1014-AA52 WCR proposed rule published

56354

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

§ 686.1010 What are the primary indicators
of performance for Job Corps centers and
the Job Corps program?

*

*
*
*
*
(f) The percentage of participants with
wage records in the second quarter after
exit who were employed by the same
employer in the second and fourth
quarters after exit.
PART 688—PROVISIONS GOVERNING
THE YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM
6. The authority citation for part 688
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: Secs. 171, 189, 503, Pub. L.
113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014).

Subpart D—Performance Indicators
7. Amend § 688.400 by revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:

■

§ 688.400 What are the performance
indicators for YouthBuild grants?

*

*
*
*
*
(f) The percentage of participants with
wage records in the second quarter after
exit who were employed by the same
employer in the second and fourth
quarters after exit.
*
*
*
*
*
Martin J. Walsh,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 2022–19003 Filed 9–13–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
30 CFR Part 250
[Docket ID: BSEE–2022–0009; EEEE500000
223E1700D2 ET1SF0000.EAQ000]
RIN 1014–AA52

Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in
the Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout
Preventer Systems and Well Control
Revisions
Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

The Department of the
Interior (DOI or Department), through
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), is proposing to
revise certain regulatory provisions
published in the 2019 final well control
rule for drilling, workover, completion,
and decommissioning operations. BSEE
is proposing these revisions to clarify
blowout preventer (BOP) system
requirements and to modify certain
specific BOP equipment capability

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

requirements. This proposed rule would
provide consistency and clarity to
industry regarding the BOP equipment
and associated operational requirements
necessary for BSEE review and approval
and would further ensure operations are
conducted safely and in an
environmentally responsible manner.
DATES: Send your comments on this
proposed rule to BSEE on or before
November 14, 2022. BSEE may not
consider or include in the
Administrative Record for the final rule
comments that we receive after the close
of the comment period (see DATES) or
comments delivered to an address other
than those listed below (see ADDRESSES).
Information Collection Requirements:
If you wish to comment on the
information collection requirements in
this proposed rule, please note that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in this proposed rule between
30 and 60 days after publication of this
proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Therefore, comments should be
submitted to OMB by October 14, 2022.
The deadline for comments on the
information collection burden does not
affect the deadline for the public to
comment to BSEE on the proposed
regulations.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the rulemaking by any of the
following methods. Please use the
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
1014–AA52 as an identifier in your
message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. In the entry
entitled, ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter
BSEE–2022–0009 then click search.
Follow the instructions to submit public
comments and view supporting and
related materials available for this
rulemaking. BSEE may post all
submitted comments.
• Mail or hand-carry comments to
BSEE: Attention: Regulations and
Standards Branch, 45600 Woodland
Road, VAE–ORP, Sterling, VA 20166.
Please reference RIN 1014–AA52, ‘‘Oil
and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the
Outer Continental Shelf-Blowout
Preventer Systems and Well Control
Revisions,’’ in your comments, and
include your name and return address.
• Send comments on the information
collection in this rule to: Interior Desk
Officer 1014–0028, Office of
Management and Budget; 202–395–5806
(fax); email: oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov. Please send a copy to
BSEE at regs@bsee.gov.
Public Availability of Comments:
Before including your address, phone

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
For BSEE to withhold from disclosure
your personal identifying information,
you must identify any information
contained in your comment submittal
that, if released, would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of your
personal privacy. You must also briefly
describe any possible harmful
consequence(s) of the disclosure of
information, such as embarrassment,
injury, or other harm. While you may
request that we withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions, contact Kirk Malstrom,
Regulations and Standards Branch,
(202) 258–1518, or by email: regs@
bsee.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
This rulemaking would revise certain
regulatory provisions that were
published in the 2019 final rule entitled
‘‘Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in
the Outer Continental Shelf–Blowout
Preventer Systems and Well Control
Revisions,’’ 84 FR 21908 (May 15, 2019)
(2019 WCR). On January 20, 2021, the
President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13990 (Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the
accompanying ‘‘President’s Fact Sheet:
List of Agency Actions for Review.’’
Within the President’s Fact Sheet, DOI
was specifically instructed to review the
2019 WCR to evaluate potential
revisions to promote and protect public
health and the environment, among
other identified policy goals. This
review confirmed that the 2019 WCR
contains many provisions that help
ensure that federally regulated outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas
operations are conducted safely and in
an environmentally responsible manner.
Therefore, this proposed rule would
address only select provisions that
would further promote the President’s
policies and environmental objectives.
At this time, BSEE is proposing a
narrowly focused rulemaking to address
the identified regulatory requirements to
help improve operations that use a BOP,
certain BOP capabilities and
functionalities, and BSEE oversight of
such operations. The proposed rule
would:
• Clarify BOP system requirements,

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
• Remove the option for operators to
submit failure data to designated third
parties,
• Require accreditation of
independent third party qualifications,
• Establish dual shear ram
requirements for surface BOPs on
existing floating production facilities
when an operator replaces an entire
surface BOP stack,
• Require ROV open functions as
originally required in the 2016 WCR,
and
• Require submittal of certain BOP
test results if BSEE is unable to witness
the testing.
BSEE will continue to evaluate the
effectiveness of the 2019 WCR and all
BSEE regulations for necessary and
appropriate rulemakings in the future.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory
Authority and Responsibilities
B. Purpose and Summary of the
Rulemaking
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed
Changes
III. Procedural Matters

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I. Background
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory
Authority and Responsibilities
BSEE’s authority for this rule flows
from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331–1356a.
OCSLA, enacted in 1953 and
substantially revised in 1978, authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to lease the OCS for mineral
development and to regulate oil and gas
exploration, development, and
production operations on the OCS. The
Secretary has delegated authority to
perform certain of these functions to
BSEE.
To carry out its responsibilities, BSEE
regulates offshore oil and gas operations
to: enhance the safety of exploration for
and development of oil and gas on the
OCS, ensure that those operations
protect the environment, and implement
advancements in technology. BSEE also
conducts onsite inspections to assure
compliance with regulations, lease
terms, and approved plans and permits.
Detailed information concerning BSEE’s
regulations and guidance to the offshore
oil and gas industry may be found on
BSEE’s website at: https://
www.bsee.gov/guidance-andregulations.
BSEE’s regulatory program covers a
wide range of OCS facilities and
activities, including drilling,
completion, workover, production,
pipeline, and decommissioning
operations. Drilling, completion,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

workover, and decommissioning
operations are types of well operations
that offshore operators 1 perform
throughout the OCS. This rulemaking is
applicable to these listed operational
activities that involve certain BOP
operations, capabilities, or
functionalities.
B. Purpose and Summary of the
Rulemaking
After the Deepwater Horizon incident
in 2010, BSEE adopted several
recommendations from multiple
investigation teams to improve the
safety of offshore operations.
Subsequently, BSEE published the 2016
Blowout Preventer Systems and Well
Control Final Rule on April 29, 2016 (81
FR 25888) (2016 WCR). The 2016 WCR
consolidated the equipment and
operational requirements for well
control into one part of BSEE’s
regulations; enhanced BOP and well
design requirements; modified wellcontrol requirements; and incorporated
certain industry technical standards.
Most of the 2016 WCR provisions
became effective on July 28, 2016.
Although the 2016 WCR addressed a
significant number of issues that were
identified during the analyses of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, BSEE
recognized that BOP equipment and
systems continue to improve and that
well control processes also evolve.
Therefore, after the 2016 WCR took
effect, BSEE continued to engage with
the offshore oil and gas industry,
Standards Development Organizations
(SDOs), and other stakeholders. During
these engagements, BSEE identified
issues, and stakeholders expressed a
variety of concerns regarding the
implementation of the 2016 WCR. BSEE
completed a review of the 2016 WCR
and, on May 15, 2019, published the
2019 WCR in the Federal Register (84
FR 21908). The 2019 WCR left most of
the 2016 WCR unchanged.
Following publication of the 2019
WCR, BSEE continued to engage with
stakeholders to gather information to
ensure an effective implementation of
the governing regulatory requirements.
The Department also identified areas for
improvement to specific 2019 WCR
provisions. Furthermore, on January 20,
2021, the President issued E.O. 13990
(Protecting Public Health and the
1 BSEE’s regulations at 30 CFR part 250 generally
apply to ‘‘a lessee, the owner or holder of operating
rights, a designated operator or agent of the
lessee(s)’’ (30 CFR 250.105 (definition of ‘‘you’’)’’
and ‘‘the person actually performing the activity to
which the requirement applies’’ (30 CFR
250.146(c)). For convenience, this preamble will
refer to these regulated entities as ‘‘operators’’
unless otherwise indicated.

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56355

Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the
accompanying ‘‘President’s Fact Sheet:
List of Agency Actions for Review.’’
Within the President’s Fact Sheet, DOI
was specifically instructed to review the
2019 WCR to evaluate potential
revisions to promote and protect public
health and the environment, among
other identified policy priorities. The
Department is proposing a narrowly
focused rulemaking to address the
identified regulatory requirements to
help improve operations that use a BOP,
certain BOP capabilities and
functionalities, and BSEE oversight of
such operations.
II. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Proposed Changes
BSEE is proposing to revise the
following regulations:
Subpart G—Well Operations and
Equipment
What are the general requirements for
BOP systems and system components?
(§ 250.730)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)
BSEE proposes to revise the paragraph
(a) by modifying the current
requirement that the ‘‘BOP system must
be capable of closing and sealing the
wellbore in the event of flow due to a
kick, including under anticipated
flowing conditions for the specific well
conditions,’’ to a requirement that the
‘‘BOP system must be capable of closing
and sealing the wellbore at all times to
the well’s maximum kick tolerance
design limits.’’ Additional minor, nonsubstantive wording and grammatical
changes are proposed for readability to
accommodate this proposed revision.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
In the 2016 WCR, BSEE promulgated
a revised final version of § 250.730(a)
requiring the BOP system to be capable
of closing and sealing the wellbore ‘‘at
all times’’ under ‘‘anticipated flowing
conditions for the specific well
conditions.’’
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:
In the 2019 WCR, BSEE modified
these requirements to codify BSEE
guidance developed in July 2016 based
on experience implementing the 2016
WCR. In that posted guidance, BSEE
clarified that the language of the 2016
WCR required that ‘‘the BOP system
. . . be designed to shut-in a well that
is flowing due to a kick.’’ A kick is
defined as an influx of formation fluids
or gas unexpectedly entering the
wellbore. Flow from a kick represents
the most critical and challenging

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

56356

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

circumstances a BOP must address.
Accordingly, BSEE considers the
capacity to close and seal under such
conditions to correspond to the capacity
to close and seal under any conditions.
Further, other regulations contain
requirements to ensure BOP
functionality during non-kick
conditions. For example, the operator
must verify the ability of the BOP to
function during a non-kick event
through the regular function and
pressure testing required by § 250.737.
The operator also is required to obtain
independent third party certification
that the BOP is designed, tested, and
maintained to perform under the
maximum environmental and
operational conditions anticipated to
occur at the well under § 250.731. In
modifying the regulatory language in
2019 to more clearly reflect BSEE’s
original 2016 intent, BSEE did not view
the revisions as weakening or altering
the existing requirement that the BOP
system must function during all
operations.

The methodology for calculating this
flow rate follows similar logic to that
used in calculating worst case discharge
rates, as well as in well testing and
production change estimations.
A BOP functions as a mitigation
device, designed to backstop other
prevention mechanisms to keep a well
from progressing to a full blowout; its
purpose is not to halt a full blowout
once it has commenced. Operators must
ensure ram closure time and sealing
integrity within the operational and
mechanical design limits of the well and
equipment. The anticipated flowrate is
used to validate that the BOP will
function under flowing conditions
while maintaining well integrity, as
clarified in the proposed text. The
proposed clarifications to paragraph (a)
further support and reflect the totality of
the improved BOP equipment,
procedures, and testing, while
acknowledging the safe and appropriate
purpose and function of the BOP, to
clarify these requirements from the 2016
and 2019 WCRs.

Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraph (a)
Based on BSEE’s experience with the
implementation of these regulations,
BSEE is proposing revisions to the
general introductory language to
provide additional clarity. Since the
2019 WCR, BSEE continues to receive
questions and requests for clarity on this
current provision. Therefore, BSEE
determined that further clarification is
necessary to help reduce any
misconceptions or ambiguity. The
proposed revisions would restore
language referencing the BOP system’s
capacity to close and seal the wellbore
at all times, while clarifying the
necessary context of that requirement
within the well’s maximum kick
tolerance design. Kick tolerance is
defined as the maximum volume of gas
kick influx that can be safely taken into
the well bore and circulated out of the
well without breaking down the
surrounding formation. It is used in well
design to plan the position of the casing
shoes and ensures that protecting the
formation integrity is an integral part of
the well barrier design.
The volume of influx can be directly
converted to a loss of hydrostatic
pressure on the well prior to shut in.
This loss of pressure in the wellbore is
a mechanism for well flow. Simply
stated, the larger the pressure change
the greater the flow rate. The impact of
the change in pressure is unique to each
well condition, e.g., a well with prolific
exposed formations will have a higher
flow rate with the same pressure change
than a well with a lower permeability.

Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (c)

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (c)
by removing, throughout the paragraph,
the option for submission of failure
reporting to a designated third party.
BSEE also would revise paragraph (c)(2)
to ensure that the operator starts a
failure investigation and analysis within
90 days of the failure instead of within
120 days.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
The 2016 WCR first established the
process for failure analysis and
reporting. It required that an
investigation and a failure analysis be
performed within 120 days of the failure
to determine the cause of the failure.
BSEE also required that certain failure
reports be sent to BSEE headquarters to
ensure that emerging trends occurring
across various Districts and Regions are
recognized early and that potentially
serious issues can be addressed in a
coordinated and uniform way
nationwide.
BSEE also noted in the 2016 WCR,
however, that the U.S. Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS) had
developed (with BSEE’s assistance) a
voluntary near-miss reporting system for
OCS facilities and operations at
www.SafeOCS.gov (SafeOCS). As a
result of the publication of the 2016
WCR, BSEE started using the BTS
system for collecting information
similar to that collected through failure
reporting.
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

BSEE reevaluated the timeframes set
forth in the 2016 WCR for performing
the investigation and the failure analysis
and determined that certain operations
would not be able to meet the original
deadlines. For example, investigations
of certain failures cannot be commenced
safely until active operations progress to
the point where necessary actions—like
retrieving a subsea BOP to the surface—
can be performed safely. Further, BSEE
determined that shifting immediately to
investigation is not essential when the
failure relates to a redundant
component that does not affect required
BOP functionality. BSEE also
recognized that many investigations
take a long time and require contracting
with specialty engineering firms, who
are often located overseas and whose
workload may prohibit immediate
analysis, as well as transporting
components to those firms. Therefore,
BSEE revised the timeframes to require
that operators start their investigation
and their failure analysis within 120
days of the failure and complete the
investigation and the failure analysis
within 120 days of starting the process.
The 2019 WCR also added provisions
allowing BSEE to designate a third party
to collect failure data and reports on
behalf of BSEE and to require that
failure data and reports be sent to the
designated third party. These changes in
the 2019 WCR codified BSEE guidance
on the 2016 WCR posted on the BSEE
website at https://www.bsee.gov/
guidance-and-regulations/regulations/
well-control-rule. Based on the 2019
WCR, BSEE currently is working
through BTS, using SafeOCS, as the
designated third party for receipt of
failure reports and data. Reports
submitted through SafeOCS are
collected and analyzed by BTS and
protected from release under the
Confidential Information Protection and
Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA),
which permits BTS to handle and store
reported information confidentially.2
Information submitted under this statute
also is protected from release to other
government agencies, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests, and
certain records requests.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraph (c)
BSEE has continued to evaluate and
analyze the data collected by the BTS
system and is actively looking for trends
in the failure data. BSEE also conducts
investigations into certain incidents to
2 OMB identifies BTS as one of 14 CIPSEA
statistical agencies; BSEE is not a CIPSEA statistical
agency. ‘‘Implementation Guidance for [CIPSEA]’’,
72 FR 33362 at 33368 (June 15, 2007).

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

verify/monitor BOP component root
cause analysis. Upon further evaluation
of the use of a designated third party to
collect and analyze failure data and
based in part on experience since the
implementation of the 2019 WCR, this
proposed rule would remove the option
to send failure reports and data to a
designated third party. BSEE has found
value in using BTS for monitoring
failure analysis and trend data.
However, such a reporting arrangement
limits BSEE’s ability to efficiently and
effectively address all of the issues
associated with certain failures. For
example, if BSEE does not become
aware of certain failure reports and
trend data until it receives an annual
report from BTS, it limits BSEE’s ability
to address failures and trends in a
timely and meaningful manner.
Receiving failure reports directly would
facilitate BSEE’s timely review of the
failure data to help more quickly
identify trends and respond to
systematic issues falling within BSEE’s
regulatory authority. Reviewing failure
reports could also highlight companies
that have a higher-than-average number
of failures, which could be evidence of
poor maintenance practices.
The proposed revisions to paragraph
(c)(2) also would help ensure the
operator starts a failure investigation
and analysis in a timely manner. Based
in part on experience gathered through
implementation of the 2019 WCR, BSEE
reevaluated the timeframes set forth in
the 2019 WCR for performing the
investigation and the failure analysis.
BSEE determined that most operators
can initiate the failure investigation and
analysis more quickly without
unnecessarily interrupting operations
and jeopardizing safety and
environmental protection. Accordingly,
BSEE proposes to require that operators
start the investigation and the failure
analysis within 90 days of the failure.
This proposed revision also would help
limit the potential for evidence to
dissipate over time, e.g., through
degradation of equipment or
components, accessibility of certain
records, and availability or memory of
personnel.
What are the independent third party
requirements for BOP systems and
system components? (§ 250.732)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph (b)
by adding that an independent third
party must be accredited by a qualified
standards development organization
and that BSEE may review the
independent third party accreditation
and qualifications to ensure that it has

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

sufficient capabilities to perform the
required functions.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
BSEE introduced for the first time in
the 2016 WCR the concept of using
BSEE Approved Verification
Organizations (BAVOs) to provide
certain verifications, certifications, and
inspections of BOP systems. BSEE
explained that the objective of the use
of BAVOs was to help ensure certain
BOP equipment was monitored during
its entire lifecycle by an independent
third party to verify compliance with
BSEE requirements, original equipment
manufacturer recommendations, and
recognized engineering practices.
Previously, the independent third
parties that performed such functions
did not undergo a BSEE approval
process. BSEE introduced such a
process based on a perception that
increased BSEE screening of the third
parties would provide greater
assurances surrounding the performance
of these functions. BSEE stated that it
would develop, and make available on
its public website, a list of BAVOs—
consisting of qualified third party
organizations that BSEE determined
were capable of performing the
functions specified in the regulations—
to help BSEE ensure that BOP systems
are designed and maintained during
their service life to minimize risk. BSEE
never published a list of BAVOs,
however. In the absence of that action,
the 2016 WCR required industry to
continue using qualified independent
third parties to perform the identified
functions to ensure that there was no
diminution of the safety and
environmental protection under the
existing regulations.
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:
In the 2019 WCR, BSEE removed all
references to BAVOs and, where
appropriate, replaced them with
references to independent third parties.
BSEE based these revisions on
information from the Bureau’s increased
interactions with independent third
parties following publication of the
2016 WCR and the successful use of
such third parties in lieu of BAVOs in
the absence of a published BAVO list.
BSEE expected the majority of BAVOs
would be drawn from the existing
independent third parties, who would
continue to conduct the same
verifications, certifications, and
inspections, yielding little actual change
in the implementation of the program.
BSEE also clarified the qualifications for
independent third parties (i.e., the third
parties must be a technical classification
society, a licensed professional

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56357

engineering firm, or a registered
professional engineer capable of
performing the required actions), which
aligned with the standards BSEE had
anticipated applying to the approval of
BAVOs.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraph (b)
The proposed changes to paragraph
(b) would provide an additional layer of
assurance that independent third parties
are capable of providing the required
verifications and certifications and that
BSEE may review the independent third
party accreditation and qualifications to
ensure that capability. These proposed
revisions are derived in part from
BSEE’s increased interaction and
experience with independent third
party certification and verifications
since the 2019 WCR, as well as BSEE’s
awareness of certain stakeholder
concerns about independent third party
qualifications. These revisions also
would help increase accountability of
independent third parties. It is BSEE’s
continued goal to ensure that
independent third parties are properly
qualified and have proven competencies
to perform all required actions.
What are the requirements for a surface
BOP stack? (§ 250.733)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (b)(1)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph
(b)(1) by adding that an operator also
must follow the BOP requirements of
§ 250.734(a)(1) when replacing an entire
surface BOP stack on an existing
floating production facility.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
The 2016 WCR added the requirement
that surface BOPs installed on a floating
production facility after 2019 must
satisfy the dual shear ram requirements
in § 250.734(a)(1). BSEE expected
industry to be moving toward eventual
use of dual shear rams in surface BOPs
on new floating production facilities
already. However, BSEE explained
several practical concerns related to
applying the dual shear ram
requirement to existing facilities. For
example, the dual shear ram
requirement, if applied to existing
floating production facilities, or
facilities under construction or in
advanced stages of development,
potentially could have negative
personnel safety and structural impacts
due to the added weight of the dual
shear ram equipment and due to the
height and structural limits of those
facilities. Accordingly, BSEE clarified in
the final rule that existing floating
production facilities did not need to

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

56358

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

retrofit or replace their BOPs to meet the
dual shear ram requirement. In effect,
this meant that—under the 2016 WCR—
surface BOPs on existing floating
production facilities, or facilities
installed on the OCS before 2019, were
not required to meet the dual shear ram
requirement unless those BOPs were
removed or replaced after 2019.
BSEE further explained that these
provisions reasonably balanced the
practical concerns related to requiring
dual shear rams on BOPs at existing
floating facilities or those to be
constructed in the near term, with the
importance of improving the
capabilities of surface BOPs on such
facilities in the longer term. BSEE also
explained that existing floating
production facilities generally are less
likely to have an event requiring a dual
shear ram BOP (than, e.g., exploratory
drilling rigs), given that the majority of
such facilities are located in depleted
fields, with lower pressures due to
ongoing production from those fields. In
addition, there are large amounts of
offset well data for those existing
facilities in depleted fields (due to the
multiple wells previously drilled into
the same geologic formations and
reservoirs), which allows for better
prediction of drilling parameters and
concomitant reduced risk of well
control losses. Similarly, because of the
previous production of the reservoirs at
such facilities, the reservoir parameters
and characteristics are generally well
established.
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:
The 2019 WCR revised § 250.733(b)(1)
to require that, after April 29, 2021,
operators must follow the dual shear
ram requirements in § 250.734(a)(1) for
new floating production facilities
installed with a surface BOP. These
revisions were based on comments
seeking clarity. Following publication of
the 2016 WCR, stakeholders expressed
confusion about the requirements in this
section that cross-reference the
§ 250.734 requirements regarding dual
shear rams for subsea BOPs, which did
not take effect until 2021. BSEE made
the compliance dates the same for
§§ 250.733(b)(1) and 250.734(a)(1) (i.e.,
April 29, 2021) to avoid confusion. It
also modified this provision to apply
only to new floating production
facilities (installed after April 2021)
with a surface BOP. BSEE justified the
exemption of existing facilities from
these requirements, even if they are
redeployed at another location or the
BOP is removed or replaced, for various
reasons, including, but not limited to,
clearance and weight issues associated

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

with facility and BOP design
limitations.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraph (b)(1)
Since the implementation of the 2019
WCR, BSEE has reviewed all existing
surface BOP stacks on floating
production facilities and evaluated
facility limitations for expanding BOP
systems to include dual shear rams.
Dual shear ram BOPs have one blind
shear ram that is able to cut certain
equipment in the well (e.g., drill pipe
and wireline) and then seal the well, as
well as a shear ram that is also used for
cutting similar equipment in the well.
BSEE is aware that certain existing
floating production facilities cannot
accommodate additional BOP
components without significant facility
modifications, which may present
challenges due to facility design
limitations. However, BSEE also
recognizes that dual shear rams provide
additional and redundant well control
capabilities that ensure BOP function
and effectiveness during a well control
event. In short, dual shear rams increase
safety. BSEE has determined that the
few facilities with facility design
limitations should meet the safety
requirements of § 250.734(a)(1) at an
appropriate time. Therefore, BSEE is
proposing to require existing floating
production facilities to satisfy the dual
shear ram requirements when the
operator replaces an entire surface BOP
stack. Irrespective of such requirements,
replacement of an entire BOP stack
would entail rig downtime and require
such facilities to consider facility
modifications to accommodate the new
BOP stack, making it an appropriate
time to accommodate the dual shear
rams. In addition, making any necessary
facility modifications for the dual shear
rams during BOP stack replacement will
enable efficient implementation of the
BOP requirements of § 250.734(a)(1)
while operations are already paused. As
noted in connection with the 2016
WCR, BSEE believes such provisions
reasonably balance the practical
concerns related to modifications of
surface BOPs at existing floating
facilities with the importance of
improving the capabilities of such BOPs
in the longer term.
What are the requirements for a subsea
BOP system? (§ 250.734)
Proposed Revisions to Paragraph (a)(4)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraph
(a)(4) by adding that the operator must
have the Remotely Operated Vehicle
(ROV) intervention capability to both

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

open and close each shear ram, ram
locks, and one pipe ram.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
The 2016 WCR included requirements
that the ROV must be capable of
opening and closing each shear ram,
ram locks, and one pipe ram, in
addition to disconnecting the lower
marine riser package (LMRP) under
maximum anticipated surface pressure
(MASP) conditions. Rams are
components on a blowout preventer
designed to close and seal the wellbore.
There are generally three types or rams:
blind, pipe, or shear. A blind shear ram
is able to cut certain equipment in the
well (e.g., drill pipe and wireline) and
then seal the well; a pipe ram can seal
around pipe; and a shear ram is used for
cutting certain equipment in the well
(e.g., drill pipe, tubing, and wireline). A
ram lock is used to hold a ram closed.
This provision was meant to help
ensure consistency with the critical
function terms in American Petroleum
Institute (API) Standard 53, which is
incorporated by reference in relevant
regulations.
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:
The 2019 WCR retained the
requirements for ROVs to have full ram
closure functions, but removed the
requirement for the ROV to be capable
of opening the rams. After publication
of the 2016 WCR, the API Standard 53
committee clarified the definition of
ROV ‘‘operate’’ critical functions to
include ‘‘close’’ only and not to include
‘‘open.’’ For the purposes of well
control, BSEE primarily focuses on
closure of critical components. BSEE
took the position that BOP ram closure
is more important during a well-control
event than ram opening for the purposes
of well control. Removal of the open
function reduced the required number
of equipment alterations to the subsea
ROV panel and associated control
systems and made the regulatory
requirements more consistent with
updated provisions of API Standard 53.
BSEE acknowledged that removing the
ROV open function may limit certain
options for well intervention after the
well has already been secured; however,
it believed technological advancements
in well intervention capabilities could
eliminate this issue.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraph (a)(4)
Since implementation of the 2019
WCR, BSEE has gained an increased
awareness of the importance of
intervention capabilities and of
alternative technologies. Immediate
responses to losses of well control that

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
are designed to seal the well and
prevent releases of formation fluids
(e.g., dual shear rams) are critical, and
the previous rulemakings emphasized
those aspects of well control
capabilities. However, BSEE has
determined that more comprehensive
and longer-term solutions to well
control issues often require additional
BOP functionality to support
subsequent intervention operations, for
which closed rams can present
operational complications.
For example, having an open function
makes it easier for operators to conduct
remedial operations following the loss
of well control that may be necessary to
maintain the security of the well, such
as zonal isolation and equipment repair.
Also, BSEE is not aware of technological
advancements in well intervention
capabilities that have eliminated the
need for the ROV open function to
facilitate these important well
maintenance operations. Accordingly,
this revision would require that the
ROV open function be in place to allow
for easier access to open a closed BOP
component for well intervention
purposes, including operations
necessary to maintain the security of the
well. BSEE also has reviewed existing
subsea BOP capabilities and determined
that most subsea BOPs currently
incorporate the capability to open the
shear rams from the ROV panel. BSEE
therefore anticipates that only a minor
number of equipment modifications
would be necessary by reintroducing
this requirement.
What are the BOP system testing
requirements? (§ 250.737)

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Proposed Revisions to Paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)
BSEE proposes to revise paragraphs
(d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii) by adding the
requirement that, if BSEE is unable to
witness the testing, the operator must
provide the initial test results to the
appropriate District Manager within 72
hours after completion of the tests.
• Summary of applicable 2016 WCR
provisions:
The 2016 WCR required the operator
to contact the District Manager at least
72 hours prior to beginning the initial
test for a surface BOP, or the stump test
for a subsea BOP, to allow BSEE
representative(s) the option to witness
the testing. If BSEE representative(s)
were unable to witness the testing, the
operator was required to provide the test
results to the appropriate District
Manager within 72 hours after
completion of the tests.
• Summary of applicable 2019 WCR
provisions:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

The 2019 WCR removed the
requirement for operators to submit the
relevant test results to BSEE when BSEE
cannot witness the testing. BSEE stated
that the revisions would significantly
reduce the number of submittals to
BSEE and minimize the associated
burden for BSEE to review those
submittals, without reducing safety. If
BSEE cannot witness the testing, BSEE
still has access to the BOP testing
documentation upon request pursuant
to § 250.746, What are the
recordkeeping requirements for casing,
liner, and BOP tests, and inspections of
BOP systems and marine riser? BSEE
also reviews the test results during
routine inspections of facilities and
retained the option to witness the
testing.
Explanation of Proposed Revisions to
Paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii)
Based upon BSEE experience with
implementing he 2019 WCR, BSEE has
determined that consistent access to this
data is necessary for BSEE to ensure
BOP safety. Since implementation,
BSEE has found it necessary to request
this data from operators to verify that
the necessary tests were conducted and
passed. While the 2019 WCR cited the
burden to BSEE from reviewing this
data, BSEE has been reviewing the data
even without the submission
requirement, and its reintroduction will
reduce the burden on BSEE from having
to request the data. BSEE’s experience
has led it to determine that any
additional burden is necessary to ensure
compliance with BOP testing
requirements. The burdens on operators
from submission of the data are
minimal. These revisions also would
help BSEE ensure it has continued
access to certain BOP testing data
necessary to conduct its routine review.
In the past, BSEE has utilized the BOP
information for further review and
investigations and has taken
enforcement action as a result of the
data review. BSEE retains the
requirements for operators to produce
certain records upon request and to
provide advanced notice at least 72
hours before the testing to allow BSEE
the option of sending representatives to
witness the testing.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
13563)
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the OMB will review all
significant rules. To determine if this
proposed rulemaking is a significant

Frm 00076

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

rule, BSEE had an outside contractor
prepare an economic analysis to assess
the anticipated costs and potential
benefits of the proposed rulemaking.
The following discussion summarizes
the economic analysis; a complete copy
of the economic analysis can be viewed
at www.Regulations.gov (use the
keyword/ID ‘‘BSEE–2022–0009’’).
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several types of economic
analyses. First, E.O.s 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select a
regulatory approach that maximizes net
benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety
effects; distributive impacts; and
equity). Under E.O. 12866, an agency
must determine whether a regulatory
action is significant and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the E.O.
and review by OMB. Section 3(f) of E.O.
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that:
—Has an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more, or adversely
affects in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or state, local,
or tribal governments or communities
(also referred to as ‘‘economically
significant’’);
—Creates serious inconsistency or
otherwise interferes with an action
taken or planned by another agency;
—Materially alters the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
—Raises novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the
principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
BSEE has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant within
the definition of E.O. 12866 because the
estimated annual costs or benefits
would not exceed $100 million in any
year of the 10-year analysis period and
the rule will not meet any of the other
significance triggers. Accordingly, OMB
has not reviewed this proposed
regulation.
1. Need for Regulatory Action

III. Procedural Matters

PO 00000

56359

BSEE has identified a need to amend
the existing well control regulations to
ensure that oil and gas operations on the
OCS are conducted in a safe and
environmentally responsible manner. In
particular, BSEE considers the proposed
rule necessary to reduce the likelihood
of an oil or gas blowout, which can lead
to the loss of life, serious injuries, and

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

56360

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

harm to the environment. As was
evidenced by the Deepwater Horizon
incident (which began with a blowout at
the Macondo well on April 20, 2010),
blowouts can result in catastrophic
consequences.
After the Deepwater Horizon incident
in 2010, BSEE adopted several
recommendations from multiple
investigation teams to improve the
safety of offshore operations.
Subsequently, BSEE published the 2016
WCR on April 29, 2016 (81 FR 25888;
RIN 2014–AA11). The 2016 WCR
consolidated the equipment and
operational requirements for well
control into one part of BSEE’s
regulations; enhanced BOP and well
design requirements, modified wellcontrol requirements; and incorporated
certain industry technical standards.
Most of the 2016 WCR provisions
became effective on July 28, 2016.
Although the 2016 WCR addressed a
significant number of issues that were
identified during the analyses of the
Deepwater Horizon incident, BSEE
recognized that BOP equipment and
systems continue to improve
technologically and well control
processes evolve. Therefore, after the
2016 WCR became effective, BSEE
continued to engage with the offshore
oil and gas industry, SDOs, and other
stakeholders. During the course of these
engagements, BSEE identified issues
and stakeholders expressed a variety of
concerns regarding implementation of
the 2016 WCR. On May 15, 2019, BSEE
addressed these issues and concerns by
publishing the final 2019 WCR in the
Federal Register (84 FR 21908; RIN
2014–AA39), which finalized the
current regulatory requirements for BOP
systems and operations. The 2019 WCR
also incorporated by reference API
Standard 53 (including the 2016
addendum) and the Second Edition of
API RP 17H into the applicable sections
of the regulatory text included in this
proposed rule.
Since the publication of the 2019
WCR, BSEE has continued engaging
with stakeholders to gather information
to ensure effective implementation of
the regulations. The Department
subsequently identified areas for
improvements to specific 2019 WCR
provisions. Furthermore, on January 20,
2021, the President issued E.O. 13990
(Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis) and the E.O.’s
accompanying ‘‘President’s Fact Sheet:
List of Agency Actions for Review.’’
Within the President’s Fact Sheet, DOI
was specifically instructed to review the
2019 WCR to evaluate potential
revisions to promote and protect public

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

health, safety, and the environment,
among other identified policy goals.
BSEE is proposing a narrowly focused
rulemaking to address the identified
regulatory requirements to help improve
operations that use a BOP, certain BOP
capabilities and functionalities, and
BSEE oversight of such operations. The
proposed rule would:
(A) Clarify BOP system requirements,
(B) Remove the option for operators to
submit failure data to designated third
parties,
(C) Require accreditation of
independent third party qualifications,
(D) Establish dual shear ram
requirements for surface BOPs on
existing floating production facilities
when an operator replaces an entire
surface BOP stack,
(E) Require ROV open functions as
originally required in the 2016 WCR,
and
(F) Require submittal of certain BOP
test results if BSEE is unable to witness
the testing.
2. Alternatives
BSEE has considered two regulatory
alternatives:
(A) Promulgate the requirements
contained within the proposed rule.
(B) Take no regulatory action and
continue to rely on existing well control
regulations in combination with permit
conditions, deepwater operations plans
(DWOPs), operator prudence, and
industry standards.
Alternative 1—the proposed rule—
would incorporate recommendations
provided by government, industry,
academia, and other stakeholders. In
addition to addressing concerns and
aligning with industry standards, this
proposed rule would prudently improve
efficiency and consistency of the
regulations.
3. Economic Analysis
BSEE’s economic analysis evaluated
the expected impacts of the proposed
rule compared with the baseline. The
baseline refers to current industry
practice in accordance with existing
regulations, industry permits, DWOPs,
and industry standards with which
operators already comply. Impacts that
exist as part of the baseline were not
considered costs or benefits of the
proposed rule. Thus, the cost analysis
evaluates only activities, expenditures,
and capital investments representing a
change from the baseline that would
result if the provisions of the proposed
rule were finalized. BSEE quantified
and monetized the costs, using 2022
data, of all the provisions in the
proposed rule determined to result in a
change compared to the baseline. These

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

estimated compliance costs are
discussed more specifically in the
associated full initial regulatory impact
analysis, which can be viewed at
www.regulations.gov (use the keyword/
ID ‘‘BSEE–2022–0009’’).
BSEE qualitatively assessed the
benefits of the proposed rule. The
rulemaking would allow BSEE to
address stakeholder concerns related to
the BOP and well control provisions in
30 CFR part 250 and would provide
clarification about regulations in this
section. The proposed amendments
would have a positive net impact on
worker safety and the environment. The
benefits include clarification, more
timely review of data to facilitate faster
response to systemic risks, increased
accountability of verification entities to
ensure that risks are accurately assessed
and verified, improved protection from
a blowout, improved ability to manage
a blowout, and the assurance that BSEE
receives and is able to review BOP
testing data to help identify risks.
The analysis assumes an effective date
of January 1, 2023, and covers 10 years
(2023 through 2032) to ensure it
encompasses the significant costs and
benefits likely to result from this
proposed rule. A 10-year period was
used for this analysis because of the
uncertainty associated with predicting
industry’s activities and the
advancement of technical capabilities
beyond 10 years. It is very difficult to
predict, plan, or project costs associated
with technological innovation due to
unknown technological or business
constraints that could drive a product
into mainstream adoption or into
obsolescence. The regulated community
itself has difficulty conducting business
modeling beyond a 10-year time frame.
Over time, the costs associated with a
particular new technology may drop
because of various supply and demand
factors, causing the technology to be
more broadly adopted. In other cases, an
existing technology may be replaced by
a lower-cost alternative as business
needs may drive technological
innovation.
Extrapolating costs and benefits
beyond this 10-year time frame would
produce more ambiguous results and
therefore be disadvantageous in
determining actual costs and benefits
likely to result from this proposed rule.
BSEE concluded that this 10-year
analysis period provides the best overall
ability to forecast reliable costs and
benefits likely to result from this
proposed rule. When summarizing the
costs and benefits, we present the
estimated annual effects, as well as the
10-year discounted totals using discount

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

56361

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
rates of 3 and 7 percent, per OMB
Circular A–4, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis.’’
Table 1 presents the total costs per
year of the proposed rule. As can be

seen in the table, the estimated costs
over the ten-year period are $2.4 million
undiscounted, $2.3 million discounted

at 3%, and $2.2 million discounted at
7%.

TABLE 1—TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BOP AND WELL CONTROL REGULATIONS
[2022$]
Year
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032

Undiscounted

Discounted
at 3%

Discounted
at 7%

.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

$1,801,301
1,357
1,357
1,357
557,653
1,357
1,357
1,357
1,357
1,357

$1,801,301
1,317
1,279
1,242
495,467
1,171
1,136
1,103
1,071
1,040

$1,801,301
1,268
1,185
1,108
425,431
967
904
845
790
738

Total ......................................................................................................................................
Annualized .....................................................................................................................

2,369,809
236,981

2,306,128
270,349

2,234,537
318,148

Note: Annualized costs are calculated by the annuity method.

BSEE welcomes comments on this
analysis, including potential sources of
data or information on the costs and
benefits of this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
Congressional Review Act

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

DOI certifies that this proposed rule is
unlikely to have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities as defined under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(RFA).
The RFA, at 5 U.S.C. 603, requires
agencies to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis to determine whether
a regulation would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Further, under
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., an agency is required to
produce compliance guidance for small
entities if the rule would have a
significant economic impact. For the
reasons explained in this section, BSEE
believes that this proposed rule likely
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Although a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required by the
RFA, BSEE provides this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to
demonstrate the relatively minor impact
of this proposed rule on small entities.
1. Description of the Reasons That
Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
Since publication of the 2019 WCR,
BSEE has continued to confer with
stakeholders to ensure effective
implementation of the regulations. BSEE
also identified potential improvements

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

to specific aspects of these provisions.
Furthermore, on January 20, 2021, the
President issued E.O. 13990 (Protecting
Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis) and the E.O.’s accompanying
‘‘President’s Fact Sheet: List of Agency
Actions for Review.’’ Within the
President’s Fact Sheet, DOI was
specifically instructed to review the
2019 WCR to evaluate potential
revisions to promote and protect public
health, safety, and the environment,
among other identified policy goals.
2. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
Small entities, as defined by the RFA,
consist of small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions. We have not identified
any small organizations or small
government jurisdictions that the rule
would impact, so this analysis focuses
on impacts to small businesses
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘small
entities’’). A small entity is one that is
independently owned and operated and
that is not dominant in its field of
operation. The definition of small
business varies from industry to
industry to properly reflect industry size
differences.
One of the changes in the proposed
rule would have an impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would affect all well
drilling operators and Federal oil and
gas lease holders on the OCS, primarily
those working in the Gulf of Mexico.
BSEE’s analysis also shows that this
would include 48 companies that
drilled at least one offshore well during

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

the period 2015 to 2021. Of these
drilling operators, approximately 20
would be active in each given year.
Entities that would operate under the
proposed rule are classified primarily
under North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes
211120 (Crude Petroleum Extraction),
211130 (Natural Gas Extraction), and
213111 (Drilling Oil and Gas Wells). For
NAICS classifications 211120 and
211130, the Small Business
Administration defines a small business
as one with fewer than 1,251 employees;
the rest are considered large businesses.
BSEE considers that a rule has an
impact on a ‘‘substantial number of
small entities’’ when the total number of
small entities impacted by the rule is
equal to or exceeds 10 percent of the
relevant universe of small entities in a
given industry. BSEE estimates that
approximately 83 percent of offshore
operators drilling on the OCS are small
and that the small entities impacted
each year would comprise 34 percent of
that universe.
3. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
BSEE has estimated the incremental
costs for small operators and lease
holders in the offshore oil and natural
gas production industry. Costs already
incurred as a result of current industry
practice in accordance with existing
regulations, industry permits, DWOPs,
and API industry standards with which
operators already comply were not
considered as costs of this rule because
they are part of the baseline.

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

56362

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

Only 1 of the proposed provisions
would have cost impacts on small
entities.
For proposed § 250.737(d)(2)(ii) and
(d)(3)(iii), it is estimated that the annual
cost per company would be $78.30,
which is not a significant impact.

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

4. Identification of All Relevant Federal
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would not conflict
with any relevant Federal rules or
duplicate or overlap with any Federal
rules in any way that would
unnecessarily add cumulative
regulatory burdens on small entities
without any gain in regulatory benefits.
However, BSEE requests comments
identifying any Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
5. Description of Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
BSEE has considered two regulatory
alternatives:
(1) Promulgate the requirements
contained within the proposed rule.
(2) Take no regulatory action and
continue to rely on existing well control
regulations in combination with permit
conditions, DWOPs, operator prudence,
and industry standards.
Alternative 1—the proposed rule—
would incorporate recommendations
provided by government, industry,
academia, and other stakeholders. In
addition to addressing concerns and
aligning with industry standards, this
proposed rule would prudently improve
efficiency and consistency of the
regulations.
The potential costs to small entities
are believed to be small; however, the
risk of safety or environmental accidents
for small companies would not
necessarily be lower than it would be
for larger companies. Offshore
operations are highly technical and can
be hazardous. Adverse consequences in
the event of incidents are similar
regardless of the operator’s size. The
proposed rule would reduce risk for
entities of all sizes. Nonetheless, BSEE
is requesting comment on the costs of
these proposed policies to small
entities, with the goal of ensuring
thorough consideration and discussion
at the final rule stage. BSEE specifically
requests comments on the burden
estimates discussed above as well as
information on regulatory alternatives
that would reduce the burden on small
entities (e.g., different compliance
requirements for small entities,
alternative testing requirements and
periods, and exemption from regulatory
requirements).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule would not impose
an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector
of more than $100 million per year. The
proposed rule would not have a
significant or unique effect on State,
local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. A statement containing
the information required by Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) is not required.
Takings Implication Assessment (E.O.
12630)
Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this
proposed rule would not have
significant takings implications. The
rule is not a governmental action
capable of interference with
constitutionally protected property
rights. A Takings Implication
Assessment is not required.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this
proposed rule would not have
federalism implications. This proposed
rule would not substantially and
directly affect the relationship between
the Federal and State governments. To
the extent that State and local
governments have a role in OCS
activities, this proposed rule would not
affect that role. A federalism assessment
is not required.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
This proposed rule complies with the
requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this rule:
(1) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring that all regulations be
reviewed to eliminate errors and
ambiguity and be written to minimize
litigation; and
(2) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O.
13175)
BSEE is committed to regular and
meaningful consultation and
collaboration with Tribes on policy
decisions that have Tribal implications.
Under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and
DOI’s Policy on Consultation with
Indian Tribes (Secretarial Order 3317,
Amendment 2, dated December 31,
2013), we have evaluated this proposed
rule and determined that it has no
substantial direct effects on federally
recognized Indian Tribes.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
This proposed rule contains existing
and new information collection (IC)

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

requirements for regulations at 30 CFR
part 250, subpart G, and submission to
the OMB for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is required.
Therefore, BSEE will submit an IC
request to OMB for review and approval
and will request a new OMB control
number. Once the 1014–AA52 final rule
is effective, we will transfer the new
hour burden and non-hour costs burden
from 1014–NEW to 1014–0028 (160,842
hours, $867,500 non-hour cost burden,
expiration January 31, 2023) 30 CFR
part 250, subpart G, Well Operations
and Equipment, then discontinue the
new number associated with this
rulemaking. We may not conduct or
sponsor, and you are not required to
respond to, a collection of information,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
The proposed regulations would
establish new and/or revise current
requirements in Subpart G, Well
Operations and Equipment, by revising
regulatory provisions published in the
2019 WCR for drilling, workover,
completion, and decommissioning
operations. BSEE is providing clarity to
BOP system requirements and revising a
few specific BOP equipment
capabilities.
The following provides a breakdown
of the paperwork hour burdens and nonhour cost burdens for this proposed
rule.
As discussed in the Section-bySection analysis above, and in the
supporting statement available at
RegInfo.gov, this rule proposes to add/
revise:
§ 250.730—This section would
eliminate text allowing BSEE to
designate a third party to receive notices
and reports. No burden changes are
being proposed.
§ 250.732(b)—This section would add
to the current paragraph that BSEE may
review independent third party
accreditations and qualifications. This
would add +10 hours.
§ 250.737(d)(2) and (3)—This section
would add the requirement that if BSEE
is unable to witness the testing, the
operator must provide the initial test
results to the appropriate District
Manager within 72 hours after
completion of the tests. The 2019 WCR
provisions removed the requirement
that operators submit testing results
within 72 hours when a BSEE
representative cannot witness the
testing. BSEE inadvertently never
removed the IC burden associated with
this requirement; therefore, no burden
changes are being proposed.

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Title of Collection: 30 CFR part 250,
subpart G, Well Operations and
Equipment.
OMB Control Number: 1014–NEW.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Potential respondents comprise Federal
OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees/
operators and holders of pipeline rightsof-way.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Respondents: Currently there are
approximately 550 Federal OCS oil, gas,
and sulfur lessees and holders of
pipeline rights-of-way. Not all the
potential respondents will submit
information in any given year, and some
may submit multiple times.
Total Estimated Number of NEW
Annual Responses: 5.
Estimated Completion Time per
Response for NEW requirement: 2 hours.
Total Estimated Number of NEW
Annual Burden Hours: 10.
Respondent’s Obligation: Responses
are mandatory.
Frequency of Collection: Generally, on
occasion and as required in the
regulations.
Total Estimated Annual Nonhour
Burden Cost: none.
In addition, the PRA requires agencies
to estimate the total annual reporting
and recordkeeping non-hour cost
burden resulting from the collection of
information, and we solicit your
comments on this item. For reporting
and recordkeeping only, your response
should split the cost estimate into two
components: (1) total capital and startup
cost component and (2) annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of service component. Your estimates
should consider the cost to generate,
maintain, and disclose or provide the
information. You should describe the
methods you use to estimate major cost
factors, including system and
technology acquisition, expected useful
life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you
incur costs. Generally, your estimates
should not include equipment or
services purchased: (1) before October 1,
1995; (2) to comply with requirements
not associated with the information
collection; (3) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for
the Government; or (4) as part of
customary and usual business or private
practices.
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other
Federal agencies to comment on any
aspect of this information collection,
including:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

(1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on
respondents.
Send your comments and suggestions
on this information collection by the
date indicated in the DATES section to
the Desk Officer for the Department of
the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395–
5806 (fax) or via the RegInfo.gov portal
(online). You may view the information
collection request(s) at http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the BSEE Information Collection
Clearance Officer (see the ADDRESSES
section). You may contact Kye Mason,
BSEE Information Collection Clearance
Officer at (703) 787–1607 with any
questions. Please reference Proposed
Rule 1014–AA52, Oil and Gas and
Sulfur Operations in the Outer
Continental Shelf-Blowout Preventer
Systems and Well Control Revisions—30
CFR part 250, subpart G, Well
Operations and Equipment (OMB
Control No. 1014–NEW), in your
comments.
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA)
BSEE is analyzing the provisions of
the proposed rule in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
to determine whether they could have a
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Environmental
Assessments were prepared for both the
2016 WCR and the 2019 WCR. Those
prior NEPA analyses informed the
drafting process for this proposed rule,
and the proposed rule primarily
proposes to restore provisions whose
potential environmental impacts were
analyzed in connection with those prior
rulemakings (or which are purely
administrative in nature with no
potential for environmental impacts).
Accordingly, at this time, we anticipate
that the Environmental Assessments
associated with the 2016 WCR and 2019
WCR will substantially inform the
NEPA process and compliance for this
rulemaking. We invite comments on this
subject.
Data Quality Act
In developing this rule, we did not
conduct or use a study, experiment, or

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

56363

survey requiring peer review under the
Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554, app.
C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153–
154).
Effects on the Nation’s Energy Supply
(E.O. 13211)
This proposed rule is not a significant
energy action under the definition in
E.O. 13211. The rule is not a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and
it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. A
Statement of Energy Effects is not
required.
Clarity of This Regulation
We are required by E.O. 12866, E.O.
12988, and by the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write
all rules in plain language. This means
that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that you find
unclear, which sections or sentences are
too long, or the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and
procedure, Continental shelf,
Environmental impact statements,
Environmental protection, Government
contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Oil and gas exploration,
Outer Continental Shelf—mineral
resources, Outer Continental Shelf—
rights-of-way, Penalties, Pipelines,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur.
Laura Daniel-Davis
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land
and Minerals Management.

For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of the Interior
proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as
follows:

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

56364

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND
SULFUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
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.

2. Amend § 250.730 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

■

§ 250.730 What are the general
requirements for BOP systems and system
components?

(a) You must ensure that the BOP
system and system components are
designed, installed, maintained,
inspected, tested, and used properly to
ensure well control. The workingpressure rating of each BOP component
(excluding annular(s)) must exceed
MASP as defined for the operation. For
a subsea BOP, the MASP must be
determined at the mudline. The BOP
system includes the BOP stack, control
system, and any other associated
system(s) and equipment. The BOP
system and individual components
must be able to perform their expected
functions and be compatible with each
other. Your BOP system must be capable
of closing and sealing the wellbore at all
times to the well’s maximum kick
tolerance design limits. The BOP system
must be capable of closing and sealing
without losing ram closure time and
sealing integrity due to the
corrosiveness, volume, and abrasiveness
of any fluids in the wellbore that the
BOP system may encounter. Your BOP
system must meet the following
requirements:
*
*
*
*
*
(c) You must follow the failure
reporting procedures contained in API

3. Amend § 250.732 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

■

§ 250.732 What are the independent third
party requirements for BOP systems and
system components?

*

*
*
*
*
(b) The independent third party must
be accredited by a qualified standards
development organization and must be
a technical classification society, a
licensed professional engineering firm,
or a registered professional engineer
capable of providing the required
certifications and verifications. BSEE
may review the independent third party
accreditation and qualifications to
ensure that the independent third party
has sufficient capabilities to perform the
required functions.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 250.733 by revising
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
§ 250.733 What are the requirements for a
surface BOP stack?

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) On new floating production
facilities installed after April 29, 2021,
that include a surface BOP, or when you
replace an entire surface BOP stack on
an existing floating production facility,
follow the BOP requirements in
§ 250.734(a)(1).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 250.734 by revising
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 250.734 What are the requirements for a
subsea BOP system?

(a) * * *

When operating with a subsea BOP
system, you must:

Additional requirements

(4) * * * ...........................................

You must have the ROV intervention capability to open and close each shear ram, ram locks, one pipe
ram, and disconnect the LMRP under MASP conditions as defined for the operation. You must be capable of performing these functions in the response times outlined in API Standard 53 (as incorporated by
reference in § 250.198). The ROV panels on the BOP and LMRP must be compliant with API RP 17H
(as incorporated by reference in § 250.198).

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
6. Amend § 250.737 by revising
paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (3)(iii), to read
as follows:

■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Standard 53, (incorporated by reference
in § 250.198), and:
(1) You must provide a written notice
of equipment failure to both the Chief,
Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs
(OORP), and the manufacturer of such
equipment within 30 days after the
discovery and identification of the
failure. A failure is any condition that
prevents the equipment from meeting
the functional specification.
(2) You must start an investigation
and a failure analysis within 90 days of
the failure to determine the cause of the
failure and complete the investigation
and the failure analysis within 120 days
after initiation. You also must document
the results and any corrective action.
You must submit the analysis report to
both the Chief, OORP and the
manufacturer. If you cannot complete
the investigation and analysis within
the specified time, you must submit an
extension request detailing when and
how you will complete the investigation
and analysis to BSEE for approval. You
must submit the extension request to the
Chief, OORP.
(3) If the equipment manufacturer
notifies you that it has changed the
design of the equipment that failed or if
you have changed operating or repair
procedures as a result of a failure, then
you must, within 30 days of such
changes, report the design change or
modified procedures in writing to the
Chief, OORP.
(4) Submit notices and reports to the
Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory
Programs; Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement; 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia
20166.
*
*
*
*
*

*

*

*

*

§ 250.737 What are the BOP system
testing requirements?

*

*
*
(d) * * *

*

*

You must

Additional requirements

(2) * * * ...........................................

* * *
(ii) Contact the District Manager at least 72 hours prior to beginning the initial test to allow BSEE representative(s) to witness the testing. If BSEE representative(s) are unable to witness the testing, you
must provide the initial test results to the appropriate District Manager within 72 hours after completion
of the tests.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1

56365

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules
You must

Additional requirements

*
*
(3) * * * ...........................................

*
*
*
*
*
* * *
(iii) Contact the District Manager at least 72 hours prior to beginning the stump test to allow BSEE representative(s) to witness the testing. If BSEE representative(s) are unable to witness the testing, you
must provide the test results to the appropriate District Manager within 72 hours after completion of the
tests.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 5, 25, and 97
[IB Docket No. 22–271; IB Docket No. 22–
272; FCC 22–66; FR ID 102759]

Space Innovation; Facilitating
Capabilities for In-Space Servicing,
Assembly, and Manufacturing
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
AGENCY:

In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)
seeks comment through a Notice of
Inquiry adopted by the FCC on August
5, 2022, on missions conducting inspace servicing, assembly, and
manufacturing (ISAM) that may involve
Commission licensing and rules,
including the state of the industry,
technological readiness, and what steps
the Commission might take to facilitate
progress and reduce barriers for ISAM
missions, including clarifications,
updates or modifications of rules.
DATES: Comments are due October 31,
2022. Reply comments are due
November 28, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by IB Docket No. 22–271 and
IB Docket No. 22–272, by any of the
following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Website: http://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:22 Sep 13, 2022

Jkt 256001

*

this document. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with
disabilities, send an email to FCC504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jameyanne Fuller, International Bureau,
Satellite Division, 202–418–0945,
jameyanne.fuller@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Inquiry, FCC 22–66, adopted August 5,
2022, and released August 8, 2022. The
full text of the Notice of Inquiry is
available at https://www.fcc.gov/
document/fcc-opens-proceedingservicing-assembly-manufacturingspace-0.

*

[FR Doc. 2022–19462 Filed 9–13–22; 8:45 am]

SUMMARY:

*

Comment Filing Requirements
Interested parties may file comments
and reply comments on or before the
dates indicated in the DATES section
above. Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS).
• Electronic Filers. Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS, http://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs.
• Paper Filers. Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

*

*

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020).
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
• Persons with Disabilities. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202–
418–0432 (TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations
The Commission will treat this
proceeding as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a

E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM

14SEP1