[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34625-34629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010-AC96


Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf--Minimum Blowout Prevention (BOP) System Requirements for Well-
Workover Operations Performed Using Coiled Tubing With the Production 
Tree in Place

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would upgrade BOP and well control 
requirements for well-workover operations performed using coiled tubing 
with the production tree in place. Since 1997 there have been eight 
incidents on Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facilities in the Gulf of 
Mexico OCS Region while coiled tubing operations were being conducted. 
The proposed rule would contribute to preventing losses of well 
control, and lead to increased OCS safety and environmental protection.

DATES: MMS will consider all comments received by August 23, 2004. MMS 
will begin reviewing comments then and may not fully consider comments 
received after August 23, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the 
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden 
Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817; Attention: Rules Processing Team 
(RPT). If you wish to e-mail comments, the RPT's e-mail address is: 
[email protected]. Reference 1010-AC96 Coiled Tubing Safety 
Measures in your e-mail subject line. Include your name and return 
address in your e-mail message and mark your message for return 
receipt. Materials submitted as part of comments will not be returned.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph R. Levine, Engineering and 
Operations Division, at (703) 787-1033, FAX: (703) 787-1555, or e-mail 
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    MMS is authorized to issue and enforce rules to promote safe 
operations, environmental protection, and resource conservation on the 
OCS by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
seq. Under this authority, MMS regulates all safety aspects of oil and 
gas drilling, production, and well-workover operations on the OCS.
    A search of MMS's Technical Information Management System (TIMS) 
database shows that eight coiled tubing related incidents occurred on 
the OCS from 1997 through March 2003. One of these incidents resulted 
in a personal injury. Six coiled tubing incidents resulted in losses of 
well control. Two coiled tubing incidents resulted in fires that caused 
extensive damage to the facilities. No fatalities were reported to MMS 
as a result of these incidents.
    Based on these eight coiled tubing incidents, MMS has determined 
that the regulations under 30 CFR 250 subpart F--Oil and Gas Well-
Workover Operations, do not adequately address coiled tubing operations 
with the production tree in place. As such, MMS proposes to amend its 
rules. These incidents might have been prevented if the proposed rule 
had been in effect.
    One example was the September 9, 1999, loss of well control and 
fire resulting from coiled tubing operations on Newfield Exploration 
Inc.'s Ship Shoal Block 354, (OCS-G 15312, Well A-2). An MMS 
investigation team published OCS Report MMS 2001-009: ``Investigation 
of Blowout and Fire--Ship Shoal Block 354 OCS-G 15312 Well A-2 
September 9, 1999,'' concerning this incident in January 2001. This 
report is available from the Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office, New 
Orleans, Louisiana at the following Web address: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/safety/acc_repo/accindex.html.
    In the Newfield Exploration, Inc., Ship Shoal Block 354 incident, 
coiled tubing was being snubbed into Well A-2 when it encountered an 
unidentified obstruction. This obstruction caused it to stop abruptly 
at about 915 feet. Simultaneously, the coiled tubing buckled, split 
open between the stripper and the injector head, ultimately resulting 
in a loss of well control. The coiled tubing contractor closed the pipe 
and shear rams in the BOP unit, and spooled the coiled tubing string on 
to the reel. The buckled and parted section of the coiled tubing 
remained stuck between the stripper assembly and the injector head, 
preventing the blind rams from completely sealing the well. The 
contractor then attempted to close the bottom manual valve on the BOP 
riser assembly, the crown (swab) valve, the surface safety valve, the 
bottom master valve, and the subsurface safety valve. None of the 
valves fully closed because coiled tubing remained below the shear rams 
and across the valve assemblies, resulting in an uncontrolled flow. The 
operator activated the platform emergency shutdown system (ESD) and all 
personnel were evacuated. The well ignited on September 12, 1999, and 
burned intermittently until September 17, 1999. Newfield Exploration, 
Inc., succeeded in killing the well on September 20, 1999.
    In OCS Report MMS 2001-009, the MMS investigation panel found that 
``The immediate cause of the accident, which led to the uncontrolled 
flow, was the parting of the coiled tubing above the stripper assembly 
and the subsequent inability to contain the wellbore fluids.'' The 
panel also found that a contributing cause of the accident was that 
back pressure valves (BPVs), also referred to as ``check valves,'' were 
not installed in the coiled tubing string. BPVs allow the flow of 
fluids inside the coiled tubing only in the downhole direction, and 
close immediately if the flow direction reverses. In this example, when 
the fluid flow reversed its direction there were no BPVs installed to 
block the flow. BPVs may have prevented the flow of hydrocarbons from 
the well through the coiled tubing. The uncontrolled flow quickly 
eroded the coiled tubing string, the BOP stack, and the production 
tree, creating an unrestricted flow path to the atmosphere that 
subsequently allowed the well to ignite.
    OCS Report MMS-2001-009 further found that Newfield Exploration, 
Inc., and the coiled tubing contractor had

[[Page 34626]]

inadequately provided for well control procedures prior to commencing 
the workover operations. The MMS panel noted that industry-recognized 
well control practices outlined in American Petroleum Institute (API) 
Recommended Practice 5C7 ``Recommended Practice for Coiled Tubing 
Operations in Oil and Gas Well Services'' (API RP 5C7, First Edition, 
December 1996) were not followed by Newfield Exploration, Inc. The 
report stated that:
    ``Specifically, the slip rams were not set, pipe rams were not 
manually locked, and the kill line was not installed. Although not 
currently referenced by the Code of Federal Regulations, the industry 
guidelines provide safe and prudent practices that should be 
followed.''
    As a result of this statement, MMS reviewed the API RP 5C7 standard 
for possible incorporation by reference into 30 CFR 250 subpart F--Oil 
and Gas Well-Workover Operations. The review found that Appendix C--
Emergency Responses and Contingency Planning was adequate. However, the 
main body of the document did not reflect current coiled tubing 
technologies. Therefore, MMS decided not to incorporate this industry 
standard into the regulations.
    MMS also reviewed the Department of Energy Coiled Tubing Guide for 
possible incorporation into MMS regulations. After completing its 
review, MMS concluded that this guide should not be incorporated into 
the regulations because it addressed only onshore coiled tubing 
procedures and did not include those used in the offshore oil and gas 
industry.
    As a result of the eight incidents, and after consultations with 
MMS, API formed a Well Intervention/Well Control Task Group, which is 
in the process of developing a new industry standard for coiled tubing, 
hydraulic workover, and wireline operations. The group assisted MMS in 
understanding the technological aspects of coiled tubing operations and 
provided the agency with valuable information on this subject, which 
was used in preparing this proposed rule. MMS has a representative on 
the Task Group.

The Purpose of This Rule

    This proposed rule would update subpart F--Oil and Gas Well-
Workover Operations, BOP, and well control requirements for coiled 
tubing operations with the production tree in place. It would amend 30 
CFR 250.601, 250.615(e), and 250.616(a), and add new Sec. Sec.  
250.616(d) and (e). The proposed changes include adding a new 
definition for expected surface pressures, adding more specific 
requirements for BOP system components, and updating BOP pressure 
testing procedures. Some of the key points of this proposal include the 
following:
     The use of a flow tee or cross, and one set of 
hydraulically-operated pipe rams placed directly below the flow tee or 
cross when returns are taken through an outlet on the BOP stack;
     The use of additional BOP equipment for expected surface 
pressures above 3,500 psi;
     The use of a dual check valve (also known as a back 
pressure valve or BPV) assembly attached to the coiled tubing connector 
at the downhole end of the coiled tubing string;
     The use of a kill line and a separate choke line, each 
equipped with two full-opening valves;
     A pressure test of the coiled tubing connector and dual 
check valves;
     The use of a hydraulic-actuating system with sufficient 
accumulator capacity to close-open-close each component in the BOP 
stack;
     A recording of pressure conditions during BOP tests on a 
pressure chart or with a digital recorder, unless otherwise approved by 
the District Manager;
     The ability to hold the required pressure on coil tubing 
BOP tests for 10 minutes;
     A certification of pressure charts as correct by the 
operator's representative at the facility;
     A submittal of a stump test plan for approval by the 
District Manager if such a test is conducted; and
     A definition for expected surface pressure to more clearly 
articulate what factors should be considered in designing and operating 
the coil tubing BOP system, and to make the coil tubing section of this 
subpart consistent with the other types of well-workover operations 
addressed in the regulations (tree removed).

Procedural Matters

Public Comment

    MMS's practice is to make comments, including the names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which will be honored to 
the extent allowable by law. If you wish your name and/or address to be 
withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, MMS will not consider anonymous comments. All 
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their 
entirety.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This is not a significant rule under Executive Order 12866 and does 
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    a. The proposed rule will not have an annual effect on the economy 
of $100 million or more or adversely affect 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. The proposed rule will not create an 
adverse effect upon the ability of the United States offshore oil and 
gas industry to compete in the world marketplace, nor will the proposal 
adversely affect investment or employment factors locally. The economic 
effects of the rule will not be significant. This rule will not add 
significant dollar amounts to the cost of each well-workover operation 
involving the use of coiled tubing with the production tree in place. 
During February 2003, MMS surveyed, by phone, five of the eight coiled 
tubing operating companies working on the OCS to collect information on 
the impact this proposed rule would have on their operations. All data 
indicate that, since the September 9, 1999, Newfield Exploration, Inc., 
loss of well control incident, these offshore coiled tubing companies 
have upgraded their field procedures and equipment to the same or a 
similar process as required by proposed rule. None of the companies in 
this survey could provide dollar values for the implementation of this 
proposed rule because they incorporated most of the suggested measures 
into their work processes in 1999. Some of the coiled tubing operating 
companies contacted stated that they are already using dual check 
valves (BPVs) in the bottom of their coiled tubing string. According to 
these companies, this practice was put into place several years ago for 
OCS operations. For these reasons, the MMS survey conclusion was that 
direct annual costs to industry for the entire proposed rule cannot be 
assessed in dollar value and will have a minor economic effect on the 
offshore oil and gas industry.
    b. This proposed rule will not create inconsistencies with other 
agencies' actions. The rule does not change the relationships of the 
OCS oil and gas leasing program with other agencies. These 
relationships are all encompassed

[[Page 34627]]

in agreements and memoranda of understanding that will not change with 
this proposed rule.
    c. This proposed rule will not affect entitlements, grants, loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. The rule 
includes specific well-workover process standards to prevent accidents 
and environmental pollution on the OCS.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. There is 
a precedent for actions of this type under regulations dealing with the 
OCSLA and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Regulatory Flexibility (RF) Act

    MMS has determined that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
While the rule will affect some small entities, the economic effects of 
the rule will not be significant.
    The regulated community for this proposal consists of about eight 
companies specializing in offshore oil and gas coiled tubing 
technologies. Of these companies, three are considered to be ``small.'' 
Of the small companies to be affected by the proposed rule, almost all 
are represented by the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code 211111 (crude petroleum and natural gas extraction). None 
of these small companies is represented primarily by NAICS codes 486110 
(crude petroleum pipelines) and 486210 (natural gas transmission 
pipelines).
    MMS's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule 
indicates that direct implementation costs to both large and small 
companies cannot be accurately assessed because the industry has 
already implemented a majority of the technological requirements 
required in this proposed rule. The proposed rule will have a minor 
economic effect on some oil and gas offshore platform operators on the 
OCS, regardless of company size. This is because, in the overwhelming 
majority of cases, operators choose to perform improved and safer well-
workover procedures involving coiled tubing operations on their own 
initiative, not because of an MMS safety inspection or regulation. The 
proposed rule would add relatively little to the cost of a well-
workover operation. Thus, there would not be a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the RF Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.). The proposed rule will not cause the business practices of any 
of these companies to change.
    Your comments are important. The Small Business and Agriculture 
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness boards were 
established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal 
agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the 
enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small 
business. If you wish to comment on the enforcement actions of MMS, 
call toll-free (888) 734-3247.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the 
SBREFA. The proposed rule would not increase significantly the cost of 
well-workovers. If there is an increase, it is not a large cost 
compared to the overall cost of a well-workover. Moreover, it may 
reduce significantly the possibility of a fatal or environmentally 
damaging accident during the course of a well-workover. Such an 
accident could be economically disastrous for a small entity. Based on 
economic analysis:
    a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more. As indicated in MMS's cost analysis, direct annual 
costs to industry for the entire proposed rule could not be assessed 
adequately. The proposed rule will have a minor economic effect on the 
offshore oil and gas industries.
    b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. This rule does not have significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995

    The proposed revisions to 30 CFR part 250, subpart F, Oil and Gas 
Well-Workover Operations, do not change the information collection 
requirements in current regulations.
    OMB has approved the referenced information collection requirements 
under OMB control numbers 1010-0043 (expiration date August 31, 2004) 
for 30 CFR 250 subpart F and 1010-0045 (expiration date October 31, 
2005) for Form MMS-124, Application for Permit to Modify. The revised 
sections in the proposed rule do not affect the currently approved 
burdens (19,205 approved hours for 1010-0043 and 16,963 for 1010-0045). 
Therefore, an information collection request (form OMB 83-I) has not 
been submitted to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of 
the PRA.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    According to Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. The proposed rule does not change the 
role or responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governmental 
entities. The rule does not relate to the structure and role of States 
and will not have direct, substantive, or significant effects on 
States.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a governmental 
action capable of interference with constitutionally protected property 
rights.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    DOI has certified to OMB that this regulation meets the applicable 
civil justice reform standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) 
of Executive Order 12988.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995

    This rule does not contain any unfunded mandates to State, local, 
or tribal governments, nor would it impose significant regulatory costs 
on the private sector. Anticipated costs to the private sector will be 
far below the $100 million threshold for any year that was established 
by UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969

    MMS has analyzed this rule according to the criteria of NEPA and 
516 Departmental Manual 6, Appendix 10.4C, ``issuance and/or 
modification of regulations.'' MMS has reviewed the criteria of the 
Categorical Exclusion Review (CER) for this action during February 
2003, and concluded: ``The proposed rulemaking does not represent an 
exception to the established criteria for categorical exclusion, and 
its impacts are limited to administrative, economic, or technological 
effects. Therefore, preparation of an environmental document will not 
be required, and further documentation of this CER is not required.''

Clarity of This Regulation

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. MMS invites your comments on how to make 
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following:
    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?

[[Page 34628]]

    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' section of this preamble helpful in understanding the 
rule? What else can be done to make the rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments on how this rule could be made easier 
to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the 
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may 
also e-mail the comments to this address: [email protected]

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (Executive 
Order 13175)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule does 
not have tribal implications that impose substantial direct compliance 
costs on Indian tribal governments.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental 
protection, Government contracts, 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, 
Sulphur development and production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.

    Dated: April 21, 2004.
Rebecca W. Watson,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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. 1331, et seq.

    2. In Sec.  250.601, add the following definition for expected 
surface pressure in alphabetical order:


Sec.  250.601  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Expected surface pressures means the highest pressure predicted to 
be exerted upon the surface of a well. In calculating expected surface 
pressures, you must consider reservoir pressure as well as applied 
surface pressures.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  250.615, revise paragraph (e) of the section to read as 
follows:


Sec.  250.615  Blowout prevention equipment.

* * * * *
    (e) For coiled tubing operations with the production tree in place, 
you must meet the following minimum requirements for the BOP system:
    (1) Surface BOP system components must be in the following order 
from the top down:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    BOP system when     BOP system for
BOP system when expected surface   expected surface   wells with returns
  pressures are less than 3,500      pressures are     taken through an
               psi                greater than 3,500   outlet on the BOP
                                          psi                stack
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stripper or annular-type well     Stripper or         Stripper or
 control component.                annular-type well   annular-type well
                                   control component.  control
                                                       component.
Hydraulically operated blind      Hydraulically       Hydraulically
 rams.                             operated blind      operated blind
                                   rams.               rams.
Hydraulically operated shear      Hydraulically       Hydraulically
 rams.                             operated shear      operated shear
                                   rams.               rams.
Kill line outlet................  Kill line outlet..  Kill line outlet.
Hydraulically operated two-way    Hydraulically       Hydraulically
 slip rams.                        operated two-way    operated two-way
                                   slip rams.          slip rams.
Hydraulically operated pipe rams  Two sets of         Hydraulically
                                   hydraulically       operated pipe
                                   operated pipe       rams.
                                   rams.              A flow tee or
                                  Hydraulically        cross.
                                   operated blind-    Hydraulically
                                   shear rams. These   operated pipe
                                   rams should be      rams.
                                   located as close   Hydraulically
                                   to the tree as      operated blind-
                                   practical.          shear rams (on
                                                       wells with
                                                       surface pressures
                                                       > 3,500 psi).
                                                       These rams should
                                                       be located as
                                                       close to the tree
                                                       as practical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You may use a set of hydraulically operated combination rams 
for the blind rams and shear rams.
    (3) You may use a set of hydraulically operated combination rams 
for the hydraulic two-way slip rams and the hydraulically operated pipe 
rams.
    (4) You must attach a dual check valve assembly to the coiled 
tubing connector at the downhole end of the coiled tubing string for 
all coiled tubing well-workover operations. If you plan to conduct 
operations without downhole check valves, you must describe alternate 
procedures and equipment in Form MMS-124, Application for Permit to 
Modify.
    (5) You must have a kill line and a separate choke line. You must 
equip each line with two full-opening valves. One of the full-opening 
valves on each line must be a remotely controlled valve, and the other 
valve must be a manual valve. The valves must have a working pressure 
rating equal to or greater than the working pressure rating of the 
connection to which they are attached, and you must connect them to the 
well control stack. For operations with expected surface pressure of 
3,500 psi or greater, the kill line must be connected to a pump. You 
must not use the kill line outlet on the BOP stack for taking fluid 
returns from the wellbore.
    (6) You must have a hydraulic-actuating system that provides 
sufficient accumulator capacity to close-open-close each component in 
the BOP stack. This cycle must be completed with at least 200 psi above 
the pre-charge pressure without assistance from a charging system.
    (7) All connections used in the surface BOP system must be flanged.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec. 250.616 by:
    A: Revising paragraph (a);
    B: Redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (f) and (g); 
and
    C. Revising redesignated paragraph (f); and
    D. Adding new paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revised and added paragraphs read as follows:


Sec.  250.616  Blowout preventer system testing, records, and drills.

    (a)(1) Before conducting high pressure tests, all BOP system 
components must be successfully tested to a low pressure between 200 
and 300 psi.

[[Page 34629]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 If . . .                            Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial pressure on the BOP system is <     You may initiate the BOP
 300 psi * * *.                              test.
Initial pressure on the BOP system is >     You must bleed the pressure
 300 psi but < 500 psi * * *.                back to a value between 200
                                             and 300 psi before you
                                             begin the test.
Initial pressure on the BOP system is >     You must bleed the pressure
 500 psi * * *.                              to zero before you begin
                                             the test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Ram-type BOPs, related control equipment, including the choke 
and kill manifolds, and safety valves must be successfully tested to 
the rated working pressure of the BOP equipment or as otherwise 
approved by the District Manager. Variable bore rams must be pressure-
tested against all sizes of drill pipe in the well excluding drill 
collars. Surface BOP systems must be pressure tested with water. The 
annular-type BOP must be successfully tested at 70 percent of its rated 
working pressure or as otherwise approved by the District Manager. Each 
valve in the choke and kill manifolds must be successfully, 
sequentially pressure tested to the ram-type BOP test pressure.
* * * * *
    (d) You may conduct a stump test for the BOP system on location. A 
plan describing the stump test procedures must be included in your Form 
MMS-124, Application for Permit to Modify, and must be approved by the 
District Manager.
    (e) You must test the coiled tubing connector to a low pressure of 
200 to 300 psi, followed by a high pressure test to the rated working 
pressure of the connector or the expected surface pressure. There must 
be no leaks during the test. You must successfully pressure test the 
dual check valves to the rated working pressure of the connector, the 
rated working pressure of the dual check valve, expected surface 
pressure, or the collapse pressure of the coiled tubing, whichever is 
less.
    (f) You must record test pressures during BOP tests on a pressure 
chart, or with a digital recorder, unless otherwise approved by the 
District Manager. The test interval for each BOP system component must 
be 5 minutes, except for coiled tubing, which must be for 10 minutes. 
Your representative at the facility must certify the charts as correct.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-13943 Filed 6-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P