[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40069-40074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19204]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID: MMS-2008-OMM-0023]
RIN 1010-AD55 (Formerly AD50)


Technical Changes to Production Measurement and Training 
Requirements

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule will revise the production measurement 
regulations to establish meter proving, meter verification/calibration, 
and well test requirements after hurricanes and other events beyond the 
control of the lessee. This rulemaking will eliminate some reporting 
burden on industry, and it will eliminate the need for MMS to grant 
waivers to the reporting requirements in certain situations. The final 
rule will also add new definitions providing clarity in the training 
regulations, which should lead to improved training of Outer 
Continental Shelf workers.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes effective on September 10, 
2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Ensele, Regulations and 
Standards Branch, at (703) 787-1583.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 17, 2008, MMS published a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register entitled 
``Technical Changes to Production Measurement and Training 
Requirements'' (73 FR 53793). The comment period for that proposed rule 
closed on November 17, 2008. In response to the proposed rule, MMS 
received seven sets of comments. One entity submitted two responses. 
The commenters included two trade organizations (Offshore Operators 
Committee (OOC) and National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA)), two 
energy companies, one industry training company, and one individual. We 
have posted all of the comments received on our Web site at: http://www.mms.gov/federalregister/PublicComments/TechnicalChangestoProductionMeasurementTraining.htm.
    We considered all of the comments we received on the proposed rule. 
Following is a discussion of the relevant comments MMS received:

Revisions to Subpart L--Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface 
Commingling, and Security

    We received suggestions from two entities regarding the proposed 
revisions to subpart L. The NOIA and OOC appreciate that the proposed 
rule will eliminate requirements for having to obtain certain waivers 
following force majeure events and suggested that similar revisions be 
made to the testing requirements in subpart H, Oil and Gas Production 
Safety Systems. Since we did not propose this change to subpart H, we 
cannot incorporate it into this final rulemaking. We will consider this 
suggestion in a future rulemaking.
    The OOC provided additional suggestions. The OOC suggested that 
language be added to each of the following four paragraphs:
    1. In Sec.  250.1202(d)(3) add ``and monthly thereafter but do not 
exceed 42 days between meter factor determinations.'' The OOC states 
this would make clear that this is not a make up proving, and the time 
starts over with the proving after returning to service.
    2. In Sec.  250.1202(k)(3) revise the ending to read ``* * * within 
15 days after being returned to service and monthly thereafter.'' The 
OOC states that this should be added for clarity.
    3. In Sec.  250.1202(k)(4) revise the ending to read ``* * * within 
15 days after being returned to service and quarterly thereafter.'' The 
OOC states that this should be added for clarity.
    4. In Sec.  250.1204(b)(1) revise the ending to read ``* * * within 
15 days after being returned to service and bimonthly (or other 
frequency approved by the Regional Supervisor) thereafter.'' The OOC 
states that this should be added for clarity.
    We agree with these suggestions, and will incorporate them in the 
final rule. Since Sec.  250.1203(c)(1) was similarly worded, we 
incorporated OOC's language in the regulatory text there also.
    The OOC also suggested that the force majeure waiver should be 
applied to the testing requirements for the master meter in Sec.  
250.1202(e)(3). We did not make this revision because we do not believe 
it is appropriate for a master

[[Page 40070]]

meter used in royalty meter provings. Only 3 percent of the sales 
metering locations in the Gulf of Mexico use master meters for meter 
proving and a departure has never been requested to the best of our 
knowledge. We will deal with any departure requests on these master 
meters on a case-by-case basis.
    In addition to the changes we made in response to the NOIA and 
OOC's comments, in Sec.  250.1203(c)(1), we have changed the terms 
``calibrate,'' ``calibrations,'' and ``calibrated'' to ``verify/
calibrate,'' ``verification/calibration,'' and ``verified/calibrated'' 
to be consistent with the revision of the definition promulgated on 
April 15, 2008 (73 FR 20171). We also added the word ``operating'' 
before ``allocation meters'' in Sec.  250.1202(k)(3) and (k)(4) because 
it appears in the existing regulation but was inadvertently omitted 
from the proposed rule and added it before ``meters'' in (c)(1) for 
consistency. In addition, we added the phrase ``the previous month'' in 
Sec.  250.1202(k)(3) and (4) after ``per meter'' in each subparagraph. 
This clarifies that the daily average (the volume measured by the 
particular meter for the month divided by the number of days in that 
month) is based on the previous month. In Sec.  250.1204(b)(1), we 
changed the 2-month time period to 60 days. In the existing regulation, 
2 months is defined parenthetically as 60 days. We also changed the 
word ``service'' to ``production'' to more accurately describe the 
function of wells.

Revisions to Subpart O--Well Control and Production Safety Training

    We received comments and suggestions from four entities regarding 
the revisions to subpart O. The training company agreed with the 
proposed revisions. The OOC submitted the following general comment 
regarding the proposed rule:

    OOC is of the opinion that the vast majority of the OCS 
workforce is well trained and capable of performing their specific 
jobs. The fact that MMS interviews, in MMS's opinion, indicated a 
poorer understanding of MMS regulations and the training 
requirements does not directly relate to the offshore workers 
ability to perform specific jobs on a complex. Likewise, INCs issued 
during audits have primarily been associated with training 
requirements for contractors being spelled out, recordkeeping and 
documentation. OOC is not aware of any INCs or incidents offshore 
that have been the result of lack of training. MMS testing of a very 
small sample of 3 employees in well control and 3 in production 
safety systems two years ago is also not an indicator of lack of 
understanding of MMS requirements given the large number of offshore 
workers (30,000 or more in any given day). It is OOC's opinion that 
the preamble discussion associated with this Subpart O revision does 
not accurately portray the current capability of the offshore 
workforce. A large portion of MMS complaints are in the area of 
field personnel not knowing in detail all of the training program 
requirements and timing that were drafted by office personnel to 
meet compliance needs. It would seem that it should be more 
important for the field personnel to know what to do and why they 
are doing it than to know that they have to be re-trained XX number 
of months apart.

    Since publishing the proposed rule on September 17, 2008, MMS has 
developed and implemented a subpart O pilot testing program, in 
accordance with the current subpart O regulations (30 CFR 250.1507(c)). 
As part of this pilot test program, MMS developed a series of five 
written production tests designed to evaluate both lessee and contract 
personnel involved with Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) production safety 
operations. These tests were developed to evaluate an employee's 
understanding of not only basic production safety devices, such as 
surface and subsurface safety equipment, but additional areas of 
production operations, including separation, dehydration, compression, 
sweetening, and metering.
    In recent years, MMS has been concerned that the majority of in-
house and third-party-led production training schools focus their 
efforts primarily on surface and subsurface safety equipment testing 
and installation and reporting requirements, and not on other equally 
important aspects of offshore oil and gas production operations, 
including, but not limited to, separation, dehydration, compression, 
sweetening, and metering activities. The pilot testing program was 
designed in part to evaluate these other components of production 
operations.
    From the period of November 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009, MMS 
conducted 31 written production tests on the OCS in both the Gulf of 
Mexico and Pacific Regions. Though all personnel passed these tests in 
accordance with MMS grading policies (e.g., passing is a score greater 
than 70 percent; the lowest score received was a 74 percent by a lead 
production operator), there were problem areas identified, which 
validates our concern about the knowledge of the other components of 
production operations. The majority of the questions answered 
incorrectly on the 31 written production tests fall within the 
following five categories:
    1. Equipment test intervals for temperature safety highs (TSH) on 
compressors and fired components;
    2. Equipment test intervals for burner safety lows (BSL) and tubing 
plugs;
    3. Wellhead components, including casing valves and casing heads;
    4. Pressure relief valve settings on oil and gas separators; and
    5. Lease automatic custody transfer (LACT) units.
    The MMS believes that the original test results presented in the 
proposed rule and the results of the additional testing mentioned above 
indicate a lack of understanding of the regulations covering production 
and drilling operations safety by offshore workers. The results also 
indicate a lack of understanding of the training regulations by 
industry. Therefore, we believe the minor changes to the training 
regulations in this final rule are necessary to emphasize the 
importance of knowledge of MMS regulations and the importance of 
periodic training and assessment of training needs for lessees, 
operators, and contract personnel.
    The proposed revisions consisted of adding two new definitions 
(contractor and periodic) to subpart O, and revising one existing 
definition (production safety). The following is the definition of 
contractor from the proposed rule:
    Contractor means anyone performing work for the lessee. However, 
these requirements do not apply to contractors providing domestic 
services to the lessee or other contractors. Domestic services include 
janitorial work, food and beverage service, laundry service, 
housekeeping, and similar activities.
    The OOC suggested that a more concise definition be used as 
follows:
    Contractor means anyone other than an employee performing well 
control and production safety duties for the lessee.
    The OOC stated that this definition is consistent with the 
definition of employee in subpart O. It also delineates between those 
contractors performing well control or production safety operations 
(required to have training by subpart O) and those contractors not 
performing well control or production safety operations, such as 
providers of domestic services, painters, inspectors, etc., and others 
the lessee may utilize in conducting day-to-day operations. We agree 
with this suggestion. Additionally, the existing regulations also use 
the term contract personnel, so we have added that to the definition of 
contractor. The revised definition is as follows:
    Contractor and contract personnel mean anyone, other than an 
employee of the lessee, performing well control or production safety 
duties for the lessee.

[[Page 40071]]

    Following is the definition of periodic from the proposed rule:
    Periodic means occurring or recurring at regular intervals. Each 
lessee must specify the intervals for periodic training and periodic 
assessment of training needs in their training programs.
    The OOC noted that the second sentence is not a definition, but is 
a reminder of requirements found elsewhere in subpart O. We agree with 
OOC that the second sentence is not a definition, but the reason for 
proposing this definition was to remind the lessees of those 
requirements for periodic training and periodic assessment of training 
needs. Some lessees were not conducting the periodic training and 
assessment requirements. We will leave the reminder in the definition.
    The following is the definition of production safety from the 
proposed rule:
    Production safety includes safety in production operations, as well 
as the installation, repair, testing, maintenance, and operation of 
surface or subsurface safety devices. Production operations include, 
but are not limited to, separation, dehydration, compression, 
sweetening, and metering operations.
    Two commenters suggested that this definition would be difficult to 
apply and cause uncertainty. One of them suggested using the definition 
of production safety in MMS Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 
2008-N03, Well Control and Production Safety Training. The OOC 
suggested a definition of production safety that was consistent with 
the definition in the NTL. The following is the definition from NTL No. 
2008-N03:
    Production safety means production operations, as well as the 
installation, repair, testing, maintenance, or operation of surface or 
subsurface safety devices. Production operations include, but are not 
limited to, the following: separation, dehydration, compression, 
sweetening, and metering operations.
    We agree that the proposed definition could cause uncertainty, and 
we also believe that the definition in the NTL can be improved for use 
in this final rule. Therefore, we have revised the proposed definition 
of production safety for the final rule as follows:
    Production safety includes measures, practices, procedures, and 
equipment to ensure safe, accident-free, and pollution-free production 
operations, as well as installation, repair, testing, maintenance, and 
operation of surface and subsurface safety devices. Pro- duction 
operations include, but are not limited to, separation, dehydration, 
compression, sweetening, and metering operations.
    One of the energy companies asked if it is our intent to include 
safety related to hazard communications, hearing conservation, water 
survival, etc., in this rulemaking. This definition excludes hazard 
communication, hearing conservation, water survival, and other similar 
types of safety. Most of those topics may be covered in a future 
rulemaking dealing with safety and environmental management issues. 
(See proposed rule published on June 17, 2009, 74 FR 28639).

Procedural Matters

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order (E.O.) 12866)

    This final rule is not a significant rule as determined by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is not subject to review 
under E.O. 12866.
    (1) This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million 
or more on the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way 
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities. The revisions to the production measurement regulations 
will only have a small positive effect on industry in the event of a 
hurricane or other incident beyond the control of the lessee that 
results in a facility being off production for an extended period of 
time. The revisions to the training regulations will cause some lessees 
and operators to revise their training programs. We estimate that 50 of 
the 130 lessees and/or operators have already modified their training 
plans, and will not be affected by the revisions to subpart O. The 
remaining 80 lessees and/or operators will have to modify their 
training plans. Of the 80 lessees and/or operators, MMS estimates that 
56 are small businesses, and that 24 are large companies. The majority 
of small operators have an off-the-shelf type training plan. The MMS 
estimates that a modification to this type of plan would cost about 
$500. The large companies would most likely revise their training plans 
in-house at a slightly lower cost than revising an off-the-shelf plan. 
For the purpose of estimating the total cost to industry, MMS will use 
the higher estimate. The total cost for revising training plans to 
industry would be $500 multiplied by 80 lessees/operators, which would 
equal $40,000. The cost to retrain the employees from the 80 companies 
would be about $200 per person. This is based on the price of a typical 
3-day production operations safety course costing $600 per person 
(i.e., $200 per person per day). Adding 1 day to the course would be 
necessary to cover the operations mentioned in the revised definition 
of production operations. The MMS estimates that four employees per 
company would need the additional day of training, so the additional 
cost would be $200, multiplied by four employees per company, 
multiplied by 80 companies, which would equal $64,000. The total cost 
to industry from the subpart O changes would be $40,000 plus $64,000, 
which would equal $104,000. Therefore, this final rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on industry.
    (2) This final rule will not create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. 
No other agencies regulate oil and gas operations on the OCS.
    (3) This final rule will not alter the budgetary effects of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or 
obligations of their recipients.
    (4) This final rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues 
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the 
principles set forth in E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this final rule will 
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    The production measurement changes in this final rule will affect 
lessees and operators of leases in the OCS. This includes about 130 
active Federal oil and gas lessees. Small lessees that operate under 
this rule fall under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 211111, Crude 
Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas 
Wells. For these NAICS code classifications, a small company is one 
with fewer than 500 employees. Based on these criteria, an estimated 70 
percent of these companies are considered small. This final rule, 
therefore, will affect a substantial number of small entities.
    The changes to subpart L will not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities because the effects 
would only occur if a facility is rendered out-of-service because of a 
hurricane or other event out of the control of the lessee. The overall 
effects will be very minor but positive, since the final rule 
temporarily relieves the lessee of specific reporting requirements 
related to metering and well tests.

[[Page 40072]]

    The revised and new definitions in the training regulations in 
subpart O will cause some lessees and operators to revise their 
training plans. The MMS estimates that 80 operators will have to modify 
their training plans due to the changes to the definition of production 
operations. Of the 80 operators, MMS estimates that 56 are small 
businesses. This is a substantial number of small operators. The 
majority of small operators have off-the-shelf type training plans. The 
MMS estimates that a modification to this type of plan will cost about 
$500. The total cost to the small operators will be $500 multiplied by 
56 operators, which equals $28,000. The cost to retrain the employees 
from the 56 companies will be about $200 per person. This is based on 
the price of a typical 3-day production operations safety course 
costing $600 per person. Adding 1 day to the course will be necessary 
to cover the operations mentioned in the revised definition of 
production operations. The MMS estimates that four employees per 
company will need the additional day of training, so the additional 
cost will be $200, multiplied by four employees per company, multiplied 
by 56 companies, which will equal $44,800. The total cost to small 
businesses due to the changes in the subpart O regulations will be 
$28,000 plus $44,800, which equals $72,800. Therefore, this final rule 
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Comments from the public are important to us. The Small Business 
and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional 
Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small 
business about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will 
annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's 
responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions 
of MMS, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business 
Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of 
discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration 
will be investigated for appropriate action.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This final rule is not a major rule under (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) of 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This final 
rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The effects of the subpart L changes are minor, but positive, and 
will only occur if there were a hurricane or other event beyond the 
lessee's control that will cause the temporary shut-in of a facility. 
The effects on small business of the subpart O changes are 
approximately $72,800. See the analysis of these costs in the previous 
section of this preamble entitled ``Regulatory Flexibility Act''.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. As stated above, any effects due to 
the subpart L revisions will be positive for the industry and the 
Federal Government. The effects due to the revisions to subpart O will 
be minor.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The 
effects due to this final rule will be a result of temporary relief 
from reporting requirements and minor changes to training requirements, 
so there will be no adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The requirements 
will apply to all entities operating on the OCS.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique 
effect on State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector. 
This final rule only applies to oil and gas operations on the OCS. A 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630)

    Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, the final rule will not have 
significant takings implications. The final 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 final rule will not have 
federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and 
directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State 
governments. This final rule applies only to oil and gas operations on 
the OCS. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in 
OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A Federalism 
Assessment is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    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)

    Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we have evaluated this final rule 
and determined that it has no substantial effects on Federally 
recognized Indian Tribes. There are no Indian or Tribal lands in the 
OCS.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rulemaking contains a new information collection requirement; 
therefore, a submission to OMB under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
is required. The OMB has approved the new requirement under OMB Control 
Number 1010-0178 (expiration date August 31, 2012, for a total of 144 
burden hours). Once the rulemaking becomes effective and the one-time 
requirement has been achieved, we will discontinue this collection.
    The title of the collection of information for the rule is ``30 CFR 
Part 250, Subpart O, Technical Changes to Production Measurement and 
Training Requirements.''
    Respondents include Federal OCS oil and gas lessees and/or 
operators. Responses to this collection are mandatory, and the 
frequency of reporting once. The information collection does not 
include questions of a sensitive nature. The MMS will protect 
information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) 
and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and 30 CFR 250.197, 
``Data and information to be made available to the public or for 
limited inspection.''
    The collection of information required by the current 30 CFR part 
250, subpart L regulations, Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface 
Commingling, and Security, is approved under OMB Control Number 1010-
0051, expiration 7/31/10 (8,533 hours). The regulation will not impose 
any new information collection burdens for this subpart. However, it 
does reduce the number of general departure requests for

[[Page 40073]]

Sec.  250.1204(b)(1). When the rule becomes effective, we will make an 
adjustment decrease to the paperwork burden.
    The rulemaking for 30 CFR part 250, subpart O, Well Control and 
Production Safety Training, will require some lessees and/or operators 
to modify their current training programs due to the changes to the 
definitions in subpart O. We estimate that this would be a one-time new 
paperwork burden on 24 operators who will modify their programs in-
house (6 hours per modification) for a total of 144 burden hours. Those 
operators who purchase their off-the-shelf training programs will incur 
costs to modify the programs. This is considered a regulatory cost of 
doing business and is not a paperwork burden. Existing paperwork 
requirements for current subpart O are approved under 1010-0128, 
expiration 8/31/09 (under renewal, 2,106 hours).
    The comments received in response to the proposed rule did not 
address the information collection; therefore, there were no changes in 
the one new information collection requirement from the proposed rule 
to the final rule.
    An agency 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 public may comment, at any time, on the 
accuracy of the information collection burden in this rule and may 
submit any comments to the Department of the Interior; Minerals 
Management Service; Attention: Regulations and Standards Branch; Mail 
Stop 4024; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A 
detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical 
exclusion. Specifically, this rule qualifies as a regulation of an 
administrative or procedural nature. See 43 CFR 46.210(i). We have also 
determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary 
circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Data Quality Act

    In developing this final 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 Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

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

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, Oil and 
gas exploration, Public lands--mineral resources, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 15, 2009.
Ned Farquhar,
Acting Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals Management Service 
amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:

PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF

0
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334.


0
2. Amend Sec.  250.1201 by adding the definition of Force majeure event 
in alphabetical order as follows:


Sec.  250.1201  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Force majeure event--an event beyond your control such as war, act 
of terrorism, crime, or act of nature which prevents you from operating 
the wells and meters on your OCS facility.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  250.1202 by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (k)(3), and 
(k)(4) as follows:


Sec.  250.1202  Liquid hydrocarbon measurement.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Prove each operating royalty meter to determine the meter 
factor monthly, but the time between meter factor determinations must 
not exceed 42 days. When a force majeure event precludes the required 
monthly meter proving, meters must be proved within 15 days after being 
returned to service. The meters must be proved monthly thereafter, but 
the time between meter factor determinations must not exceed 42 days;
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) Prove operating allocation meters monthly if they measure 50 or 
more barrels per day per meter the previous month. When a force majeure 
event precludes the required monthly meter proving, meters must be 
proved within 15 days after being returned to service. The meters must 
be proved monthly thereafter; or
    (4) Prove operating allocation meters quarterly if they measure 
less than 50 barrels per day per meter the previous month. When a force 
majeure event precludes the required quarterly meter proving, meters 
must be proved within 15 days after being returned to service. The 
meters must be proved quarterly thereafter;
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  250.1203 by revising paragraph (c)(1) as follows:


Sec.  250.1203  Gas measurement.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Verify/calibrate operating meters monthly, but do not exceed 42 
days between verifications/calibrations. When a force majeure event 
precludes the required monthly meter verification/calibration, meters 
must be verified/calibrated within 15 days after being returned to 
service. The meters must be verified/calibrated monthly thereafter, but 
do not exceed 42 days between meter verifications/calibrations;
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  250.1204 by revising paragraph (b)(1) as follows:


Sec.  250.1204  Surface commingling.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Conduct a well test at least once every 60 days unless the 
Regional Supervisor approves a different frequency. When a force 
majeure event precludes the required well test within the prescribed 60 
day period (or other frequency approved by the Regional Supervisor), 
wells must be tested within 15 days after being returned to production. 
Thereafter, well tests must be conducted at least once every 60 days 
(or other frequency approved by the Regional Supervisor);
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  250.1500 by adding the definitions Contractor and 
contract personnel and Periodic in alphabetical order and by revising 
the definition of Production safety as follows:


Sec.  250.1500  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Contractor and contract personnel mean anyone, other than an 
employee of the lessee, performing well control or production safety 
duties for the lessee.
* * * * *

[[Page 40074]]

    Periodic means occurring or recurring at regular intervals. Each 
lessee must specify the intervals for periodic training and periodic 
assessment of training needs in their training programs.
    Production safety includes measures, practices, procedures, and 
equipment to ensure safe, accident-free, and pollution-free production 
operations, as well as installation, repair, testing, maintenance, and 
operation of surface and subsurface safety equipment. Production 
operations include, but are not limited to, separation, dehydration, 
compression, sweetening, and metering operations.
* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E9-19204 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P