[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49216-49263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21197]
[[Page 49215]]
Vol. 83
Friday,
No. 189
September 28, 2018
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
30 CFR Part 250
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Oil
and Gas Production Safety Systems; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 189 / Friday, September 28, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49216]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
30 CFR Part 250
[Docket ID: BSEE-2017-0008; 189E1700D2 ET1SF0000.PSB000 EEEE500000]
RIN 1014-AA37
Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental
Shelf--Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems
AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is
amending the regulations regarding oil and natural gas production
safety systems. After a thorough reexamination of the current
regulations, and consideration of recent experiences from
implementation of those regulations and of public comments on the
proposed rule to amend those regulations, BSEE is revising or removing
certain regulatory provisions that create unnecessary burdens on
stakeholders, and clarifying other provisions, while ensuring safety
and environmental protection.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on December 27, 2018.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
December 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES:
Rulemaking documents and public comments on the proposed rule: You
may review the rulemaking documents, including National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents and public comments submitted on the
proposed rule, by accessing the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the entry entitled, ``Enter Keyword or ID,''
enter ``BSEE-2017-0008,'' then click search. Follow the instructions to
search public comments and view supporting and related materials
available for this rulemaking.
Documents incorporated by reference: BSEE provides members of the
public with website addresses where they may access standards
incorporated by reference in BSEE's regulations for viewing, sometimes
for free and sometimes for a fee. In particular, the American Petroleum
Institute (API) voluntarily makes available all API standards that are
safety-related and that are incorporated into Federal regulations for
free viewing by the public online in the Incorporation by Reference
Reading Room on API's website at: http://publications.api.org.\1\ In
addition to the free online availability of these standards for viewing
on API's website, hardcopies and printable versions are available for
purchase from API. The API website address to purchase standards is:
http://www.api.org/publications-standards-and-statistics/publications/government-cited-safety-documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view these standards online, go to the API publications
website at: http://publications.api.org. You must then log-in or
create a new account, accept API's ``Terms and Conditions,'' click
on the ``Browse Documents'' button, and then select the applicable
category (e.g., ``Exploration and Production'') for the standard(s)
you wish to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSEE can make copies of incorporated standards available for review
at BSEE's office(s) upon advance request. One location where
incorporated standards can be available for review is BSEE's
headquarters at 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia, 20166. Please
email: [email protected] to make arrangements to review incorporated
standards, so BSEE can ensure hard copies of the requested standards
are available. BSEE may also make the standards available at its other
offices located in: Washington, DC; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston,
Texas; Camarillo, California; and Anchorage, Alaska.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy White, Regulations and Standards
Branch, 703-787-1665 or by email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
B. Summary of the Rulemaking
C. Recent Executive and Secretary's Orders
D. Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standards
E. Overview of Comments on the Proposed Rule
F. Discussion of General Issues Raised by Commenters
G. Section-by-Section Summaries, Responses to Comments, and Changes
From the Proposed Rule
H. Additional Comments Solicited
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 13771)
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Takings (E.O. 12630)
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
Consultation with Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Data Quality Act
Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
BSEE derives its authority primarily from the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. Congress enacted OCSLA
in 1953, significantly amended it in 1978, and subsequently amended
specific provisions. As amended, OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to lease the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for
resource development in a way that makes it available for expeditious
and orderly development, consistent with national needs and subject to
environmental safeguards. Among other things, Congress established a
policy to provide for orderly and expeditious development of oil and
natural gas resources of the OCS to meet national economic and energy
policy and which may serve to assure national security and reduce
dependence on foreign sources. OCSLA also states that, among other
purposes, OCS oil and gas resources should be managed in a way that
balances orderly development with protection of the environment. 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 ensure that operations are safe and environmentally
responsible. See 30 CFR 250.101(b)(2). BSEE's regulatory program covers
a wide range of operations, including drilling, completion, workover,
production, pipeline, and decommissioning operations; and associated
facilities, such as mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and
production platforms. See 30 CFR part 250. 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 is on
BSEE's website at: http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/index.
B. Summary of the Rulemaking
This final rule amends and updates the regulations in 30 CFR part
250, subpart H, Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems (subpart H). This
rule supports the Administration's objective of facilitating energy
dominance by encouraging increased domestic oil and gas production and
reducing unnecessary burdens on stakeholders, while ensuring safety and
environmental protection.
[[Page 49217]]
Since 2010, the Department of the Interior (Department) has
promulgated several rulemakings (e.g., Safety and Environmental
Management Systems (SEMS) I and II final rules (75 FR 63610, October
15, 2010; 78 FR 20423, April 5, 2013), the final Safety Measures rule
(77 FR 50856, August 22, 2012), and the Blowout Preventer Systems and
Well Control final rule (the ``2016 Well Control Rule'' or the ``2016
WCR'') \2\ to improve worker safety and environmental protection. On
September 7, 2016, the Department published a Production Safety Systems
final rule substantially revising subpart H (81 FR 61834) (2016 PSSR).
That final rule addressed issues such as production safety systems,
subsurface safety devices, and safety device testing. These systems
play a critical role in protecting workers and the environment. Most of
the provisions of that rulemaking took effect on November 7, 2016.
Since that time, BSEE has become aware that certain provisions in that
rulemaking created potentially unduly burdensome requirements for oil
and natural gas production operators on the OCS, without meaningfully
increasing safety of the workers or protection of the environment.
During implementation of the 2016 PSSR, BSEE reassessed a number of the
provisions in subpart H and determined that it could revise some
provisions to reduce or eliminate some of the concerns expressed by the
operators, thereby reducing the regulatory burden, while ensuring
safety and protection of the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 81 FR 25887 (April 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 29, 2017, BSEE published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule to revise certain provisions in the subpart H regulations
(82 FR 61703) (the ``proposed rule'') and to solicit comments on
several additional issues. After consideration of the public comments
on the proposed rule, BSEE is publishing this final rule, which revises
or otherwise addresses the current requirements as follows:
Updates the incorporation of certain standards referenced
in subpart H;
Adds gas lift shut down valves (GLSDVs) to the list of
safety and pollution prevention equipment (SPPE);
Revises requirements for SPPE by replacing the requirement
for independent third parties to certify that each device will function
in the most extreme conditions to which it will be exposed with
requirements for device design testing, documentation of the process
the operator used to ensure the device is designed to function as
required, and independent third party review and certification of a
device if the device is moved to a different location \3\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Incorporated standards address the design of SPPE, based on
the specific type of device and the conditions where the device will
be located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifies equipment failure reporting requirements;
Clarifies and revises some of the production safety system
design requirements, including revising the requirements for
professional engineer (PE) stamping, revising the requirements for
piping schematics, simplifying the requirements for electrical system
information, revising the requirement for operators to provide certain
documents to BSEE, and clarifying when operators must update existing
documents;
Clarifies requirements for atmospheric vessels containing
Class I liquids;
Clarifies requirements for inspection of the fire tube for
tube-type heaters;
Clarifies the requirement for notifying the BSEE District
Manager before commencing production; and
Makes other conforming changes to ensure consistency
within the regulations and makes other minor edits.
C. Recent Executive and Secretary's Orders
Since the start of 2017, the President issued several Executive
Orders (E.O.) that necessitated the review of BSEE's rules. On January
30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, entitled, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339), which
requires Federal agencies to take proactive measures to reduce the
costs associated with complying with Federal regulations.
On March 28, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13783, entitled,
``Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth'' (82 FR 16093).
This E.O. directed Federal agencies to review all existing regulations
and other agency actions and, ultimately, to suspend, revise, or
rescind any regulations or actions that unnecessarily burden the
development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to
protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.
On April 28, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13795, entitled,
``Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy'' (82 FR
20815). This E.O. directed the Secretary of the Interior to reconsider
the 2016 Well Control Rule adopted in April 2016 and to take
appropriate action to ``revise any related rules'' for consistency with
E.O. 13795's stated policy ``to encourage energy exploration and
production, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to
maintain the Nation's position as a global energy leader and foster
energy security and resilience for the benefit of the American people,
while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally
responsible.''
To further implement E.O. 13783, the Secretary issued Secretary's
Order (S.O.) 3349, entitled, ``American Energy Independence,'' on March
29, 2017. The S.O. directed DOI to review all existing regulations
``that potentially burden the development or utilization of
domestically produced energy resources.'' Similarly, to implement E.O.
13795, the Secretary issued S.O. 3350, entitled, ``America-First
Offshore Energy Strategy,'' on May 1, 2017, which directed BSEE to
review the 2016 Well Control Rule and related rulemakings. BSEE
interpreted each of these orders to apply to the 2016 PSSR.
As part of its response to E.O.s 13783 and 13795 and to S.O.s 3349
and 3350, BSEE reviewed the regulations in subpart H, as revised by the
2016 PSSR, with a view toward the policy of encouraging energy
exploration and production on the OCS, and reducing unnecessary
regulatory burdens, while ensuring that any such activity is safe and
environmentally responsible. Like the 2016 PSSR, BSEE also focused on
offshore oil and gas production technology and operations, including
subsea production systems used for production in increasingly deeper
waters. This focus is unrelated to well control during well operations.
Nevertheless, BSEE carefully analyzed all the provisions in the
proposed rule and this final rule and compared them to the 424
recommendations arising from 26 separate reports from 14 different
organizations developed in the wake of and in response to the Deepwater
Horizon (DWH) disaster, and determined that these changes to subpart H
will not contradict any of those recommendations, nor will they alter
any provision of the 2016 PSSR in a way that would make the result
inconsistent with those recommendations. Further, nothing in this final
rule will alter any elements of other rules promulgated since DWH,
including the Drilling Safety Rule (Oct. 2010), SEMS I (Oct. 2010),
SEMS II (April 2013), and 2016 WCR (April 2016). BSEE's review has been
thorough and tailored to the task of reducing unnecessary regulatory
burdens while ensuring that OCS activity is safe and environmentally
responsible.
[[Page 49218]]
D. Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standards
In accordance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act, Public Law 104-113 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq. (Pub. L. 104-
113), and with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119,
``Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary
Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,'' (rev.
Jan. 2016) implementing the NTTAA, BSEE frequently uses standards
(e.g., codes, specifications, and recommended practices) that standards
development organizations (SDOs) have developed through a consensus
process, with input from the oil and gas industry, as a means of
establishing requirements for activities on the OCS. The NTTAA charged,
with few exceptions, that ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' BSEE may incorporate these standards into its
regulations by reference without republishing the standards in their
entirety in regulations. The legal effect of incorporation by reference
is that the incorporated standards become regulatory requirements. This
incorporated material, like any other regulation, has the force and
effect of law. Operators, lessees, and other regulated parties must
comply with the documents incorporated by reference in the regulations.
BSEE currently incorporates by reference over 100 consensus standards
in its regulations. (See 30 CFR 250.198.)
The Office of the Federal Register's (OFR) regulations, at 1 CFR
part 51, govern how BSEE and other Federal agencies incorporate
documents by reference. Agencies may incorporate a document by
reference by publishing in the Federal Register the document title,
edition, date, author, publisher, identification number, and other
specified information. The preamble of the rule must contain a summary
of each document incorporated by reference, as well as discuss the ways
that the incorporated materials are reasonably available to interested
parties and how interested parties can obtain those materials. The
Director of the Federal Register will approve publication in a final
rule of each incorporation by reference that meets the criteria of 1
CFR part 51. The documents are summarized in section G of this
preamble.
When a copyrighted publication is incorporated by reference into
BSEE regulations, BSEE is obligated to observe and protect that
copyright. BSEE provides website addresses where members of the public
may access these standards for viewing, sometimes for free and
sometimes for a fee. SDOs decide whether to charge a fee. One such
organization, API, provides free online public access to view read only
copies of its key industry standards, including a broad range of
technical standards. In particular, API voluntarily makes available all
API standards that are safety-related and that are incorporated into
Federal regulations for free viewing by the public online in the
Incorporation by Reference Reading Room on API's website at: http://publications.api.org.\4\ In addition to the free online availability of
these standards for viewing on API's website, hardcopies and printable
versions are available for purchase from API. The API website address
to purchase standards is: http://www.api.org/publications-standards-and-statistics/publications/government-cited-safety-documents. BSEE
also makes copies of incorporated standards available for review at
BSEE's office(s) upon request. Individuals wishing to view standards at
a BSEE office may make arrangements by sending an email to:
[email protected]. BSEE may make standards available at their offices in
Washington, DC; Sterling, Virginia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston,
Texas; Camarillo, California; and Anchorage, Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ To view these standards online, go to the API publications
website at: http://publications.api.org. You must then log-in or
create a new account, accept API's ``Terms and Conditions,'' click
on the ``Browse Documents'' button, and then select the applicable
category (e.g., ``Exploration and Production'') for the standard(s)
you wish to review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSEE recognizes that there may be additional opportunities to make
standards more accessible and agrees to work with OMB and the OFR to
explore potential approaches to improve public access to standards and
to information about the standards.
In addition to the legal requirement under the NTTAA for Federal
agencies to use standards, there are a number of benefits to
incorporating these documents into the regulations. Standards increase
consistency for employee training, equipment compatibility, processes,
and testing during operations. Standards help ensure that operators and
their contractors take proper precautions during operations; resulting
in safety performance improvements through the reduction of lost time
from injuries and incidents, work environment safety standards, proper
training, product failure reporting, quality control and assurance
requirements, addressing safety issues, and improved communications
between user and supplier. Global adoption of standards is a compelling
reason for the most updated editions to be part of regulatory
frameworks since they drive consistency, promote competition, and
reduce the burden of compliance.
E. Overview of Comments on the Proposed Rule
In response to the proposed rule, BSEE received 733 separate sets
of comments, including some comments that had a total of over 60,000
signatures attached to the comments. BSEE received comments from a wide
range of stakeholders, including industry trade groups and individual
companies, State and local governments, Tribal authorities, members of
the U.S. Congress, environmental groups, SDOs, and private citizens.
All comments are posted at the Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. To access the comments, enter ``BSEE-2017-0008''
in the search box. BSEE reviewed all comments submitted.
Commenters raised issues on a number of topics, including general
issues, section-by- section comments, and comments on certain
additional issues on which BSEE solicited comments, including:
Potential Revisions to Sec. 250.107(c) Best Available and
Safest Technology (BAST);
Potential Revisions to Sec. 250.198 Documents
incorporated by reference;
Extension of Compliance Deadline for Pressure Safety Valve
(PSV) Testing Under Sec. 250.880 Production safety system testing;
Potential Revisions Based on the Investigation of the
Explosion and Fatality on West Delta Block 105 Platform E; and
Implementation of This Rulemaking.
Some commenters opposed any changes to the existing production
safety regulations, while other commenters supported most of the
proposed revisions. Many commenters seemed to confuse the 2016 PSSR and
BSEE's December 2017 proposed rule with the 2016 WCR. The comments
indicate that those commenters apparently assumed that the proposed
rule involved revisions to the 2016 WCR, which was not the case.
[[Page 49219]]
F. Discussion of General Issues Raised by Commenters
Requests To Extend the Comment Period
Rulemaking ``Technically Complex''
Comment: Prior to the proposed rule's public comment deadline
(January 29, 2018), BSEE received several written requests to extend
that comment period, most of which requested a 60-day extension. One
such request provided no explanation for the requested extension,
except to state that the proposed rule was ``technically complex.''
Similarly, another request asserted that the proposed rule was so
``important in nature'' that a 90-day comment period would be more
reasonable.
Response: After considering all the extension requests, BSEE
determined that no extension was necessary. Although one requester
stated that the proposed rule was ``technically complex,'' that entity
provided no examples and identified no aspects of the proposed rule
that it considered so complex that it could not submit meaningful
comments by the close of the comment period. Similarly, the entity that
suggested that a 90-day comment period would be more reasonable due to
the importance of the proposed rule provided no examples of any
specific proposed provisions that required more time to analyze, even
though that request was submitted almost one month after publication of
the proposed rule. Under the circumstances, BSEE does not believe that
these entities' requests provided justification for extending the
comment period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A different entity submitted a request for an extension on
January 29, 2018--the deadline set by the proposed rule for public
comment--but did not suggest a specific extension period. In
addition, although that request asserted that the proposed rule was
``unclear, and in some places contradictory,'' it provided no
examples to support that assertion. For the reasons previously
explained, BSEE does not believe this last-minute request provided a
sufficient basis for extending the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volume of Standards To Review
Comment: Two entities--offshore oil and gas industry
organizations--asserted that the comment period was not long enough for
the commenters to analyze and prepare thorough comments on the proposed
rule. In particular, those commenters asserted that the number and
``volume'' of the standards that BSEE proposed to update and
incorporate was too large for the requesters to review and comment on
in 30 days.
Response: BSEE does not agree with the industry organizations'
suggestion that the updated standards and the one new standard that
BSEE proposed to incorporate were ``too numerous and too voluminous''
to be thoroughly analyzed and understood within the time allowed by the
comment period. In fact, one of those industry organizations is the SDO
that developed and published 15 out of the 19 standards that BSEE
proposed to incorporate. BSEE also notes that the other industry
organization is a committee of virtually all of the offshore producing
companies and service providers in the Gulf of Mexico, many of whom
participated, or had the opportunity to participate, in the development
of the relevant standards. In addition, both industry organizations
represent companies that have had the opportunity to voluntarily
implement those standards, in some cases over the course of many years.
Under the circumstances, BSEE does not agree that those extension
requests warranted an extension.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Both of the industry organizations and one other entity also
suggested that the publication of the proposed rule on December 29,
2017, during the ``holiday season,'' provided more justification for
their requests for more time. BSEE believes that the important
reductions in unnecessary burdens on energy production, and the
other improvements intended by the proposed rule, warranted BSEE
moving forward with the proposed and final rules as expeditiously as
practicable, whether or not that entails BSEE or other entities
devoting some effort during a holiday season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment Period Inadequate
Comment: One commenter submitted comments on the proposed rule,
including an assertion that the comment period was inadequate (although
the commenter did not request an extension).
Response: BSEE disagrees. Although this commenter broadly asserted
that the proposed rule proposed a ``significant number of changes to
the regulations that incorporate . . . thousands of pages of technical
documents,'' it failed to provide any specific examples or other
support for its assertion that the comment period was inadequate. After
considering this comment, as well as the prior requests for extension
of the comment period, BSEE determined that the comment period set by
the proposed rule was reasonably adequate for any interested party to
submit meaningful comments. BSEE notes that the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), which governs the Federal rulemaking process, does
not specify any minimum period for comments on proposed rules. In
practice, comment periods of 30 to 60 days are commonplace and 30-day
comment periods are not uncommon. Moreover, given that the number of
substantive changes actually proposed was relatively small, that the
provisions to be revised were previously subject to a lengthy
rulemaking process that culminated in the 2016 PSSR, and that the need
to remove unnecessary burdens on offshore energy production is a high-
priority national goal, BSEE believes that the comment period for this
proposed rule was reasonable and provided a meaningful opportunity for
public participation. This determination is supported by the fact that
commenters submitted well over 700 comments, raising a wide variety of
issues, by the January 29, 2018, deadline.
Comments Related to Deepwater Horizon Recommendations
Comment: A number of commenters asserted that the proposed rule was
inconsistent with recommendations in various reports, including ``The
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling'' (the Commission or the Commission Report), that were
published in the aftermath of the DWH incident. Some commenters
asserted that the 2016 PSSR was the agency's response to the DWH
reports' recommendations and that any changes to this rule would reduce
the protections intended by those recommendations. Several commenters
also asserted that any changes to the regulations would be arbitrary
and capricious.
Response: BSEE disagrees with these comments. The recommendations
that the commenters cite come from various reports concerning the DWH
incident. Those recommendations primarily addressed problems with well
operations (including drilling, completion, workover, and
decommissioning operations)--some of which led up to the DWH incident--
and suggested ways to reduce risks of other incidents related to well
operations. Those commenters apparently assumed, incorrectly, that BSEE
developed the 2016 PSSR as a result of the DWH incident and that it was
largely based on the Commission's report.
These commenters evidently confused the 2016 PSSR, which updated
production safety systems regulations, with the 2016 WCR, which
discussed the recommendations in the DWH reports and implemented, or
responded to, many of those recommendations in order to reduce the risk
of future well operation-related incidents. The well control
requirements established by the 2016 WCR are primarily in 30 CFR part
[[Page 49220]]
250, subparts D and G, and include requirements for well operations. By
contrast, the production safety systems requirements at issue here
apply to production operations and are in subpart H. Well control
requirements and production safety requirements apply to different
operations and types of equipment and processes. Well control
equipment, such as blowout preventers, is used on multiple wells and is
often moved from site to site; therefore, it must function properly in
any conditions that may be encountered. By contrast, production safety
equipment must function properly in the specific conditions applicable
within the production system on a particular facility, as informed by
data that were gathered during the drilling and completion operations.
While the 2016 WCR was responsive to the Commission's and other DWH
reports on well operations, BSEE did not intend the 2016 final PSSR and
the 2017 proposed PSSR revisions to directly respond to the
Commission's report or other DWH reports; nor did the 2016 PSSR and
2017 proposed rule refer to the DWH reports. In fact, the impetus for
the 2016 PSSR was unrelated to well control during well operations;
rather, that rule was focused on the need to address changes in
offshore oil and gas production technology and operations, including
subsea production systems used for production in increasingly deeper
waters. Prior production safety systems regulations did not address
subsea developments in deepwater production. See 81 FR 61834.
Accordingly, the commenters' concerns that the proposed revisions to
the 2016 PSSR would be inconsistent with, and significantly diminish
the protections intended by, the DWH reports' recommendations are not
justified. In any case, as previously discussed, BSEE has nevertheless
carefully analyzed all the provisions in this rule, and determined that
the changes made will not contradict any of the recommendations from
the DWH reports, nor will they alter the regulations in a way that
would make them inconsistent with those recommendations.
Further, the commenters' suggestions that any changes to the 2016
PSSR would be ``arbitrary and capricious'' are conclusory in nature,
and the commenters have not provided support for that conclusion. The
record of this rulemaking shows that the proposed and now final
revisions to the PSSR are not arbitrary or capricious. First, as
already explained, the commenters' underlying assumption that BSEE
intended for the 2016 PSSR to implement the DWH recommendations is not
accurate. Second, as discussed in the 2017 proposed rule, many of the
proposed changes were based on experience from implementation of the
2016 PSSR. See, e.g., 82 FR 61704, 61709. Also, operators raised
questions about the 2016 PSSR that BSEE has addressed in Regulatory
Interpretations on its website, and BSEE is using this rulemaking to
address issues raised in some of those questions.\7\ In addition, for
all the reasons described elsewhere in this notice, BSEE has determined
that the changes to the 2016 PSSR reflected in this final rule will
reduce unnecessary burdens or provide needed clarifications, while
still ensuring safety and environmental protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations/regulations/regulatory-interpretations#ssr. Examples of such issues
include requirements in the 2016 PSSR for boarding shut-down valves
(BSDVs), deferred compliance dates, production notification,
effective date and annual inspection/testing requirements, and
alternate compliance requests and/or departures (extensions) for PSV
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, BSEE disagrees with one commenter's suggestion that BSEE
should not make changes to the 2016 PSSR simply because the ``SUMMARY''
statement in that final rule said that it was ``necessary to improve .
. . safety, environmental protection, and regulatory oversight of
critical equipment involving productions safety systems'' (emphasis
added). While that statement was accurate as to the 2016 PSSR as a
whole, it did not indicate that every specific provision in that
extensive rule was essential in its existing form to ensuring safety
and environmental protection, or would never be reviewed or revised in
light of subsequent events or new information. Neither BSEE nor any
other agency can predict, at the time it promulgates a rule, whether or
not future circumstances will warrant any revisions. In fact, BSEE
periodically reviews all of its regulations and makes revisions when
necessary and appropriate. And, for the reasons explained elsewhere in
this notice, BSEE has determined that some specific revisions to the
2016 PSSR are appropriate and that those revisions will achieve the
goals of energy production and safety and environmental protection.
Timing of Revisions to Subpart H
Comment: One commenter suggested that BSEE cannot justify making
any revisions to the 2016 PSSR ``barely a year'' after that rule took
effect.
Response: BSEE does not agree that it is too soon to make any
changes to the 2016 PSSR. The final 2016 PSSR was published in
September 2016 and took effect on November 7, 2016, more than 17 months
ago. As stated in the proposed rule (see 82 FR 61704-61705) and
elsewhere in this final rule, soon after the 2016 PSSR was issued, BSEE
began receiving requests from the regulated industry to clarify various
provisions and which raised other concerns with the rule, and several
of the proposed (and now final) revisions to the 2016 PSSR are intended
to clarify those provisions or address those concerns. It is common
practice, especially in complex rulemakings, for an agency to become
aware of unforeseen confusion or other problems with a final rule after
it has been published and to revise the final rule as soon as
practicable to clarify the requirements or otherwise resolve
unanticipated concerns. In this case, over 17 months have passed since
the 2016 PSSR was promulgated, and BSEE's experiences during that time
period demonstrate that it is not too soon to make appropriate
corrections to that rule.
Similarly, as explained in the proposed rule, by E.O.s 13783 and
13795, as well as S.O.s 3349 and 3350, issued in early 2017, obligated
BSEE to review existing regulations (which include the 2016 PSSR) to
determine whether it unnecessarily burdened exploration, development,
or production of energy resources, and whether it would be appropriate
to revise the rules to reduce those burdens while still ensuring that
such activities are safe and environmentally responsible. See id. The
time that has already passed since the 2016 PSSR was published and took
effect is more than adequate for BSEE to have completed that review.
Review and Certification by Independent Third-Parties and Professional
Engineers (PEs)
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that the proposed
(i.e., proposed Sec. Sec. 250.802 and 250.842) elimination of third-
party certification of SPPE and reduction in the number of safety
system design documents (e.g., drawings and diagrams) required to be
certified and stamped by a registered PE would significantly reduce
safety and environmental protection.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Subpart H continues to impose numerous
requirements, including provisions in the standards incorporated by
reference, that effectively provide multiple layers of review to ensure
safety and environmental protection in the design, installation, and
testing of certain
[[Page 49221]]
aspects of production safety systems, including the SPPE. As explained
earlier in this notice, although this final rule reduces the number of
provisions that require third-party or PE review and certification,
BSEE expects those procedural changes will continue to ensure safety
and environmental protection, especially because of the other, more
substantive, regulatory requirements applicable to safety equipment
design, function, maintenance, and testing that are being retained or
enhanced. BSEE carefully considered which documents are most critical
to these operations and which documents provide information to support
those critical documents. In addition, the regulations currently
contain extensive testing provisions for SPPE and other production
system components (see Sec. 250.880), to ensure the devices will
function when needed. These provisions clearly state actions that the
operator must take if a device fails a test, including repairing or
replacing devices. These requirements remain unchanged in this final
rule.
Specifically, several of the standards incorporated into subpart H
(e.g., ANSI/API Spec. 6A and ANSI/API Spec. 14A) set design criteria
for SPPE, based on the type of SPPE, and require most types of SPPE to
be design-tested by an independent third-party testing facility. In
addition, the following provisions of the regulations effectively
provide supplemental layers of review: (1) Existing Sec. 250.801(a)
through (c) requires use of SPPE that is manufactured and marked
pursuant to a quality assurance program that satisfies ANSI/API Spec.
Q1 or another equivalent quality assurance program approved by BSEE;
(2) existing Sec. 250.880 sets detailed production safety system
testing criteria, and mandates that SPPE failing to meet the testing
criteria must be repaired or replaced; and (3) Sec. 250.842(a), as
amended, will still require PE approval of modifications to production
safety systems (required by Sec. 250.842(c)(2)), while new Sec.
250.842(b) will require additional design documents to be developed,
maintained, and provided to BSEE upon request. For all of these
reasons, BSEE determined that the final revisions to Sec. Sec. 250.802
and 250.842, which reduce unnecessary burdens on operators, will ensure
safety and environmental protection.
Comments on Risk-Based Approaches
Comment: Several commenters stated that BSEE should implement more
``risk-based'' approaches to regulation of industry.
Response: BSEE agrees that risk-based approaches are often an
appropriate way to develop effective regulatory programs. However, no
changes to the existing regulations are needed for BSEE to implement
certain risk-based programs. For example, BSEE is currently developing
ways to deploy inspection resources to focus on operations with higher
rates of safety events, equipment failure, or incidents of non-
compliance (INCs).
Risk-based inspections complement BSEE's existing National Safety
Inspection Program under OCSLA, which requires BSEE to conduct annual
scheduled inspections and periodic unannounced inspections on all OCS
oil and gas facilities. Risk-based inspection approaches evaluate
operational and performance information, such as data from prior
inspections and failure reporting, to identify those facilities and
operations that may pose a higher likelihood of an unsafe event or of
more severe consequences from such an event. BSEE uses this data to
manage its inspector force and to target their work to address
production facilities with higher risks of safety incidents, equipment
failure, or INCs. Accordingly, BSEE implemented a formal risk-based
inspection program in 2018 following pilot testing.
The program is comprised of two categories of risk-based
inspections--a ``facility-based'' category targeting specific
production facilities identified as higher-risk, and a ``performance-
based'' category targeting specific operations or equipment across
multiple facilities. Facility-based risk inspections employ a
quantitative model and additional qualitative evaluation of operational
and performance information to identify higher-risk facilities, and
inspection protocols are tailored to facility-specific hazards,
barriers, and risks. Performance-based risk inspections employ trend
analysis of performance indicators, such as incident and INC data, to
identify safety issues (e.g., potential gas releases, lifting
incidents, and compressor fires) that may pose a risk at multiple
facilities; thus, those inspection protocols narrowly focus on the
identified safety issue. BSEE expects to continue to develop and refine
the risk-based inspection program over time.
Comments on Failure Reporting
Comment: One commenter suggested that BSEE should modify Sec.
250.803 to require any failed equipment to be immediately shut-in
pending replacement with fully functioning, certified SPPE. Where the
failed SPPE involves equipment that may be common to several production
facilities, the commenter suggested that BSEE clarify its authority to
order the immediate shut-down of all processes or equipment that rely
on the failed SPPE until replaced by certified, functioning SPPE.
Response: BSEE disagrees with this comment. The proposed revisions
to Sec. 250.803 were not intended to relax requirements for reporting
SPPE or safety component failures or the potential for improved safety
under those requirements. To the contrary, the final revisions to that
section simply clarify the existing provision for reporting of failures
to a BSEE designee instead of to BSEE directly. As explained in the
preamble of the proposed rule (see 82 FR 61710), on October 26, 2016,
BSEE designated the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to
receive SPPE failure reports. As discussed later in this notice (see
n.17, infra), the reporting of SPPE and equipment component failure
information to BTS should increase the potential for improving safety
by allowing BTS to examine this information in the aggregate and to
prepare reports on the aggregate analysis to share with the public,
including the regulated industry. In addition, the final rule retains
the existing requirement that operators report equipment failures to
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), as well as to BSEE (or BSEE's
designee). By requiring submissions of reports to the OEMs, Sec.
250.803 ensures an opportunity for the industry best-suited to make
changes to failed SPPE (i.e., the OEM sources) to address equipment
design and performance issues.
BSEE does not believe that the additional measures--for automatic
shut-in of individual facilities with a failure or for wide-spread
shut-in of production that uses similar SPPE--suggested by a commenter
are appropriate or necessary at this time. The testing provisions in
existing Sec. 250.880 already require operators to repair and
reinstall or replace many key components in production safety equipment
(e.g., surface safety valves) if those components fail to function as
designed. The final rule retains those requirements. By the nature of
the design and function of the production system and the regulatory
requirements for that system, multiple barriers must be used throughout
the production system. Multiple barriers are used in the production
system to prevent the release of hydrocarbons; these include the SPPE
that are required under Sec. 250.801 (e.g., the various valves that
can be shut in, if needed, to discontinue production).
[[Page 49222]]
The existence of multiple barriers generally decreases the need for
automatic shut-in every time a single piece of equipment fails. In
addition, BSEE already requires that any non-certified valve that
requires offsite repair, re-manufacturing, or any hot work (such as
welding) must be replaced with a certified valve as required by Sec.
250.801. In any event, BSEE has authority under existing Sec.
250.107(d) to order equipment repairs or replacement in order to ensure
compliance with the regulations, and to issue orders to shut-in
operations of a component or facility when appropriate to prevent
threats of serious or immediate harm. In light of these existing
protections, BSEE does not believe that any additional requirements to
automatically shut-in the failed equipment, or additional authority for
BSEE to order more widespread shut-ins, are needed.
BOEM's Proposed 2019-2024 National OCS Leasing Program
Comment: A number of comments addressed provisions of the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) draft proposed 2019-2024 National OCS
Leasing Program (Leasing Program). Some comments stated that the
proposal in the Leasing Program to expand OCS leasing into additional
geographic areas would magnify any reduction in safety and
environmental protection resulting from the proposed revisions to the
PSSR.
Response: The proposed Leasing Program is a separate action by
BOEM, which is a separate agency from BSEE within the Department, and
was not addressed in the 2017 proposed PSSR. The Leasing Program
specifies the size, timing, and location of potential leasing activity
that the Secretary determines will best meet national energy needs for
the five-year period under consideration. The Draft Proposed Program,
the first of three stages of developing the Leasing Program for 2019-
2024, was released on January 4, 2018, with a 60-day comment period
that ended on March 9, 2018. See BOEM's website, www.boem.gov/National-Program, for additional details. There will be additional opportunities
for public review and comment on the Leasing Program at later stages of
its development. Thus, any concern the commenters may have about the
potential impact that an expansion of the Leasing Program might have on
the level of safety and environmental protection provided by the
revised PSSR is premature and speculative at this time.
Prioritizing Safety and Environmental Protection
Comments: Several commenters stated that OCSLA requires BSEE to
prioritize ``environmental safeguards'' among other goals identified in
the statute and that section 3 of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1332(3)) requires
BSEE to ensure that regulated activities are ``safe and environmentally
responsible.'' Some commenters also stated that BSEE is required by 43
U.S.C 1802(2)(B) to ``balance orderly energy resource development with
[environmental] protection.'' The commenters suggested that some or all
of the proposed changes (e.g., revisions to independent third-party
certification of SPPE; incorporation by reference of industry
standards) to the existing rule would not comply with these
congressional policy declarations.
Response: BSEE agrees that Congress intended that development and
production of offshore energy resources should be carried out in a safe
and environmentally protective manner. However, BSEE disagrees with the
commenters' assertion that the proposed rule (or this final rule) is
inconsistent with the policies embodied in OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1332(3)
and 1802(2)(B). Although some of the commenters suggested that
environmental or safety protection must be the overriding--or even the
exclusive--goal of all agency actions under OCSLA, these commenters
failed to acknowledge that section 1332 also states the principle that
the OCS should be managed to ensure ``expeditious and orderly
development [of OCS resources] . . . in a manner . . . consistent with
competition and other national needs'' (See 43 U.S.C. 1332(3)
Similarly, the commenters failed to acknowledge that 43 U.S.C. 1802
specifically states that the Department should manage OCS oil and gas
resources ``expedite[] exploration and development of the . . . [OCS]
in order to achieve national economic and energy policy goals, assure
national security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, and maintain a
favorable balance of payments.'' (See 43 U.S.C. 1802(1).) \8\ Moreover,
despite the commenter's assertions, sections 1332 and 1802(2) primarily
relate to the way that the Department manages oil and gas resources at
the National Program and lease sale stages of OCS development and do
not expressly mandate how BSEE exercises its authority to issue safety
regulations. More directly relevant to this rulemaking, however, are
the specific provisions of OCLSA that authorize the Secretary to
regulate activities on the OCS, which contain broad grants of
discretion to issue regulations and do not contain any specific
limitation that would prevent BSEE from eliminating undue burdens while
still ensuring the safety of operations overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Likewise, 43 U.S.C. 1802(2) makes it Federal policy that to
``(2) preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources
in the . . . [OCS] in a manner . . . consistent with the need (A) to
make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as
rapidly as possible, (B) to balance orderly energy resource
development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal
environments, (C) to insure the public a fair and equitable return
on [OCS] resources . . . and (D) to preserve and maintain free
enterprise competition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the commenters may disagree with how BSEE has balanced
those statutory principles and goals, the difficult and complex task of
balancing those policies is committed to BSEE's discretion and expert
judgment. And for all the reasons discussed in the proposed rule and in
this notice, BSEE has determined that the proposed revisions to subpart
H (including those singled out by these commenters), as finalized in
this rule, will reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens while ensuring
safe and environmentally responsible operations on the OCS.
In addition, BSEE notes that subpart H, as a whole, ensures safety
and environmental protection safeguards at every stage of the
production process, including with regard to: Design and approval of
safety equipment and safety systems; installation of such equipment and
systems at production facilities; personnel safety device training;
continuous maintenance, field testing, and reporting of failures and
problems to BSEE and manufacturers; equipment repair/removal/
replacement, when needed, to ensure ongoing functionality; and shut-in,
shutdown, and emergency procedures to deal with potential and impending
risks. See, e.g., Sec. Sec. 250.837, 250.842, 250.855, 250.880(b) and
(c), 250.891.
Moreover, many of the specific requirements that apply at these
stages of production, especially during production operations, are
intended to prevent harm to safety or the environment. For example, if
the required SPPE fails, the default setting for the valves is to fail
in ``safe mode''; in most cases, that is the ``closed'' position, thus
preventing the release of hydrocarbons within the production system and
limiting the impact of equipment failures. In addition, the SPPE in
production safety systems are typically part of a closed system. Thus,
when components fail, releasing hydrocarbons, another barrier confines
the oil or gas within the system.
[[Page 49223]]
Accordingly, BSEE is confident that the final rule changes, which
should reasonably reduce burdens (e.g., by clarifying some provisions
and revising or eliminating certain redundant, needlessly burdensome or
marginally useful provisions), will continue to ensure safety and
environmentally protective operations, especially when viewed in the
context of the full suite of protective measures established by subpart
H.
General Comments on Incorporation by Reference of Industry Standards
Enforcement of Compliance With Documents Incorporated by Reference
Comment: A number of commenters asserted that, by relying on
incorporation by reference of industry standards, the proposed rule
would allow the oil and gas industry to regulate itself without
government oversight.
Response: BSEE disagrees. As discussed elsewhere in this final
rule, BSEE incorporates industry standards by reference in accordance
with the requirements of the NTTAA and implementing OMB guidance, OFR
regulations (1 CFR part 51), and BSEE's own procedures for
incorporation (Sec. 250.198). The effect of incorporation by reference
of an industry standard into the regulations is that the incorporated
document becomes a regulatory requirement, see Sec. 250.198(a)(3),
and, thus, becomes subject to BSEE oversight and enforcement in the
same manner as other regulatory requirements. See 82 FR 61705. If an
SDO later revises a standard that BSEE has previously incorporated in a
final rule, the BSEE would need to evaluate the revised standard before
incorporating it through rulemaking in the regulations; in other words,
industry itself cannot change the regulatory requirements by revising a
standard after it has been incorporated in the regulations.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the regulations should state
that, where the regulatory requirements are more specific or stringent
than incorporated industry standards, the regulations should take
precedence.
Response: There is no need for further regulation in response to
this comment. The 2016 PSSR already inserted a provision in subpart H--
at Sec. 250.800(d)--clarifying that if there is any conflict between
the standards incorporated by reference and any other requirements in
subpart H, the operator must follow the other subpart H requirements.
Comment: Another commenter suggested that the regulations should
state that compliance with incorporated industry standards is
mandatory.
Response: BSEE does not agree that such a broad statement needs to
be added to the regulations. Existing Sec. 250.198(a)(3) already
provides that incorporation of an industry standard into the
regulations makes that standard a regulatory requirement. BSEE has
repeatedly referred to this principle in the PSSR and other
rulemakings. In addition, BSEE concluded in an earlier rulemaking that
a blanket statement, such as the one commenter suggested, is not
needed, based on the wording of Sec. 250.198(a)(3) and the bureau's
reliance on the specific regulatory language of incorporation for each
incorporated standard. See 77 FR 50855 (August 22, 2012).
Availability of Standards for Public Review
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern about the availability
of the standards proposed to be incorporated by reference in the
proposed rule. The commenters asserted that the industry standards were
not easily accessible or generally available to the public as part of
the rulemaking process. Several commenters advocated that BSEE make the
full text of any existing or proposed technical standards that are, or
will be, incorporated by reference into BSEE's regulations freely
available for public download in a searchable format to facilitate
public review.
Response: The OFR requires standards incorporated by reference in
its regulations to be made ``reasonably available'' for review by the
public. Moreover, BSEE is required by law to describe how those
incorporated documents are reasonably available. However, BSEE is not
required, and often is not even permitted, to make industry standards
downloadable and searchable for the convenience of commenters. Nor does
BSEE agree with the suggestion that the standards at issue in the
proposed rule were not reasonably available for public review by
commenters in preparing their comments.
As discussed in the proposed rule (82 FR 61705), all standards
incorporated in BSEE's regulations are available to view for free at
BSEE's headquarters office in Sterling, Virginia and at BSEE's other
office locations, during normal working hours, upon request. BSEE
received no requests to examine the standards proposed for
incorporation in the proposed rule at BSEE's office.
In addition to making standards available at BSEE for in-office
examination, API voluntarily allows the public to view documents cited
in government regulations free of charge on its website. (See, e,g.,
http://www.api.org/publications-standards-and-statistics/publications/government-cited-safety-documents). Documents from API and other SDOs
(such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)) may also
be purchased directly from those organizations.
In this case, the updated or reaffirmed editions of the API
standards referred to in the proposed rule (as well as one new
replacement standard) were made available for free viewing on API's
website beginning on January 19, 2018. BSEE recognizes that those
editions of the API standards were not available for viewing on API's
website during the entire comment period. Nonetheless, those editions
could be accessed for public viewing during a significant portion of
the comment period. Moreover, at all times during the comment period,
commenters could have requested to view the relevant editions of API's
standards at BSEE's office or purchased copies of those editions from
API for a fee.\9\ In any event, because API based the updated or
reaffirmed editions of the API standards at issue in the proposed rule
on prior editions already incorporated in BSEE's existing regulations,
which were previously available for free viewing on API's website,
stakeholders interested in those API standards should have already been
familiar with the basic subject matter of the current editions even
before the new editions were made available for viewing by API.\10\
[[Page 49224]]
In addition, although some commenters suggested or implied that
BSEE should make incorporated industry standards freely downloadable
and searchable, apparently without regard to whether the standards are
protected by copyright under U.S. and international law. Federal law--
including the NTTAA, which authorizes and requires BSEE to incorporate
industry-developed consensus standards by reference under appropriate
circumstances, and the OFR regulations (1 CFR part 51) that govern all
incorporations by reference in Federal regulations--does not eliminate
copyright protection for incorporated standards. In fact, OFR, which
has authority to approve all incorporations by reference, has
considered and expressly rejected the idea that either the NTTAA or
OFR's own regulations remove copyright protections. See 79 FR 66267,
66273 (Nov. 7, 2014).\11\ Accordingly, as explained in the proposed
rule (82 FR 61705), BSEE must respect the publisher's copyright, which
means that BSEE could not make and provide copies of the copyrighted
standards to other parties without the copyright-holder's consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ One commenter stated that it emailed BSEE during the comment
period to request that BSEE provide the commenter with copies of all
of the API standards currently incorporated and proposed for
incorporation in BSEE's regulations, which BSEE did not provide. As
explained in the proposed rule and elsewhere in this notice, BSEE
must respect API's and other SDO's copyright protections and cannot
provide free copies of a copyrighted document without the copyright-
holder's consent. That is why BSEE makes copies of all incorporated
standards (proposed or final) available for viewing at BSEE's
office(s) and why BSEE provides instructions for how interested
parties can either view such standards on the SDO's website or
purchase the standards from the SDO.
\10\ The new, updated editions of API standards that the
proposed rule proposed for incorporation are API 510, API STD 2RD,
API RP 2SM, ANSI/API RP 14B, API RP 14C, API RP 14FZ, API RP 14G,
API RP 500, ANSI/API Spec. Q1, ANSI/API Spec. 6A, API Spec. 6AV1,
ANSI/API Spec. 14A, ANSI/API Spec. 17J, and API 570. The reaffirmed
standard is API RP 2SK (Third ed.). The only standard that BSEE
proposed to incorporate that was not an updated edition or a
reaffirmation of a currently-incorporated standard was API STD 6AV2,
which API had substituted for the former API RP 14H (which was
previously incorporated in Sec. 250.198). See 82 FR 61706.
\11\ In OFR's most recent revision of its regulations governing
incorporation by reference, OFR stated that ``t``[he NTTAA [has] not
eliminated the availability of copyright protection for privately
developed codes and standards that are referenced in or incorporated
into federal regulations. Therefore, we [OFR] cannot issue
regulations that could be interpreted as removing copyright
protection from [incorporated by reference] IBR'd standards.'' 79 FR
66273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, OFR's rules for incorporation by reference require only
that an agency discuss in the final rule the ways that the incorporated
document(s) are ``reasonably available'' to interested parties and how
interested parties can obtain the documents. See 1 CFR 51.5(b)(2).\12\
Elsewhere in the final rule, as well as in the proposed rule (82 FR
61705), BSEE discusses how the editions of the standards to be
incorporated here are reasonably available by free viewing at BSEE's
office, or viewing on the SDO's website(s), or by purchase from the
SDO.\13\ Those procedures are consistent with BSEE's longstanding
practice in many other rulemakings and OFR has reviewed and approved
the incorporations by reference in this final rule in accordance with
OFR's own regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Similarly, OFR's regulations require that proposed rules
discuss the ways that materials proposed for incorporation are
``reasonably available'' or how the agency worked to make those
materials reasonably available. See 1 CFR 51.5(a)(1).
\13\ 1 CFR 51.7 of OFR's regulations indicates that, to be
eligible for incorporation by reference, a document needs only to be
reasonably available to (and usable by) ``the class of persons
affected.'' BSEE is confident that members of the regulated industry
that are affected by the incorporated standards are able to purchase
copies of the standards from API or other SDOs for their use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Concerns About Using Incorporation by Reference
Comment: One commenter stated that incorporation by reference can
be cumbersome and that, in many cases, it reduces clarity of the
regulatory requirements. This commenter suggested that BSEE use caution
in this process and recommended that BSEE develop a way to provide a
short summary of the incorporated document that will aid the reviewer
in determining the document's applicability and whether the reviewer
needs to review that document in order to clarify the Federal
regulatory requirements.
Response: BSEE understands that the incorporation by reference of
standards may sometimes appear cumbersome and may result in some
questions that need further clarification. When BSEE decides to
incorporate a standard by reference, it uses its best efforts to
anticipate potential problems and to make the incorporation as simple,
clear, and straightforward as possible. And if some confusion
nonetheless arises after a standard is incorporated, BSEE can and does
use several means to provide more clarity (e.g., Regulatory
Interpretations, guidance through Notices to Lessees and Operators
(NTLs)).
BSEE disagrees, however, with the commenter's suggestion that the
incorporation of documents by reference in general is overly cumbersome
and often reduces clarity, and with the implication that BSEE therefore
should not use incorporated standards. Standards typically address
complex technical issues, often at great length and in great detail,
and it would be difficult and impracticable to duplicate that effort by
drafting and inserting such detailed standards in the regulations. In
fact, the NTTAA requires Federal agencies to use technical standards
developed by voluntary consensus organizations to carry out the
agencies' objectives, when consistent with Federal law, in lieu of
creating new Federal standards. And it is frequently more practical and
efficient for agencies to incorporate such standards--with which the
regulated industry is typically already familiar through their
development by industry experts--by reference in the regulatory text
rather than for the agencies to develop separate Federal standards.
Moreover, OMB Circular A-119, which instructs agencies on compliance
with the NTTAA, expressly recognizes incorporation by reference of such
standards as an acceptable means of using such standards in
regulations.
Consistent with the NTTAA, BSEE frequently participates in the
standards development process by attending relevant standards
development committee meetings and commenting on the documents as they
are developed. Furthermore, requiring operators to follow specific
standards documents that are incorporated by reference in the
regulations often helps operators by providing detailed instructions
for meeting the standards that would be impracticable to include in
regulatory text. These instructions can help ensure consistency in
operators' approaches to carrying out regulatory requirements. This
consistency, in turn, helps BSEE in reviewing and approving plans,
permits, and other applications and simplifies the inspection process.
With regard to the commenter's suggestion that BSEE provide
summaries of the relevant standards, BSEE notes that it is already
required, by OFR's regulations governing incorporations by reference,
to summarize the incorporated materials in preambles to proposed and
final rules (see 1 CFR 51.5(a)(2), 51.5(b)(3)), which are provided to
OFR for review before the proposed and final rules are published. In
this case, BSEE provided such summaries in the proposed rule (82 FR
61706-61709) and elsewhere in this final rule that have been reviewed
and approved by OFR. BSEE has also provided summaries of the standards
incorporated with this final rule in a document titled, ``AA37--Oil and
Gas Production Safety Systems--Revisions (Subpart H), Summary of
standards incorporated by reference that are being updated to newer
editions in this final rule.'' That document may be viewed by accessing
the online docket for this rulemaking action located at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Comment: A commenter noted that BSEE proposed to adopt certain
industry standards although it had not yet completed its own technical
and regulatory evaluations (at the time of the proposal) of each
standard to ensure that it provides superior safety and environmental
protection. The commenter also stated that ``The Report to the
President by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil
Spill and Offshore Drilling . . . sounded a strong warning'' about DOI
relying too heavily on API standards and on incorporating those
[[Page 49225]]
standards into agency regulations. The commenter asserted that the
Report raised concerns that API's role in developing standards could
compromise BSEE's regulatory framework, since API also serves as the
industry's principal lobbyist and advocate. The commenter also asserted
that the report noted that API standards increasingly fail to reflect
``best industry practices'' and that, because the Department had relied
on API in developing its own regulatory safety standards, any
shortfalls in API's objectivity could also undermine the Department's
regulatory system.
Response: BSEE acknowledges some of the commenter's concerns
regarding the use of industry standards in its regulations, but
disagrees with much of this comment and with the commenter's
conclusions. First, BSEE notes that the Report's concerns with
incorporation of industry standards were based on agency practices and
other circumstances pre-dating the 2010 DWH incident. Since that event,
many of those practices and circumstances have changed significantly.
With regard to the commenter's concern that BSEE had not completed
its own evaluation of the new editions of certain standards that BSEE
proposed to update, BSEE agrees that was the case at the time the
proposed rule was published. However, BSEE did not intend to
incorporate into a final rule any standards for which it had not
completed its evaluation and is not doing so. Rather, BSEE sought to
use the proposed rulemaking to solicit public feedback on those
documents for BSEE to take into consideration while BSEE continued its
internal review of these documents. See 82 FR 61705. In fact, BSEE has
benefited from consideration of the public comments on the proposed
incorporations, and those comments have helped inform BSEE's
determinations as to whether the new (or reaffirmed) editions proposed
for incorporation are appropriate for inclusion in this final rule. In
addition, soliciting comments on the proposed incorporations during
BSEE's continued evaluation of those newer versions of the standards
has enabled BSEE to proceed more expeditiously to the incorporation in
this final rule of those standards that BSEE has now determined will
provide the same or higher levels of safety and environmental
protection. As discussed in part G of this notice, BSEE has completed
its review of most of the updated editions or new standards proposed
for incorporation in the proposed rule and has included those editions
and the one new standard in this final rule. However, BSEE is still
evaluating several remaining editions proposed for incorporation and is
not including those remaining editions in this final rule. BSEE needs
more time to complete its evaluation of those standards and will make
final decisions on whether to incorporate some or all of those editions
in a final rule at a later date.
Concerning the comments on BSEE's use of API standards, and the
assertion that API standards increasingly do not represent best
industry practices, BSEE does not agree that incorporation and use of
the standards referenced in this final rule is either inappropriate or
detrimental to safety and environmental protection. BSEE has evaluated
the API standards incorporated in this final rule, and determined that
they are at least as protective as the previously incorporated versions
of those standards and serve as a valuable complement to BSEE's
regulations in helping to achieve the statutory objectives. These
standards provide a baseline. BSEE adds supplemental requirements where
appropriate. Moreover, as previously discussed, the NTTAA mandates that
Federal agencies use technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards organizations, instead of government-developed
standards, where practicable and consistent with applicable law. There
are only a few SDOs, including API, that address issues related to
offshore oil and gas operations. Also, API provides standards on
technical topics that are not addressed by other SDOs. And, consistent
with the NTTAA's preference for agency use of consensus standards (see
15 U.S.C. 272(e)(1)(A)(v)), API develops its standards through a
``general consensus'' process, which provides for input from those who
are potentially ``materially impacted'' by the standard.
In addition, based on recommendations in other post-DWH reports
(see, e.g., Final Report on the Investigation of the Macondo Well
Blowout, Deepwater Horizon Study Group (March 1, 2011) at pp. 94-98),
BSEE has expanded its standards program and increased its involvement
in the standards development process, including development of many API
standards, and is continuously improving and formalizing BSEE's
internal process for reviewing standards relevant to the regulatory
program. These developments will help BSEE to identify issues that may
not be adequately addressed in incorporated standards and to supplement
those standards, as necessary, in its regulations.
Comment: A commenter asserted that BSEE should provide a technical
analysis of any new or updated industry standards proposed for
incorporation. The commenter suggested that this analysis should be
publicly available at the same time as the proposed rule and should
verify that the new standard represents BAST. This commenter noted that
BSEE had not completed its own technical review before proposing these
changes. The commenter requested that BSEE complete this work, and then
reissue proposed regulations with an appropriate technical
justification that is made available to the public before the public is
asked to submit comments on the proposed changes. The commenter also
suggested that the Department should establish a process with the
National Academy of Engineering to assess proposed changes in standards
and to determine if the new editions of incorporated standards
``enhance safety and environmental protection and represent the highest
level of international regulatory practice.''
Response: BSEE does not agree with the commenters' suggestions.
First, the incorporation of industry standards in BSEE's regulations
does not reflect a specific BAST determination by BSEE; those actions
derive from separate authorities and are governed by different
criteria. Thus, there is no support for the commenter's suggestion that
``technical analysis'' of a standard should include verification that
it represents BAST.
In addition, the issue of whether BSEE should modify its procedures
for incorporating industry standards in the future is beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. As previously discussed, in this rulemaking BSEE
made all of the documents incorporated by reference available for
public review in connection with the comment period provided for the
proposed rule and continues to make publicly available at its office
all of the standards incorporated by reference in the final rule.
Similarly, BSEE does not agree that a ``technical analysis'' of the
kind suggested by the commenter prior to a proposed incorporation by
reference is necessary in order for commenters to be able to comment on
such a proposal. As discussed previously, BSEE complies with the NTTAA
requirement that an agency use standards developed or adopted by
``voluntary consensus standards bodies'' rather than government-unique
standards, except where inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. (See OMB Circular A-119). BSEE also complies
[[Page 49226]]
with the OFR regulations governing incorporation by reference. Those
regulations (see Sec. Sec. 51.5(a)(2) and (b)(3) and 51.11(a)) specify
the process for updating an incorporated standard, including the types
of descriptions required in connection with proposed and final rule
documents, and a requirement that the descriptions must be provided to
OFR for its review. BSEE complied with those requirements by providing
for public notice and comment through the proposed rule and by seeking
OFR's approval for changes to the standards incorporated by reference
in the final rule.\14\ This process does not require an agency to
complete its review of a document it proposes to incorporate by
reference prior to the proposed rule stage, and BSEE does not here in
the final rule incorporate any standard for which it has not completed
its review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Under certain circumstances, existing Sec. 250.198(a)(2)
authorizes BSEE to incorporate a newer edition of an industry
standard through a direct final rule (i.e., without a prior
proposal); however, that authority was not exercised in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Section-by-Section Summaries, Responses to Comments, and Changes
From the Proposed Rule
Documents Incorporated by Reference. (Section 250.198)
Section summary: Section 250.198 of the existing regulations
contains provisions regarding how BSEE incorporates documents by
reference in BSEE's regulations, lists all of the documents BSEE has
incorporated by reference in 30 CFR part 250, and states BSEE's general
expectations for compliance with those documents. The requirements for
complying with a specific incorporated document can be found where the
document is referenced in the regulations, as specified in Sec.
250.198.
BSEE proposed to revise Sec. 250.198 by replacing older editions
of certain standards incorporated in the regulations with new or
recently reaffirmed editions of those standards.\15\ In addition, BSEE
proposed to replace API RP 14H (Installation, Maintenance and Repair of
Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves Offshore, Fifth
Edition 2007), currently incorporated in the regulations but
subsequently withdrawn by API, with a new standard, API STD 6AV2
(Installation, Maintenance and Repair of Surface Safety Valves and
Underwater Safety Valves Offshore, First Edition 2014). Finally, BSEE
proposed to revise Sec. 250.198(h)(58) and (62) in order to change
cross-references (from to ``Sec. 250.842(b)'' to ``Sec. 250.842(c)'')
to the regulations which mention the two standards incorporated at
those locations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ As described in more detail later, the provisions proposed
to be updated in this way included: ASME Boiler and Pressure Codes,
Sections I, IV and VIII; API 510; API RP 2SK; ANSI/API RP 14B; API
RP 14FZ; API RP 14G; API RP 500; ANSI/API Spec. Q1; ANSI/API Spec.
6A; API Spec. 6AV1; API STD 6AV2; and API 570.
\16\ The references in Sec. 250.198 to be modified in this way
are related to: API RP 14F, Design, Installation, and Maintenance of
Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore Petroleum
Facilities for Unclassified and Class 1, Division 1 and Division 2
Locations, Upstream Segment, Fifth Edition (2008, reaff. 2013): and
API RP 14J, Design and Hazards Analysis for Offshore Production
Facilities, Second Edition (2001; reaff. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSEE received numerous comments that raised several issues (e.g.,
public availability of standards) related to the proposed revisions to
Sec. 250.198. BSEE responded to those general comments elsewhere in
this final rule. Several commenters also stated that they either
supported or did not oppose the proposed incorporations, but provided
no details regarding the merits of those documents. Several commenters,
however, raised significant concerns with the merits of incorporating
API RP 14C (Eighth Edition 2017) and API RP 500 (Third Edition 2012) at
this time. For the reasons explained earlier in this notice, this final
rule updates the incorporation by reference of 12 standards (including
API RP 500, Third Edition) as proposed, but does not update the
remaining five standards at this time.
BSEE received no comments on the proposed revisions to the cross-
references in Sec. 250.198(h)(58) and (62) and the final rule makes
those revisions.
Comment: One industry commenter asserted that, although it did not
oppose the proposed incorporation of the Third Edition of API RP 500,
it needed more time to fully evaluate the impacts of the Third Edition
(including the potential costs of implementation, especially for
facilities that are under construction at the time the final rule takes
effect) before compliance with that edition of the standard becomes
mandatory. Therefore, the commenter recommended delaying the
incorporation of the Third Edition of API RP 500 until a later date.
Response: BSEE does not agree that such a delay is warranted. API
RP 500 (Second Edition) was adopted in 1997 and has long been
incorporated in BSEE's regulations. The regulated industry has
longstanding experience with how to implement that standard. Although
the Third Edition made some significant revisions to the Second
Edition, the commenter did not explain or offer any examples as to why
those differences would require more time to evaluate potential
implementation concerns or costs. Moreover, although API was one of the
joint commenters requesting a delay, API itself adopted the Third
Edition (with the consensus of the industry) in 2012, and it has
already had over five years to consider what the impacts of its own
revised standard would be on the industry it represents. Thus, no delay
in finalizing the proposed incorporation of the Third Edition of API RP
500 is necessary.
Comment: One commenter, although not opposed to the proposed
incorporation of API RP 14C (Eighth Edition), raised strong concerns
about the inclusion of that edition in the final rule at this time. The
commenter asserted that, in light of the many substantive changes to
the Eighth Edition, which was recently adopted (February 2017), more
time is needed to assess the potential impacts and costs from
implementation of those changes, especially with respect to facilities
still under construction. Two commenters also pointed out that there
are a number of significant organizational and other clerical errors,
as well as several apparent inconsistencies, in the Eighth Edition that
need correction and that would cause substantial confusion and
implementation problems if incorporated at this time.
Response: The standards being incorporated into the regulations are
updated editions to what is already incorporated by reference, not
adoptions of novel standards. At the time BSEE or its predecessor
originally incorporated the standards in the regulations, BSEE
determined that they would improve safety and environmental protection
for their respective applications. Subsequently, BSEE reviewed updated
editions of each standard and concluded in this final rule that the new
editions increase the overall safety baseline from the previously
incorporated editions. Since the nature of operations evolves and
equipment changes over time, standards also change to keep up-to-date.
Updating the incorporation of standards to newer editions helps
maintain and improve the safety and environmental integrity of
operations. BSEE does not anticipate the change in burden to be
significant, since updating to the new editions will not require
retrofit of equipment. The revised maintenance and testing procedures
contained in these standards are generally modifications of existing
procedures, which are already required. BSEE is aware that there are a
number of organizational problems and clerical and other non-
substantive errors in the
[[Page 49227]]
Eighth Edition that could significantly affect other standards that
refer to and rely on API RP 14C, and that could interfere with the
industry's and BSEE's ability to implement the regulations. BSEE is
also aware that API is currently considering how to resolve these
concerns. BSEE has therefore decided not to update the reference to API
RP 14C in Sec. 250.198 in the final rule at this time.
In addition, although BSEE has completed its evaluation of most of
the standards proposed for incorporation (including the Third Edition
of API RP 500), BSEE needs more time to complete its evaluation of the
other five standards (including the Eighth Edition of API RP 14C).
Accordingly, BSEE will not finalize the proposed incorporation of the
following standards at this time and will make final decisions as to
whether to incorporate some or all of these standards in a final rule
at a later date:
API RP 14C, Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of
Basic Surface Safety Systems for Offshore Production Platforms, Eighth
Edition (February 2017). BSEE proposed to substitute the Eighth Edition
for the currently incorporated Seventh Edition (2001, reaffirmed 2007).
The Eighth Edition contains extensive substantive changes compared to
the last substantive revision (the Sixth Edition) in 1998 and makes
numerous organizational changes as compared to the Seventh Edition.
API STD 2RD, Dynamic Risers for Floating Production
Systems, Second Edition, September 2013. BSEE proposed to substitute
this standard for the currently incorporated First Edition of API RP
2RD (1998, Errata 2009) of the same standard.
ANSI/API Spec. 14A, Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment,
Twelfth Edition (January 2015; Errata, July 2015; Addendum, June 2017).
BSEE proposed to substitute the Twelfth Edition for the currently
incorporated Eleventh Edition (2005) of the same standard.
ANSI/API Spec. 17J, Unbonded Flexible Pipe, Fourth Edition
May 2014; Errata 1, September 2016; Errata 2, May 2017; Addendum 1,
October 2017. BSEE proposed to substitute this edition for the
currently incorporated Third Edition (2008) of the same standard.
API RP 2SM, Design, Manufacture, Installation, and
Maintenance of Synthetic Fiber Ropes for Offshore Mooring, Second
Edition (2014). BSEE proposed to substitute this edition for the
currently incorporated First Edition (2001; 2007 Addendum) of the same
standard.
BSEE is carrying forward with certain proposed revisions to Sec.
250.198 in the final rule. First, as previously mentioned, and as
proposed, the final rule revises Sec. 250.198(h)(58) (which
incorporates API RP 14F, Recommended Practice for Design, Installation,
and Maintenance of Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore
Petroleum Facilities for Unclassified and Class 1, Division 1 and
Division 2 Locations, Upstream Segment) and Sec. 250.198(h)(62) (which
incorporates API RP 14J, Recommended Practice for Design and Hazards
Analysis for Offshore Production Facilities) to update the cross-
references to Sec. 250.842(b), which this final rule has redesignated
as Sec. 250.842(c). Second, BSEE has completed its evaluations of the
following standards, as well as any comments received on their proposed
incorporation, and determined that these standards are at least as
protective of safety and the environment as the standards previously
incorporated in the regulations. Accordingly, this final rule revises
existing Sec. 250.198 to incorporate the following updated standards:
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC)
[cir] Section I, Rules for Construction of Power Boilers including
Appendices (2017 Edition). This edition replaces the previously
incorporated 2004 edition of that standard, including the July 2005
Addenda and all Section I Interpretations Volume 55. ASME BPVC Section
1 provides methods and requirements for: construction of power,
electric, and miniature boilers; high temperature water boilers, heat
recovery steam generators, and certain fired pressure vessels to be
used in stationary service; and power boilers used in locomotive,
portable, and traction service. Major changes in the 2017 edition
include: (a) New guidance on visual examination in the fabrication
process; (b) a non-mandatory option for ultrasonic examination
acceptance criteria; (c) requirements for retaining radiographs as
digital images; (d) clarification of material identification
requirements for a ``pressure part material;'' (e) updated mandatory
training requirements for qualified personnel for various non-
destructive examination (NDE) techniques; (f) updated provisions on the
types of auxiliary lift devices that operators can use for alternative
testing of valves to align with current state of the art; (g)
clarification that welded pressure parts must be hydrostatic-tested
with the completed boiler; and (h) references to other updated
standards.
[cir] Section IV, Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers;
including Appendices 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and Non-mandatory Appendices B, C,
D, E, F, H, I, K, L, and M, and the Guide to Manufacturers Data Report
Forms (2017 Edition). This edition replaces the previously incorporated
2004 Edition and 2005 Addenda of that standard. The updated standard
provides requirements for design, fabrication, installation, and
inspection of steam heating, hot water heating, hot water supply
boilers, and potable water heaters intended for low pressure service
that are directly fired by oil, gas, electricity, coal, or other solid
or liquid fuels. The new edition also (a) provides equipment scope
clarifications, (b) includes a new mandatory appendix for feedwater
economizers, (c) deletes conformity assessments requirements and moves
them to normative reference ASME CA-1, (d) provides new corrosion
resistant alloy requirements for internal tank surfaces of heat
exchangers installed in storage tanks, and (e) clarifies requirements
for modular boilers.
[cir] Section VIII, Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels;
Divisions 1, 2, and 3 (2017 Edition) and all Section VIII
Interpretations Volumes 54 and 55. This edition replaces the previously
incorporated 2004 Edition and 2005 Addenda, Divisions 1, 2, and 3 and
all Section VIII Interpretations Volumes 54 and 55. Since the 2004
edition was issued, ASME has rewritten the BPVC code to incorporate the
latest technologies and engineering knowledge. The 2017 Edition gives
detailed requirements for the design, fabrication, testing, inspection,
and certification of both fired and unfired pressure vessels. This
updated edition specifically refers to those pressure vessels that
operate at pressures, either internal or external, that exceed 15
pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Section VIII contains three
divisions, each of which covers different vessel specifications.
API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Downstream Segment, Tenth
Edition (May 2014), including Addendum 1 (May 2017). This edition
replaces the previously incorporated Ninth Edition of the same
standard. API 510 covers the in-service inspection, repair, alteration,
and re-rating activities for pressure vessels and the pressure-
relieving devices protecting these vessels. API 510 is intended to
specify the in-service inspection and condition-monitoring program that
is needed to determine the integrity of pressure vessels and pressure-
relieving devices. The Tenth Edition includes updated normative
references, updated definitions, and new requirements for inspection
programs, corrective actions,
[[Page 49228]]
management of change, integrity operating windows, pressure testing,
corrosion considerations, and marking requirements.
API RP 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems
for Floating Structures, Third Edition (October 2005), Addendum (May
2008), reaffirmed edition of June 2015. The reaffirmed document makes
no changes to the previously incorporated 2008 Third Edition. It
provides a method for analyzing, designing, or evaluating station-
keeping systems (mooring, dynamic positioning, or thruster-assisted
mooring) that operators use for floating units. The reaffirmed standard
also addresses some operational aspects of such systems and provides
different design requirements for mobile and permanent moorings.
ANSI/API RP 14B, Design, Installation, Operation, Test and
Redress of Subsurface Safety Valve Systems, Sixth Edition (September
2015). This edition replaces the previously incorporated Fifth Edition
(2005) of the same standard. This standard creates requirements and
provides guidelines for subsurface safety valve (SSSV) system
equipment. Manufacturers and operators design and install SSSVs to
prevent an uncontrolled well flow, when actuated. The Sixth Edition
addresses system design, installation, operation, testing, redress,
support activities, documentation, and failure reporting. The Sixth
Edition covers specific equipment including control systems, control
lines, SSSVs, and secondary tools and provides criteria for proper
redress for replacement or disassembly of an SSSV. In contrast to the
Fifth Edition, the Sixth Edition also emphasizes supplier and
manufacturer operating manuals, systems integration manuals, handling,
system quality, documentation, and data control.
API RP 14FZ, Design, Installation, and Maintenance of
Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore Petroleum Facilities
for Unclassified and Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1 and Zone 2 Locations,
Second Edition (May 2013). This edition replaces the previously
incorporated First Edition (2001, reaffirmed 2007) of the same
standard. The Second Edition contains substantial changes from the
First Edition. The Second Edition establishes minimum requirements and
guidelines for design and installation of electrical systems on fixed
and floating petroleum facilities located offshore in hazardous
locations classified as Zone 0, Zone 1, or Zone 2. As revised, the
Second Edition of API RP 14FZ applies to both permanent and temporary
electrical installations and describes basic desirable electrical
practices for offshore electrical systems.
API RP 14G, Fire Prevention and Control on Fixed Open-type
Offshore Production Platforms, Fourth Edition (April 2007), reaffirmed
January 2013. The reaffirmed document makes no changes to the
previously-incorporated standard. This reaffirmed standard includes
provisions for minimizing the likelihood of an accidental fire, and for
designing, inspecting, and maintaining fire control systems. The
reaffirmed standard emphasizes the need to train personnel in
firefighting, to conduct routine drills, and to establish methods and
procedures for safe evacuation. API's intent in this standard is for
fire control systems to provide an early response to prevent incipient
fires from spreading; however, the intent is not to preclude the
application of more extensive practices to meet special situations or
the substitution of other systems that will provide an equivalent or
greater level of protection. This reaffirmed standard is applicable to
fixed open-type offshore production platforms, which are generally
installed in moderate climates and which have sufficient natural
ventilation to minimize the accumulation of vapors; enclosed areas,
such as quarters buildings and equipment enclosures, normally installed
on this type platform are addressed. Totally enclosed platforms
installed for extreme weather conditions or other reasons, however, are
beyond the scope of this standard.
API STD 6AV2, Installation, Maintenance, and Repair of
Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves Offshore (First
Edition March 2014) and Errata 1, August 2014. This standard replaces
the previously incorporated API RP 14H, Installation, Maintenance and
Repair of Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves Offshore
(Fifth Edition 2007), which API withdrew when it adopted API STD 6AV2.
The new standard provides practices for installing and maintaining
Surface Safety Valves (SSVs) and Underwater Safety Valves (USVs) used
or intended to be used as part of a safety system (as defined by
documents such as API RP 14C) and includes provisions for conducting
inspections, installations, and maintenance, field and off-site repair
as well as provisions addressing testing procedures, acceptance
criteria, failure reporting, and documentation. API STD 6AV2 also
includes updated definitions, new provisions for qualified personnel,
new documentation and test procedures, acceptance criteria for post-
installation and post-field repair, and provisions for offsite repair
and remanufacture alignment to ANSI/API Spec. 6A.
API RP 500, Classification of Locations for Electrical
Installations at Petroleum Facilities Classified as Class I, Division 1
and Division 2, Third Edition (December 2012; Errata January 2014).
This edition replaces the previously incorporated Second Edition (1997,
reaffirmed 2002) of the same standard. The purpose of this standard is
to provide guidelines for classifying locations (Class I, Division 1
and Class I, Division 2) at petroleum facilities for the selection and
installation of electrical equipment. This standard followed the basic
definitions given in the 2011 edition of National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code (NEC).
ANSI/API Spec. Q1, Specification for Quality Management
System Requirements for Manufacturing Organizations for the Petroleum
and Natural Gas Industry, Ninth Edition (June 2013; Errata, February
2014; Errata 2, March 2014) and Addendum 1 (June 2016). This edition
replaces the previously incorporated Eighth Edition (2007) of the same
standard. This updated standard features over 85 new clauses and five
new sections, creating a major shift in quality management as it
applies to the oil and gas industry. A thematic change is the approach
to quality through risk assessment and risk management. The five new
sections include risk assessment and management, contingency planning,
product quality planning, preventative maintenance, and management of
change. The Ninth Edition is also intended to align with API Spec. Q2,
Quality Management System Requirements for Service Supply Organizations
for the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries, First Edition (2011).
Overall, the goal of ANSI/API Spec. Q1 Ninth Edition is to further
enhance the minimum baseline requirements of quality management systems
of oil and gas equipment manufacturers.
ANSI/API Spec. 6A, Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment,
Twentieth Edition (October 2010; Addendum 1, November 2011; Errata 2,
November 2011; Addendum 2, November 2012; Addendum 3, March 2013;
Errata 3, June 2013; Errata 4, August 2013; Errata 5, November 2013;
Errata 6, March 2014; Errata 7, December 2014; Errata 8, February 2016;
Addendum 4, June 2016; Errata 9, June 2016; Errata 10, August 2016).
This edition replaces the previously incorporated Nineteenth Edition
(2004) of the same standard. The Twentieth Edition includes significant
changes from the previous edition, such
[[Page 49229]]
as: (a) Updated definitions and terms; (b) updated normative references
to other standards; (c) temperature ratings; (d) more stringent
material performance requirements; (e) a revised repair and
remanufacture annex; (f) updated requirements for equipment in hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) service; and (g) SSV and USV performance requirements.
The Twentieth Edition also aligns with other standards, such as NACE
MR0175 (for use in H2S-containing environments), and
contains options to use various American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International documents for material testing. The
authors removed references to obsolete standards and requirements for
obsolete equipment from the Twentieth Edition.
API Spec. 6AV1, Specification for Verification Test of
Wellhead Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves for
Offshore Service, Second Edition (February 2013). This edition replaces
the previously incorporated First Edition (1996, reaffirmed 2008) of
the same standard. The Second Edition establishes design validation
requirements for ANSI/API Spec. 6A, Specification for Wellhead and
Christmas Tree Equipment, for SSVs and USVs as well as associated valve
bore sealing mechanisms for Class II and Class III SSVs and USVs. Major
changes from the First Edition include: replacing ``Performance
Requirement'' with the term ``Class;'' phasing out the use of Class 1/
PR1 valves; establishment of API licensing of test agencies; updated
facility requirements; more specificity on the validation testing
procedures of Class II valves; and new validation tests for Class III
SSVs and USVs.
API 570, Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems, Fourth Edition
(February 2016; Addendum 1, May 2017). This edition replaces the
previously incorporated Third Edition (2009). API 570 covers
inspection, rating, repair, and alteration procedures for metallic and
fiberglass-reinforced plastic piping systems and their associated
pressure relieving devices that have been placed in service. This
inspection code applies to all hydrocarbon and chemical process piping
covered in section 1.2.1 that have been placed in service (unless
specifically designated as optional per section 1.2.2). This
publication does not cover inspection of specialty equipment, including
instrumentation, exchanger tubes and control valves. The ``in service
inspection'' Code in this standard no longer covers process piping
systems that have been retired from service and abandoned in place.
However, piping that is abandoned in place may still need some amount
of inspection and/or risk mitigation to ensure that it does not become
a process safety hazard because of continuing deterioration. Process
piping systems that are temporarily out of service, but have been
preserved for potential future use, are still covered by the new
edition of this Code.
Timing of Compliance With New Editions of Standards
Comment: Several commenters suggested that, if BSEE updated certain
standards in the final rule, it should clarify that some of the updated
standards would apply only to new equipment or to new offshore
facilities; i.e., that those updated standards would not require
replacement of existing facilities or equipment that do not meet the
updated standards' requirements.
Response: BSEE does not believe that it is necessary to revise the
regulatory text for the updated standards that are included in this
final rule to specify which standards, or which provisions in those
standards, apply prospectively. BSEE does not intend to require, and
the standards themselves do not envision, replacement of existing
facilities or equipment (that meet the applicable requirements that
were in effect when the facilities or equipment were installed) simply
because updated standards have been incorporated in this final rule.
The updated standards will apply to all BSEE approvals of facilities
and equipment prospectively (as of the effective date of the final
rule). By the nature of the standards and the way in which they are
incorporated in BSEE's regulations, some of the updated standards'
provisions can apply only to new facilities or equipment (e.g.,
provisions for design, analysis, and/or installation of certain new
systems or new equipment). The language of the regulations and the
referenced standards will result in their application to new and
existing facilities or equipment, and require certain future actions
(e.g., equipment inspection, testing, removal/repair/replacement).
Operators must ensure that those future actions are taken and that all
existing facilities/equipment comply with those applicable
requirements. Although BSEE believes that the nature, purpose, and
scope of the updated standards--and of the regulations which reference
those standards--in this final rule are clear as to which requirements
apply only to new equipment/facilities and which requirements apply to
both new and existing equipment/facilities, BSEE notes that:
API STD 6AV2 (First Edition), API 510 (Tenth Edition), and
API 570 (Fourth Edition) apply to both new and existing facilities and
equipment;
API RP 2SK (Third Edition, reaffirmed 2015), API RP 14FZ
(Second Edition), and API RP 500 (Third Edition) apply only to new
facilities installed after the final rule effective date; and
ANSI/API RP 14B (Sixth Edition), ANSI/API Spec. Q1 (Ninth
Edition), and API Spec. 6AV1 (Second Edition) apply only to new
equipment installed after the effective date.
What must the DWOP contain? (Section 250.292)
BSEE did not receive any comments on this section of the proposed
rule. Since BSEE decided not to incorporate by reference the second
edition of API STD 2RD, as proposed, the final rule implements no
changes to this section of the regulations.
General (Section 250.800)
BSEE proposed updating API RP 2RD to API STD 2RD in this rule. BSEE
did not receive any comments on this section of the proposed rule. BSEE
decided not to incorporate by reference the second edition of API STD
2RD, as proposed.
However, BSEE is revising paragraph (a) of this section to clarify
expectations for preproduction inspections of new facilities, adding
two new subordinate paragraphs to paragraph (a). In the current
regulations, paragraph (a) of this section already requires operators
to receive BSEE approval of their production safety system application
and request a preproduction inspection from BSEE before commencing
production. BSEE added a new paragraph (a)(1) to clarify the
requirement to obtain approval of the production safety system
application by referencing Sec. 250.842, which contains the
requirements for that application. BSEE also added new paragraph (a)(2)
to highlight and clarify the requirement to request a preproduction
inspection, including language noting that the operator must notify the
District Manager 72 hours before it plans to commence initial
production and adding a cross reference to that existing requirement in
Sec. 250.880(a)(1). These revisions are purely organizational and
clarifying and do not impose any new substantive requirements.
Safety and Pollution Prevention Equipment (SPPE) Certification (Section
250.801)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations contains
requirements for the installation of certified SPPE on OCS wells or as
part
[[Page 49230]]
of the system associated with the wells. It also clarified that (as of
September 2017) SPPE includes SSVs and actuators, such as those
installed on injection wells capable of natural flow, as well as BSDVs.
This section of the existing regulations also specifies that BSEE will
not allow subsurface-controlled SSSVs on subsea wells and provides that
SPPE manufactured and marked pursuant to ANSI/API Spec. Q1 will be
considered certified SPPE under part 250. Section 250.801(c) of the
existing regulations also provides that BSEE may exercise its
discretion, under certain conditions, to accept SPPE manufactured under
quality assurance programs other than ANSI/API Spec. Q1.
In the proposed rule, BSEE proposed to clarify that GSLDVs are a
type of SPPE, since, for reasons explained in the 2017 proposed rule
(82 FR 61709), GLSDVs already must follow Sec. 250.801. BSEE also
proposed to revise the introductory sentence in paragraph (a) of this
section to remove the phrase ``[i]n wells located on the OCS,'' since
all of the equipment that is considered SPPE is either located in a
well or a riser. After consideration of comments submitted on the
proposed revisions to this section, as discussed below, the final rule
revises Sec. 250.801(a) to expressly include GLSDVs in the list of
equipment that BSEE considers to be SPPE. In addition, as proposed, the
final rule revises paragraph (a) to remove the phrase, ``[i]n wells
located on the OCS.''
Addition of GLSDVs to SPPE List
Comment: Commenters generally questioned the proposed addition of
GLSDVs to the list of equipment that is considered SPPE. One comment
asserted that GLSDVs are installed in a departing capacity (direction
of flow into the well). The commenter stated that there is a check
valve to prevent backflow and that there are no testing frequency or
leakage rate requirements for GLSDVs and there is no mention of GLSDVs
in the Eighth Edition of API RP 14C. Comments also stated that BSEE did
not provide statistics or failure data to justify the proposed addition
of GLSDVs as SPPE.
Response: BSEE does not believe that the assertions made in these
comments warrant a change to the proposed revision. As explained in the
proposed rule, the addition of GLSDVs to the list of SPPE is merely a
clarification of what is already required by the current regulations.
Section 250.835 currently requires that BSDVs meet the requirements in
Sec. 250.801, and Sec. 250.873 states that GLSDVs must meet the
requirements for BSDVs in Sec. 250.835, so it follows that GLSDVs are
already required to meet the requirements of Sec. 250.801. The GLSDV
acts as a robust, tested barrier to prevent backflow to the platform.
The configuration of many subsea fields is such that it is important to
prevent the continuous feeding of gas lift gas to the facility in the
event of an emergency. Regarding the comment that GLSDVs are not
addressed in API RP 14C, BSEE does not believe that the lack of direct
mention of GLSDVs in that document is dispositive of whether the
requirements for SPPE in subpart H should apply to those valves, which
in fact they already did under the pre-existing regulations. BSEE notes
that GLSDVs are mentioned in API RP 17V, Recommended Practice for
Analysis, Design, Installation, and Testing of Safety Systems for
Subsea Applications, First Edition, which was adopted by API in 2015
and includes the subsea requirements that were found in the Seventh
Edition of API RP 14C. Although BSEE does not incorporate API RP 17V by
reference in its regulations, that standard is considered a companion
document for API RP 14C, and BSEE believes that the regulated industry
is well aware of the connection between those standards. Regarding the
assertion that there are no testing frequency or leakage rate
requirements for GLSDVs, the current regulations include specific
testing requirements for GLSDVs under Sec. 250.873(d).
Comment: A commenter asserted that GLSDV requirements should apply
only to subsea systems.
Response: BSEE agrees. In fact, GLSDVs are listed only under the
subsea systems sections in the regulations. However, to clarify this
point, BSEE added ``associated with subsea systems'' to Sec.
250.801(a)(5) in the final rule.
Requirements for SPPE (Section 250.802)
Section summary: This section provides the requirements for SPPE.
SPPE are key safety barriers that prevent catastrophic events from
occurring on offshore platforms. This section requires compliance with
a variety of industry standards and includes repair and documentation
requirements. BSEE requested comments on the proposed elimination
within Sec. 250.802(c)(1) of a requirement that an independent third
party certify that each device will function under the most extreme
conditions to which it may be exposed. Based on the comments received,
BSEE is revising existing paragraph (c)(1) and renumbering the
remaining paragraphs of this section. In paragraph (c)(1) of the final
rule, BSEE is removing the requirement for an independent third party
certification of the design of the SPPE. In the final rule BSEE is
maintaining the requirement in the existing regulations that each
device must be designed to function in the conditions to which it may
be exposed, while deleting the phrase ``most extreme.'' BSEE is adding
a provision in the final rule in paragraph (c)(1)(i) that was not in
the proposed rule requiring the operator to have each device design
tested by an independent test agency, according to the testing criteria
in the appropriate standard as incorporated into the regulations. This
change does not reflect any new substantive requirements or burdens,
but rather merely reinforces existing requirements from documents that
are already incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.802. In addition,
the final rule requires operators to maintain a description of the
process used to ensure the device is designed to function as required
in paragraph (a) and final paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The
operator must provide this documentation to BSEE upon request. BSEE
also included a provision in final paragraph (c)(1)(iii) that preserves
the requirement for a qualified third party certification of a device,
if that device is removed from service and installed at a different
location. This ensures that the device will function as designed under
the conditions to which it may be exposed in the new location.
Consistent with the proposed revision to Sec. 250.801, BSEE is
revising this section to include GLSDVs in the equipment addressed in
paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section, as well. BSEE also is revising
paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 250.802 to remove the phrase ``on that
well,'' as proposed. BSEE does not need to specify the location of the
SPPE since all of the equipment that is considered SPPE is either
located in a well or a riser.
Third Party Certifications
Comment: BSEE received many comments on the proposed deletion of
the requirements for third party certifications. Industry groups
supported elimination of this requirement and concurred with the
rationale in the proposed rule that suggested that this requirement
duplicated validation and functional tests required in other sections
of the regulations. Other commenters highlighted the importance of this
equipment in preventing major incidents, noted recommendations arising
out of the DWH incident related to the need for the use of third party
certification programs, described the
[[Page 49231]]
value of independent third party verification, and asserted that BSEE
had not provided any evidence to support a revision of the 2016
requirement. Many commenters believe that deletion of this requirement
will increase the risks arising out of offshore oil and gas
development. Commenters asked how BSEE would ensure the operators
followed the standards as required, and met the design requirements for
the SPPE, if the independent third party certification requirement was
removed.
Response: BSEE agrees that the current industry standards and
quality assurance certification programs related to SPPE have played an
important role in improving the reliability of equipment that is
manufactured for use on the OCS. Industry certification practices, such
as the API Monogram Program, provide a level of assurance that these
critical barriers are designed and manufactured according to good
engineering practices. However, there are limits to the scope of these
certification and verification programs. For example, these programs
apply only to new equipment at the time of manufacture and the
certifications are made by the OEMs rather than the operator (see
industry comments: ``it is the manufacturer's responsibility to meet
the design requirements of API standards, not the operator'' and ``it
is the responsibility of the manufacturer to meet certification
requirement of ANSI/API Spec Q1'').
However, the responsibility for verifying that the SPPE is fit-for-
service on a specific facility ultimately rests with the operator and
BSEE, not the OEM. The existing requirement for independent third party
certification helps to supplement BSEE's review process. Based on the
public comments, BSEE reviewed this process and the existing third
party certification programs and is revising the current requirements
regarding the independent third party certifications as previously
described.
BSEE determined that it is appropriate to retain the existing
language requiring the device to be designed to function under the
conditions to which it may be exposed, while deleting the phrase ``most
extreme.'' The recommendations arising from the DHW incident included
the use of the phrase ``most extreme conditions'' in the criteria for
the blowout preventer (BOP), and BSEE then applied it to SPPE. However,
unlike BOPs, operators do not generally move SPPE to other locations
after it is installed. Manufacturers and operators design SPPE to be
used in a specific well/location for the life of the equipment. The
potential for unanticipated extremes during production is less than
during drilling or completion operations. Manufacturers and operators
know the operating environment when they design the SPPE, and the basic
design criteria includes temperature, pressure and flow rate for the
well where the SPPE will be installed. The valves used are normally
commercial, off the shelf products that are designed to function in a
range of operating conditions. The most extreme production conditions
generally occur at the beginning of production operations, since
operating pressures decrease over time as the reservoir is produced. In
addition, BSEE is retaining long standing requirements for design
testing, as provided in the incorporated standards, as well as
associated requirements for documentation of the design process. The
final rule still provides that any SPPE that is removed from service,
then installed in another location, must have independent third party
certification. To the extent the final rule will no longer require
independent third party certification in other contexts, the final rule
will require the operator to maintain documentation of the process used
to ensure the device is designed to function in the conditions to which
it may be exposed and to provide that documentation to BSEE upon
request. These elements of the final rule help address concerns raised
by commenters regarding BSEE's ability to verify compliance with the
standards for design. As a result, we revised the language of the
proposed rule in the final rule to state that the operator must have
the device design tested by an independent test agency and must
maintain documentation of the design process used to ensure that the
device is designed to function under the conditions to which it may be
exposed.
The independent third party certification required by existing
regulations is a one-time certification of each device. A one-time
certification will not guarantee that a device will function as
designed for the life of the device. Accordingly, an independent third
party's certification that the device will function is inherently of
limited value. The existing regulations already include additional
requirements to ensure that SPPE will function when needed. For
example, Sec. 250.880 establishes detailed testing requirements for
SPPE, based on the specific type of device, ensuring that all SPPE are
tested on a regular basis and repaired or replaced, as appropriate.
This regular testing is designed to ensure the SPPE will function when
needed, preventing failures during operations.
Existing BSDV Inventory
BSEE requested comments concerning a method of using BSDVs which
were already in the operator's inventory, but had not been certified
pursuant to the SPPE requirements. BSEE also requested information on
the size of this non-certified BSDV inventory. The comments from
industry associations included a recommendation that would allow the
use of non-certified equipment if a purchase order had been signed by
the effective date of the 2016 rule. BSEE notes that operators were
aware of the likely SPPE requirements long before the effective date of
the 2016 rule. In addition, operators have options under the existing
regulations for obtaining approval to use non-certified SPPE. We
believe that this case-by case approval process is a better approach
than attempting to address the issue through a modification of the SPPE
requirements. Consequently, BSEE made no change to the regulations
regarding existing BSDV inventory.
Requirements for Non-Certified Equipment
Comment: According to the commenter, the proposed regulations
(presumably, the specific proposal to remove the phrase ``on that
well'' from Sec. 250.802(d)(2)) would allow pulling non-certified
safety equipment from one well and moving it to another well. The
commenter noted that current regulations allow non-certified equipment
to remain in service on a specific well, until it is time to replace
that equipment. The commenter went on to assert that the regulations
allow this because there is a cost of pulling and replacing it, and
BSEE provided operators the opportunity to use non-certified equipment
for their useful remaining life in a specific well. The commenter noted
that, therefore, the regulations would ``grandfather'' non-certified
equipment for use in that specific well. The commenter concluded that,
if the industry is allowed to pull non-certified equipment and move it
to another well, new certified equipment will not be purchased and
installed as planned. The commenter stated that continuing to use non-
certified safety equipment is not in the public interest and could
increase the risk of a spill. For those reasons, the commenter opposed
this revision.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Whenever SPPE is installed on a well, it
must be certified according to Sec. Sec. 250.801 and 250.802(d)(1),
neither of which is being modified to allow the behavior the
[[Page 49232]]
commenter describes. The existing provisions that allow operators to
continue to use non-certified SPPE that is currently installed on a
well applies only to equipment that was installed before the
certification requirement was in the regulations. Any new SPPE or SPPE
that requires offsite repair, re-manufacturing, or any hot work, must
be replaced with certified SPPE. Operators are not allowed to remove
non-certified SPPE from one well and install it on another well. The
reason that BSEE is removing the phrase ``on that well'' is not to
allow for the conduct described by the commenter, but to recognize that
SPPE may also be installed on risers or locations in production systems
other than a well itself.
What SPPE failure reporting procedures must I follow? (Section 250.803)
Section summary: Section 250.803(a) of the existing regulations:
Requires operators to follow failure reporting requirements in ANSI/API
Spec. 6A (Nineteenth Edition) for SSVs, BSDVs, and USVs, and to follow
the requirements in ANSI/API Spec. 14A (Eleventh Edition) and Annex F
of ANSI/API RP 14B (Fifth Edition) for SSSVs; defines a failure as
``any condition that prevents the equipment from meeting the functional
specification;'' and requires operators to provide written notice of
equipment failure to BSEE and the equipment manufacturer within 30 days
after the discovery of the failure.
Existing Sec. 250.803(b) requires operators to ensure that an
investigation and a failure analysis to determine the cause of the
failure are performed within 120 days of the failure and that the
conclusions and any corrective action are documented. If an entity
other than the manufacturer performs the investigation and analysis,
the regulation requires operators to ensure that the manufacturer and
BSEE receive copies of the analysis report. Existing Sec. 250.803(c)
specifies that if an equipment manufacturer notifies an operator that
it changed the design of the equipment that failed, or if the operator
changes operating or repair procedures as a result of a failure, then
the operator must, within 30 days of such changes, report the design
change or modified procedures in writing to the Chief of BSEE's Office
of Offshore Regulatory Programs (OORP) (at the address specified in
existing paragraph (d)) or to the Chief's designee.
BSEE proposed to revise Sec. 250.803(a) to expressly include
GLSDVs in the list of equipment that are subject to the failure
reporting requirements and to clarify that operators must submit their
SPPE failure information to BSEE through the Chief, OORP, unless BSEE
has designated a third-party under proposed paragraph (d), to whom
operators would then be required to submit their failure
information.\17\ Similarly, BSEE proposed to revise existing Sec.
250.803(b) of this section to clarify that, when anyone other than the
equipment manufacture performs an investigation and analysis, operators
must submit the investigation and analysis results to the Chief of OORP
in accordance with proposed paragraph (d). BSEE also proposed to revise
existing paragraph (d) to further clarify the requirement to submit
failure information to a BSEE-designated third party. The final rule
implements these revisions as proposed. Finally, although BSEE proposed
no changes to the existing definition of ``failure'' in this section,
the proposed rule invited input on whether or how to revise the
definition to ensure consistency. The final rule makes no change to
that definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Currently, the designee of the Chief of OORP is the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS). Operators submit this information through www.SafeOCS.gov,
where it is received and processed by BTS. BSEE identified BTS as
the designee and recommended that SPPE failure information should be
sent to BTS via www.SafeOCS.gov through a press release issued on
October 26, 2016 (https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latest-news/statements-and-releases/press-releases/bsee-expands-safeocs-program). BSEE and BTS have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
provides for BTS collection of BOP and SPPE failure reports. The MOU
may be viewed on BSEE's website at: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/bsee-bts-mou-08-18-2016_0.pdf. Reporting instructions
are on the SafeOCS website at: https://www.SafeOCS.gov. Reports
submitted through www.SafeOCS.gov are collected and analyzed by BTS
and protected from release under the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA) (44 U.S.C. 101).
CIPSEA requires that BTS treat and store such reports
confidentially, under strict criminal and civil penalties for
noncompliance. Information submitted under CIPSEA also is protected
from release to other government agencies (including BSEE), from
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and subpoena. If the
information were to be submitted to BSEE, BSEE could only protect
its confidentiality to the extent allowed by Federal law other than
CIPSEA. The SafeOCS program was designed to protect the
confidentiality of information submitted and promote failure
reporting without fear of reprisals. The ``Oil and Gas Production
Safety System Events 2017 Annual Report'' is available at https://www.safeocs.gov/sppe_home.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of ``Failure''
Comment: Industry commenters requested that BSEE clarify the
definition of ``failure'' of SPPE, which was added in the 2016 PSSR,
and recommended that BSEE provide a definition to align with industry
standards. Commenters further recommended that, until they and BSEE
could reach a ``mutually agreeable'' resolution, industry should
document and maintain failure reports in accordance with applicable API
standards, and provide failure reports to BSEE upon request. These
commenters recommended that BSEE and industry hold workshops to
determine the best repository or clearinghouse for collecting failure
data.
Commenters asserted that the ``failure'' definition proposed in
Sec. 250.803(a) could be interpreted so broadly as to include
maintenance issues and routine repair items that would create an
administrative burden with no safety or environmental protection
improvement, while noting that some operators disagree with this
position. Those operators recognize that parts wear over time, and due
to the wear, the SPPE device would ``fail to meet the functional
specification.''
Response: BSEE disagrees. Although BSEE sought input in the
proposed rule about how to revise the current language specifying how
``failure'' is defined in this regulation, BSEE did not receive any
specific proposals for modifying the existing definition of
``failure.'' Currently, according to BTS, the designated third party to
receive SPPE failure information, submitters for each of the specific
SPPE types appear to be following the definitions within the applicable
API standard for individual equipment types. BSEE finds this to be a
logical and reasonable approach that is consistent with the regulatory
requirement; thus, no change to the ``failure'' definition has been
made.
With regard to the commenters' suggestion that BSEE hold workshops
with industry to determine the best repository or clearinghouse for
collecting failure data, BSEE does not agree that this approach is
necessary, at this time. BSEE already has identified BTS as an
appropriate clearinghouse for this data. The commenters did not raise
specific objections or concerns related to BSEE's designation of BTS to
collect the failure data. BSEE's collaboration with BTS allows the
collection and analysis of failure data under strict standards of
confidentiality, which supports robust reporting.
With regard to commenters' assertion that the existing definition
could be interpreted so broadly as to include maintenance issues and
routine repair items, BSEE observes that the types of devices included
as SPPE in the final rule represent primary and secondary barriers to
prevent the loss of well control and subsequent potentially
catastrophic events. In a study recently completed for BSEE by
ExproSoft
[[Page 49233]]
(https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/tap-technical-assessment-program/765aa.pdf), approximately 30 percent of well control events
worldwide were found to be related to such barriers for production
platforms, especially after large storms such as hurricanes. Thus,
commenters and others should not view failure reporting as
inconsequential or unimportant to concerns such as safety and
environmental protection.
Reporting Requirements
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE consider using the API
Standard 689/ISO 14224 Collection and Exchange of Reliability and
Maintenance Data for Equipment to clarify reporting requirements and
standardize data collection processes.
Response: As the SPPE failure reporting program is relatively new,
it is premature to require adherence to the referenced standard. BTS
has prepared the first public report of aggregated statistics covering
SPPE reports submitted by industry from the effective date of the
requirement, November 7, 2016 through December 2017. BSEE still needs
to assess results from the first year and identify any issues with
regard to reporting or collection processes. In conducting this
evaluation, BSEE plans to consider the potential usefulness of industry
standards such as API Standard 689/ISO 14224 to improve the failure
reporting program. At this time, however, the focus for the requested
data is described within each of the cited standards and is intended to
increase both the volume and quality of the aggregated equipment
component failure data for SPPE shared among the regulated community
and the OEMs that serve that community. BSEE is not adopting a change
at this time.
Root Cause Analysis
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE incorporate
internationally recognized good practice standards, coupled with
verification; employ incident reporting with root cause analysis (RCA);
and seek prevention of major incidents through research and development
on emerging threats and use of various risk tools. Regarding failure
reporting, the commenter asserted that the issue of what is considered
a failure is tied to its root cause, and that operators should use RCA
to analyze what systemic causes allowed the failure to occur, in
addition to the immediate cause.
Response: BSEE agrees in general with the comment. In Sec.
250.803, as revised by this final rule, BSEE establishes a system that
is consistent with globally recognized good-practice standards,
complemented by verification. The equipment component failure
notification, analysis, and reporting process implemented through this
final rule applies the identified good practices to equipment component
failures, use of RCA to aid in the prevention of catastrophic events,
and proper consideration of emerging threats. The final rule also
applies the concept of barrier management by requiring reporting on all
failures of SPPE that represent sequential barriers to catastrophic
events.
BSEE agrees that a failure is ultimately a result of its root
cause, and BSEE is implementing the failure reporting requirements to
promote confidence that there will be no adverse impact on entities
that report failures by designating BTS as the third party to receive
and analyze information submitted under this section (see n.17). As
discussed above, BTS is able to analyze and store reports
confidentially. BSEE also has included consideration of root cause at
two levels within the current collection methods. The fields within the
form include initial root cause information. For failures that require
equipment to be returned to a shore facility for repair, BSEE requires
a formal RCA report. Such an analysis looks beyond the immediate cause
and investigates systemic factors. The use of probabilistic risk
methods for catastrophic risk assessment is outside the scope of this
rule, but BSEE might consider them in the future.
Strengthen Requirements
Comment: One commenter recommended that any revisions to Sec.
250.803 failure reporting requirements should only strengthen them and
not weaken them in any way. The commenter asserted that the current
regulation does not require the processes or equipment that rely on the
failed SPPE to be immediately shut-in until the equipment can be
replaced with a certified, functioning SPPE and the commenter
recommended that Sec. 250.803 be revised to require immediate
reporting of failed SPPE to BSEE and immediate shut-down of all
processes or equipment that rely on the failed SPPE until replaced with
a certified functioning SPPE. The commenter also recommended that,
after investigation and collaboration with the equipment manufacturer
is complete, the regulations should require the operator to notify BSEE
of the long-term, permanent solution developed to either change the
equipment design or modify operating, testing, maintenance, or repair
procedures.
Response: BSEE did not propose to, and does not here, relax the
standards of safety in relation to equipment component safety
reporting. To the contrary, the final rule continues to recognize the
importance of improving safety and reducing burdens on operators while
continuing to ensure safety and environmental protection. The
collection of equipment component failure information promotes
continuous safety improvement by enabling examination of this
information in the aggregate, and by requiring submissions of reports
to the OEMs where the opportunity to address design issues is greatest.
Accordingly, BSEE disagrees that the additional measures suggested by
the commenter are needed at this time. BSEE regulations already require
multiple barriers within each well under Sec. 250.801. Those
requirements minimize the possibility that a single SPPE failure would
result in the release of hydrocarbons to the environment.
Communication on Failure Reporting
Comment: A commenter stated that since SPPE components are required
to be certified in compliance with incorporated standards, all parties
involved should play a significant role in failure reporting and
recommended that BSEE develop a process to increase communication and
information exchange among end users, manufacturers, certifying bodies,
and agencies.
Response: BSEE agrees that all parties involved in SPPE design,
maintenance, and repair should be involved in collection and assessment
of the data. BSEE's system for implementing the current requirement
accomplishes that objective. This communication is expected to increase
as the program matures.
Design, Installation, and Operation of SSSVs--Dry Trees (Section
250.814)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations
establishes requirements for the design, installation, and operation of
an SSSV in order to ensure its reliable operation. Among other things,
existing Sec. 250.814(d) requires operators to design, install,
maintain, inspect, repair, and test all SSSVs in accordance with ANSI/
API RP 14B (Fifth Edition 2005). BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (d)
to replace the reference to ANSI/API RP 14B (Fifth Edition) with ANSI/
API RP 14B (Sixth Edition 2015), which BSEE also proposed to
incorporate by reference in Sec. 250.198 in place of ANSI/API RP 14B
(Fifth Edition). BSEE received no comments opposing this
[[Page 49234]]
specific revision and the final rule changes the reference to this
standard as proposed.
Duplicative Requirements
Comment: A group of commenters recommended deleting paragraph (b)
of existing Sec. 250.814 because it is duplicative of Sec.
250.802(b).
Response: BSEE disagrees. Section 250.814 is similar to, but not
duplicative of, paragraph (b) of Sec. 250.802. Section 250.802(b)
requires that all SSSVs and actuators on dry and subsea trees comply
with ANSI/API Spec. 14A, Subsurface Safety Valve Equipment (Eleventh
Edition, 2005, reaffirmed 2012), as incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198(h)(73). Section 250.814, however, applies only to dry trees and
specifies that operators must comply with ANSI/API RP 14B (now
incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198(h)(55) of this final rule as
the Sixth Edition, 2015) for designing, installing, maintaining,
inspecting, repairing, and testing.
Third Party Testing
Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed modification to the
SSSV system equipment requirements that discontinues third party
testing is without merit, as the third party testing is essential to
the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. The commenter stated that the
SSSV system equipment malfunctioned during the DWH incident.
Response: This comment apparently concerns BOPs, since SSSVs were
not involved in the DWH incident, but the BOP system was. BOPs are not
addressed in this rulemaking, but were addressed in the 2016 WCR. In
these final regulations, BSEE does not discontinue third party design
testing of SSSVs. SSSVs, which are addressed in this final rule, have
proven to be extremely reliable over the course of many decades.
Manufacturers design SSSVs to fail in a safe mode: for example, most
valves are designed so that if they fail (i.e., lose pressure) they
automatically close, thus preventing a release of hydrocarbons. In any
event, if any leakage occurs, it does so within a closed, multiple
barrier system.
Use of SSVs (Section 250.820)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations requires
operators to comply with API RP 14H (Fifth Edition 2007) for the
installation, maintenance, inspection, repair, and testing of all SSVs,
including requirements applicable if the SSV does not operate properly
or if any gas and/or liquid fluid flow occurs during the leakage test.
BSEE proposed to revise this section to incorporate by reference API
STD 6AV2 in place of API RP 14H (which was withdrawn by API). BSEE did
not receive any comments on this section of the proposed rule and the
final rule revises Sec. 250.820 as proposed.
Emergency Action and Safety System Shutdown--Dry Trees (Section
250.821)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations specifies
actions that operators must take with respect to wells in the event of
an emergency (e.g., an impending hurricane), including installation as
soon as possible of a subsurface safety device on any well capable of
natural flow that does not already have such a device. The existing
regulation also requires shut-in of all oil wells and all gas wells
that require compression.
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a) of this section to clarify
that operators must shut in the production on any facility that ``is
impacted or that will potentially be impacted by an emergency
situation.'' This proposed clarification was intended to ensure that
operators understand their obligation to properly secure wells before
the platform is evacuated in the event of an emergency. The proposed
rule also included some examples of emergencies (such as named storms,
ice events, or earthquakes), but did not specify all emergency events
that could trigger this provision; rather, the operator must determine
when its facility is impacted or will potentially be impacted due to an
emergency situation. (See 82 FR 61710.) The final rule revises this
section as proposed, except that, in response to one comment (discussed
below), BSEE removed the reference to ``in the Arctic'' from the
example of ice events as a possible emergency.
Installation of Subsurface Safety Devices
Comment: A commenter expressed concern about installation of a
subsurface safety device post-earthquake in a Planning Boundary Area
that has a high potential for significant seismic activity. The
commenter asked BSEE to clarify the times when installation of such a
device would not be appropriate in a production well in such an area.
Response: Subpart H establishes that production wells must have an
SSSV installed. Sections 250.810 through 250.817 address circumstances
when an SSSV could potentially be removed from a production well with
tubing installations open to hydrocarbon-bearing zones. These
circumstances generally include:
1. When approved by the BSEE District Manager (or, in Alaska, the
OCS Regional Supervisor of Field Operations) for a well incapable of
natural flow (Sec. 250.810);
2. When in the process of changing-out an SSSV or the production
tubing housing an SSSV (Sec. 250.812);
3. When an SSSV becomes inoperable and measures are taken to
address the issue (Sec. 250.813);
4. When an SSSV is in the process of being repaired, replaced, or
installed (Sec. 250.814); or
5. When a wireline or pumpdown-retrievable SSSV is removed for
routine operations (not exceeding 15 days and with prescribed safety
mitigations in-place) (Sec. 250.817).
By including ``post-earthquake'' in this section, BSEE intends to
clarify that earthquakes are among the kind of emergency situations in
which an operator must follow the requirements of this section,
including the requirement to install an SSSV as soon as possible, if
for some reason the operator had not already installed it.
Consistency With Sec. 250.837(a)
Comment: One commenter proposed that BSEE adopt only the proposed
language changes in Sec. 250.837(a) and replace Sec. 250.821(a) with
Sec. 250.837(a) language or expressly cross-reference that section.
Response: BSEE disagrees. The language in final paragraph (a) of
Sec. 250.821 and paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.837 is consistent and
establishes the safest approach for the types of ``dry'' and ``subsea''
systems potentially impacted by those paragraphs, respectively. Section
250.821 specifically addresses Emergency Action and Safety System
Shutdowns related to dry trees that do not have BSDVs, USVs, or GLSDVs
and related systems found in subsea wells, whereas Sec. 250.837
pertains to subsea trees and their associated systems.
Definition of Arctic OCS
Comment: A commenter suggested clarification of the additions in
Sec. Sec. 250.821 and 250.837 relating to earthquakes and ice events.
Specifically, the commenter suggested that BSEE remove the definition
of Arctic OCS in Sec. 250.105 and instead use the definition of Arctic
OCS Conditions for defining the Arctic OCS without regard to Planning
Boundary Area location.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the suggested revisions to the
definitions for Arctic OCS and Arctic OCS Conditions in Sec. 250.105,
which BSEE did not propose to revise and are not within the scope of
this rulemaking. Those definitions were adopted as part of the Arctic
Exploratory Drilling Rulemaking, 81 FR 46478 (2016) (the Arctic Rule)
to
[[Page 49235]]
align the scope of that rule with the areas of the Arctic OCS utilized
in the DOI OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2012-2017 (June 2012,
available at http://www.boem.gov/Five-Year-Program-2012-2017). Those
definitions reflect the conditions and challenges the Arctic Rule was
designed to address. Altering these definitions in this rulemaking
would increase confusion over the scope and applicability of the
regulations specifically associated with the Arctic OCS. To address the
commenter's concern, however, BSEE removed the phrase ``in the Arctic''
from Sec. Sec. 250.821 and 250.837 in the final rule. It is not
necessary to specify ``ice events in the Arctic,'' as ``ice events''
anywhere on the OCS have the potential to impact operations. Further,
these provisions do not include a similar geographic specification for
the other events--earthquakes or hurricanes--that it uses as examples.
Timing of Activities Associated With Emergency Events
Comment: A commenter suggested that, if it is BSEE's intent to
require operators to complete the outlined activities prior to the
evacuation of the facility, then the regulation should state that
specific purpose. The commenter suggested revising Sec. 250.821 to
read: ``If your facility is impacted or will potentially be impacted by
an emergency situation (e.g., an impending National Weather Service-
named tropical storm or hurricane, ice events in the Arctic, or post-
earthquake), you must complete the following activities prior to
evacuation of the facility:''
Response: BSEE disagrees with the suggested change. BSEE expects
that operators will complete these activities before evacuation.
However, as the current regulations acknowledge, that may not always be
possible due to concerns for worker safety. Accordingly, operators must
complete the installation of the subsurface safety device in event of
an emergency ``as soon as possible, with due consideration being given
to personnel safety.'' BSEE does not believe that it would be prudent
to replace this with an absolute requirement that does not take such
considerations into account.
Design, Installation, and Operation of SSSVs--Subsea Trees (Section
250.828)
Section summary: This section addresses requirements for the
design, installation, and operations of SSSVs installed on subsea
trees. These provisions ensure reliable operation and establish that a
well with a subsea tree must not be open to flow while an SSSV is
inoperable. BSEE proposed to revise Sec. 250.828(c) to update the
title of API RP 14B with ANSI/API RP 14B. That proposal is adopted in
this final rule.
Duplicative Requirements
Comment: Although BSEE did not propose any changes to Sec.
250.828(c), one commenter recommended deleting that provision,
asserting that it duplicates the requirements of Sec. 250.802(b).
Response: BSEE disagrees that Sec. 250.828(c) duplicates the
requirements in Sec. 250.802(b). This section applies only to SSSVs
installed on subsea trees, while Sec. 250.802(b) addresses general
requirements for all SSSVs. Section 250.828(c) specifically addresses
provisions related to SSSVs in the regulations, incorporated standards,
and the approved deepwater operators plan (DWOP).
Specification for Underwater Safety Valves (USVs) (Section 250.833)
BSEE proposed revising the introductory paragraph in this section
to replace API Spec. 6A with ANSI/API Spec. 6A. BSEE did not receive
any comments on this section of the proposed rule. BSEE is finalizing
this provision as proposed.
Use of USVs (Section 250.834)
The final rule revises this section by incorporating API STD 6AV2
in place of API RP 14H, which was withdrawn by API. BSEE did not
receive any comments on this section of the proposed rule. BSEE is
finalizing this provision as proposed.
Specification for All Boarding Shutdown Valves (BSDVs) Associated With
Subsea Systems (Section 250.835)
Section summary: This section's requirements in the existing
regulations for use of a BSDV are intended to provide the maximum level
of safety for the production facility and the people aboard the
facility. The BSDV is the most critical component of the subsea system.
BSEE did not propose any changes to this section and is not making any
changes to the regulatory text of this section in the final rule,
however there was a comment submitted on this section. We include it in
the preamble only to address the comments received.
Location of BSDV
Comment: Although BSEE did not propose any changes to this section,
one commenter recommended revision of the existing requirement in
paragraph (c) that the BSDV be located within 10 feet from the edge of
the platform. The commenter stated that this requirement is not
feasible for large diameter lines on deepwater facilities and proposed
a distance greater than 10 feet or according to the distance specified
in the approved DWOP.
Response: BSEE does not agree that a change in paragraph (c) is
justified. Operators may obtain approval for alternative designs under
Sec. 250.141 by demonstrating an equivalent or greater level of safety
and environmental protection. This provides the operator with the
flexibility to address unique situations involving deepwater
facilities.
Use of BSDVs (Section 250.836)
BSEE proposed revising this section by incorporating API STD 6AV2
in place of API RP 14H, which was withdrawn by API. BSEE did not
receive any comments on this section of the proposed rule. The final
rule revises this section to update the new incorporation by reference,
as proposed. In the final rule, BSEE is also making minor changes in
the wording to emphasize that all BSDVs that are removed from service
and reinstalled must meet the requirement of this section. This was the
case under the existing regulation, but the revision will make the
requirement more explicit.
Emergency Action and Safety System Shutdown--Subsea Trees (Section
250.837)
This section addresses actions operators must take in the event of
an emergency situation. These situations include weather events, such
as storms. This section includes details on valve closures related to
specific conditions on the facility, such as process upsets and
emergency shutdown (ESD) events, and it includes requirements
pertaining to dropped objects in the vicinity of producing subsea
wells.
BSEE is revising paragraph (a) of this section to clarify that
operators must shut in the production on any facility that ``is
impacted or will potentially be impacted by an emergency situation.''
This revision is consistent with the revision to Sec. 250.821(a) for
facilities with dry trees. Paragraph (a) of the final rule includes
examples of emergencies, such as named storms, ice events, or
earthquakes. It is not BSEE's intent to specify all emergency events
that could trigger actions required by this regulation. The operator
must determine when there may be impacts due to an emergency or if an
emergency event impacted their facility.
BSEE also adds GLSDVs to the list of equipment that must be closed
during a shut-in. This is consistent with
[[Page 49236]]
identifying GLSDVs as SPPE in Sec. 250.801 and elsewhere in this
subpart.
In addition, BSEE is revising paragraph (b) of this section to
clarify the requirements for dropped objects in an area with subsea
operations and for consistency with the provisions of the dropped
objects plan required by Sec. 250.714. Section 250.714 does not
require operators to submit this plan as part of the application for
permit to drill (APD) or application for permit to modify (APM);
rather, the operator must make their dropped object plans available to
BSEE upon request. A dropped object plan is not a static plan and Sec.
250.714 requires operators to update their dropped objects plans as the
subsea infrastructure changes.
BSEE proposed revising several paragraphs in this section that
address dropped objects to use the phrase ``vessel (e.g., mobile
offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other type of workover or intervention
vessel)'' in place of the current regulatory text, which uses ``mobile
offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other type of workover vessel.'' Based
on comments, BSEE revised this in the final rule to use ``a mobile
offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other type of workover or intervention
vessel.'' As proposed, BSEE is also replacing ``producing subsea
wells'' with ``subsea infrastructure'' in the final paragraph (b). The
current regulatory text limits these requirements to only those areas
that have producing subsea wells. This change is more inclusive,
requiring operators to address dropped objects in any area with
infrastructure on the seafloor. Finally, as proposed, the final rule
clarifies and updates the terminology in the second sentence of the
existing paragraph (b)(2), while essentially preserving the requirement
of the existing sentence.
Timing of Shut-Ins
Comment: Industry commenters recommended adding a ``boundary
condition'' in Sec. 250.837 as found in Sec. 250.821. A commenter
suggested the following examples of ``modified conditions,'' such as
shut-in just prior to evacuation, or if full remote real-time
monitoring and control capabilities exist, shut-in prior to exceeding
safe environmental operating conditions as stipulated by regulatory
approvals.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the suggested changes. Section
250.837(a) requires the operator to shut-in the facility in the event
of an emergency and already provides an option for the operator to
receive approval from the District Manager to address, on a case-by-
case basis, situations such as the commenter described.
Use of the Word ``Vessel''
Comment: Industry commenters opposed adoption of the proposed rule
language in Sec. 250.837(b) and (c)(5), stating that adding the
generic term ``vessel'' followed by ``mobile offshore drilling unit
(MODU) or other type of workover or intervention vessel'' as examples
would make the requirement more ambiguous. Specifically, the proposed
language could be interpreted to mean that the presence of any
``vessel''--such as an offshore support vessel or standby vessel--would
trigger this requirement, even if the vessel is not engaged in well
operations. The comments stated that it would be overly burdensome to
apply these requirements to vessels that do not latch onto the well for
wellbore intervention activities (e.g., remotely operated vehicles
(ROVs)) because intervention vessels that do not latch onto the well
mitigate dropped object concerns through use of safe overboarding
zones. Commenters suggested changing the wording in paragraph (b) to
refer to ``a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other type of
workover or intervention vessel.''
Response: BSEE agrees that using ``vessel'' with parenthetical
examples of MODU or other type of workover vessel, in this context, is
too broad. As previously discussed, BSEE revised the final rule text to
use ``a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other type of workover
or intervention vessel'' instead. This captures appropriate types of
vessels that would be involved in drilling or workover operations.
Period of Lost Communications
Comment: Industry commenters suggested revising Sec. 250.837(b)(2)
to replace ``minutes or more'' with ``or more continuous minutes.''
Response: BSEE disagrees with this suggested change. The suggested
changes reduce clarity and do not adequately address the interpretation
of ``intermittent communications'' and ``brief losses of
communication.'' They would, therefore, add to the confusion regarding
when the requirement to shut-in wells under this provision applies.
Pressure Safety High Low (PSHL) Sensor Activation
Comment: Industry commenters suggest replacing the final sentence
of paragraph (c)(2) with ``If the PSHL sensor activation was not
accompanied by an increase in pressure above the [maximum anticipated
operating pressure], or the loss of integrity of the pipeline, you may
return the wells to production without contacting the appropriate
District Manager.''
Response: BSEE disagrees. The language the commenter recommends is
an overly prescriptive description of a false alarm, which limits the
situations that could be considered false alarms. It is the operator's
responsibility to identify a false alarm. If the sensor activation is
identified as a false alarm, the operator may return the wells to
production without notifying the District Manager. Further, the
suggested text would represent a substantive change that would require
a separate notice and opportunity for comment.
Platforms (Section 250.841)
Section summary: This section addresses protecting platform
production facilities by requiring basic and ancillary surface safety
systems to be designed, analyzed, installed, tested, and maintained in
operating condition according to the provisions of API RP 14C. In
addition, this section has basic requirements for platform production
process piping.
BSEE adds a new paragraph (c) to this section to address major
modifications to a facility, by directing operators to follow the
requirements in Sec. 250.900(b)(2). This is not a new requirement, as
operators are already required to follow the provisions of Sec.
250.900(b)(2) for major modifications. This simply provides direction
to the operator and emphasizes the need to follow Sec. 250.900(b)(2).
The final paragraph (c) is substantively the same as the proposed, but
with minor clarifying changes in response to comments.
In the proposed rule, BSEE also requested comments on paragraph (b)
of this section, and whether BSEE needed to make other changes to
address corrosion prevented. Existing paragraph (b) of this section
requires operators to maintain all piping for platform production
processes as specified in API RP 14E, Recommended Practice for Design
and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems (API RP
14E). Section 6.5(a)(1) of API RP 14E addresses painting of steel
piping to prevent corrosion. BSEE solicited comments on this
requirement in the proposed rule's preamble. Corrosion prevention is
important for safety and pollution prevention and BSEE is not removing
the reference to API RP 14E from this section.
Major Modification
Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed language in Sec.
250.841(c) could lead an operator to think ``major facility
modification'' is a defined term in the regulation. The term ``major
modification'' in current BSEE
[[Page 49237]]
regulations only applies to a platform structure. The commenter
suggested specific revisions to the regulatory text to clarify this
concern.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and revises the final
regulation to state that, if the operator plans to modify the
production safety system in a manner that includes a major modification
to the platform structure, then the operator must follow the
requirements in Sec. 250.900(b)(2). This adds clarity to the proposed
text and merely cross-references existing requirements, rather than
creating new ones.
Removal of Sec. 250.841(c)
Comment: BSEE received multiple comments urging BSEE not to remove
Sec. 250.841(c).
Response: BSEE is not certain what provision the commenters were
referring to, as there is no Sec. 250.841(c) in the current
regulations. BSEE proposed adding a new Sec. 250.841(c) to address
production safety system modifications. This provision is being
retained in the final rule, with modifications to clarify intent with
respect to major modifications to platform structures.
Approval of Safety Systems Design and Installation Features (Section
250.842)
Section summary: This section establishes requirements for safety
system design and installation. It describes the information that the
operators must include in their production safety system application
for new and modified systems. This information is needed to verify that
the operator followed the prescribed standards and addressed the
critical aspects of the system design. In addition, this section
requires the operator to submit as-built diagrams to BSEE, so BSEE has
accurate information on file for inspections. Under this section,
operators must maintain these and other supporting documents and
provide them to BSEE upon request.
Existing Regulations and Proposed Changes
Paragraph (a)
The existing Sec. 250.842(a) regulations require the operator to
submit a production safety system application to the District Manager
before installing or modifying a production safety system. While this
section requires the application to be approved, it does not specify
the timing of that approval. To address this, BSEE proposed to revise
the introductory provisions in paragraph (a) to state that the District
Manager must approve the production safety system application before
the operator may commence production through or utilize the new or
modified system. BSEE is revising this provision in the final rule for
clarity, to state that the District Manager must approve the production
safety system application before the operator may commence production
``through or otherwise use the new or modified system.''
Paragraph (a) of existing Sec. 250.842 also includes a table that
details the information that the operator needs to include in the
production safety system application. Paragraph (b)(2) of the existing
regulations requires the operator to certify that the ``designs for the
mechanical and electrical systems under paragraph (a) of this section
were reviewed, approved, and stamped by an appropriate registered
professional engineer(s).'' This includes all of the information,
diagrams, drawings, and designs that are submitted pursuant to existing
paragraph (a). BSEE proposed to revise some requirements in the table
in paragraph (a) related to the information, diagrams, drawings, and
designs (design documents) operators must submit to BSEE for approval.
BSEE proposed to revise this provision to require operators to submit
the most critical documents to BSEE, and to have only those documents
stamped by a PE.
In addition to requiring the operators to submit the most critical
designs documents to BSEE and to have only those items sealed by a PE,
BSEE proposed in a new paragraph (b) to require operators to develop
and maintain other supporting documents. The supporting documents
identified in proposed paragraph (b) provide additional details and
information related to the design documents required in proposed
paragraph (a). While these paragraph (b) documents provide supporting
information, they are not critical for BSEE to review during the
approval process. However, the operator still must develop these
documents and make them available for review and inspection by BSEE
upon request. The final rule generally reflects those changes as
proposed, with some clarifications based on public comments.
BSEE proposed revising the table in paragraph (a) to require
operators to submit the safety analysis flow diagram, safety analysis
function evaluation (SAFE) chart, electrical one line diagram, and area
classification diagram for new facilities and for modifications to
existing facilities. BSEE proposed additional revisions and
reorganization of the existing table in paragraph (a).
Existing provisions in paragraph (a)(1) require the operator to
submit a piping and instrumentation diagram; existing paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (vii) identify the specific information that the
piping and instrumentation diagram must include. BSEE proposed changing
the requirement in existing paragraph (a)(1) for the piping and
instrumentation diagram to instead require a safety analysis flow
diagram and a SAFE chart, and also proposed to incorporate references
to the relevant sections of API RP 14C that describe the contents of
these two items. In addition, BSEE proposed to retain the information
requirements for piping and instrumentation diagrams that were already
in existing paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii). However, under the
proposed rule, the information required by the existing paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (vii) would be submitted with the safety analysis
flow diagram and SAFE chart, instead of the piping and instrumentation
diagram. These proposed changes would better align the requirements
with the information identified in industry standards, including API RP
14C. In the proposed rule, this information would be required for new
facilities and modifications of existing facilities.
BSEE proposed additional reorganization of the table in paragraph
(a) in conjunction with the proposed changes to paragraph (a)(1). Since
the safety analysis flow diagram and SAFE chart are required under
paragraph (a)(2) in the existing regulations, BSEE proposed to remove
that paragraph in the table. BSEE also proposed to move the requirement
for electrical system information from under existing paragraph (a)(3)
to new paragraph (a)(2) and proposed to call that information the
``electrical one-line diagram.'' BSEE proposed revising the
requirements for the electrical one-line diagram, to include
``generators, circuit breakers, transformers, bus bars, conductors,
battery banks, automatic transfer switches, uninterruptable power
supply (UPS), dynamic (motor) loads, and static (e.g., electrostatic
treater grid, lighting panels, etc.) loads.'' This would also include a
functional legend.
BSEE proposed to move the additional detailed electrical
information that is required in existing paragraph (a)(3) to new
paragraph (b)(1), as this is supporting information for the electrical
systems. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require additional supporting
electrical system information including: (i) Cable tray/conduit routing
plan which identifies the primary wiring method (e.g., type cable,
conduit, wire) and (ii) Cable schedule; and (iii) Panel board/junction
box location plan.
[[Page 49238]]
BSEE proposed to remove from the table the information required in
existing paragraph (a)(4) for schematics of the fire and gas-detection
systems. Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would instead require a schematic
piping and instrumentation diagram and apply to new facilities only.
Existing paragraph (a)(5) addresses the service fee for the
production safety system application. BSEE did not propose any
revisions to that paragraph.
Paragraph (b)
To accommodate the new paragraph (b), BSEE proposed removing
existing paragraph (c) and redesignating existing paragraph (b) as new
paragraph (c). New paragraph (b) would require the operator to develop
and maintain documents that provide supporting documents to the design
documents required in the table in proposed paragraph (a). These
documents would contain information that is related to the design
documents that would be required in proposed paragraph (a), but this
information is not critical for BSEE to review during the approval
process. However, the operator would still be required to develop these
documents and make them available for review and inspection by BSEE
upon request. The final rule generally reflects those changes as
proposed, with some clarifications based on public comments.
Paragraph (c)
Under the proposed rule, new paragraph (c) (which is existing
paragraph (b)) would continue to require operators to certify: (1) That
all electrical installations were designed according to API RP 14F or
API RP 14FZ, as applicable; (2) that an appropriate registered
professional engineer(s) reviewed, approved, and stamped the designs
for the mechanical and electrical systems that operators are required
to submit under paragraph (a) of this section. For modified systems,
only appropriate registered professional engineer(s) are required to
approve and stamp the modifications. The registered professional
engineer must be registered in a State or Territory of the United
States and have sufficient expertise and experience to perform the
duties; and (3) that a hazards analysis was performed in accordance
with Sec. 250.1911 and API RP 14J (incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 250.198), and that operators have a hazards analysis
program in place to assess potential hazards during the operation of
the facility. As proposed, BSEE is revising redesignated paragraph
(c)(2) of Sec. 250.842 (existing (b)(2)) to require the designs for
the mechanical and electrical systems that the operator is required to
submit under paragraph (a) of this section be reviewed, approved, and
stamped by an appropriate registered professional engineer(s).
Existing paragraph (c) requires operators to certify, in a letter
to the District Manager, that the mechanical and electrical systems
were installed in accordance with the approved designs, before
beginning production. The intent of this step was to ensure the
operator properly documented the installation of the mechanical and
electrical systems. However, this submittal was a burdensome step to
assure document management and confirm that operator performed the
modification as proposed and approved. Because the operators must
submit the as-built drawings, which BSEE uses for field verification,
the required certification letter is redundant and not needed. So BSEE
proposed to remove this requirement entirely.
Paragraph (d)
BSEE proposed to revise existing paragraph (d) to clarify
requirements regarding PE stamping of required drawings. The rule
proposed to require the diagrams that operators submit to BSEE under
Sec. 250.842(a)(1), (2), and (3) be reviewed, approved, and stamped by
an appropriate registered PE(s). In addition, BSEE proposed moving the
requirement from existing paragraph (e)--that the operators submit the
as-built diagrams within 60 days of commencing production--to new
paragraph (d).
Paragraphs (e) and (f)
Since under the proposed rule, the regulations no longer need
existing paragraph (e) and BSEE proposed to delete it, BSEE proposed to
redesignate existing paragraph (f) as new paragraph (e). Proposed,
redesignated paragraph (e) would continue to address the requirements
for maintaining the requisite documents. BSEE did not propose any
revisions to the requirements in redesignated paragraph (e).
Final Rule
Paragraph (a)
In the final regulatory text, BSEE changed the language in
introductory paragraph (a) to generally refer to the information
submitted under Sec. 250.842 as ``design documentation.'' BSEE made
this change throughout Sec. 250.842. This is a clarification and
provides consistency in the way the regulations refer to the various
diagrams required in this section.
BSEE is maintaining the requirements in the existing table in Sec.
250.842(a)(1) through (5), mostly as proposed. However, BSEE made some
revisions to these sections in response to comments. In the final rule,
BSEE combined the requirement in proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii),
``piping and specification breaks'' with proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vii)
and revised that requirement to specify ``piping sizes'' and to include
``the location of piping and specification breaks'' with the
information required in paragraph (a)(1). Since paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
was removed, the rest of the provisions in that paragraph were
renumbered.
BSEE also revised paragraph (a)(2) in the final rule. BSEE removed
``battery banks'' as a specific item to be included on the required
electrical one-line diagram, and added ``associated battery banks'' as
part of what must be included with the uninterruptable power supply. In
addition, paragraph (a)(3)(ii) in the final rule removed the location
of ``control rooms, motor control center (MCC) buildings, and any other
buildings'' as specific items included as part of the plan for the area
classification diagram. The final regulatory text requires ``any
buildings'' to be identified, with control rooms and MCC buildings
provided as examples of types of buildings.
As was proposed, paragraph (a)(3) will no longer require operators
to identify all areas where potential ignition sources are located in
the design documents submitted to BSEE. This requirement is addressed
under final paragraph (c)(3), which requires operators to perform a
hazards analysis in accordance with Sec. 250.1911 and API RP 14J. API
RP 14J specifically addresses ignition sources and minimizing the
chances of ignition. API RP 14J directs the operator to consider all
ignition sources when designing their facility and provides detailed
guidance on designing the facility and equipment to prevent the
ignition of hydrocarbons. It is not necessary to specify that operators
must develop and maintain a separate document identifying ignition
sources because this is part of compliance with API RP 14J. In
addition, existing paragraph (b)(3) (proposed paragraph (c)(3))
requires operators to have a hazards analysis program in place to
assess potential hazards during the operation of the facility. The
final rule, as proposed, still requires the operator's classification
diagram to show safety-critical information, such as the locations of
significant hydrocarbons and Class I flammable sources, but, in light
of the requirement in Sec. 250.842(c) and API RP
[[Page 49239]]
14J, it is not necessary for the operator's classification diagram to
show this level of detail.
The final rule revises the regulatory text for paragraph (a)(4) to
state that the production safety system application must include a
``piping and instrumentation diagram, for new facilities,'' removing
the word ``schematic.'' Also, BSEE added the word ``flow'' to the
description of the detailed information the piping and instrumentation
diagram must include; to read, ``a detailed flow diagram.'' These
changes are described in more detail in the comment and response
discussion that follows this Section Summary.
Paragraph (b)
BSEE finalized new proposed paragraph (b), with some revisions. The
drawings required under final paragraph (b) include additional
electrical system information, schematics of the fire and gas-detection
systems, and revised piping and instrumentation diagrams for existing
facilities. BSEE revised final paragraph (b) to make clarifications,
based on comments; these changes are similar to the changes made to the
table in final paragraph (a). As previously discussed, BSEE revised
introductory paragraph (b) to refer to ``design documents'' instead of
``diagrams.'' BSEE is revising some of the details in the table in
final paragraph (b) from the proposed paragraph (b). BSEE is combining
the cable schedule that was referenced in proposed paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
into final paragraph (b)(1)(i); as an example of the information that
needs to be provided with the cable tray/conduit routing plan. Proposed
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) will become paragraph (b)(1)(ii) in the final
rule and has been revised to state that the panel board/junction box
location plan needs to be included with the additional electrical
system information only if it ``is not shown on the area classification
diagram required in Sec. 250.842(a)(3).'' BSEE is also removing the
requirement in paragraph (b)(2) for the diagram to include ``the method
and frequency of calibration'' for the fire and gas detection systems.
As previously discussed, the operator will still be required to develop
and maintain all of the supporting diagrams in final paragraph (b) and
provide them to BSEE upon request. BSEE is revising final paragraph
(b)(3) was revised to be consistent with the final language in
paragraph (a)(4), addressing ``revised piping and instrumentation
diagrams,'' including ``a detailed flow diagram.'' However, as was
proposed, these diagrams will no longer require review, approval, and
stamping by an appropriate registered PE. This change will reduce the
burden on operators by no longer requiring a PE to certify as many
diagrams and drawings. Operators are still required to develop these
diagrams and drawings and provide them to BSEE upon request. The
operators are also still required to maintain them and to ensure they
accurately reflect the current production system.
Paragraph (c)
BSEE is revising final paragraph (c) from proposed paragraph (c).
In final paragraph (c)(1), BSEE changed ``electrical installations'' to
``electrical systems.'' Final paragraph (c)(2) includes a number of
revisions pertaining to the requirements regarding the involvement of
the professional engineer. BSEE changed ``reviewed, approved, and
stamped by an appropriate registered professional engineer'' to
``sealed by a licensed professional engineer.'' Paragraph (c)(2) of the
final rule clarifies that only the modifications are required to be
sealed by a licensed professional engineer. BSEE made this change in
response to comments and recognizes that PEs can only stamp or seal
those documents that were developed under their direct supervision;
therefore, a PE would not be able to stamp or seal diagrams that were
previously developed by someone else. Paragraph (c)(3) is finalized as
proposed.
Final paragraph (c) continues to require operators to certify that:
(1) All electrical systems were designed according to API RP 14F or API
RP 14FZ, as applicable; (2) that a licensed professional engineer seal
the design documents for the mechanical and electrical systems that
operators are required to submit under paragraph (a) of this section.
For modified systems, a licensed professional engineer(s) is required
to seal only the modifications. The professional engineer must be
licensed in a State or Territory of the United States and have
sufficient expertise and experience to perform the duties; and (3) a
hazards analysis was performed in accordance with Sec. 250.1911 and
API RP 14J (incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198); and that the
operator has a hazards analysis program in place to assess potential
hazards during the operation of the facility. The final rule adopts the
proposal to revise redesignated paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 250.842 to
state that a licensed professional engineer must seal the design
documents for the mechanical and electrical systems that the operator
is required to submit under paragraph (a) of this section.
Paragraph (d)
BSEE revised final paragraph (d) from the proposed rule. The final
rule will provide operators ``90 days after placing new or modified
production safety systems in service'' to submit the as-built diagrams
required in this section to the District Manager. The existing
regulations and the proposed regulatory text provide 60 days for
submitting these diagrams. BSEE also clarified that this time period
applies ``after placing new or modified production safety systems in
service'' instead of 60 days after ``production commences,'' as in the
current regulations and proposed rule.
Under the existing paragraphs (d) and (e), operators are required
to certify that the as-built diagrams are on file and stamped by a PE
and to submit the as-built diagrams for the new or modified production
safety systems to BSEE. The proposed rule would have modified paragraph
(d) to continue to require that operators submit PE-stamped as-built
diagrams, while removing the requirement of a separate certification.
Based on comments, BSEE is revising the final rule from the proposed in
several respects. First, paragraph (d) in the final rule changes the
timing of the submittal of the as-built diagrams from 60 to 90 days.
Second, BSEE is revising the final paragraph (d) from the proposed to
require that the operator must submit a letter to the District Manager
certifying that the as-built diagrams were reviewed for compliance with
applicable regulations and accurately represent the new or modified
system as installed. BSEE intends that this requirement for a
certification from the operator will serve the same function as the
existing and proposed rule's requirement to have the as-built diagrams
PE-stamped. Moreover, it will preserve the intent of the current rule
to make the operator responsible for submitting reliable, accurate as-
built diagrams. Third, and related, the final rule removes the
requirement to have as-built diagrams PE-stamped. This is one of a
number of provisions in this final rule that recognize the limitations
of a PE's ability to stamp or seal documents. The existing regulations
required stamping of the ``as-built'' diagrams. As-built diagrams show
the final system that actually was constructed. Per PE licensing
requirements, the PE would need to be present during the entire
building/construction process to stamp those documents. Since the PE is
not present for all the work that goes into building and installing
production
[[Page 49240]]
systems, requiring a PE stamp on an as-built diagram is not a realistic
way to meet the goals of this paragraph. However, the critical design
documents, those required under Sec. 250.842(a), continue to require a
PE stamp (Sec. 250.842(c)(2)) under this final rule.
Paragraphs (e) and (f)
As proposed, BSEE is redesignating the existing paragraph (f) as
paragraph (e), since the requirements from existing paragraph (e) were
moved to new paragraph (d). Although BSEE did not propose any changes
to the substance of existing paragraph (f), BSEE revised the text in
final paragraph (e), based on comments, to clarify requirements related
to maintaining the documents required under Sec. 250.842(a) and (b)
and how to make those documents available to BSEE. In the final rule,
BSEE revised final paragraph (e) to specifically reference the
``approved and supporting design documents'' required under'' Sec.
250.842(a) and (b), instead of referencing ``information concerning the
approved designs and installation features.'' This is a clarification
and ensures the operator maintains the appropriate required documents,
including copies of the documents submitted to BSEE under paragraph (a)
and the additional documents the operator is required to develop and
make available to BSEE upon request in paragraph (b). The requirement
for the operator to maintain these documents at the ``offshore field
office nearest the OCS facility or at other locations conveniently
available to the District Manager'' did not change. This allows the
operator to determine the appropriate location to store these
documents. In the final rule, BSEE is removing the provision
specifically requiring operators to maintain the as-built piping and
instrumentation diagrams at a secure onshore location and the
requirement to have those documents readily available offshore. Piping
and instrumentation diagrams are now included within the storage
requirements of the revised first sentence of the paragraph, as they
are required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The provisions
requiring that these documents must be made available to BSEE upon
request and must be retained for the life of the facility did not
change. The provision that all ``approvals'' are subject to field
verifications (i.e., during inspections) was clarified to refer to
``approved designs.''
Additional details on these changes are discussed in the following
comments and responses.
Design Documents
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE clarify the provisions
in paragraph (a) of this section by changing the first sentence to
read, ``You must submit a production safety system application to the
District Manager to install or modify a production safety system.'' The
suggested revision removes the word ``before'' from the proposed
provision that would require operators to submit their production
safety system applications before installing or modifying a production
safety system. This commenter also suggested that BSEE was not using
the terms ``information,'' ``diagrams,'' and ``designs'' consistently
when describing the required diagrams, charts, schematics, plans, and
schedules. The commenter expressed concern that imprecise and/or
inconsistent language is undesirable in a regulation and recommended
that BSEE consistently use the term ``design documentation'' or
``design documents'' when referring to the collective documents that
are addressed in this section.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter's suggestion on
revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) of this section. The
suggested revision would remove the word ``before'' from the provision,
so that it would only state that the operators must submit a production
safety system application to BSEE, without addressing the timing of
that submission. The proposed revisions to the current language
regarding the submittal of the production safety system application
would ensure that BSEE receives the production safety system
application prior to an operator installing or modifying the production
equipment. The current regulations state, ``[b]efore you install or
modify a production safety system, you must submit a production safety
system application to the District Manager for approval.'' The current
provision did not explicitly state when the system or modifications to
the systems must be approved, even though the intent of this existing
language was that the operator would receive approval before installing
or modifying the system. While the regulatory language will continue to
state that the operator must submit the application before installing
or modifying the system, the final rule states that the District
Manager must approve the production safety system application before
the operator commences production through or utilizes the new or
modified system. This not only clarifies the timing of the required
approval, but also facilitates timely approval of the application by
allowing BSEE to begin review as soon as possible and to review while
the operator is installing or modifying the system. The commenter did
not include a reason for suggesting this change, but BSEE does not see
this timing as an issue as all of the design drawings must be submitted
before the operator begins to install or modify the system, under the
current and revised regulations. If the application is submitted later,
the operator may be ready to start production before BSEE has reviewed
and approved the applications.
BSEE agrees with the commenter's other suggested revision to
consistently use a single term to refer to the documents that are
required under this section. BSEE replaced the words ``information''
and ``diagram'' with ``design documents'' in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
the final rule. This consistent use of the more inclusive term adds
clarity and reduces potential confusion.
Piping Specification Breaks
Comment: A commenter recommended that the information identified in
proposed paragraph (a)(1)(ii), ``piping specification breaks, piping
sizes'' should be included in paragraph (a)(1)(vii), because the
content included with piping specification breaks, piping sizes
overlaps with the information on ``size and maximum allowable working
pressures'' that is currently required in paragraph (a)(1)(vii).
Response: BSEE agrees with the recommended change and revised the
language in the final rule as suggested.
Metering Devices
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE remove ``metering
devices'' from paragraph (a)(1)(iv). The commenter asserted that
metering devices are considered instrumentation, and size, capacity,
and working pressures of metering devices are typically not included on
SAFE charts.
Response: BSEE disagrees with this commenter's recommendation to
remove ``metering devices'' from proposed paragraph (a)(1)(iv), now
final paragraph (a)(1)(iii). The paragraph addresses requirements for
both SAFE charts and the safety flow analysis diagram. Operators would
include the metering devices on the safety flow analysis diagram, not
the SAFE chart. We agree that metering devices should not be included
on the SAFE chart.
Chemical Injection Systems
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE exempt
[[Page 49241]]
chemical injection systems that have less than 770 gallon storage
capacity from proposed Sec. 250.842(a)(1)(vi) (which is paragraph
(a)(1)(v) in the final rule). The paragraph, as proposed, would require
the operator to include the size, capacity, and design working
pressures of all hydrocarbon-handling vessels and chemical injection
systems handling a material having a flash point below 100 degrees
Fahrenheit for a Class I flammable liquid on the safety flow analysis
diagram. This commenter asserted that, for the majority of the Gulf of
Mexico shelf facilities, the storage capacity of the injection system
is often less than 260 gallons. The commenter stated that, for the
majority of the chemicals used, the flammability of the products is
lessened extensively due to dilution with water and blending of the
chemical, reducing the actual flammability of the total product. In
addition, the commenter stated that these low volume chemical systems
do not present the same hazards as atmospheric hydrocarbon process
vessels, and that process vessels have the potential for constant in
and out flow of hydrocarbons under pressure. The commenter asserted
that, under API RP14C, low volume chemical systems are already analyzed
and protected on the facility, and that adding these systems to the
facility drawings will not enhance safety or reduce risk.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Tanks and pumps that are tied into the
production system should be analyzed on the safety analysis flow
diagram (SFD). Atmospheric vessels are used for processing and
temporary storage of liquid hydrocarbons, including flammable
chemicals. Even a 260 gallon tank containing flammable liquid is a
potential hazard when tied to the production system. Although API RP
14C requires analysis of these risks, BSEE still needs to be able to
review tanks of all sizes that are connected to the production system.
Battery Banks
Comment: BSEE received a comment recommending that BSEE remove the
term ``battery banks'' from the list of items included on electrical
one line drawings. The commenter stated that battery banks would exist
on a direct current system, while everything else is 120 volt
alternating current and higher. The commenter asserted that BSEE's
decision to remove ``including the safety shutdown system'' from the
definition that was previously found in Sec. 250.842(a)(3)(iii)
supports this change.
Response: BSEE partially agrees with this comment. BSEE needs
drawings depicting the location of the battery banks associated with
the UPS, however it is not necessary to include other battery banks.
Consequently, BSEE revised the language in final Sec. 250.842(a)(2) to
clarify that the design drawings need to show the UPS and the
associated battery banks.
Updating Electrical One-Line Drawings for Existing Facilities
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE add language in Sec.
250.842(a)(2) to exempt existing OCS facilities from the requirement to
provide the electrical one-line diagram until a major modification is
made to the electrical system. The commenter noted that many existing
facilities have changed ownership several times over the years and that
the original documents such as electrical one-line drawings are
unavailable or have not been updated to reflect modifications after the
initial installation and submittal. According to the commenter, BSEE
has not requested these documents when facility modifications were
submitted for approval; therefore, they have not been generated or
produced. The commenter asserted that updating or creating new drawings
to this level of detail along with engineering certifications is very
expensive and, in some cases, will result in facilities becoming
uneconomical. The commenter also asserted that, for existing
facilities, the electrical one-line drawings should only be required
when major modifications are made to the facility's electrical system.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Since 1988, the regulations (formerly
Sec. 250.122(e)(4)(ii) and (e)(5), 63 FR 10596) have required
operators to certify that the electrical system design was approved by
a registered PE.
OCS Order number 8, Platforms, Structures, and Associated Equipment
(effective October 1, 1976), included requirements for electrical
system information, including certification by the operator ``that the
mechanical and electrical systems of the facility will be designed and
installed under the supervision of appropriate registered professional
engineers.'' (OCS Order number 8, section 3. paragraph B(2)).
Out of date electrical drawings pose a major safety risk. The
primary substantive change made in the 2016 rulemaking was the addition
of the requirement for submission of a PE stamped diagram. Since 2016,
BSEE has granted some departures to allow operators additional time to
comply. BSEE did not propose to change the current requirements with
respect to whether or not existing facilities need to submit or
maintain electrical design documents, and therefore BSEE believes the
commenter's recommendation is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Moreover, operators have had enough time to come into compliance with
this requirement.
Identification of Control Rooms and MCC Buildings
Comment: A commenter stated that the identification of control
rooms and MCC buildings is not included in API RP 500 or API RP 505 and
recommended that BSEE remove those items from Sec. 250.842(a)(3)(ii).
Response: BSEE disagrees. While control rooms and MCC buildings are
not specifically identified in API RP 500 and API RP 505, buildings
generally are identified. However, we revised the final regulatory text
in Sec. 250.842(a)(3)(ii) to identify these as examples of buildings
that need to be included.
Clarification of Terminology in (a)(4)
Comment: A commenter recommended revising Sec. 250.842(a)(4) to
replace the phrase ``schematic piping and instrumentation diagram''
with ``detailed flow diagram which shows the piping and vessels in the
process flow, together with the instrumentation and control devices''
to provide better clarity.
Response: BSEE partially agrees with the commenter and revised the
final regulatory text in paragraph (a)(4), under the ``details/
additional requirements'' section, to read ``detailed flow diagrams.''
However, BSEE is leaving the reference to ``piping and instrumentation
diagram'' as the general title for the type of document operators must
submit under (a)(4), and removing the modifier ``schematic,'' since it
is unnecessary.
Requirements for Maintaining Documents Are Burdensome
Comment: A commenter stated that paragraph (b)(1)(i) is unduly
burdensome to operators of older facilities, in cases where these
drawings were either never created or were used only for the initial
fabrication. The commenter also questioned the need for the cable
schedule required by paragraph (b)(1)(ii), because the cable tray/
conduit routing plan should provide the relevant information. The
commenter recommended that BSEE add the items in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)
to the requirements for an area classification drawing in Sec.
250.842(a)(3) to prevent the need for multiple drawing sets.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Because the design documents in this
paragraph
[[Page 49242]]
were already required to be submitted to BSEE (since the 2016
rulemaking), the requirement to prepare and maintain them was
implicitly also required.
Cable Schedule
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE remove the requirement
for the ``cable schedule'' associated with additional electrical system
information under Sec. 250.842(b)(1)(ii).
Response: BSEE agrees and moved the requirement for the cable
schedule to be included with the cable tray/conduit routing plan under
(b)(1)(i) of that paragraph.
Panel Board and Junction Box
Comment: A comment recommended that BSEE add a statement to
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) that the panel board and junction box location
plan does not have to be included with additional electrical system
information, if that information is not shown on the area
classification drawing required in Sec. 250.843(a)(3).
Response: BSEE agrees, the panel board and junction box location
plan does not need to be included with both sets of information, and
revised the text in final paragraph (b)(1)(ii) as suggested.
Method and Frequency of Calibration
Comment: A commenter recommended revising Sec. 250.842(b)(2) to
remove the phrase ``and the method and frequency of calibration'' as it
is redundant with testing requirements in Sec. 250.880. The commenter
also stated that the methods and frequency of calibration for these
devices are specified in API RP 14C and Sec. 250.880(c)(3).
Response: BSEE agrees with the comment. Other requirements,
including Sec. 250.880(c)(3)(ii), prescribe the method and frequency
of calibration. Accordingly, BSEE revised the final regulatory text to
remove that phrase.
Detailed Flow Diagram
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE revise paragraph (b)(3),
using more precise language for the revised piping and instrumentation
diagrams for existing facilities, suggesting ``detailed flow diagram.''
Response: BSEE agrees the use of the phrase ``detailed flow
diagram'' better defines the information that the operator needs to
include on the revised piping and instrumentation diagram and made the
suggested revision in the final rule.
Electrical Installations
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE revise paragraph (c)(1)
to refer to ``electrical systems'' instead of ``electrical
installations,'' stating that this language is more precise.
Response: BSEE agrees that electrical systems is more appropriate
terminology for the information that the operator needs to certify in
the production safety system application, and made the suggested
revision in the final rule.
Professional Engineer Terminology
Comment: A commenter recommended revisions to BSEE's language
regarding professional engineers in Sec. 250.842(c)(2), suggesting
that statements regarding documents being ``reviewed, approved, and
stamped by an appropriate registered professional engineer'' should be
replaced with language stating the documents ``are sealed by a licensed
professional engineer(s).'' The same commenter recommended that BSEE
only refer to ``permanent'' modifications in this section.
Response: BSEE agrees that the term ``sealed'' implies that the
document was reviewed and approved and that including those terms is
redundant. We also agree that the word ``licensed'' is more appropriate
to use. BSEE made these suggested revisions in the final rule. However,
BSEE does not agree with the addition of the word ``permanent'' to the
language on modifications, as the term ``permanent'' is subjective.
As-Built Diagrams
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the requirement for
sealing of as-built design documents in Sec. 250.842(d) places a
significant undue burden on industry by requiring the PE to be present
at all times during all phases of construction over extended periods of
time, and multiple locations. Commenters stated that the intent of as-
built design documents is to ensure that the final design documents
accurately reflect what was installed on the location. The commenters
recognized the importance of having accurate drawings and BSEE's desire
to ensure that facility drawings are the most recent version.
Another commenter also requested that BSEE revise the required time
period in which an operator must submit ``as-built'' diagrams from 60
days to 90 days to allow operators time to perform a thorough
verification of the diagrams.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter's suggestion that 30 extra
days will allow the operator to better verify the designs, which will
ensure that BSEE receives accurate as-built drawings and made the
suggested revisions in the final rule. BSEE also agrees with the
assertion that the proposed rule's requirement for PE sealing of as-
built diagrams is unduly burdensome for the reasons suggested by the
commenters. A PE may not stamp a document unless the work reflected
therein was performed under his or her direct oversight, which for as-
built diagrams would require the PE's physical presence, at potentially
multiple locations, over potentially extended periods of construction
and installation. This is not a realistic method for achieving the
ultimate goal of ensuring that BSEE has access to reliable and accurate
as-built diagrams. As the commenters recognize, it is nonetheless
important to retain a requirement in the regulation to reach this goal.
In light of these comments, BSEE believes that a revised version of the
requirement in the current regulation for operators to certify these
drawings is appropriate. Accordingly, the final rule is removing the
language in the current rule that requires the operator to certify that
the drawings were stamped by a PE and replacing it with language
stating that the operator must certify that the drawings have been
reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations and accurately
represent the new or modified system as installed. BSEE also retained
the requirement for the as-built diagrams to be submitted to BSEE and
added language requiring the drawings to be clearly stamped or marked
as ``as-built.''
Documentation Requirements
Comment: Multiple commenters recommended revisions to proposed
paragraph (e) of Sec. 250.842 to improve clarity, proposing to add
language to refer specifically to the design documents and the piping
and instrumentation diagrams. A commenter also recommended removing the
requirement that the operator make these documents available to BSEE
upon request and that the documents should be retained for the life of
the facility.
Response: BSEE partially agrees with the recommended revisions.
BSEE revised paragraph (e), as recommended in referring to the
supporting design documents. However, BSEE does not agree with removing
the requirement that the operator make the documents available to BSEE
upon request and that
[[Page 49243]]
the documents should be retained for the life of the facility.
Requirements for Safety System Design Documents
Comment: A commenter was concerned that the proposed changes in
Sec. 250.842(a) would relax requirements related to safety system
design documents that must be submitted and the requirements for
certain documents to be stamped by a registered PE. The commenter
asserted that BSEE proposed eliminating the requirement for a PE to
review and stamp drawings on existing facilities and that the proposed
revisions would only require the PE review and stamp on new facilities
or substantial changes to existing facilities. The commenter further
stated that the proposed regulation did not specify any training or
qualifications to do this work that would no longer be performed by a
PE. The commenter noted that the PE requirement in the current
regulations was a result of lessons learned from the Atlantis
investigation report on ``BP's Atlantis Oil and Gas Production
Platform: An Investigation of Allegations that Operations Personnel Did
Not Have Access to Engineer-Approved Drawings.'' This report
recommended that engineering documents should be stamped by a
registered Professional Engineer, that operators certify that all
listed diagrams including piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs)
are correct and accessible to BSEE upon request, and that all as built
diagrams should be submitted to the District Managers.
Response: BSEE proposed and is now finalizing revisions to the
regulation to require that the information required as part of the
P&IDs in the current regulations must be submitted as part of the
safety flow analysis, which requires a PE stamp.
BSEE understands the importance of the Atlantis report and
recognizes that, although the Atlantis report did not make specific
recommendations for revisions to subpart H, several of the important
issues identified in the report are relevant to the subpart H
regulations. Based upon BSEE experience with the implementation of the
original 2016 PSSR and review of the requirements of the existing
paragraph (a) (and the proposed requirements in paragraphs (a) and
(b)), BSEE determined that the documents required under paragraph (a)
of this final rule are appropriate to be sealed by a licensed PE.
According to paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 250.842, BSEE requires the PE to
be licensed in a State or Territory of the United States and have
sufficient expertise and experience to perform the duties.
All items required by paragraph (a) of this section must be
submitted to BSEE. The diagrams required in paragraph (b) of this
section are not required to be submitted to BSEE, however, they must be
available to BSEE upon request. The operator will still be required to
develop and maintain these diagrams to accurately document any changes
made to the production systems.
Regarding the commenter's concern that BSEE is eliminating the
requirement for a PE to review and stamp drawings on existing
facilities; per PE licensing requirements, a licensed PE cannot stamp
design drawings that were not developed under their direct supervision.
If the documents for an existing facility were not sealed by a licensed
PE or are no longer available, BSEE cannot require a PE to certify that
the existing facility was built according to the applicable
requirements without the PE violating the terms of the PE license. A PE
can seal documents related to modifications of an existing facility,
but only for those modifications that were developed under that PE's
direct supervision.
As for the commenter's assertion that the proposal lacked any
specification for training or qualification requirements for those who
would prepare the documents listed in paragraph (b), BSEE does not
think that such specification is necessary. As previously explained, a
PE is still required to direct and certify the design of all the
production safety systems. The documents in paragraph (b) include
specific details related to the same systems that are described in
documents required under paragraph (a). This rulemaking is not changing
the basic fact that all of these systems must be designed under the
oversight of a PE. Rather, this rulemaking is reducing the number of
documents that the PE must stamp and that the operator must submit to
BSEE with a PE's stamp.
P&IDs
Comment: A commenter was concerned that the proposed regulations
would eliminate the requirement for operators to submit a P&ID to BSEE
for existing facilities. The commenter noted that in the case of a
serious incident or disaster, it is important for BSEE to have an up-
to-date drawing of the facility. The commenter recommended that BSEE
not wait for a disaster and then request a drawing from the operator,
as this could cause delays in making decisions regarding safety and
spill prevention and response. The commenter stressed that BSEE did not
provide any explanation why existing facilities should be removed from
the requirements for meeting the PE approval or the submission of a
piping and instrumentation diagram, asserting that older, existing
facilities are likely a higher risk. The commenter stated that it is
critical for BSEE to have access to these drawings during inspections,
and incidents, and to ensure older, existing facility drawings are
being updated to incorporate facility changes. The comment stated that
BSEE did not provide adequate justification to eliminate these
requirements and doing so would pose serious environmental and safety
risks.
Response: BSEE did not propose to eliminate the requirement to
submit the information that is required in the P&IDs under existing
Sec. 250.842(a)(1). Under the proposed rule and this final rule, the
documentation requirements are reorganized and the information required
in the P&ID under the existing regulations is still required as part of
the SFD (per API RP 14C, Annex B) and the SAFE chart (per API 14C,
section 6.3.3). These diagrams still require a PE seal for new
facilities and modifications on existing facilities. Operator
certification that the electrical system design was approved by a
registered PE has been required in regulations since 1988 (63 FR 10596,
see Sec. 250.122(e)(4)(ii) and (e)(5)). In addition, OCS Order number
8, effective October 1, 1976, included requirements for electrical
system information, including certification by the operator ``that the
mechanical and electrical systems of the facility will be designed and
installed under the supervision of appropriate registered professional
engineers.'' (OCS Order 8, section 3. B. (2)). The 2016 rule added the
requirement that the operator submit the PE stamped designs for
specific mechanical and electrical systems. BSEE granted some
departures to allow operators additional time to comply.
However, requiring operators to submit documents that are stamped
by a licensed PE for existing facilities is often not possible. Per PE
licensing requirements, a licensed PE cannot stamp design drawings that
were not developed under his or her direct supervision. If a licensed
PE did not seal the documents for an existing facility or if they are
no longer available, BSEE cannot require a PE to certify that the
existing facility was built according to the applicable requirements
without the PE violating the terms of the PE license. A PE can seal
documents related to modifications of an existing facility, but only
for those modifications that were designed under that PE's direct
supervision.
[[Page 49244]]
Requirement for Professional Engineers
Comment: A commenter asked how BSEE would ensure safety without the
requirements in Sec. 250.842 for a Professional Engineer to conduct
these technical reviews. The commenter was concerned that this work
would now be completed by less qualified, in-house company personnel,
lacking a PE license. The commenter inquired about who within the
companies would have sufficient expertise and experience to perform the
review and who within each company will assure BSEE that the equipment
is designed and maintained during its entire service life with an
acceptable degree of risk. The commenter cited the BP Oil Spill
Commission recommendation that ``government agencies that regulate
offshore activity should reorient their regulatory approaches to
integrate more sophisticated risk assessment and risk management
practices into their oversight of energy developers operating
offshore.'' The commenter noted that third party certification provides
this type of approach, and the Commission specifically recommended
regular third-party audits and certification. (BP Oil Spill Report at
p. 253). The commenter asserted that this change is a serious rollback
of safety and environmental protections.
Response: BSEE disagrees that the proposed changes to the
production safety system applications will result in a serious rollback
of safety and environmental protections. As with any technical project,
it is the responsibility of the operator to assign appropriate staff to
the project. However, the documents for which BSEE will no longer
require PE stamping are not the primary design documents; these
documents provide additional details and information and are developed
in conjunction with the documents that require a PE stamp. Further, the
PE used for the documents required under this section does not need to
be a third party under either the existing regulation or this final
rule, and this section was never intended to be a third party
certification requirement. Therefore, the commenter's concerns that the
documents required under this final rule section would be developed by
less qualified, in-house personnel are misplaced.
The commenter cited a BP Oil Spill Commission report recommendation
that agencies adopt ``risk assessment and risk management practices.''
This commenter further offered third-party audits and certifications as
examples of those practices. Those recommendations are part of that
report, however, the third-party audit and certification recommendation
was made specifically in reference to SEMS. SEMS programs are required
by BSEE regulations under 30 CFR part 250, subpart S, and represent
performance based approach for all offshore oil and natural gas
operations. The use of a PE is not a risk-based approach. The engineer
is verifying compliance with various regulations, codes, and standards;
this does not necessarily involve a risk assessment or analysis. As
discussed previously, BSEE is implementing other risk-based approaches
in its oversight of offshore oil and gas operations.
Requirements for Profession Engineers
Comment: A commenter asserted that some of the proposed revisions
to Sec. 250.842 seek to remove the very provisions that were added to
specifically rectify the causes of the DWH explosion. The commenter
cited the summary in the proposed rule that stated that ``this proposed
rule would fortify the Administration's objective of facilitating
energy dominance through encouraging increased domestic oil and gas
production, by reducing unnecessary burdens on stakeholders while
maintaining or advancing the level of safety and environmental
protection.'' This commenter stated that the recommended revisions in
the proposed rule would endanger rather than advance the level of
safety and environmental protection. The comment discussed the proposed
revisions to some of the requirements related to the diagrams and
drawings the operators must submit to BSEE for approval.
The commenter noted that PEs have specific experience,
qualifications, and education that enables them to provide the critical
engineering expertise to identify potential safety and environmental
risks. The existing rules were implemented to ensure that PEs utilize
their engineering skills to achieve compliance and incorporate the
necessary safety measures that will mitigate the likelihood of future
disasters like the DWH explosion. The commenter stated that the need
for these standards and the highest level of expertise is particularly
great at this time given that, according to energy research firm Wood
Mackenzie, oil and gas production could reach an all-time high in the
Gulf of Mexico.
This commenter strongly urged BSEE to retain all of the
requirements for PEs in its revised rulemaking.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the main assertions made by this
commenter. This commenter conflated the 2017 proposed rule with a
planned proposed rule related to well control issues that rulemaking
was still under development when BSEE publish the NPRM for this
rulemaking. Operators use the production safety systems covered under
this rulemaking in production operations, not in well operations
(drilling, completions, workovers, and decommissioning). The DWH
incident was related to a well operation, not a production operation,
and the reports and recommendations related to DWH focused on well
control during well operations, not production operations. BSEE does
not recommend applying the recommendations from the DWH-related reports
to production operations without careful consideration to ensure that
those recommendations are appropriate to apply to production.
The commenter raised concerns regarding the proposed changes to
requirements for PE stamping of design documents. As noted in a
previous response, BSEE is moving the information that is required by
the current regulations for P&IDs to the SFD under this rulemaking, and
the SFD will still require the PE seal. BSEE did remove requirements
for a PE to stamp or seal certain design documents when modifying
existing facilities. Some of those requirements would require a PE to
seal work that was not performed under that engineer's direct
supervision, which would violate the terms of the professional
engineer's license.
BSEE will no longer require that certain documents for new
facilities or modifications must be stamped or sealed by a professional
engineer. The drawings that will no longer require the PE seal are not
critical to personnel safety or the environment, but are supporting
documents, providing additional information related to the safety
critical design documents that will continue to be required to carry a
PE seal.
Maintaining Required Documents
Comment: A commenter recommended specific changes to the provisions
in Sec. 250.842(e) for clarity. The commenter recommended moving the
provisions regarding P&IDs to the first sentence in this section,
instead of including them as a specific separate requirement. The
commenter also recommended deleting the statement requiring that the
operator make these documents available to BSEE upon request. The
commenter did not explain the reasoning behind the specific changes,
but stated the changes would improve clarity.
Response: BSEE partially agrees. BSEE recognized that it could
revise proposed paragraph (e) to improve
[[Page 49245]]
clarity and did so, as previously discussed, although BSEE did not use
the language the commenter suggested. Further, BSEE will not delete the
sentence requiring documents to be made available to it upon request,
as it needs ready access to these materials to fulfill its regulatory
functions.
Pressure Vessels (Including Heat Exchangers) and Fired Vessels (Section
250.851)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations includes
requirements for the pressure vessels and fired vessels that are used
in the production of oil and gas on offshore facilities. Requirements
in the existing regulations include design requirements for equipment
and relief valves, limits on equipment operating pressures, and
specifications for pressure sensors.
As proposed, the final rule removes from this section references to
compliance dates that have now passed--i.e., the 2016 PSSR required
existing uncoded pressure and fired vessels that were in use on
November 7, 2016 (the effective date of the previous subpart H
rulemaking), to be code stamped before March 1, 2018. These dates no
longer need to be included, as they both have already passed as of the
time of this final rulemaking. In addition, prior to the 2016 PSSR, the
regulations already required most pressure vessels and fired vessels to
be code stamped. The previous rulemaking only added vessels with an
operating pressure greater than 15 psig to that requirement.
Small Hydraulic Accumulators and Pulsation Dampeners
Comment: A commenter suggested language to change Sec.
250.851(a)(1) to make clear that small hydraulic accumulators and
pulsation dampeners are not intended to be included in this section.
Response: BSEE disagrees; this clarification is unnecessary. The
incorporated ASME BPVC states what equipment it covers. Therefore, BSEE
is not changing the language in this paragraph.
Alternative Codes/Standards for Small Hydraulic Accumulators and
Pulsation Dampeners
Comment: A commenter recommended the following language for Sec.
250.851(a)(2): ``Existing uncoded pressure and fired vessels, except
small hydraulic accumulator and pulsation dampeners designed to
alternative codes/standards; (i) with an operating pressure greater
than 15 psig; and (ii) that are not code stamped in accordance with the
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.''
Response: BSEE disagrees and will not approve the blanket use of
alternative codes or standards without knowing which alternative code
or standards will be used. If an operator believes an alternative
standard provides an equal or greater level of safety and environmental
protection as the criteria in the regulation, they can apply to use
alternate procedures under the existing Sec. 250.141.
Compliance Date for Code Stamping Pressure and Fired Vessels
Comment: A commenter suggested that January 1, 2019, should be set
as the new compliance date for Sec. 250.851(a)(2), rather than merely
deleting the March 1, 2018 deadline. The commenter noted that the
proposed deletion would imply that this requirement would take effect
immediately upon publication of the final rule.
Response: Since this final rule is being published after March 1,
2018, the requirement is already in effect. This rulemaking is deleting
the date because, after March 1, 2018, the reference in the regulation
to that date is unnecessary. Removing this vestigial reference to a
date that has already passed has no substantive effect; it merely
removes now-superfluous regulatory text. BSEE does not believe a change
to the timing of the effectiveness of the requirement from what had
been established in 2016 is warranted. Operators have had since 2016 to
plan to replace uncoded pressure vessels or to justify their continued
use.
Size and Pressures Related to ASME Coded Relief Valves
Comment: A commenter suggested language for Sec. 250.851(a)(3) to
address concerns regarding the size and pressures related to ASME Coded
relief valves.
Response: BSEE did not propose changes to Sec. 250.851(a)(3). The
suggested changes are outside the scope of this rulemaking and would
require further review by BSEE. Therefore, this final rule is not
changing this language.
Flowlines/Headers (Section 250.852)
As initially proposed, BSEE is changing the references in Sec.
250.852(e)(1) and (4) from ``API Spec. 17J'' to ``ANSI/API Spec. 17J,''
which is the proper title of the standard as incorporated in the
existing regulation. BSEE did not receive any comments on this section
of the proposed rule.
Safety Sensors (Section 250.853)
Section summary: This section establishes requirements safety
sensors, including shutdown devices, sensors with integral automatic
reset, and pressure sensors. As was proposed, this section of the final
rule includes requirements for shutdown devices, valves, and pressure
sensors, including testing requirements. As was proposed, final Sec.
250.853(d) requires that operators equip all level sensors to permit
testing through an external bridle on all new vessel installations,
where possible, depending on the type of vessel for which the level
sensor is used.
As proposed, this section will be revised in the final rule to add
a new paragraph (d) that requires that operators equip all level
sensors to permit testing through an external bridle on all new vessel
installations, where possible, depending on the type of vessel for
which the level sensor is used. This change was originally proposed in
the 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that led to the 2016 PSSR.
However, it was not included in the final rule, based on concerns
raised in public comments. The preamble of the 2016 final rule stated
that BSEE removed proposed paragraph (d) from the final rule because
BSEE can address level sensors adequately using existing regulatory
processes, such as DWOPs and we do not need to specify uses and
conditions of such sensors in the regulations.
Since the 2016 PSSR, BSEE has reconsidered this provision and
determined that including this requirement in the regulations is
important, because it clearly states the expectation to have an
external bridle to permit testing. This ensures that, where possible,
operators make the sensor accessible for testing, which is the accepted
approach at this time. A comment on the proposed 2016 PSSR rulemaking
asserted that certain sensor testing technologies (e.g., ultrasonic and
capacitance) were not suitable for use in external bridles and that
some proposed or new projects evaluated using ultrasonic, optical,
microwave, conductive, or capacitance sensors, which do not use
bridles. BSEE recognizes that there are sensors that do not use bridles
and that other equipment options exist. However, the use of a level
sensor with an external bridle that allows testing through the bridle
remains BSEE's preferred approach. Sensor testing equipment built
according to API standards, which BSEE's regulations incorporate by
reference, should be able to meet this provision. We therefore proposed
[[Page 49246]]
adding language to recognize other approaches, stating that operators
must ensure that all level sensors are equipped to permit testing
through an external bridle ``where possible, depending on the type of
vessel for which the level sensor is used.'' Keeping this language in
this final rule allows BSEE more flexibility in approving a different
design, without requiring the operator to apply for an alternate
procedure or equipment to test the level sensor under Sec. 250.141.
Use of Phrase ``Where Possible''
Comment: One commenter stated that the term ``where possible'' is
ambiguous and open to a wide range of interpretations. The commenter
suggested that the language in the proposed Sec. 250.853(d) should be
revised to state that this requirement does not apply if other level
sensors are approved in the production safety systems applications.
Response: BSEE disagrees that the proposed change is necessary.
BSEE determined that including this requirement in the regulations is
important because it states the expectation to have an external bridle
to permit testing. BSEE recognizes that there are sensors that do not
use bridles and that other equipment options exist. However, the use of
a level sensor with an external bridle that allows testing through the
bridle remains BSEE's preferred approach. The final language recognizes
that other approaches are available and the modifier ``where possible''
allows BSEE more flexibility in approving a different design, without
requiring the operator to apply for an alternate procedure or equipment
to test the level sensor under Sec. 250.141. BSEE does not believe
that being more prescriptive in defining the circumstances that may
qualify for this condition is the optimal approach for addressing the
relevant circumstances.
Surface Pumps (Section 250.865)
Section summary: This section provides requirements of surface
pumps related to protective equipment, pressure recording devices, and
shut-in sensors.
Revision for Update of API RP 14C
Comment: Although BSEE did not propose any changes to this section,
one commenter recommended the revision of the existing requirement in
paragraph (a), if BSEE incorporated by reference the Eighth Edition of
API RP 14C.
Response: No change is necessary at this time since BSEE is not
incorporating the Eighth Edition of API RP 14C.
Consistency With Sec. 250.870
Comment: Although BSEE did not propose any changes to Sec.
250.865(d), one commenter recommended that, if the proposed changes in
Sec. 250.870 were adopted in the final rule, the text in Sec.
250.865(d) should be changed to reference Sec. 250.870 for consistency
of implementation.
Response: No change is necessary at this time. Section 250.865(d)
addresses when the pressure safety low (PSL) must be placed into
service, while Sec. 250.870 addresses time delays on those sensors.
Although these are related, BSEE does not agree it is necessary to
cross-reference all of the specific requirements that the PSLs or other
sensors must follow throughout these regulations.
Temporary Quarters and Temporary Equipment (Section 250.867)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations includes
requirements for temporary quarters that are located in production
processing areas or other classified areas. BSEE intends for these
requirements to protect personnel located in these areas and to include
the installation safety devices required by API RP 14C and approval by
the District Manager.
As proposed, the final rule is revising paragraph (a) of this
section to require District Manager approval of safety systems and
safety devices associated with temporary quarters prior to
installation. This applies to all temporary quarters to be installed on
OCS production facilities. Existing regulations specify that the
operator must receive approval for temporary quarters ``. . . installed
in production processing areas or other classified areas on OCS
facilities.'' The revisions will require approval of the safety systems
and safety devices, instead of approval of the actual temporary
quarters, regardless of where the temporary quarters are located. This
change recognizes that risk of a hazard occurring related to production
is not restricted to the production areas or classified areas. This
change ensures that temporary quarters have the proper safety systems
and devices installed to protect individuals in the temporary quarters,
regardless of where they are located on the facility.
BSEE recognizes the authority of the United States Coast Guard
(USCG) as the lead agency for living quarters on the OCS in two
Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) between BSEE and USCG related to oil and
gas production facilities: MOA OCS-09, Fixed OCS Facilities, dated
September 19, 2014 and MOA OCS-04, Floating OCS Facilities, dated
January 28, 2016. MOA OCS-09 establishes BSEE as the lead for safety
systems, specifically for emergency shutdown systems and gas detection
on fixed OCS facilities. MOA OCS-04 establishes BSEE as the lead for
emergency shutdown systems and components on floating OCS facilities.
The existing requirement that operators equip temporary quarters with
all safety devices required by API RP 14C (Appendix C) will not change.
This paragraph ensures that operators will install the proper safety
devices on or in temporary quarters, including fire and gas detection
equipment and emergency shut down stations addressed in API RP 14C.
As proposed, BSEE is also adding a new paragraph (d) to Sec.
250.867 of the final rule that states that operators must receive
District Manager approval before installing temporary generators that
would require a change to the electrical one-line diagram required
under Sec. 250.842(a).
Approval of Temporary Quarters
Comment: A commenter asserted that requiring District Manager
approval before installation of temporary quarters is inconsistent with
other similar requirements contained in subpart H. The commenter noted
that Sec. 250.842 requires submission for approval of drawings for
installation or modification of production safety systems followed by
submission of as-built drawings 60 days after production commences. The
commenter states that District Manager approval is not needed to begin
installation of these critical safety systems; however, production
cannot commence until District Manager approval is received. The
commenter recommended that BSEE should adopt a similar approach for
temporary quarters. The commenter suggested language to revise the
proposed text to require that the operator submit plans for the safety
systems/safety devices to the District Manager before installing
temporary quarters and that BSEE should approve the temporary quarters
before they are occupied.
Response: BSEE disagrees. Temporary quarters are directly related
to personnel safety, since they are used for living and sleeping. The
nature of the use of temporary quarters necessitates the approval of
the safety systems and safety devices before they are installed.
Operators often install temporary quarters for a specific short term
use, where timing is an important factor in planning. If operators
install the quarters before the safety systems and safety devices are
approved by the
[[Page 49247]]
District Manager, there is a risk that the use of the quarters could be
delayed if BSEE delays its approval. Approval prior to installation
provides for more certainty. BSEE also disagrees with the commenter's
assertion that the approval of safety systems and safety devices on
temporary quarters is similar to the approval and installation of
production safety systems, because production safety systems need more
lead time for installation.
Small Temporary Equipment
Comment: A commenter stated that it is not feasible to submit
certain small temporary equipment meant for testing and maintenance to
the District Manager for approval prior to installation and recommended
that BSEE revise the final rule to limit this requirement to ``major''
temporary equipment.
Response: BSEE disagrees. BSEE needs to see all temporary equipment
that is associated with the production process system, regardless of
size, to ensure safety of the system. Therefore, BSEE has not adopted
this recommendation in the final rule.
Approval of Temporary Generators
Comment: A commenter recommended that BSEE not finalize the
proposed Sec. 250.867(d). The commenter asserted that generators are a
vital piece of equipment that provides power for living conditions and
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, gas detection
systems, fire detection systems, process systems, and safety/pollution
control devices. The commenter stated that requiring BSEE approval
prior to installing such a vital piece of equipment creates not only
less than desirable living conditions but also loss of control of
operations. The commenter noted further that an operator's SEMS program
provides guidance and procedures for the installation of temporary or
permanent equipment. The commenter noted that temporary generators
result in a minimal impact to the overall safety system. The commenter
stated that these generators are put in pre-designated electrical
switchgear systems for auxiliary power while the primary generator is
inoperable and sent in for repair, and that this spare switchgear
breaker should already be identified on one-line electrical drawings.
Response: BSEE agrees with the comment, in part, but not with the
commenter's conclusion. Not all temporary generators fall under the
situation described in the comment. The final rule requires operators
to seek approval only for temporary generators that are not already
shown on the one-line drawings. So the regulation does not apply to
many of the situations raised in the comment. BSEE did not make any
revisions to the regulatory text based on this comment.
Time Delays on Pressure Safety Low (PSL) Sensors (Section 250.870)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations provides
requirements related to time delays for pressure safety devices. The
existing regulations provide a reasonable period for pressure to
fluctuate before it becomes necessary to alert the operator to an
abnormal condition that must be addressed.
The final rule is revising the requirement in paragraph (a) of this
section regarding the use of Class B, Class C, or Class B/C logic. This
section currently states that the operator ``may apply any or all of
the industry standard Class B, Class C, or Class B/C logic to all
applicable PSL sensors installed on process equipment, as long as the
time delay does not exceed 45 seconds.'' As proposed, BSEE is deleting
the phrase ``any or all of the'' from that sentence in the final rule,
as it is not needed. We will no longer require the operator to seek
approval from BSEE for alternate procedures under Sec. 250.141 to use
a PSL sensor with a time delay that is greater than 45 seconds.
Instead, the revised section states that if the device may be bypassed
for greater than 45 seconds, the operator must monitor the bypassed
devices in accordance with Sec. 250.869(a). The alternate procedure
approval is not needed, since monitoring bypassed devices is authorized
in the current Sec. 250.869(a).
Impact on Approved Departure Requests
Comment: Industry commenters requested clarification as to how the
proposed revision to Sec. 250.870 will impact departure requests that
were issued under the current (2016) requirements for PSL time delays
that are greater than 45 seconds.
Response: The changes in the final rule are consistent with
departures approved by BSEE.
Suggested Revisions to Sec. 250.870(a)(1)
Comment: Industry commenters stated that the examples given in
Sec. 250.870(a)(1) are non-API RP 14C devices, and on reciprocating
compressors the timer typically is set for 90 seconds. Commenters
suggested deleting the words ``but not more than 45 seconds'' since
that is covered in Sec. 250.870(a) or changing the example to ``a
hydrocarbon pump PSL sensor which typically clears in 15 seconds but
before 45 seconds.''
Response: BSEE disagrees with the suggested change, which is
substantive and would require a new proposal and opportunity for
comment. The language in the proposed rule and the final rule is
consistent with long standing BSEE policy.
Monitoring Class C Safety Devices
Comment: Industry commenters recommended adding the following
sentence at the end of Sec. 250.870(a)(2) for clarification: ``Class C
safety devices while bypassed should be monitored until they are in
full service.''
Response: Although this was not part of the proposed rule, BSEE
agrees with the comment. Class C devices, by their nature, allow the
devices to be bypassed for more than 45 seconds. Therefore, we are
including an express statement that, if a Class C safety device is
bypassed, the operator must monitor the device until it is in full
service. This is consistent with the language of revised Sec.
250.870(a).
Suggested Revisions to Sec. 250.870(a)(3)
Comment: Industry commenters recommended inserting the sentence,
``They are often used for compressor discharge PSL(s) for the loading
process'' after the first sentence in Sec. 250.870(a)(3) for
clarification, and inserting ``also'' into the following sentence so
that the paragraph reads ``Class B/C safety devices have logic that
allows for the PSL sensors to incorporate a combination of Class B and
Class C circuitry. They are often used for compressor discharge PSL(s)
for the loading process. These devices are also used to ensure that the
PSL sensors are not unnecessarily bypassed during startup and idle
operations (e.g., Class B/C bypass circuitry activates when a pump is
shut down during normal operations). The PSL sensor remains bypassed
until the pump's start circuitry is activated and either:''
Response: BSEE disagrees. The suggested revision does not add value
and thus no change was made in the final rule. There is no need to
identify every possible application of these sensors and the use that
is identified in the regulatory text is not exclusive. The purpose of
this regulation is to direct how these sensors are to be used, not the
circumstances under which they are to be used.
Suggested Revisions to Sec. 250.870(a)(3)(i)
Comment: Industry commenters stated that, with regard to Sec.
250.870(a)(3)(i), Class B/C timers are used on Compressor discharge
PSL(s), turbine compressors typically take up to 3 minutes to clear the
discharge PSL(s)
[[Page 49248]]
after loading the compressor, and reciprocating compressors can take
more than 45 seconds. Commenters further stated that there are
situations (Pigging Pumps, Equalization Pumps, Pipeline Pumps, etc.)
where it takes longer than 45 seconds to build up line pressure and
clear the PSL to normal operating pressure. Commenters recommended
removal of the phrase ``no later than 45 seconds from start
activation,'' as this is covered under Sec. 250.870(a), which allows
going beyond 45 seconds provided the Class B timer is monitored and
documented.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the suggested change. The language in
Sec. 250.870(a)(3)(i) defines what a Class B/C timer is, while the
introductory language in Sec. 250.870(a) states what actions the
operator must take if the delay could exceed 45 seconds.
Recommendation To Delete Sec. 250.870(b)
Comment: Industry commenters recommended that BSEE should delete
existing Sec. 250.870(b) because it is a duplicative requirement,
stating that there are manual bypassing rules in Sec. 250.869 that
allow the bypass of a safety device for unlimited time periods provided
that the operator is monitoring the sensing device and able to shut it
in.
Response: BSEE disagrees because these sections are not
duplicative. Section 250.869 establishes the general requirements
related to monitoring bypassed devices, while Sec. 250.870 addresses
specific requirements for bypassing sensors in the absence of time
delay circuitry.
Atmospheric Vessels (Section 250.872)
Section Summary: Paragraph (a) of the existing regulations requires
operators to equip atmospheric vessels (except certain Department of
Transportation (DOT)-approved transport tanks) that process or store
liquid hydrocarbons (or other Class I liquids) with protective
equipment identified in section A.5 of API RP 14C (Seventh Edition).
Paragraph (b) of the existing section requires operators to ensure that
all atmospheric vessels are designed and maintained to ensure the
proper working conditions for Level Safety High (LSH) sensors and that
LSH sensors on vessels with oil buckets are installed to sense oil
levels in the buckets. Paragraph (c) of the existing section requires
operators to ensure that flame arrestors are maintained to ensure
proper functioning.
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a) to require that atmospheric
vessels connected to the process system and that contain a Class I
liquid must be reflected on the corresponding drawings, along with the
associated pumps. In addition, BSEE proposed to revise Sec. 250.198 by
updating the reference to API RP 14C, as used in Sec. 250.872 and
elsewhere, from the Seventh Edition to the Eighth Edition. BSEE
proposed to revise paragraph (b) in order to (i) emphasize that
operators or manufacturers must design LSH sensors on atmospheric
vessels to prevent pollution (per Sec. 250.300(b)(3) and (4)); and
(ii) limit the existing requirement applicable to LSH sensors on
vessels with oil buckets to newly-installed vessels only. BSEE also
proposed to eliminate paragraph (c) as unnecessary and redundant with
Sec. 250.800. Based on consideration of public comments on this
section of the proposed rule, BSEE made some revisions to the proposed
text in this final rule to clarify the requirements for LSH sensors on
vessels with oil buckets and to provide consistency with other parts of
the regulations.
As was proposed, BSEE is revising paragraph (a) of this section to
state that the operator must include on the design documents
atmospheric vessels connected to the process system that contains a
Class I liquid and the associated pumps, as required in Sec.
250.842(a)(1) through (4) and (b)(3).
In the final rule, BSEE is also revising the existing provisions
for oil LSH sensors in paragraph (b). The proposed provision stated
that operators must design and install LSH sensors to prevent
pollution. In the final rule, BSEE removed this provision from
paragraph (b) and moved it to final paragraph (c), with revisions. In
addition, the final rule, unlike the proposed rule, removes the
provision from existing paragraph (b) that specifies that, for newly
installed atmospheric vessels with oil buckets, operators must install
the LSH sensor to sense the level in the oil bucket. This requirement
regarding LSH sensors on oil buckets was overly prescriptive and too
narrow, however new paragraph (c) preserves the intent of the existing
requirement.
As proposed, BSEE is deleting existing paragraph (c) in the final
rule. The existing paragraph added maintenance of flame arrestors and
duplicates Sec. 250.880(c)(3)(viii). BSEE is adding a new paragraph
(c) to specifically address the design requirements for atmospheric
vessels. The new provision in final paragraph (c) requires operators to
design, install, and maintain all atmospheric vessels to prevent
pollution, as required under Sec. 250.300(b)(3) and (4). BSEE added
this language, which was not in the proposed rule, to clarify that the
pollution prevention requirements of those paragraphs apply to all
atmospheric vessels, including atmospheric vessels that have oil
buckets. It reflects existing requirements and does not constitute a
substantive change.
API RP 14C and Corresponding Drawings
Comment: Some commenters made suggestions for changes to this
section to address changes in the numbering in the Eighth Edition of
API RP 14C from the Seventh Edition. In addition, some commenters
recommended that paragraph (a) should be more specific when referencing
``corresponding drawings'' and recommended that BSEE replace that term
with ``design documents listed in Sec. 250.842(a)(1) through (4) and
Sec. 250.842(b)(3).''
Response: The commenters' suggestion regarding revising the
reference to section A of RP 14C is moot because, as explained
elsewhere in this final rule, BSEE has decided not to finalize the
incorporation of the Eighth Edition of API RP 14C at this time. BSEE
agrees with the comment that the proposed revision regarding
``corresponding drawings'' needed clarification, and has replaced that
term in the final rule with the phrase recommended by the commenters;
this is also consistent with changes made in Sec. 250.842.
Location of LSH Sensor
Comment: Some commenters asserted that the location of the LSH
sensor in proposed paragraph (b) is not the most relevant criterion
[for preventing spills], and that installing an LSH sensor in the oil
bucket would not necessarily ensure that oil will not carry over and
spill. Those commenters stated that the most important factor is that
the vessel should be designed to prevent pollution, and they noted that
many atmospheric vessels are designed with the LSH sensor in the tank
itself and are capable of preventing spillage. Thus, the commenters
recommended that BSEE change the proposed revisions to paragraph (b) to
include performance-based language to read: ``You must ensure that all
atmospheric vessels installed are designed and maintained to ensure the
proper working conditions for LSH sensors. The LSH must be designed and
installed in such a way to prevent pollution. The LSH sensor bridle
must be designed to prevent different density fluids from impacting
sensor functionality.''
Response: BSEE agrees with most of the commenters' concerns and
with most of commenters' suggested changes
[[Page 49249]]
to proposed paragraph (b), except that BSEE has determined that more
clarity is appropriate in order to prevent confusion and uncertainty
regarding what ``prevent pollution'' entails. Accordingly, BSEE revised
the language in the final rule to address the design of all atmospheric
vessels to prevent pollution, including, but not limited to, the
displacement of oil out of an overboard water outlet, as previously
described. As with the proposed rule, this change to the regulation
would not substantively change the existing requirements.
Elimination of Existing Paragraph Sec. 250.872(c)
Comment: Two commenters agreed with the proposed elimination of
existing paragraph (c) from Sec. 250.872. One of those commenters
pointed out that paragraph (c) is unnecessary in light of the broader
testing provision in Sec. 250.880(c)(3)(viii).
Response: BSEE agrees that the proposed elimination of the existing
paragraph (c) is appropriate and the final rule eliminates that
paragraph. BSEE has reorganized and simplified the remaining
requirements of that section in the final rule by adding a new
paragraph (c) that addresses requirements for atmospheric vessels.
Exempting Small Atmospheric Vessels
Comment: One industry commenter recommended that paragraph (a) of
the rule exempt small atmospheric vessels (i.e., with design capacity
of 770 gallons or less) from the safety equipment requirements of this
provision, asserting that those requirements are not practical for such
small vessels and the risk posed by small vessels do not warrant the
expense. The commenter added that such a volume threshold would exempt
most offshore tote tanks, which have historically been considered to be
temporary equipment. The same commenter also requested that BSEE limit
the applicability of the requirement in paragraph (b) regarding design
and maintenance of atmospheric vessels to ensure proper working
conditions for LSH sensors to vessels ``installed more than one year
after the effective date'' of the final rule, asserting that requiring
that operators retrofit existing vessels with LSH sensors would not be
justified by the risk.
Response: BSEE disagrees with both of these comments. With respect
to an exemption in paragraph (a) for small vessels, these vessels
contain liquid hydrocarbons or other Class I liquids, which are
flammable. It is important to ensure these tanks are properly
protected, regardless of size.
With respect to limiting paragraph (b) to new vessels installed at
least one year after the effective date, BSEE notes that the basic
requirement of paragraph (b) regarding proper working conditions for
LSH sensors was added to Sec. 250.872 by the 2016 PSSR; thus,
operators have had ample time to comply or to address compliance
issues. BSEE also notes that operators with vessels that were designed,
but not installed, prior to the effective date of the 2016 PSSR may
submit a departure request under Sec. 250.142.
LSH Sensors Requirements for Newly Installed Equipment
Comment: A commenter stated that paragraph (b) should not mandate
LSH sensors to address oil buckets on newly installed equipment. The
commenter asserted that the language in existing paragraph (b)
regarding oil buckets is too prescriptive and that compliance with the
general design requirements in the remainder of paragraph (b) would be
sufficient.
Response: BSEE agrees in general with the commenter's belief that
compliance with the other design requirements in proposed paragraph
(b)--modified in the final rule, as previously described in response to
a comment--would be sufficient to prevent pollution without the
existing language regarding oil buckets. Accordingly, the final rule
deletes the existing prescriptive language from the last sentence of
paragraph (b), which would have been retained for new oil buckets under
the proposed rule. The final rule includes more general design
requirements in new paragraph (c), as previously described.
Subsea Gas Lift Requirements (Section 250.873)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations addresses
requirements for gas lift equipment used in subsea wells, pipelines,
and risers. These requirements include: Designing gas lift supply
pipelines according to API RP 14C, installation of safety valves,
including a GLSDV, valve closure times, and periodic testing of gas
lift valve systems.
As proposed, the final rule revises the table in paragraph (b) of
this section to replace multiple references to API Spec. 6A with ANSI/
API Spec. 6A.
Recommendation To Delete GLSDVs From SPPE
Comment: One commenter recommended revising the table in this
section to delete GLSDVs from the list of SPPE.
Response: No change is necessary. BSEE did not revise Sec. 250.801
or Sec. 250.802 to delete GLSDVs as SPPE, for the reasons stated in
those sections of this preamble. Therefore, a similar reference should
be retained here for consistency.
Subsea Water Injection Systems (Section 250.874)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations addresses
requirements related to water flood injection via subsea wellheads.
This includes adherence to API RP 14C for equipment that is located on
platforms, the use of safety valves including a water injection valve
and water injection shutdown valve, valve closure times, and testing of
the water injection valve.
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (g)(2) of this section to replace
the references to API Spec. 6A with ANSI/API Spec. 6A. BSEE received no
comments on this proposed revision, and the final rule implements the
revision as proposed.
Fired and Exhaust Heated Components (Section 250.876)
Section summary: This section of the existing regulations contains
inspection requirements for certain tube-type heaters to minimize the
risks of potential safety issues for offshore personnel. As proposed,
the final rule revises this section to delete the requirement to remove
the fire tube during inspection. BSEE recognizes that there are other
ways to inspect the fire tube, without removing it. For example,
operators could use a combination of cameras with thickness sensors to
inspect fire tubes that cannot be easily accessed, instead of removing
the fire tube completely. This change allows the operator to determine
an appropriate method to inspect the fire tube and is a more flexible,
performance-based approach. BSEE recognizes the need for fire tube
inspections; however, the process to remove the fire tube for
inspection can pose its own safety concerns. In some cases, use of an
alternative method for inspections would increase safety, since
removing the fire tube may present a hazard if the fire tube is located
in a place where it is not easy to remove.
The existing regulations require that an operator use a qualified
third party to remove and inspect the fire tubes of tube-type heaters
every five years. Although BSEE did not propose to change this
requirement, based on comments BSEE received, BSEE revised the final
rule to allow the use of ``qualified third-party.''
[[Page 49250]]
Qualified Personnel Inspections
Comment: A commenter suggested that BSEE revise the phrase a
``qualified third party'' to ``qualified personnel'' because the term
``qualified'' is subject to interpretation and the requirement for a
third party to perform the inspection is not consistent with existing
regulation. The commenter also stated that BSEE's requirement for the
fire tube inspection to be done by a third party would not be
consistent with Sec. 250.851(a)(1)(ii). The commenter stated that
revising the term ``a qualified third party'' to ``qualified
personnel'' should satisfy BSEE's desire for an inspection to be
performed by someone with appropriate knowledge, experience, and
training. The commenter asserted that its suggested change would be
consistent with Sec. 250.851(a)(1)(ii) by not requiring the inspector
to be a third party and that its suggested change would take advantage
of a standard already incorporated by reference without conflicting
with it.
Response: BSEE believes that the commenter's recommendation has
merit; however, because the recommendation is substantive and BSEE did
not include it in the proposed rule, we are not implementing it in this
final rule. We will take it under advisement for potential future
rulemaking.
Production Safety System Testing (Section 250.880)
Section summary: This section establishes requirements for testing
of the various components of the production safety system. In addition,
this section requires notifications to BSEE at various stages before
and during production.
As proposed, BSEE is clarifying language in paragraph (a)(1) of the
final rule to state that the operator must notify BSEE at least 72
hours before commencing ``initial'' production on a facility. The
existing language states that the operator must notify BSEE ``at least
72 hours before commencing production.'' It did not specify that this
notification was for initial production, leading to possible confusion
as to whether the operator must notify BSEE anytime production on a
facility has been shut in and the operator is ready to resume
production. This was not BSEE's intent. BSEE is also rewording the
paragraph and adding a cross-reference to Sec. 250.800(a)(2) for
clarity.
As proposed, BSEE is also revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) and
(c)(4)(iii) of the final rule to replace the incorporation by reference
of API RP 14H, which was withdrawn by API, with API STD 6AV2.
Similarly, BSEE is revising Sec. 250.880(c) of the final rule to
replace the incorporation by reference of API RP 14B with ANSI/API RP
14B.
Commencement of Production
Comment: Industry commenters recommended inserting ``initial'' into
Sec. 250.880(a)(2) to be consistent with the proposed language in
Sec. 250.880(a)(1), so that the paragraph reads ``Notify the District
Manager upon commencement of initial production so that BSEE may
conduct a complete inspection.''
Response: BSEE disagrees. The intent of Sec. 250.880(a)(2) is that
it applies any time an operator shuts down and restarts a facility, so
that the operator notifies BSEE when a facility is on production. This
is different from the intent of the notification required in Sec.
250.880(a)(1), which is to notify BSEE in advance of initial
production, so that BSEE may conduct a preproduction inspection.
Updating API RP 14C
Comment: Industry commenters stated that, if the Eighth Edition of
API RP 14C is incorporated by reference as proposed in Sec. 250.198,
then BSEE should update Sec. 250.880(b)(2) by deleting ``D'' in the
sentence ``Perform testing and inspection in accordance with API RP
14C, Appendix D I (incorporated by reference as specified in Sec.
250.198), and the additional requirements found in the tables of this
section or as approved in the DWOP for your subsea system.''
Response: As discussed elsewhere in the preamble, BSEE has decided
not to incorporate by reference the Eighth Edition of API RP 14C in the
final rule. Accordingly, the proposed revision would be inconsistent
with that decision.
Alternative Method Verifying the Functionality of PSVs
Comment: Industry commenters recommended that alternatives for
compliance, such as the use of API RP 510, should be incorporated into
this section. Specifically, commenters recommended that the final rule
explicitly include an alternative method of verifying the functionality
of PSVs in Sec. 250.880(c)(1)(i) that allows for an inspection program
based on API RP 510 and API RP 576 as an alternative to lifting the
main valve piston during the PSV test. Commenters also recommended the
inclusion of weighted disc vent valves on atmospheric tanks in an
inspection program based on API RP 510 and API RP 576 in lieu of annual
disassembly and inspection.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the recommendation to include the
additional method to verify functionality in the regulations. Testing
of the piston movement is a critical test to verify functionality of
the PSV.
Recommendation To Extend Inspection Intervals for Flame, Spark, and
Detonation Arrestors
Comment: Industry commenters recommended that Sec.
250.880(c)(3)(viii) should be changed to extend visual inspection
intervals from annually, not to exceed 12 calendar months between
tests, to not to exceed 3 years, with an exception for stack/spark
arrestors on forced draft and natural draft fired components of not to
exceed every 5 years. Commenters also recommended further extending
inspection intervals where a risk assessment indicates that longer
intervals are appropriate, noting that the arrestor performance can be
monitored, and issues can be detected by observing the operating
conditions of the component on which it is installed.
Response: BSEE disagrees. There is insufficient evidence to support
extending the current inspection intervals beyond 1 year. Further, API
RP 14C, Seventh Edition, section D.2.2., states that all safety devices
should be inspected at least once per year.
Technology Advances for Fire--(Flame, Heat, or Smoke) and Gas Detection
Systems
Comment: Commenter suggested that BSEE update Sec.
250.880(c)(3)(ii) to acknowledge technology advances in flame and gas
detection devices, noting as an example that infrared gas detectors do
not require the same frequency of calibration as electrochemical based
detectors to function reliably. The commenter further suggested that
the frequency requirement should be as recommended by the manufacturer,
but not more than 12 months.
Response: BSEE disagrees. The referenced technology is still
relatively new. BSEE may consider revising timeframes once industry has
proven the efficacy of the technology.
PSV Maintenance Programs
Comment: An industry commenter stated that its experience with a
PSV maintenance program indicated that a risk based overhaul program
aligned with API Standard 510 resulted in safe and reliable PSV and
vent performance. The commenter recommended adding an alternative
option to the testing requirements in Sec. 250.880(c)(2)(i) under
which annual testing would not be required if an operator has a risk-
based overhaul program in place. Further, if
[[Page 49251]]
that alternative is not accepted, the commenter recommended that the
regulation should allow additional time to perform the first test on
those PSVs (and weighted disc vent valves used as PSVs) where it
currently is not feasible to lift the piston during the test. The
commenter also supported an additional 6 years beyond the effective
date of the final rule to complete the first test. The commenter
expressed concern that the proposed revision might result in industry
and BSEE spending a significant amount of time on filing and responding
to departure requests, and that such time could be better spent
preparing to implement the rule.
Response: BSEE disagrees. The need to verify the piston movement is
a safety-critical issue. Allowing an additional 6 years for this
requirement to take effect would result in an unreasonable timeframe to
come into compliance with a requirement that has been in place since
November, 2016. BSEE's position remains that in order to validate the
proper functioning of the PSV, the test must involve the movement of
the piston.
Inspections Frequency for Flame, Spark, and Detonation Arrestors (Flame
Arrestors)
Comment: An industry commenter recommended that BSEE add a
compliance option to Sec. 250.880(c)(2)(viii) to allow annual visual
inspections of flame, spark, and detonation arrestors (flame
arrestors). Commenter suggested an alternate approach that would allow
setting an alternate inspection frequency of up to 6 years based on
failure modes and consequence analysis, or replacement of flame
arrestors every 6 years, with a 3 to 6 year interval. The commenter
also suggested that undertaking inspections too frequently may expose
technicians to unnecessary personal safety risk from working at height
over water.
Response: BSEE disagrees. There is insufficient evidence to support
extending the current inspection intervals beyond 1 year. Moreover,
BSEE believes that this change would require an additional proposed
rule since it is a substantive change to existing requirements that was
not in the 2017 proposed rule.
What industry standards must your platform meet? (Section 250.901)
Section summary: This section addresses structural requirements for
production facilities. BSEE proposed revising paragraph (a) of Sec.
250.901 and the table in paragraph (d) to update the incorporation by
reference of API STD 2RD. However, BSEE is not updating the
incorporated edition of API STD 2RD at this time, so no change to this
section is included in the final rule.
Title of API STD 2RD
Comment: One commenter noted that the existing regulations did not
cite the correct title for API STD 2RD.
Response: BSEE is not incorporating by reference the latest the
edition of this document, which is API STD 2RD. The existing
regulations refer accurately to API RP 2RD, which is currently
incorporated by reference, so there is no need to revise this
paragraph.
Design Requirements for DOI Pipelines (Section 250.1002)
Section summary: This section addresses design requirements for
pipelines. The final rule revises paragraph (b) of Sec. 250.1002 to
update the references to ANSI/API Spec. 6A and to change the reference
from ``API Spec. 17J'' to ``ANSI/API Spec. 17J,'' which is the proper
title of the standard as incorporated in the existing regulation.
Title of API STD 2RD
Comment: One commenter noted that the existing regulations did not
cite the correct title for API STD 2RD.
Response: BSEE is not incorporating by reference the latest the
edition of this document, which is API STD 2RD. The existing
regulations refer accurately to API RP 2RD, which is currently
incorporated by reference, so there is no need to revise this
paragraph.
What To Include in Applications (Section 250.1007)
Section summary: This section specifies what operators must include
in their pipeline applications. As proposed, BSEE is revising paragraph
(a) of Sec. 250.1007 to change the reference from ``API Spec. 17J'' to
``ANSI/API Spec. 17J,'' which is the proper title of the standard as
incorporated in the existing regulation. BSEE did not receive any
comments on this section of the proposed rule.
H. Additional Comments Solicited
In the proposed rule, BSEE solicited comments on a number of issues
related to 30 CFR part 250 for which BSEE did not propose any specific
revisions to the existing regulations but which BSEE might have
addressed in this final rule or might address in possible future
rulemakings. See 82 FR 61714-61715. Those issues included: Whether the
definition of Best Available and Safest Technology (BAST) in Sec.
250.107(c) properly reflects the statutory intent; how to best organize
Sec. 250.198 (``Documents incorporated by reference''), to make it
clearer and even more consistent with OFR's recommendations for
incorporations by reference; whether to modify conditions for SPPE
failure analysis under Sec. 250.803; and whether to extend the
timeframe for initial pressure testing of PSVs under Sec. 250.880.
BSEE also solicited comments on whether BSEE should revise part 250 to
address recommendations (such as requiring a safety device to de-
energize electrostatic heater treaters) resulting from BSEE's
investigation of the November 2014 explosion and fatality on West Delta
Block 105 Platform E (see https://www.bsee.gov/wd-105-e-panel-report).
Finally, BSEE solicited comments on potential obstacles for
implementing the proposed requirements in the proposed rule, including
comments on the feasibility of implementation and any hardships
operators could encounter during implementation of a final rule.
With respect to whether the definition of BAST in Sec. 250.107(c),
as revised in the 2016 PSSR, properly reflects BSEE's statutory mandate
concerning the use of BAST, BSEE received one comment from industry
that suggested language for revising Sec. 250.107(c) in a way that
would prevent the Director from making a new BAST determination without
going through a prior notice and comment rulemaking process. That same
concept was addressed and rejected by BSEE in the 2016 final PSS
rulemaking, and BSEE does not believe that the current industry comment
on that issue provides any basis for revising Sec. 250.107(c) at this
time. Another commenter suggested that BSEE should consider modifying
the language of Sec. 250.107(c)(2) to encourage the submission of
applications to BSEE to make BAST determinations. BSEE will take that
suggestion under advisement.
With respect to comments submitted regarding potential problems
with implementation of the specific proposed requirements, BSEE has
either addressed those concerns in response to the comments on those
specific requirements elsewhere in this final rule or has otherwise
considered those comments in developing its plans for implementing the
final rule.
With respect to potential non-substantive changes to Sec. 250.198,
for the purposes of reorganizing and revising that section, one
commenter stated that meaningful comments on possible non-substantive
changes would not be practical until after BSEE proposes
[[Page 49252]]
specific revisions to that section.\18\ BSEE will continue to consult
with the OFR regarding its suggestions for specific, non-substantive
organizational and language changes to Sec. 250.198 and expects to
address such revisions in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Some commenters made comments that addressed the proposed
substantive changes to the specific documents referenced in Sec.
250.198 or raised more general concerns with the merits of, and
processes for, incorporation by reference generally. BSEE has
responded to those comments elsewhere in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the other issues on which BSEE solicited comments
(failure analysis conditions under Sec. 250.802; timeframe for initial
PSV testing under Sec. 250.880; and recommendations from the 2014 West
Delta Block investigation), BSEE received a number of specific comments
and is not implementing any changes based on those comments in this
final rule. However, BSEE will consider those comments and decide at a
later date whether to propose any additional revisions to the
regulations.
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 13771)
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will
review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this final rule and
determined that it is significant because it raises novel legal or
policy issues. After reviewing the requirements of this rule, BSEE has
determined that it will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more nor adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
public health or safety, the environment, or state, local, or tribal
governments or communities.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce
burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with
regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of
ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these
requirements.
E.O. 13771 requires Federal agencies to take proactive measures to
reduce the costs associated with complying with Federal regulations.
BSEE has evaluated this rulemaking based on the requirements of E.O.
13771. Details on the estimated cost savings of this proposed rule are
found in the final rule's economic analyses, available in the public
docket for this rulemaking. Important aspects of this rule (e.g.,
regulatory clarifications, reduction in paperwork burdens, adoption of
industry standards, and migration to performance-based standards for
select provisions) make it an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. While
this final rule reduces regulated entity compliance burdens, the rule
continues to ensure safety and environmental protection for offshore
production operations.
This rule primarily revises sections of 30 CFR part 250, subpart H,
and updates standards referenced therein. BSEE has reassessed a number
of the provisions in the existing regulations and determined that some
provisions should be written as performance-based standards rather than
prescriptive requirements. Other proposed revisions reduce or eliminate
parts of the paperwork burden of the existing regulations, while
ensuring continued safety and environmental protection. BSEE has
reexamined the economic analysis for the 2016 PSSR and now believes
that it may have underestimated some compliance costs. BSEE is
therefore revising some of the compliance cost assumptions in the
economic analysis for this rulemaking. The underestimation of
compliance costs in the 2016 analysis was primarily related to (1) the
burden for obtaining PE review and stamping of all drawings on a
facility if any production equipment modifications are proposed and (2)
duplicative independent third party equipment certifications that will
no longer be required under this rule (but are incorporated in the
baseline). BSEE underestimated both the cost and number of PE reviews
required under proposed Sec. 250.842. The cost of independent third
party testing and certifications required under proposed Sec.
250.802(c)(1) was also underestimated by BSEE in 2016.
BSEE expects this final rule to reduce the regulatory burden on
industry. Regulatory compliance cost savings are a result of changes in
the rule that will reduce burden hours, PE stamping for production
safety system components, and independent third party equipment
certifications. BSEE estimates this final rule will reduce industry
compliance burdens by $13 million annually. Over 10 years, BSEE
estimates the reduced compliance burdens and cost savings will be $112
million discounted at 3 percent or $92 million discounted at 7 percent.
The cost savings for revised provisions on PE stamping of
production safety system modification documents (Sec. 250.842) are the
single largest cost savings resulting from this rule. The additional PE
certifications and stamping will no longer be required for all
production safety system documents in an application, but will be
required only for the documents for those components being modified.
BSEE estimates the net regulatory cost savings for the Sec. 250.842
changes will be $5.7 million in the first year and $40 million over 10
years discounted at 7 percent. The other provision providing
substantial regulatory relief is the elimination of the third party
reviews and certifications for select SPPE. Compliance with the various
required standards (including ANSI/API Spec. Q1, ANSI/API Spec. 14A,
ANSI/API RP 14B, ANSI/API Spec. 6A, and API Spec. 6AV1) ensures that
each device will function in the conditions for which it was designed.
The table below summarizes BSEE's estimate of the 10-year final rule
compliance cost savings. Additional information on the compliance
costs, savings, and benefits can be found in the final Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) posted in the public docket for this final rule.
[[Page 49253]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.003
BSEE has developed this final rule consistently with the
requirements of E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and E.O. 13771. This rule
revises various provisions in the current regulations with performance-
based requirements based upon the best reasonably obtainable safety,
technical, economic, and other information. BSEE has provided industry
with more flexibility to meet the safety or equipment standards rather
than specifying the compliance method when practical. Based on a
consideration of the qualitative and quantitative safety and
environmental factors related to the rule, BSEE's assessment is that
its promulgation is consistent with the requirements of the applicable
E.O.s and of OCSLA and that this rulemaking will reduce unnecessary
burdens on stakeholders while ensuring safety and environmental
protection for OCS production operations.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This rule:
Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. This rule will revise the requirements for oil and gas
production safety systems. The changes will not have any negative
impact on the economy or any economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government. The requirements primarily
relate to the incorporated industry standards, to SPPE certification,
and to PE stamping and will not add time to development and production
processes.
Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
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
requirements will apply to all entities operating on the OCS.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies
to analyze the economic impact of regulations when a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is likely and
to consider regulatory alternatives that will achieve the agency's
goals while minimizing the burden on small entities. The Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (RFA), which assesses the impact of this rule on
small entities, is found in the RIA within the public docket for this
rule.
As defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small
entity is one that is ``independently owned and operated and which is
not dominant in its field of operation.'' What characterizes a small
business varies from industry to industry in order to properly reflect
industry size differences. This rule would affect lease operators that
are conducting OCS production operations. BSEE's analysis shows this
will include about 69 companies with active operations. Of the 69
companies, 21 (30 percent) are large and 48 (70 percent) are small.
Entities that will operate under this rule primarily fall under the
SBA's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
211120 (Crude Petroleum Extraction) and 211130 (Natural Gas
Extraction). For NAICS classifications 211120 and 211130, SBA defines a
small business as one with fewer than 1,251 employees.
BSEE considers that a rule will have 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's analysis shows
that there are 48 small companies with active operations on the OCS.
All of the operating businesses meeting the SBA classification are
potentially impacted; therefore, BSEE expects that the final rule will
affect a substantial number of small entities.
This rule is a deregulatory action, and BSEE has estimated the
overall associated cost savings. BSEE has estimated the annualized cost
savings and allocated those savings to small or large entities based on
the number of active or idle OCS production facilities. Using the share
of small and large companies' production facilities, we estimate that
small companies will realize 87 percent (~$11.4 million) of the
annualized cost savings from this rule and large companies 13 percent
(~$1.7 million). Additional information can be found in the RFA in the
docket for this final rule.
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 rule will 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 (E.O. 12630)
This final rule does not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630. A Takings
Implications Assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this final rule does
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule will 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 rule will not affect that role. A
federalism summary impact statement is not required.
The BSEE has the authority to regulate offshore oil and gas
production. State governments do not have authority over offshore
production on the OCS. None of the changes in this rule will affect
areas that are under the
[[Page 49254]]
jurisdiction of the States. It will not change the way that the States
and the Federal government interact, or the way that States interact
with private companies.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors, ambiguity, and be written
to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this
rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria
in E.O. 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct
effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation
under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
This final rule contains a collection of information that has been
submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) The title of the collection of
information for this rule is 30 CFR part 250, subpart H, Oil and Gas
Production Safety Systems--Revisions. The OMB approved the collection
under Control Number 1014-0003, expiration August 31, 2019, containing
95,997 hours and $5,582,481 non-hour cost burdens. Due to this
rulemaking, the revisions to the collection will result in a total of
93,385 hours and $10,912,696 non-hour cost burdens. Potential
respondents comprise Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur operators and
lessees. Responses to this collection of information are mandatory or
are required to obtain or retain a benefit. The frequency of responses
submitted varies depending upon the requirement; but are usually on
occasion, annually, and as a result of situations encountered. The ICR
does not include questions of a sensitive nature. BSEE will protect
proprietary information according to the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552) and DOI's implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2), 30 CFR
250.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for
limited inspection, and 30 CFR part 252, OCS Oil and Gas Information
Program.
Changes to the information collection due to this rulemaking are as
follows:
BSEE proposed removing the independent third party certification
requirements in Sec. 250.802(c)(1) altogether, however a number
commenters were concerned that there would be no way to ensure that
operators are using SPPE that is designed for the conditions in which
it will operate. To address these concerns, BSEE preserved certain
independent third party certifications, and otherwise created a
requirement to maintain documentation of how operators ensured the
device being used is designed to function in the environment to which
it will be exposed.
Section 250.802(c)(1) is being rewritten and will add 250
burden hours for developing and maintaining the description of process;
as well as make available to BSEE upon request. The revisions to this
section will also cause a reduction in third party certification non-
hour costs burdens by -$460,000.
Sec. 250.842(c) is being eliminated, which will cause a
reduction in hour burden by -192 hours.
Between the proposed rule and this final rule, BSEE ran a query to
get a more accurate number of modifications submitted under Sec.
250.842 due to decommissioning activities and found we have been
receiving fewer modifications than currently approved.
Section 250.842 will reduce the hour burden by -2,670.
During the 2016 rulemaking (the 2016 PSSR), BSEE
inadvertently omitted costs for Professional Engineers required to
stamp documents in Sec. 250.842. This revision to the collection
requests approval of an additional $5,790,215 non-hour costs (PE
Costs). We are adding this category of costs in this rulemaking but
note that this rulemaking reduces the amount of information a PE must
stamp from the 2016 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 IC burden in this rule and may submit any comments to
DOI/BSEE; ATTN: Regulations and Standards Branch; VAE-ORP; 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166; email [email protected], or fax
(703) 787-1093.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required
because we reached a Finding of No Significant Impact. This finding and
the accompanying environmental assessment was placed in the file for
BSEE's Administrative Record for the rule at the address specified in
the ADDRESSES section. A copy may also be viewed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov (use the keyword/ID
``BSEE-2017-0008'').
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). BSEE
received one comment on the Data Quality Act, also known as the
Information Quality Act (IQA). The commenter asserted that the draft EA
under NEPA seems to be subject to the IQA and, therefore, should have
been made available to the public to aid comment. Contrary to the
commenter's assertion, however, BSEE did make the draft EA publicly
available for review and public input during the proposed rulemaking by
placing that document in the public docket along with the proposed
rule.
Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
This final rule is not a significant energy action under the
definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not
required. The final rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action and does
not add any new regulatory compliance requirements that would lead to
adverse effects on the nation's energy supply, distribution, or use.
Rather, the regulatory changes will help to reduce compliance burdens
on the oil and gas industry that may hinder the development or use of
domestically produced energy resources, while still ensuring safety and
environmental protection.
Severability
If a court holds any provisions of this rule or their applicability
to any person or circumstances invalid, the remainder of the provisions
and their applicability to other people or circumstances will not be
affected.
[[Page 49255]]
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf,
Continental Shelf--mineral resources, Continental Shelf--rights-of-way,
Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Government
contracts, Incorporation by reference, Investigations, Oil and gas
exploration, Penalties, Pipelines, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur.
Joseph R. Balash,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
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.
Subpart A--General
0
2. Amend Sec. 250.198 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text and (g)(1) through (3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (g)(6) and redesignating paragraphs (g)(4) and
(5) as (g)(6) and (7);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(6) and (7), removing the
semicolon and adding a period in its place;
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (g)(4) and (5);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (h)(1), (52), (55);
0
f. In paragraphs (h)(58) and (62), removing ``250.842(b)'' and adding
in its place ``250.842(c)'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (h)(59) through (61), (65), (68), (70), (71) and
(96);
0
h. In paragraph (h)(73), removing ``250.802(b)'' and adding in its
place ``250.802(c)''; and
0
i. Adding paragraph (o).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 250.198 Documents incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(g) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 22 Law Drive,
P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900; http://www.asme.org; phone: 1-
800-843-2763:
(1) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section I,
Rules for Construction of Power Boilers, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017
incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.851(a) and 250.1629(b).
(2) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IV, Rules
for Construction of Heating Boilers, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017
incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.851(a) and 250.1629(b).
(3) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Rules
for Construction of Pressure Vessels; Division 1, 2017 Edition; July 1,
2017 incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.851(a) and
250.1629(b).
(4) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Rules
for Construction of Pressure Vessels; Division 2: Alternative Rules,
2017 Edition, July 1, 2017 incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.
250.851(a) and 250.1629(b).
(5) 2017 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Rules
for Construction Pressure Vessels; Division 3: Alternative Rules for
Construction of High Pressure Vessels, 2017 Edition, July 1, 2017
incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.851(a) and 250.1629(b).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) API 510, Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: In-Service
Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration, Tenth Edition, May 2014;
Addendum 1, May 2017; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.
250.851(a) and 250.1629(b);
* * * * *
(52) API RP 2SK, Design and Analysis of Stationkeeping Systems for
Floating Structures, Third Edition, October 2005, Addendum, May 2008,
Reaffirmed June 2015; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec.
250.800(c) and 250.901(a) and (d);
* * * * *
(55) ANSI/API RP 14B, Design, Installation, Operation, Test, and
Redress of Subsurface Safety Valve Systems, Sixth Edition, September
2015; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.802(b), 250.803(a),
250.814(d), 250.828(c), and 250.880(c);
* * * * *
(59) API RP 14FZ, Recommended Practice for Design, Installation,
and Maintenance of Electrical Systems for Fixed and Floating Offshore
Petroleum Facilities for Unclassified and Class I, Zone 0, Zone 1 and
Zone 2 Locations, Second Edition, May 2013; incorporated by reference
at Sec. Sec. 250.114(c), 250.842(c), 250.862(e), and 250.1629(b);
(60) API RP 14G, Recommended Practice for Fire Prevention and
Control on Fixed Open-type Offshore Production Platforms, Fourth
Edition, April 2007: Reaffirmed, January 2013; incorporated by
reference at Sec. Sec. 250.859(a), 250.862(e), 250.880(c), and
250.1629(b);
(61) API STD 6AV2, Installation, Maintenance, and Repair of Surface
Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves Offshore; First Edition,
March 2014; Errata 1, August 2014; incorporated by reference at
Sec. Sec. 250.820, 250.834, 250.836, and 250.880(c);
* * * * *
(65) API RP 500, Recommended Practice for Classification of
Locations for Electrical Installations at Petroleum Facilities
Classified as Class I, Division 1 and Division 2, Third Edition,
December 2012; Errata January 2014; incorporated by reference at
Sec. Sec. 250.114(a), 250.459, 250.842(a), 250.862(a) and (e),
250.872(a), 250.1628(b) and (d), and 250.1629(b);
* * * * *
(68) ANSI/API Spec. Q1, Specification for Quality Management System
Requirements for Manufacturing Organizations for the Petroleum and
Natural Gas Industry, Ninth Edition, June 2013; Errata, February 2014;
Errata 2, March 2014; Addendum 1, June 2016; incorporated by reference
at Sec. Sec. 250.730 and 250.801(b) and (c);
* * * * *
(70) ANSI/API Spec. 6A, Specification for Wellhead and Christmas
Tree Equipment, Twentieth Edition, October 2010; Addendum 1, November
2011; Errata 2, November 2011; Addendum 2, November 2012; Addendum 3,
March 2013; Errata 3, June 2013; Errata 4, August 2013; Errata 5,
November 2013; Errata 6, March 2014; Errata 7, December 2014; Errata 8,
February 2016; Addendum 4, June 2016; Errata 9, June 2016; Errata 10,
August 2016; incorporated by reference at Sec. Sec. 250.730,
250.802(a), 250.803(a), 250.833, 250.873(b), 250.874(g), and
250.1002(b);
(71) API Spec. 6AV1, Specification for Verification Test of
Wellhead Surface Safety Valves and Underwater Safety Valves for
Offshore Service, Second Edition, February 2013; incorporated by
reference at Sec. Sec. 250.802(a), 250.833, 250.873(b), and
250.874(g);
* * * * *
(96) API 570, Piping Inspection Code: In-service Inspection,
Rating, Repair, and Alteration of Piping Systems, Fourth Edition,
February 2016; Addendum, May 2017; incorporated by reference at Sec.
250.841(b).
* * * * *
(o) American National Standards Institute (ANSI), http://www.webstore.ansi.org; phone: 212-642-4900.
(1) ANSI Z88.2-1992, American National Standard for Respiratory
Protection, incorporated by reference at Sec. 250.490.
(2) [Reserved]
[[Page 49256]]
Subpart H--Oil and Gas Production Safety Systems
0
3. Amend Sec. 250.800 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.800 General.
(a) You must design, install, use, maintain, and test production
safety equipment in a manner to ensure the safety and protection of the
human, marine, and coastal environments. For production safety systems
operated in subfreezing climates, you must use equipment and procedures
that account for floating ice, icing, and other extreme environmental
conditions that may occur in the area. Before you commence production
on a new production facility:
(1) BSEE must approve your production safety system application, as
required in Sec. 250.842.
(2) You must request a preproduction inspection by notifying the
District Manager at least 72 hours before you plan to commence initial
production, as required under Sec. 250.880(a)(1).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 250.801 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.801 Safety and pollution prevention equipment (SPPE)
certification.
(a) SPPE equipment. You must install only safety and pollution
prevention equipment (SPPE) considered certified under paragraph (b) of
this section or accepted under paragraph (c) of this section. BSEE
considers the following equipment to be types of SPPE:
(1) Surface safety valves (SSV) and actuators, including those
installed on injection wells capable of natural flow;
(2) Boarding shutdown valves (BSDV) and their actuators. For subsea
wells, the BSDV is the surface equivalent of an SSV on a surface well;
(3) Underwater safety valves (USV) and actuators;
(4) Subsurface safety valves (SSSV) and associated safety valve
locks and landing nipples; and
(5) Gas lift shutdown valves (GLSDV) and their actuators associated
with subsea systems.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 250.802 by revising paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 250.802 Requirements for SPPE.
(a) All SSVs, BSDVs, USVs, and GLSDVs and their actuators must meet
all of the specifications contained in ANSI/API Spec. 6A and API Spec.
6AV1 (both incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198).
* * * * *
(c) Requirements derived from the documents incorporated in this
section for SSVs, BSDVs, SSSVs, USVs, GLSDVs, and their actuators,
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) You must ensure that each device is designed to function in the
conditions to which it may be exposed; including temperature, pressure,
flow rates, and environmental conditions.
(i) The device design must be tested by an independent test agency
according to the test requirements in the appropriate standard for that
device (API Spec. 6AV1 or ANSI/API Spec. 14A), as identified in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(ii) You must maintain a description of the process you used to
ensure the device is designed to function as required in paragraphs (a)
and (c)(1) of this section and provide that description to BSEE upon
request.
(iii) If you remove any SPPE from service and install the device at
a different location, you must have a qualified third party review and
certify that each device will function as designed under the conditions
to which it may be exposed.
(2) All materials and parts must meet the original equipment
manufacturer specifications and acceptance criteria.
(3) The device must pass applicable validation tests and functional
tests performed by an API-licensed test agency.
(4) You must have requalification testing performed following
manufacture design changes.
(5) You must comply with and document all manufacturing,
traceability, quality control, and inspection requirements.
(6) You must follow specified installation, testing, and repair
protocols.
(7) You must use only qualified parts, procedures, and personnel to
repair or redress equipment.
(d) You must install and use SPPE according to the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If . . . Then . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) You need to install any SPPE....... You must install SPPE that
conforms to Sec. 250.801.
(2) A non-certified SPPE is already in It may remain in service.
service.
(3) A non-certified SPPE requires You must replace it with SPPE
offsite repair, re-manufacturing, or that conforms to Sec.
any hot work such as welding. 250.801.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
6. Revise Sec. 250.803 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.803 What SPPE failure reporting procedures must I follow?
(a) You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in
section 10.20.7.4 of ANSI/API Spec. 6A for SSVs, BSDVs, GLSDVs and
USVs. You must follow the failure reporting requirements contained in
section 7.10 of ANSI/API Spec. 14A and Annex F of ANSI/API RP 14B for
SSSVs (all incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198). Within 30 days
after the discovery and identification of the failure, you must provide
a written notice of equipment failure to the manufacturer of such
equipment and to BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory
Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as provided in
paragraph (d) of this section. A failure is any condition that prevents
the equipment from meeting the functional specification or purpose.
(b) You must ensure that an investigation and a failure analysis
are performed within 120 days of the failure to determine the cause of
the failure. If the investigation and analyses are performed by an
entity other than the manufacturer, you must ensure that the analysis
report is submitted to the manufacturer and to BSEE through the Chief,
Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a
third party as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. You must also
ensure that the results of the investigation and any corrective action
are documented in the analysis report.
(c) 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 BSEE through the Chief, Office of Offshore
Regulatory Programs, unless BSEE has designated a third party as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(d) BSEE may designate a third party to receive the data required
by paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section
[[Page 49257]]
on behalf of BSEE. If BSEE designates a third party, you must submit
the information required in this section to the designated third party,
as directed by BSEE.
0
7. Amend Sec. 250.814 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.814 Design, installation, and operation of SSSVs--dry trees.
* * * * *
(d) You must design, install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test
all SSSVs in accordance with ANSI/API RP 14B (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 250.198). For additional SSSV testing requirements, refer to
Sec. 250.880.
0
8. Revise Sec. 250.820 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.820 Use of SSVs.
You must install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test all SSVs in
accordance with API STD 6AV2 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198). If any SSV does not operate properly, or if any gas and/or
liquid fluid flow is observed during the leakage test as described in
Sec. 250.880, then you must shut-in all sources to the SSV and repair
or replace the valve before resuming production.
0
9. Amend Sec. 250.821 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and
(a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.821 Emergency action and safety system shutdown--dry trees.
(a) If your facility is impacted or will potentially be impacted by
an emergency situation (e.g., an impending National Weather Service-
named tropical storm or hurricane, ice events, or post-earthquake), you
must:
(1) Properly install a subsurface safety device on any well that is
not yet equipped with a subsurface safety device and that is capable of
natural flow, as soon as possible, with due consideration being given
to personnel safety.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 250.828 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.828 Design, installation, and operation of SSSVs--subsea
trees.
* * * * *
(c) You must design, install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test
all SSSVs in accordance with your Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP) and
ANSI/API RP 14B (incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198). For
additional SSSV testing requirements, refer to Sec. 250.880.
0
11. Amend Sec. 250.833 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.833 Specification for underwater safety valves (USVs).
All USVs, including those designated as primary or secondary, and
any alternate isolation valve (AIV) that acts as a USV, if applicable,
and their actuators, must conform to the requirements specified in
Sec. Sec. 250.801 through 250.803. A production master or wing valve
may qualify as a USV under ANSI/API Spec. 6A and API Spec. 6AV1 (both
incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198).
* * * * *
0
12. Revise Sec. 250.834 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.834 Use of USVs.
You must install, maintain, inspect, repair, and test any valve
designated as the primary USV in accordance with this subpart, your
DWOP (as specified in Sec. Sec. 250.286 through 250.295), and API STD
6AV2 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198). For additional USV
testing requirements, refer to Sec. 250.880.
0
13. Revise Sec. 250.836 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.836 Use of BSDVs.
You must install, inspect, maintain, repair, and test all new
BSDVs, as well as all BSDVs that you remove from service for
remanufacturing or repair, in accordance with API STD 6AV2
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198) for SSVs. If any BSDV does
not operate properly or if any gas fluid and/or liquid fluid flow is
observed during the leakage test, as described in Sec. 250.880, you
must shut-in all sources to the BSDV and immediately repair or replace
the valve.
0
14. Amend Sec. 250.837 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 250.837 Emergency action and safety system shutdown--subsea
trees.
(a) If your facility is impacted or will potentially be impacted by
an emergency situation (e.g., an impending National Weather Service-
named tropical storm or hurricane, ice events, or post-earthquake), you
must shut-in all subsea wells unless otherwise approved by the District
Manager. A shut-in is defined as a closed BSDV, USV, GLSDV, and
surface-controlled SSSV.
(b) When operating a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) or other
type of workover or intervention vessel in an area with subsea
infrastructure, you must:
(1) Suspend production from all wells that could be affected by a
dropped object, including upstream wells that flow through the same
pipeline; or
(2) Establish direct, real-time communications between the MODU or
other type of workover or intervention vessel and the production
facility control room and develop a dropped objects plan, as required
in Sec. 250.714. If an object is dropped, you must immediately secure
the well directly under the MODU or other type of workover or
intervention vessel while simultaneously communicating with the
platform to shut-in all affected wells. You must also maintain without
disruption, and continuously verify, communication between the
production facility and the MODU or other type of workover or
intervention vessel. If communication is lost between the MODU or other
type of workover or intervention vessel and the platform for 20 or more
minutes, you must shut-in all wells that could be affected by a dropped
object.
(c) * * *
(5) Subsea ESD (MODU). In the event of an ESD activation that is
initiated by a dropped object from a MODU or other type of workover or
intervention vessel, you must secure all wells in the proximity of the
MODU or other type of workover or intervention vessel by closing the
USVs and surface-controlled SSSVs in accordance with the applicable
tables in Sec. Sec. 250.838 and 250.839. You must notify the
appropriate District Manager before resuming production.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 250.841 by adding a paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.841 Platforms.
* * * * *
(c) If you plan to make a modification to any production safety
system that also involves a major modification to the platform
structure, you must follow the requirements in Sec. 250.900(b)(2). A
major modification to a platform structure is defined in Sec.
250.900(b)(2).
0
16. Revise Sec. 250.842 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.842 Approval of safety systems design and installation
features.
(a) Before you install or modify a production safety system, you
must submit a production safety system application to the District
Manager. The District Manager must approve your production safety
system application before you commence production through or otherwise
use the new or modified system. The application must include the design
documentation prescribed as follows:
[[Page 49258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.004
(b) You must develop and maintain the following design documents
and make them available to BSEE upon request:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.005
[[Page 49259]]
(c) In the production safety system application, you must also
certify the following:
(1) That all electrical systems were designed according to API RP
14F or API RP 14FZ, as applicable (incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198);
(2) That the design documents for the mechanical and electrical
systems that you are required to submit under paragraph (a) of this
section are sealed by a licensed professional engineer. For modified
systems, only the modifications are required to be sealed by a licensed
professional engineer(s). The professional engineer must be licensed in
a State or Territory of the United States and have sufficient expertise
and experience to perform the duties; and
(3) That a hazards analysis was performed in accordance with Sec.
250.1911 and API RP 14J (incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198),
and that you have a hazards analysis program in place to assess
potential hazards during the operation of the facility.
(d) Within 90 days after placing new or modified production safety
systems in service, you must submit to the District Manager the as-
built diagrams for the new or modified production safety systems
outlined in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3) of this section. You must
certify in an accompanying letter that the as-built design documents
have been reviewed for compliance with applicable regulations and
accurately represent the new or modified system as installed. The
drawings must be clearly marked ``as-built.''
(e) You must maintain approved and supporting design documents
required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section at your offshore
field office nearest the OCS facility or at other locations
conveniently available to the District Manager. These documents must be
made available to BSEE upon request and must be retained for the life
of the facility. All approved designs are subject to field
verifications.
0
17. Amend Sec. 250.851 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.851 Pressure vessels (including heat exchangers) and fired
vessels.
(a) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.006
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 250.852 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 250.852 Flowlines/Headers.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Review the manufacturer's Design Methodology Verification
Report and the independent verification agent's (IVA) certificate for
the design methodology contained in that report to ensure that the
manufacturer has complied with the requirements of ANSI/API Spec. 17J
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198);
* * * * *
(4) Submit to the District Manager a statement certifying that the
pipe is suitable for its intended use and that the manufacturer has
complied with the IVA requirements of ANSI/API Spec. 17J (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 250.198).
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 250.853 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b), removing the word ``and'';
0
b. In paragraph (c), removing the period and adding ``; and'' in its
place; and
0
c. Adding a paragraph (d).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 250.853 Safety sensors.
* * * * *
(d) All level sensors are equipped to permit testing through an
external bridle on all new vessel installations where possible,
depending on the type of vessel for which the level sensor is used.
0
20. Amend Sec. 250.867 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.867 Temporary quarters and temporary equipment.
(a) You must equip temporary quarters with all safety devices
required by API RP 14C, Appendix C (incorporated by reference as
specified in Sec. 250.198). The District Manager must approve the
safety system/safety devices associated with the temporary quarters
prior to installation.
* * * * *
(d) The District Manager must approve temporary generators that
would require a change to the electrical one-line diagram in Sec.
250.842(a).
0
21. Amend Sec. 250.870 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text
and (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 250.870 Time delays on pressure safety low (PSL) sensors.
(a) You may apply industry standard Class B, Class C, or Class B/C
logic to applicable PSL sensors installed on process equipment. If the
device may be bypassed for greater than 45 seconds, you must monitor
the bypassed devices in accordance with Sec. 250.869(a). You must
document on your field test records any use of a PSL sensor with a time
delay greater than 45 seconds. For purposes of this section, PSL
sensors are categorized as follows:
* * * * *
(2) Class C safety devices have logic that allows for the PSL
sensors to be bypassed until the component comes into full service
(i.e., the time at which the startup pressure equals or exceeds the set
pressure of the PSL sensor, the system reaches a stabilized pressure,
and the PSL sensor clears). If a Class C safety device is bypassed, you
must monitor the device until it is in full service.
* * * * *
0
22. Revise Sec. 250.872 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.872 Atmospheric vessels.
(a) You must equip atmospheric vessels used to process and/or store
[[Page 49260]]
liquid hydrocarbons or other Class I liquids as described in API RP 500
or 505 (both incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198) with
protective equipment identified in API RP 14C, section A.5
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198). Transport tanks approved
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, that are sealed and not
connected via interconnected piping to the production process train and
that are used only for storage of refined liquid hydrocarbons or Class
I liquids, are not required to be equipped with the protective
equipment identified in API RP 14C, section A.5. The atmospheric
vessels connected to the process system that contains a Class I liquid
and the associated pumps must be reflected on the design documents
listed in Sec. 250.842(a)(1) through (4) and (b)(3).
(b) You must ensure that all atmospheric vessels are designed and
maintained to ensure the proper working conditions for LSH sensors. The
LSH sensor bridle must be designed to prevent different density fluids
from impacting sensor functionality.
(c) You must ensure that all atmospheric vessels are designed,
installed, and maintained to prevent pollution, including the
displacement of oil out of an overboard water outlet, as required by
Sec. 250.300(b)(3) and (4).
0
23. Amend Sec. 250.873 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.873 Subsea gas lift requirements.
* * * * *
[[Page 49261]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.007
[[Page 49262]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28SE18.008
* * * * *
0
24. Amend Sec. 250.874 by revising paragraph (g)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.874 Subsea water injection systems.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) If a designated USV on a water injection well fails the
applicable test under Sec. 250.880(c)(4)(ii), you must notify the
appropriate District Manager and request approval to designate another
ANSI/API Spec 6A and API Spec. 6AV1 (both incorporated by reference in
Sec. 250.198) certified subsea valve as your USV.
* * * * *
0
25. Revise Sec. 250.876 to read as follows:
Sec. 250.876 Fired and exhaust heated components.
No later than September 7, 2018, and at least once every 5 years
thereafter, you must have qualified third-party inspect, and then you
must repair or replace, as needed, the fire tube for tube-type heaters
that are equipped with either automatically controlled natural or
forced draft burners installed in either atmospheric or pressure
vessels that heat hydrocarbons and/or glycol. If inspection indicates
tube-type heater deficiencies, you must complete and document repairs
or replacements. You must document the inspection results, retain such
documentation for at least 5 years, and make the documentation
available to BSEE upon request.
0
26. Amend Sec. 250.880 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2)(iv), and (c)(4)(i) and (iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.880 Production safety system testing.
(a) Notification. You must:
(1) Notify the District Manager at least 72 hours before you
commence initial production on a facility as required in Sec.
250.800(a)(2), in order for BSEE to conduct the preproduction
inspection of the integrated safety system.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing frequency, allowable leakage
Item name rates, and other requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Surface-controlled SSSVs Semi-annually, not to exceed 6
(including devices installed in calendar months between tests. Also
shut-in and injection wells). test in place when first installed
or reinstalled. If the device does
not operate properly, or if a
liquid leakage rate > 400 cubic
centimeters per minute or a gas
leakage rate > 15 standard cubic
feet per minute is observed, the
device must be removed, repaired,
and reinstalled or replaced.
Testing must be according to ANSI/
API RP 14B (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198) to
ensure proper operation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item name Testing frequency and requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(iv) SSVs......................... Once each calendar month, not to
exceed 6 weeks between tests.
Valves must be tested for both
operation and leakage. You must
test according to API STD 6AV2
(incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198). If an SSV does not
operate properly or if any gas and/
or liquid fluid flow is observed
during the leakage test, the valve
must be immediately repaired or
replaced.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(4) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing frequency, allowable leakage
Item name rates, and other requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Surface-controlled SSSVs Tested semiannually, not to exceed 6
(including devices installed in months between tests. If the device
shut-in and injection wells). does not operate properly, or if a
liquid leakage rate > 400 cubic
centimeters per minute or a gas
leakage rate > 15 standard cubic
feet per minute is observed, the
device must be removed, repaired,
and reinstalled or replaced.
Testing must be according to ANSI/
API RP 14B (incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198) to
ensure proper operation, or as
approved in your DWOP.
[[Page 49263]]
* * * * * * *
(iii) BSDVs....................... Tested at least once each calendar
month, not to exceed 6 weeks
between tests. Valves must be
tested for both operation and
leakage. You must test according to
API STD 6AV2 for SSVs (incorporated
by reference in Sec. 250.198). If
a BSDV does not operate properly or
if any fluid flow is observed
during the leakage test, the valve
must be immediately repaired or
replaced.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 250.1002 by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (2), and (4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 250.1002 Design requirements for DOI pipelines.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Pipeline valves shall meet the minimum design requirements
of ANSI/API Spec 6A (as incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198),
ANSI/API Spec 6D (as incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198), or
the equivalent. A valve may not be used under operating conditions that
exceed the applicable pressure-temperature ratings contained in those
standards.
(2) Pipeline flanges and flange accessories shall meet the minimum
design requirements of ANSI/ASME B16.5, ANSI/API Spec 6A, or the
equivalent (as incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198). Each flange
assembly must be able to withstand the maximum pressure at which the
pipeline is to be operated and to maintain its physical and chemical
properties at any temperature to which it is anticipated that it might
be subjected in service.
* * * * *
(4) If you are installing pipelines constructed of unbonded
flexible pipe, you must design them according to the standards and
procedures of ANSI/API Spec. 17J, as incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 250.1007 by revising paragraph (a)(4)(i)(D) to read as
follows:
Sec. 250.1007 What to include in applications.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) A review by a third-party independent verification agent (IVA)
according to ANSI/API Spec. 17J (as incorporated by reference in Sec.
250.198), if applicable.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21197 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VH-P