[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32252-32255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15088]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC17


Seismic Reassessment of California Outer Continental Shelf 
Platforms; Republication

    Editorial Note: The document set forth below was originally 
published at 62 FR 31538-31541, Tuesday, June 10, 1997, and is being 
reprinted in its entirety because of typesetting errors.

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: MMS has developed proposed regulations for the seismic 
reassessment of offshore platforms. This proposed rule would only apply 
to platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) offshore the State of 
California. This proposed rule includes criteria for determining a 
platform's fitness through a structural analysis. Each platform on the 
California OCS would need to undergo a seismic assessment within 3 
years of publication of the final rule. An analysis would also be 
triggered by damage to primary structural members, proposals to 
significantly increase loads, or other significant changes. Previously, 
MMS has allowed for good engineering judgment to determine how 
modifications or significant changes would affect a platform's 
structural integrity. This proposed rule will provide for more 
consistency in seismic reassessment analysis.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 11, 1997. We 
will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments 
we receive after August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry written comments to the Department of the 
Interior; Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; Mail Stop 
4700; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Ake, Engineering and Research 
Branch, at (703) 787-1567.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Platforms installed offshore Southern 
California prior to the 1970's were designed and constructed according 
to onshore codes used at the time of their installation. In 1969, the 
American Petroleum Institute (API) published a document entitled 
``Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed 
Offshore Platforms,'' or API RP 2A, containing guidelines developed

[[Page 32253]]

specifically for offshore structures. The 7th edition of API RP 2A 
(1976) was the first version to include guidelines for seismic loading. 
The 19th edition of API RP 2A is currently incorporated into MMS 
regulations, although the latest 20th edition was published in July 
1993.
    Following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, MMS and the 
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) began investigating seismic 
reassessment of structures located offshore Southern California. The 
agencies began to evaluate seismic analyses that had been performed for 
offshore platforms in their design phases. MMS decided to require 
operators of the oldest platforms, constructed before the 1976 API RP 
2A 7th edition guidelines were in place, to conduct preliminary seismic 
analyses that are normally required for new platforms. The CSLC began a 
program to reassess platforms that were undergoing significant changes 
in operations, loads, or personnel. Experience with this process has 
shown the need for the development of uniform seismic design criteria.
    Aware of growing MMS and CSLC interest in reassessment and the lack 
of credible reassessment criteria, the API funded an independent study 
in 1991 by a panel of four distinguished experts in matters related to 
seismic design. The results of the study were based on the underlying 
recommendation that the seismic risk offshore should be similar to that 
used for well-designed structures onshore. An API task group was formed 
to develop reassessment procedures and criteria for storm and ice loads 
as well as seismic loads. Its members were composed of technical 
experts from the offshore industry, academia, and the MMS.
    Using the panel's study on seismic reassessment as a guide, the API 
task group developed a Supplement to the 20th edition of API RP 2A that 
covers all environmental loading conditions. It provides technical 
criteria to be used in reassessing existing structures. The criteria 
embrace a fitness-for-purpose evaluation coupled with the risk of 
structural failure and the consequences of that failure. The details of 
the Supplement will not be discussed here since it has already been the 
subject of several 1994 Offshore Technology Conference papers. The API 
finalized and published this Supplement document as Supplement 1 to API 
RP 2A in December 1996.
    MMS held several workshops to involve industry, the public, 
regulatory agencies, and academia in the development of reassessment 
guidelines. MMS, CSLC, and others sponsored an international workshop 
on seismic reassessment of offshore structures in December 1992. In 
November 1993, MMS and CSLC co-sponsored a workshop on public policy 
issues related to the seismic reassessment of platforms offshore 
Southern California. In December 1993, MMS, API, and others sponsored 
an international workshop on reassessment for structures located in all 
areas for both earthquake and storm loadings. The workshops were well 
attended by the interested parties. Discussions on public policy issues 
at all three meetings resulted in consensus on the treatment of seismic 
reassessment at the final workshop. The technical aspects of these 
numerous public discussions have been incorporated into the API 
Supplement, and MMS has made the proposed rule consistent with these 
results. Proceedings are available for each of the workshops held.
    MMS is moving forward with proposed seismic reassessment 
regulations since seismic reassessments can provide critical 
information about the offshore facilities in the seismically active 
California OCS. Consideration is also being given to incorporating the 
20th edition of API RP 2A, including the Supplement, into MMS 
regulations instead of proceeding with this proposed rule. Commenters 
are urged to provide comments on the relative merits of incorporating 
the API documents into MMS regulations, as well as proceeding with this 
rule.
    The proposed rule would require lessees to conduct seismic 
reassessments of OCS platforms located offshore the State of California 
within three years of final rule publication. Reassessments would also 
be triggered by changing circumstances at the platform such as an 
increase of loads on the structure, or a change from an unmanned 
platform to a manned platform. Most changes that trigger reassessments 
would have to be judged ``significant'', which the proposed rule 
defines as cumulative changes that cause a 10 percent decrease in the 
platform's loading capacity or a 10 percent increase in the platform's 
loads.
    A manned platform would undergo an assessment to determine if it 
could withstand a median 1000 year seismic event; an unmanned 
platform's stability would be compared with the forces from a 500 year 
seismic event. The more stringent requirement for a manned platform is 
based on the higher standard needed to protect human life. Each seismic 
reassessment must be verified by a Certified Verification Agent (CVA) 
who has been approved by the MMS.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This rule was reviewed under E.O. 12866. The Department of the 
Interior (DOI) has determined that the rule is not a significant rule 
under the criteria of E.O. 12866 and therefore, the rule was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DOI has determined that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Any direct effects of this rulemaking will primarily affect the OCS 
lessees and operators--entities that are not small due to the technical 
complexities and financial resources necessary to conduct OCS 
activities. The indirect effects of this rulemaking on small entities 
that provide support for offshore activities have also been determined 
to be small.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains a collection of information which has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review 
and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and 
respondent burden, MMS invites the public and other Federal agencies to 
comment on any aspect of the reporting burden. Submit your comments to 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; OMB; Attention Desk 
Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB control number 1010-
0058); 725 17th Street, NW.; Washington, D.C. 20503. Send a copy of 
your comments to the Minerals Management Service; Attention: Rules 
Processing Team; Mail Stop 4700; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 
20170-4817. You may obtain a copy of the proposed collection of 
information by contacting the Bureau's Information Collection Clearance 
Officer at (202) 208-7744.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 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 within 30 days of publication. This does not affect 
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the 
proposed regulations.
    The title of this collection of information is ``30 CFR 250, 
Subpart I, Platforms and Structures,'' OMB control number 1010-0058. 
The proposed rule adds the following requirements to the

[[Page 32254]]

currently approved collection of information required in Subpart I:
     Submit a plan for analyzing the platform structure;
     Obtain Regional Supervisor approval for analysis criteria 
if utilizing a probabilistic analysis;
     Review of a site-specific study by an independent peer 
review panel; and
     Obtain and submit a CVA report.
    MMS would use this information to ensure that offshore structures 
located on the California OCS meet today's standards for seismic 
loading.
    Respondents are Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees with 
platforms located on the California OCS. The proposed rule requires 
compliance once within 3 years after publication of the final rule and 
thereafter as applicable. The current approved reporting burden for 
Subpart I is 21,803 hours. MMS estimates eight new responses each year 
for the first three years. Additional years would average fewer than 
two responses. We estimate the additional annual reporting burden as a 
result of this rule would be 1,256 hours (157 hours per response). 
Based on $35 per hour, the burden hour cost to respondents is estimated 
to be $43,960.
    In addition to the hour burden discussed above, the proposed rule 
would add one other cost burden associated with the collection of 
information. Section 250.145(e) requires respondents to obtain a final 
report prepared by a CVA and submit it to the Regional Supervisor. We 
estimate the cost of preparing that report (including the costs of 
conducting engineering analysis) is $100,000 per platform.
    MMS will summarize written responses to this notice and address 
them in the final rule. All comments will become a matter of public 
record.
    1. MMS specifically solicits comments on the following questions:
    (a) Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the 
proper performance of MMS's functions, and will it be useful?
    (b) Are the burden hour and cost of the final CVA report estimates 
reasonable for the proposed collection?
    (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 through the use of appropriate 
automated electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information 
technology?
    2. In addition, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires 
agencies to estimate the total annual cost burden to respondents or 
recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. MMS needs 
your comments on this item. Your response should split the cost 
estimate into two components:
    (a) Total capital and startup cost; and
    (b) Annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of services.
    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. Capital and startup 
costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase 
to prepare for collecting information; monitoring, sampling, drilling, 
and testing equipment; and record storage facilities. Generally, your 
estimates should not include equipment or services purchased: before 
October 1, 1995; to comply with requirements not associated with the 
information collection; for reasons other than to provide information 
or keep records for the Government; or as part of customary and usual 
business or private practices.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 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.

Takings Implication Assessment

    DOI determined that this proposed rule does not represent a 
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally 
protected property rights. Thus, DOI does not need to prepare a Takings 
Implication Assessment pursuant to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

E.O. 12988

    DOI has certified that this proposed rule meets the applicable 
civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 
E.O. 12778.

National Environmental Policy Act

    MMS has examined this proposed rulemaking and has determined that 
this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to section 
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4332(2)(C)).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not impose a 
cost of $100 million or more in any given year on State, local, and 
tribal government, or the private sector.

List of Subjects in CFR Part 250

    Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental 
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference, 
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and 
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties, 
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.

    Dated: May 28, 1997.
Bob Armstrong,
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 part 250 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334.

    2. Section 250.145 is added to subpart I to read as follows:


Sec. 250.145  Seismic Reassessment of California OCS Platforms.

    (a) Applicability. These requirements apply to all platforms 
located on the California OCS.
    (b) Definitions. When used in this section, the terms have the 
following meanings:
    Loss of Global Structural Stability means the point at which a 
structure is unable to establish equilibrium under the applied gravity 
loadings and induced earthquake forces.
    Manned Platform means a platform that always has someone living on 
it.
    Platform Capacity means the platform's ability to resist loading or 
to withstand a given maximum load.
    Significant means cumulative damage or cumulative changes from the 
original design premise that lead to a decrease in capacity or an 
increase in loading greater than 10 percent.
    Unmanned Platform means any platform other than a manned platform.
    You means the lessee.

[[Page 32255]]

    (c) When must I conduct a seismic reassessment? You must conduct a 
seismic reassessment of each of your California OCS platforms in its 
current condition by [Insert date that is 3 years after the date the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register]. You must also conduct 
a seismic reassessment when a reassessment initiator occurs. 
Reassessment initiators are changes in the platform status which result 
in a significant change in demand, capacity, or consequence of the 
platform's failure, such as, but not limited to:
    (1) Functional or operational changes which result in significantly 
higher loads than in the original design (e.g., new waterflood 
operations, additional tanks, or crew quarters, etc.).
    (2) Significant damage to primary structural members or joints 
found during an inspection.
    (3) The availability of credible new seismic data that would 
indicate significantly higher loads than those used in the original 
design criteria.
    (4) Significant changes in the original design criteria or 
methodologies that would negatively affect the platform. An example of 
this type of significant change is the evolution of the tubular joint 
equation.
    (5) A change from an unmanned platform to a manned platform.
    (d) What are the criteria for a seismic reassessment? Before you 
conduct the seismic reassessment, you must submit your plan for 
analyzing the structure to the Regional Supervisor for approval. In 
addition:
    (1) For manned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform in 
its current condition can withstand a median 1000-year seismic event 
without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of 
all undamaged members, joints and piles must be considered and, if 
necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.
    (2) For unmanned platforms, you must demonstrate that the platform 
in its current condition can withstand a median 500-year seismic event 
without loss of global structural stability. The ultimate strength of 
all undamaged members, joints, and piles must be considered, and if 
necessary, safety factors may be reduced to 1.0.
    (3) The Regional Supervisor may accept a probabilistic analysis as 
an alternative to the analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) 
of this section. The probabilistic analysis must address the effects of 
uncertainty and bias in loading and resistance. Before using this 
method, you must obtain approval for your analysis criteria from the 
Regional Supervisor.
    (4) Topsides and appurtenances must withstand the seismic loads 
from paragraphs (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section and be in conformance 
with the seismic provision of API RP 2A-WSD.
    (5) You must conduct a site-specific study under 30 CFR 250.139 
based on soil borings and geophysical data taken on or near the 
platform vicinity, using the best available technology. You may use a 
study previously conducted. An MMS approved independent peer review 
panel must review the study.
    (e) Does a third party need to verify the seismic reassessment? You 
must use a Certified Verification Agent (CVA) approved by the MMS using 
the qualification standards in Sec. 250.132(b)(1)(ii) to verify the 
analyses required in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section. 
You must submit the CVA's final report to the Regional Supervisor. It 
must describe the analysis process and material reviewed, summarize the 
findings, and include a recommendation to the Regional Supervisor. The 
recommendation must advise the Regional Supervisor to either accept, 
request modifications, or reject the reassessment.
    (f) What if my platform does not pass the seismic reassessment? If 
your structure does not meet the reassessment criteria, you must 
contact the Regional Supervisor for approval to initiate one or more 
mitigation actions. Mitigation actions are modifications to the 
structure or to operational procedures that reduce loads, increase 
capacities, or reduce consequences.

    Editorial Note: This document was originally published at 62 FR 
31538-31541, Tuesday, June 10, 1997, and is being reprinted in its 
entirety because of typesetting errors.
[FR Doc. 97-15088 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D