, dual shear rams
increase safety. BSEE has determined that the few facilities with
facility design limitations should meet the safety requirements of
Sec. 250.734(a)(1) at an appropriate time. Therefore, BSEE is
proposing to require existing floating production facilities to satisfy
the dual shear ram requirements when the operator replaces an entire
surface BOP stack. Irrespective of such requirements, replacement of an
entire BOP stack would entail rig downtime and require such facilities
to consider facility modifications to accommodate the new BOP stack,
making it an appropriate time to accommodate the dual shear rams. In
addition, making any necessary facility modifications for the dual
shear rams during BOP stack replacement will enable efficient
implementation of the BOP requirements of Sec. 250.734(a)(1) while
operations are already paused. As noted in connection with the 2016
WCR, BSEE believes such provisions reasonably balance the practical
concerns related to modifications of surface BOPs at existing floating
facilities with the importance of improving the capabilities of such
BOPs in the longer term.
What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system? (Sec. 250.734)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)(4)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (a)(4) by adding that the
operator must have the Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) intervention
capability to both open and close each shear ram, ram locks, and one
pipe ram.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
The 2016 WCR included requirements that the ROV must be capable of
opening and closing each shear ram, ram locks, and one pipe ram, in
addition to disconnecting the lower marine riser package (LMRP) under
maximum anticipated surface pressure (MASP) conditions. Rams are
components on a blowout preventer designed to close and seal the
wellbore. There are generally three types or rams: blind, pipe, or
shear. A blind shear ram is able to cut certain equipment in the well
(e.g., drill pipe and wireline) and then seal the well; a pipe ram can
seal around pipe; and a shear ram is used for cutting certain equipment
in the well (e.g., drill pipe, tubing, and wireline). A ram lock is
used to hold a ram closed. This provision was meant to help ensure
consistency with the critical function terms in American Petroleum
Institute (API) Standard 53, which is incorporated by reference in
relevant regulations.
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
The 2019 WCR retained the requirements for ROVs to have full ram
closure functions, but removed the requirement for the ROV to be
capable of opening the rams. After publication of the 2016 WCR, the API
Standard 53 committee clarified the definition of ROV ``operate''
critical functions to include ``close'' only and not to include
``open.'' For the purposes of well control, BSEE primarily focuses on
closure of critical components. BSEE took the position that BOP ram
closure is more important during a well-control event than ram opening
for the purposes of well control. Removal of the open function reduced
the required number of equipment alterations to the subsea ROV panel
and associated control systems and made the regulatory requirements
more consistent with updated provisions of API Standard 53. BSEE
acknowledged that removing the ROV open function may limit certain
options for well intervention after the well has already been secured;
however, it believed technological advancements in well intervention
capabilities could eliminate this issue.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)(4)
Since implementation of the 2019 WCR, BSEE has gained an increased
awareness of the importance of intervention capabilities and of
alternative technologies. Immediate responses to losses of well control
that
[[Page 56359]]
are designed to seal the well and prevent releases of formation fluids
(e.g., dual shear rams) are critical, and the previous rulemakings
emphasized those aspects of well control capabilities. However, BSEE
has determined that more comprehensive and longer-term solutions to
well control issues often require additional BOP functionality to
support subsequent intervention operations, for which closed rams can
present operational complications.
For example, having an open function makes it easier for operators
to conduct remedial operations following the loss of well control that
may be necessary to maintain the security of the well, such as zonal
isolation and equipment repair. Also, BSEE is not aware of
technological advancements in well intervention capabilities that have
eliminated the need for the ROV open function to facilitate these
important well maintenance operations. Accordingly, this revision would
require that the ROV open function be in place to allow for easier
access to open a closed BOP component for well intervention purposes,
including operations necessary to maintain the security of the well.
BSEE also has reviewed existing subsea BOP capabilities and determined
that most subsea BOPs currently incorporate the capability to open the
shear rams from the ROV panel. BSEE therefore anticipates that only a
minor number of equipment modifications would be necessary by
reintroducing this requirement.
What are the BOP system testing requirements? (Sec. 250.737)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii) by
adding the requirement that, if BSEE is unable to witness the testing,
the operator must provide the initial test results to the appropriate
District Manager within 72 hours after completion of the tests.
Summary of applicable 2016 WCR provisions:
The 2016 WCR required the operator to contact the District Manager
at least 72 hours prior to beginning the initial test for a surface
BOP, or the stump test for a subsea BOP, to allow BSEE
representative(s) the option to witness the testing. If BSEE
representative(s) were unable to witness the testing, the operator was
required to provide the test results to the appropriate District
Manager within 72 hours after completion of the tests.
Summary of applicable 2019 WCR provisions:
The 2019 WCR removed the requirement for operators to submit the
relevant test results to BSEE when BSEE cannot witness the testing.
BSEE stated that the revisions would significantly reduce the number of
submittals to BSEE and minimize the associated burden for BSEE to
review those submittals, without reducing safety. If BSEE cannot
witness the testing, BSEE still has access to the BOP testing
documentation upon request pursuant to Sec. 250.746, What are the
recordkeeping requirements for casing, liner, and BOP tests, and
inspections of BOP systems and marine riser? BSEE also reviews the test
results during routine inspections of facilities and retained the
option to witness the testing.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to Paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and
(d)(3)(iii)
Based upon BSEE experience with implementing he 2019 WCR, BSEE has
determined that consistent access to this data is necessary for BSEE to
ensure BOP safety. Since implementation, BSEE has found it necessary to
request this data from operators to verify that the necessary tests
were conducted and passed. While the 2019 WCR cited the burden to BSEE
from reviewing this data, BSEE has been reviewing the data even without
the submission requirement, and its reintroduction will reduce the
burden on BSEE from having to request the data. BSEE's experience has
led it to determine that any additional burden is necessary to ensure
compliance with BOP testing requirements. The burdens on operators from
submission of the data are minimal. These revisions also would help
BSEE ensure it has continued access to certain BOP testing data
necessary to conduct its routine review. In the past, BSEE has utilized
the BOP information for further review and investigations and has taken
enforcement action as a result of the data review. BSEE retains the
requirements for operators to produce certain records upon request and
to provide advanced notice at least 72 hours before the testing to
allow BSEE the option of sending representatives to witness the
testing.
III. Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563)
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. To
determine if this proposed rulemaking is a significant rule, BSEE had
an outside contractor prepare an economic analysis to assess the
anticipated costs and potential benefits of the proposed rulemaking.
The following discussion summarizes the economic analysis; a complete
copy of the economic analysis can be viewed at www.Regulations.gov (use
the keyword/ID ``BSEE-2022-0009'').
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several types of
economic analyses. First, E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select a regulatory approach that maximizes
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Under
E.O. 12866, an agency must determine whether a regulatory action is
significant and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the E.O. and
review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as any regulatory action that is likely to result
in a rule that:
--Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affects in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities
(also referred to as ``economically significant'');
--Creates serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action
taken or planned by another agency;
--Materially alters the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
--Raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
BSEE has determined that this proposed rule is not significant
within the definition of E.O. 12866 because the estimated annual costs
or benefits would not exceed $100 million in any year of the 10-year
analysis period and the rule will not meet any of the other
significance triggers. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this proposed
regulation.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
BSEE has identified a need to amend the existing well control
regulations to ensure that oil and gas operations on the OCS are
conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. In
particular, BSEE considers the proposed rule necessary to reduce the
likelihood of an oil or gas blowout, which can lead to the loss of
life, serious injuries, and
[[Page 56360]]
harm to the environment. As was evidenced by the Deepwater Horizon
incident (which began with a blowout at the Macondo well on April 20,
2010), blowouts can result in catastrophic consequences.
After the Deepwater Horizon incident in 2010, BSEE adopted several
recommendations from multiple investigation teams to improve the safety
of offshore operations. Subsequently, BSEE published the 2016 WCR on
April 29, 2016 (81 FR 25888; RIN 2014-AA11). The 2016 WCR consolidated
the equipment and operational requirements for well control into one
part of BSEE's regulations; enhanced BOP and well design requirements,
modified well-control requirements; and incorporated certain industry
technical standards. Most of the 2016 WCR provisions became effective
on July 28, 2016.
Although the 2016 WCR addressed a significant number of issues that
were identified during the analyses of the Deepwater Horizon incident,
BSEE recognized that BOP equipment and systems continue to improve
technologically and well control processes evolve. Therefore, after the
2016 WCR became effective, BSEE continued to engage with the offshore
oil and gas industry, SDOs, and other stakeholders. During the course
of these engagements, BSEE identified issues and stakeholders expressed
a variety of concerns regarding implementation of the 2016 WCR. On May
15, 2019, BSEE addressed these issues and concerns by publishing the
final 2019 WCR in the Federal Register (84 FR 21908; RIN 2014-AA39),
which finalized the current regulatory requirements for BOP systems and
operations. The 2019 WCR also incorporated by reference API Standard 53
(including the 2016 addendum) and the Second Edition of API RP 17H into
the applicable sections of the regulatory text included in this
proposed rule.
Since the publication of the 2019 WCR, BSEE has continued engaging
with stakeholders to gather information to ensure effective
implementation of the regulations. The Department subsequently
identified areas for improvements to specific 2019 WCR provisions.
Furthermore, on January 20, 2021, the President issued E.O. 13990
(Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the E.O.'s accompanying ``President's
Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for Review.'' Within the President's
Fact Sheet, DOI was specifically instructed to review the 2019 WCR to
evaluate potential revisions to promote and protect public health,
safety, and the environment, among other identified policy goals.
BSEE is proposing a narrowly focused rulemaking to address the
identified regulatory requirements to help improve operations that use
a BOP, certain BOP capabilities and functionalities, and BSEE oversight
of such operations. The proposed rule would:
(A) Clarify BOP system requirements,
(B) Remove the option for operators to submit failure data to
designated third parties,
(C) Require accreditation of independent third party
qualifications,
(D) Establish dual shear ram requirements for surface BOPs on
existing floating production facilities when an operator replaces an
entire surface BOP stack,
(E) Require ROV open functions as originally required in the 2016
WCR, and
(F) Require submittal of certain BOP test results if BSEE is unable
to witness the testing.
2. Alternatives
BSEE has considered two regulatory alternatives:
(A) Promulgate the requirements contained within the proposed rule.
(B) Take no regulatory action and continue to rely on existing well
control regulations in combination with permit conditions, deepwater
operations plans (DWOPs), operator prudence, and industry standards.
Alternative 1--the proposed rule--would incorporate recommendations
provided by government, industry, academia, and other stakeholders. In
addition to addressing concerns and aligning with industry standards,
this proposed rule would prudently improve efficiency and consistency
of the regulations.
3. Economic Analysis
BSEE's economic analysis evaluated the expected impacts of the
proposed rule compared with the baseline. The baseline refers to
current industry practice in accordance with existing regulations,
industry permits, DWOPs, and industry standards with which operators
already comply. Impacts that exist as part of the baseline were not
considered costs or benefits of the proposed rule. Thus, the cost
analysis evaluates only activities, expenditures, and capital
investments representing a change from the baseline that would result
if the provisions of the proposed rule were finalized. BSEE quantified
and monetized the costs, using 2022 data, of all the provisions in the
proposed rule determined to result in a change compared to the
baseline. These estimated compliance costs are discussed more
specifically in the associated full initial regulatory impact analysis,
which can be viewed at www.regulations.gov (use the keyword/ID ``BSEE-
2022-0009'').
BSEE qualitatively assessed the benefits of the proposed rule. The
rulemaking would allow BSEE to address stakeholder concerns related to
the BOP and well control provisions in 30 CFR part 250 and would
provide clarification about regulations in this section. The proposed
amendments would have a positive net impact on worker safety and the
environment. The benefits include clarification, more timely review of
data to facilitate faster response to systemic risks, increased
accountability of verification entities to ensure that risks are
accurately assessed and verified, improved protection from a blowout,
improved ability to manage a blowout, and the assurance that BSEE
receives and is able to review BOP testing data to help identify risks.
The analysis assumes an effective date of January 1, 2023, and
covers 10 years (2023 through 2032) to ensure it encompasses the
significant costs and benefits likely to result from this proposed
rule. A 10-year period was used for this analysis because of the
uncertainty associated with predicting industry's activities and the
advancement of technical capabilities beyond 10 years. It is very
difficult to predict, plan, or project costs associated with
technological innovation due to unknown technological or business
constraints that could drive a product into mainstream adoption or into
obsolescence. The regulated community itself has difficulty conducting
business modeling beyond a 10-year time frame. Over time, the costs
associated with a particular new technology may drop because of various
supply and demand factors, causing the technology to be more broadly
adopted. In other cases, an existing technology may be replaced by a
lower-cost alternative as business needs may drive technological
innovation.
Extrapolating costs and benefits beyond this 10-year time frame
would produce more ambiguous results and therefore be disadvantageous
in determining actual costs and benefits likely to result from this
proposed rule. BSEE concluded that this 10-year analysis period
provides the best overall ability to forecast reliable costs and
benefits likely to result from this proposed rule. When summarizing the
costs and benefits, we present the estimated annual effects, as well as
the 10-year discounted totals using discount
[[Page 56361]]
rates of 3 and 7 percent, per OMB Circular A-4, ``Regulatory
Analysis.''
Table 1 presents the total costs per year of the proposed rule. As
can be seen in the table, the estimated costs over the ten-year period
are $2.4 million undiscounted, $2.3 million discounted at 3%, and $2.2
million discounted at 7%.
Table 1--Total Costs Associated With Proposed Amendments to BOP and Well Control Regulations
[2022$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted at Discounted at
Year Undiscounted 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023............................................................ $1,801,301 $1,801,301 $1,801,301
2024............................................................ 1,357 1,317 1,268
2025............................................................ 1,357 1,279 1,185
2026............................................................ 1,357 1,242 1,108
2027............................................................ 557,653 495,467 425,431
2028............................................................ 1,357 1,171 967
2029............................................................ 1,357 1,136 904
2030............................................................ 1,357 1,103 845
2031............................................................ 1,357 1,071 790
2032............................................................ 1,357 1,040 738
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,369,809 2,306,128 2,234,537
Annualized.............................................. 236,981 270,349 318,148
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Annualized costs are calculated by the annuity method.
BSEE welcomes comments on this analysis, including potential
sources of data or information on the costs and benefits of this
proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Congressional Review Act
DOI certifies that this proposed rule is unlikely to have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(RFA).
The RFA, at 5 U.S.C. 603, requires agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis to determine whether a regulation would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Further, under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., an
agency is required to produce compliance guidance for small entities if
the rule would have a significant economic impact. For the reasons
explained in this section, BSEE believes that this proposed rule likely
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Although a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required by the RFA, BSEE provides this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis to demonstrate the relatively minor impact of this proposed
rule on small entities.
1. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
Since publication of the 2019 WCR, BSEE has continued to confer
with stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of the
regulations. BSEE also identified potential improvements to specific
aspects of these provisions. Furthermore, on January 20, 2021, the
President issued E.O. 13990 (Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the
E.O.'s accompanying ``President's Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions
for Review.'' Within the President's Fact Sheet, DOI was specifically
instructed to review the 2019 WCR to evaluate potential revisions to
promote and protect public health, safety, and the environment, among
other identified policy goals.
2. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
Small entities, as defined by the RFA, consist of small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. We have not
identified any small organizations or small government jurisdictions
that the rule would impact, so this analysis focuses on impacts to
small businesses (hereafter referred to as ``small entities''). A small
entity is one that is independently owned and operated and that is not
dominant in its field of operation. The definition of small business
varies from industry to industry to properly reflect industry size
differences.
One of the changes in the proposed rule would have an impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would affect
all well drilling operators and Federal oil and gas lease holders on
the OCS, primarily those working in the Gulf of Mexico. BSEE's analysis
also shows that this would include 48 companies that drilled at least
one offshore well during the period 2015 to 2021. Of these drilling
operators, approximately 20 would be active in each given year.
Entities that would operate under the proposed rule are classified
primarily under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes 211120 (Crude Petroleum Extraction), 211130 (Natural Gas
Extraction), and 213111 (Drilling Oil and Gas Wells). For NAICS
classifications 211120 and 211130, the Small Business Administration
defines a small business as one with fewer than 1,251 employees; the
rest are considered large businesses. BSEE considers that a rule has an
impact on a ``substantial number of small entities'' when the total
number of small entities impacted by the rule is equal to or exceeds 10
percent of the relevant universe of small entities in a given industry.
BSEE estimates that approximately 83 percent of offshore operators
drilling on the OCS are small and that the small entities impacted each
year would comprise 34 percent of that universe.
3. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
BSEE has estimated the incremental costs for small operators and
lease holders in the offshore oil and natural gas production industry.
Costs already incurred as a result of current industry practice in
accordance with existing regulations, industry permits, DWOPs, and API
industry standards with which operators already comply were not
considered as costs of this rule because they are part of the baseline.
[[Page 56362]]
Only 1 of the proposed provisions would have cost impacts on small
entities.
For proposed Sec. 250.737(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii), it is
estimated that the annual cost per company would be $78.30, which is
not a significant impact.
4. Identification of All Relevant Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would not conflict with any relevant Federal
rules or duplicate or overlap with any Federal rules in any way that
would unnecessarily add cumulative regulatory burdens on small entities
without any gain in regulatory benefits. However, BSEE requests
comments identifying any Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
5. Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
BSEE has considered two regulatory alternatives:
(1) Promulgate the requirements contained within the proposed rule.
(2) Take no regulatory action and continue to rely on existing well
control regulations in combination with permit conditions, DWOPs,
operator prudence, and industry standards.
Alternative 1--the proposed rule--would incorporate recommendations
provided by government, industry, academia, and other stakeholders. In
addition to addressing concerns and aligning with industry standards,
this proposed rule would prudently improve efficiency and consistency
of the regulations.
The potential costs to small entities are believed to be small;
however, the risk of safety or environmental accidents for small
companies would not necessarily be lower than it would be for larger
companies. Offshore operations are highly technical and can be
hazardous. Adverse consequences in the event of incidents are similar
regardless of the operator's size. The proposed rule would reduce risk
for entities of all sizes. Nonetheless, BSEE is requesting comment on
the costs of these proposed policies to small entities, with the goal
of ensuring thorough consideration and discussion at the final rule
stage. BSEE specifically requests comments on the burden estimates
discussed above as well as information on regulatory alternatives that
would reduce the burden on small entities (e.g., different compliance
requirements for small entities, alternative testing requirements and
periods, and exemption from regulatory requirements).
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 Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630)
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this proposed rule would not have
significant takings implications. The 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 would not have
federalism 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.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(1) 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
(2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
BSEE is committed to regular and meaningful consultation and
collaboration with Tribes on policy decisions that have Tribal
implications. Under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and DOI's Policy on
Consultation with Indian Tribes (Secretarial Order 3317, Amendment 2,
dated December 31, 2013), we have evaluated this proposed rule and
determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian Tribes.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
This proposed rule contains existing and new information collection
(IC) requirements for regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subpart G, and
submission to the OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is required. Therefore, BSEE will submit
an IC request to OMB for review and approval and will request a new OMB
control number. Once the 1014-AA52 final rule is effective, we will
transfer the new hour burden and non-hour costs burden from 1014-NEW to
1014-0028 (160,842 hours, $867,500 non-hour cost burden, expiration
January 31, 2023) 30 CFR part 250, subpart G, Well Operations and
Equipment, then discontinue the new number associated with this
rulemaking. We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
The proposed regulations would establish new and/or revise current
requirements in Subpart G, Well Operations and Equipment, by revising
regulatory provisions published in the 2019 WCR for drilling, workover,
completion, and decommissioning operations. BSEE is providing clarity
to BOP system requirements and revising a few specific BOP equipment
capabilities.
The following provides a breakdown of the paperwork hour burdens
and non-hour cost burdens for this proposed rule.
As discussed in the Section-by-Section analysis above, and in the
supporting statement available at RegInfo.gov, this rule proposes to
add/revise:
Sec. 250.730--This section would eliminate text allowing BSEE to
designate a third party to receive notices and reports. No burden
changes are being proposed.
Sec. 250.732(b)--This section would add to the current paragraph
that BSEE may review independent third party accreditations and
qualifications. This would add +10 hours.
Sec. 250.737(d)(2) and (3)--This section would add the requirement
that if BSEE is unable to witness the testing, the operator must
provide the initial test results to the appropriate District Manager
within 72 hours after completion of the tests. The 2019 WCR provisions
removed the requirement that operators submit testing results within 72
hours when a BSEE representative cannot witness the testing. BSEE
inadvertently never removed the IC burden associated with this
requirement; therefore, no burden changes are being proposed.
[[Page 56363]]
Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 250, subpart G, Well Operations
and Equipment.
OMB Control Number: 1014-NEW.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New.
Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents comprise Federal
OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees/operators and holders of pipeline
rights-of-way.
Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Currently there are
approximately 550 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and holders
of pipeline rights-of-way. Not all the potential respondents will
submit information in any given year, and some may submit multiple
times.
Total Estimated Number of NEW Annual Responses: 5.
Estimated Completion Time per Response for NEW requirement: 2
hours.
Total Estimated Number of NEW Annual Burden Hours: 10.
Respondent's Obligation: Responses are mandatory.
Frequency of Collection: Generally, on occasion and as required in
the regulations.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: none.
In addition, the PRA requires agencies to estimate the total annual
reporting and recordkeeping non-hour cost burden resulting from the
collection of information, and we solicit your comments on this item.
For reporting and recordkeeping only, your response should split the
cost estimate into two components: (1) total capital and startup cost
component and (2) annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of
service component. Your estimates should consider the cost 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.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on
any aspect of this information collection, including:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection
by the date indicated in the DATES section to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or via
the RegInfo.gov portal (online). You may view the information
collection request(s) at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Please provide a copy of your comments to the BSEE Information
Collection Clearance Officer (see the ADDRESSES section). You may
contact Kye Mason, BSEE Information Collection Clearance Officer at
(703) 787-1607 with any questions. Please reference Proposed Rule 1014-
AA52, Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-
Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Revisions--30 CFR part 250,
subpart G, Well Operations and Equipment (OMB Control No. 1014-NEW), in
your comments.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
BSEE is analyzing the provisions of the proposed rule in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) to determine whether they could have a significant impact
on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Assessments were
prepared for both the 2016 WCR and the 2019 WCR. Those prior NEPA
analyses informed the drafting process for this proposed rule, and the
proposed rule primarily proposes to restore provisions whose potential
environmental impacts were analyzed in connection with those prior
rulemakings (or which are purely administrative in nature with no
potential for environmental impacts). Accordingly, at this time, we
anticipate that the Environmental Assessments associated with the 2016
WCR and 2019 WCR will substantially inform the NEPA process and
compliance for this rulemaking. We invite comments on this subject.
Data Quality Act
In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study,
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act
(Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).
Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the
definition in E.O. 13211. The rule is not a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866, and it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. A
Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
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:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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 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, or the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf,
Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government
contracts, Incorporation by reference, Investigations, Oil and gas
exploration, Outer Continental Shelf--mineral resources, Outer
Continental Shelf--rights-of-way, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.
Laura Daniel-Davis
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the
Interior proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
[[Page 56364]]
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULFUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
0
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701, 33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(1)(C), 43 U.S.C. 1334.
0
2. Amend Sec. 250.730 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.730 What are the general requirements for BOP systems and
system components?
(a) You must ensure that the BOP system and system components are
designed, installed, maintained, inspected, tested, and used properly
to ensure well control. The working-pressure rating of each BOP
component (excluding annular(s)) must exceed MASP as defined for the
operation. For a subsea BOP, the MASP must be determined at the
mudline. The BOP system includes the BOP stack, control system, and any
other associated system(s) and equipment. The BOP system and individual
components must be able to perform their expected functions and be
compatible with each other. Your BOP system must be capable of closing
and sealing the wellbore at all times to the well's maximum kick
tolerance design limits. The BOP system must be capable of closing and
sealing without losing ram closure time and sealing integrity due to
the corrosiveness, volume, and abrasiveness of any fluids in the
wellbore that the BOP system may encounter. Your BOP system must meet
the following requirements:
* * * * *
(c) You must follow the failure reporting procedures contained in
API Standard 53, (incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198), and:
(1) You must provide a written notice of equipment failure to both
the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs (OORP), and the
manufacturer of such equipment within 30 days after the discovery and
identification of the failure. A failure is any condition that prevents
the equipment from meeting the functional specification.
(2) You must start an investigation and a failure analysis within
90 days of the failure to determine the cause of the failure and
complete the investigation and the failure analysis within 120 days
after initiation. You also must document the results and any corrective
action. You must submit the analysis report to both the Chief, OORP and
the manufacturer. If you cannot complete the investigation and analysis
within the specified time, you must submit an extension request
detailing when and how you will complete the investigation and analysis
to BSEE for approval. You must submit the extension request to the
Chief, OORP.
(3) If the equipment manufacturer notifies you that it has changed
the design of the equipment that failed or if you have changed
operating or repair procedures as a result of a failure, then you must,
within 30 days of such changes, report the design change or modified
procedures in writing to the Chief, OORP.
(4) Submit notices and reports to the Chief, Office of Offshore
Regulatory Programs; Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement;
45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 250.732 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.732 What are the independent third party requirements for
BOP systems and system components?
* * * * *
(b) The independent third party must be accredited by a qualified
standards development organization and must be a technical
classification society, a licensed professional engineering firm, or a
registered professional engineer capable of providing the required
certifications and verifications. BSEE may review the independent third
party accreditation and qualifications to ensure that the independent
third party has sufficient capabilities to perform the required
functions.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 250.733 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.733 What are the requirements for a surface BOP stack?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) On new floating production facilities installed after April 29,
2021, that include a surface BOP, or when you replace an entire surface
BOP stack on an existing floating production facility, follow the BOP
requirements in Sec. 250.734(a)(1).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 250.734 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.734 What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system?
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When operating with a subsea BOP
system, you must: Additional requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) * * *......................... You must have the ROV intervention
capability to open and close each
shear ram, ram locks, one pipe ram,
and disconnect the LMRP under MASP
conditions as defined for the
operation. You must be capable of
performing these functions in the
response times outlined in API
Standard 53 (as incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198). The
ROV panels on the BOP and LMRP must
be compliant with API RP 17H (as
incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 250.737 by revising paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (3)(iii),
to read as follows:
Sec. 250.737 What are the BOP system testing requirements?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must Additional requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *......................... * * *
(ii) Contact the District Manager at
least 72 hours prior to beginning
the initial test to allow BSEE
representative(s) to witness the
testing. If BSEE representative(s)
are unable to witness the testing,
you must provide the initial test
results to the appropriate District
Manager within 72 hours after
completion of the tests.
[[Page 56365]]
* * * * * * *
(3) * * *......................... * * *
(iii) Contact the District Manager
at least 72 hours prior to
beginning the stump test to allow
BSEE representative(s) to witness
the testing. If BSEE
representative(s) are unable to
witness the testing, you must
provide the test results to the
appropriate District Manager within
72 hours after completion of the
tests.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-19462 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P