Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-18598

Rule2024-18598

Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-High Pressure High Temperature Updates

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

August 30, 2024

Effective

October 29, 2024

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentSafety and Environmental Enforcement Bureau

Abstract

The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department), through the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is adding requirements for new or unusual technology, including equipment used in high pressure high temperature (HPHT) environments; revising and reorganizing the information submission requirements for a project's Conceptual Plans and Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP); and requiring independent third parties to review certain information prior to submission to BSEE. This final rule will improve operational and environmental safety and human health, while providing consistency and clarity to industry regarding the equipment and operational requirements as well as the submissions that are necessary so that BSEE can review and consider for approval proposed projects that would use new or unusual technology.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71076-71121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18598]

[[Page 71075]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 169

August 30, 2024

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

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

30 CFR Part 250

Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf--High
Pressure High Temperature Updates; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2024 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 71076]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

30 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID: BSEE-2021-0003; EEEE500000 245E1700D2 ET1SF0000.EAQ000]
RIN 1014-AA49

Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental
Shelf--High Pressure High Temperature Updates

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (DOI or Department), through
the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), is adding
requirements for new or unusual technology, including equipment used in
high pressure high temperature (HPHT) environments; revising and
reorganizing the information submission requirements for a project's
Conceptual Plans and Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP); and requiring
independent third parties to review certain information prior to
submission to BSEE. This final rule will improve operational and
environmental safety and human health, while providing consistency and
clarity to industry regarding the equipment and operational
requirements as well as the submissions that are necessary so that BSEE
can review and consider for approval proposed projects that would use
new or unusual technology.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 29, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 29,
2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions, contact Kirk Malstrom,
Regulations and Standards Branch, (202) 258-1518, or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f3d2a283c0f2d3c2a2a61282039">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

This final rule will improve operational safety and human health
and environmental protections, while providing industry with clarity
and consistency regarding the equipment, operational requirements, and
submissions that are necessary for BSEE to review and approve
operations using new or unusual technology. BSEE considers new or
unusual technology to include equipment or procedures that the offshore
oil and gas industry has not used previously or extensively under the
anticipated operating conditions or has not used previously in a
particular BSEE Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region, or that have
operating characteristics outside the performance parameters
established in 30 CFR part 250.
Currently, operations and equipment used in HPHT environments are
relatively new on the United States OCS. In general, an HPHT
environment is present when well conditions have pressures greater than
15,000 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) or have a temperature
greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Historically, most oilfield
equipment has not been designed to withstand such high pressures and
temperatures. Working in an HPHT environment therefore increases
operational complexity because HPHT-associated operations require the
use of equipment that exists at the limits of current technology and
lacks a long operational history. Due to limited industry experience in
HPHT environments, few industry standards directly address HPHT
equipment and operations. Currently, BSEE carefully reviews HPHT
projects on a case-by-case basis. To date, BSEE has received several
applications for projects in HPHT environments and anticipates HPHT
project interest to increase due to equipment technological
advancements and industry capabilities to develop resources in these
environments.
For new or unusual technology projects, including HPHT projects,
BSEE regulations currently:

--Require submission of information in a sequence that is not conducive
to BSEE's review and consideration for approval of new or unusual
technology projects because these projects typically require a more
immediate BSEE review and approval than the regulations currently
allow; and
--Lack specific equipment requirements because the technology is new
and there are few applicable industry standards.

To address these issues, this final rulemaking:

--Requires the submission of information in a sequence that provides
both operators \1\ and BSEE the ability to evaluate whether a new or
unusual technology project is economically and operationally feasible;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ BSEE administers the Departmental regulations at 30 CFR part
250, which 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''). For convenience, this
preamble will refer to these regulated entities as ``operators''
unless otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Clarifies that equipment or procedures used for operations in an HPHT
environment are considered new or unusual technology.
--Adds specific equipment requirements, particularly for barriers,
through new regulations and the incorporation of applicable industry
standards; and
--Requires Independent Third Party (I3P) review of operator
submissions, in certain cases, or provides BSEE with the ability to
require I3P review, to ensure project viability and safety.

Currently, the DWOP process requires information to be submitted in
two distinct phases: the Conceptual Plan phase and the DWOP phase. This
final rule maintains the two phase DWOP process and adds additional
requirements to each phase that will enable BSEE to thoroughly review
proposed new or unusual technology projects. The final rule defines
three types of Conceptual Plans: a Project Conceptual Plan, a New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan, and a New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan. A Project Conceptual Plan will be
required for any project planned in water depths greater than 1000 feet
or that will include the use of subsea tieback development technology,
regardless of water depth. A New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan
will be required for any project or system involving New or Unusual
Technology equipment or procedures. A New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plan will be required for any project or system
involving new or unusual technology identified as a primary or
secondary barrier to isolate a hydrocarbon pressure source from people
and the environment. An operator must submit the applicable Conceptual
Plan(s) based on the specifics of the proposed project.
The information specific to HPHT projects submitted in the
applicable Conceptual Plan(s) will be evaluated for adequacy prior to
approval. The final rule's establishment of three new types of
Conceptual Plans and the associated new timing requirements established
in Sec. 250.226 (e.g., BSEE must approve your Conceptual Plan(s)
before the Bureau will approve any associated permit) will provide both
operators and BSEE with the ability to evaluate early in the project
planning process, before permit approval, whether a new or unusual
technology project is economically and operationally feasible. In the
final rule,

[[Page 71077]]

the DWOP phase, during which the DWOP is reviewed, will take place
after the Conceptual Plan(s) have been approved and the system design
has been substantially completed.
In addition, this final rule revises 30 CFR part 250, subpart B
(``Plans and Information'') and the DWOP process to incorporate BSEE's
Barrier Concept into the requirements, including for new or unusual
technology projects. The Barrier Concept is a holistic approach to the
barrier system based on BSEE's determination that abnormal conditions
and/or failures are potential risks in a well or pipeline system. When
an abnormal condition or failure occurs, it must be detectable, and
upon detection, its source must be isolated behind redundant barriers.
BSEE considers a barrier or barrier system to be any engineered
equipment, materials, component, or assembly that is intended to
contain a hydrocarbon pressure source(s) to prevent harm to people or
the environment. This final rule defines the types of equipment that
BSEE considers to be sufficient barriers and how barriers must be used.
The final rule also includes portions of the Barrier Concept in the
DWOP process under the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan as a means of ensuring that new or unusual technology
projects include sufficient barriers, which will enhance protections
for people and the environment. This rule incorporates into the
regulations the existing BSEE policy on the Barrier Concept discussed
in Notice to Lessees (NTLs) 2009-G36, Using Alternate Compliance in
Safety Systems for Subsea Production Operations; 2019-G02, Guidance for
Information Submissions Regarding Proposed High Pressure and/or High
Temperature (HPHT) Well Design, Completion, and Intervention
Operations; and 2019-G03, Guidance for Information Submissions
Regarding Site Specific and Non-Site Specific HPHT Equipment Design
Verification Analysis and Design Validation Testing.
Furthermore, this final rule revises the DWOP process to require
I3P review of equipment or procedures identified in a New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan. This final rule also
allows BSEE to require an operator to use an I3P to review certain
equipment or procedures identified in a New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan. Independent third parties have been used as a
longstanding industry practice to support verifications that ensure
project viability and safety. I3P review provides an additional review
in circumstances where proposed equipment or processes may be
technically complex and require a high degree of specialized
engineering knowledge, expertise, and experience to evaluate.

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
B. Purpose and Summary of the Rulemaking
C. Summary of Documents Incorporated by Reference
II. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
III. Section-by-Section Summary and Responses to Comments on the
Proposed Rule
IV. Derivation Table
V. Procedural Matters

I. Background

A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities

The applicable authority for this rulemaking is the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356a. OCSLA,
enacted in 1953 and substantially revised it 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 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 ensure 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: <a href="https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations">https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations</a>.
BSEE's regulatory program covers a wide range of OCS facilities and
activities, including drilling, completion, workover, production,
pipeline, and decommissioning operations. This rule is applicable to
operations that involve deepwater development projects, subsea tieback
development technology, or projects or systems that use new or unusual
technology.

B. Purpose and Summary of the Rule

The purpose of this rule is to improve the requirements and
information submission process for oil and gas operations in deepwater
and for operations that propose the use of new or unusual technology
equipment or procedures. The final rule achieves this purpose by adding
requirements for new or unusual technology projects, including HPHT
projects, reorganizing the deepwater project information submission
process, and requiring I3P review of certain submissions.
Together, these regulations will better ensure that operators
consider and submit sufficient information to BSEE at an early enough
stage in the process so that operators and BSEE can adequately address
any issues concerning equipment selection, design, and fabrication.

C. Summary of Documents Incorporated by Reference

The Office of the Federal Register has regulations concerning
incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require
that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble to the
rule the way in which materials that the agency incorporates by
reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how
interested parties can obtain the materials. Additionally, the preamble
to the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b). The text
immediately below summarizes the documents incorporated by reference in
30 CFR 250.198 and the changes to the regulatory text. This section of
the preamble concludes with a discussion regarding the availability of
the documents that are incorporated by reference.
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.
This specification defines requirements for the design of valves,
wellheads, and Christmas tree equipment that is used during drilling
and production operations. This specification includes requirements
related to dimensional and functional interchangeability, design,
materials, testing, inspection, welding, marking, handling, storing,
shipment, purchasing, repair, and remanufacture. This document is
currently incorporated by reference elsewhere in 30 CFR part 250, and
BSEE is adding a reference to this standard in existing Sec. Sec.
250.518 and 250.619.

[[Page 71078]]

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/API Specification
(Spec.) 11D1, Packers and Bridge Plugs, Third Edition, April 2015,
Errata 1, August 2019.
This specification provides minimum requirements and guidelines for
packers and bridge plugs used downhole in oil and gas operations. The
performance of this equipment is often critical to maintaining well
control during drilling and production operations. This specification
provides requirements for the design, design verification and
validation, materials, documentation and data control, repair,
shipment, and storage of packers and bridge plugs. This document is
currently incorporated by reference, and BSEE is updating this standard
from the second to the third edition.
API Spec. 17D, Design and Operation of Subsea Production Systems--
Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment, Second Edition, Reaffirmed November
2018, Addendum 1, September 2015; Errata, September 2011; Errata 2,
January 2012; Errata 3, June 2013; Errata 4, July 2013; Errata 5,
October 2013; Errata 6, August 2015; Errata 7, October 2015.
This specification provides requirements for subsea wellheads,
mudline wellheads, and drill-through mudline wellheads, as well as
vertical and horizontal subsea trees. These devices are located on the
seafloor, and, therefore, ensuring the safe and reliable performance of
this equipment is extremely important. This specification identifies
the tooling necessary to handle, test, and install the equipment. It
also specifies the parameters for design, material, welding, quality
control (including factory acceptance testing), marking, storing, and
shipping for both individual sub-assemblies (used to build complete
subsea tree assemblies) and complete subsea tree assemblies. This
document is currently incorporated by reference elsewhere in 30 CFR
part 250, and BSEE is adding references to this standard in existing
Sec. Sec. 250.518 and 250.619.
NACE Standard MR0175-2003, Standard Material Requirements, Metals
for Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress Corrosion Cracking Resistance in
Sour Oilfield Environments, Revised January 17. 2003.
This standard describes general principles and provides
requirements and recommendations for the selection and qualification of
metallic materials for equipment used in oil and gas production, and in
natural-gas sweetening plants, in hydrogen sulfide (H<INF>2</INF>S)-
containing environments, where the failure of such equipment can pose a
risk to the health and safety of the public and personnel or to the
environment. Application of this standard can help avoid costly
corrosion damage to equipment. This standard supplements, but does not
replace, the material requirements contained in applicable design
codes, standards, or regulations. This standard also addresses all
mechanisms of cracking that can be caused by H<INF>2</INF>S, including
sulfide stress cracking, stress corrosion cracking, hydrogen-induced
cracking and stepwise cracking, stress-oriented hydrogen-induced
cracking, soft zone cracking, and galvanically induced hydrogen stress
cracking. This standard does not include and is not intended to include
design specifications. This document is currently incorporated by
reference elsewhere in 30 CFR part 250, and BSEE is adding references
of this standard in existing Sec. Sec. 250.518 and 250.619.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides free online public
access to view read-only copies of its key industry standards,
including a broad range of technical standards. All API standards that
are safety-related and that are incorporated into Federal regulations
are available to the public for free viewing online in the
Incorporation by Reference Reading Room on API's website at: <a href="https://publications.api.org">https://publications.api.org</a>. In addition to the free 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: <a href="https://www.api.org/products-and-services/standards/purchase">https://www.api.org/products-and-services/standards/purchase</a>.
NACE International (NACE) standards can be accessed through the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANSI Incorporated by
Reference (IBR) Portal provides access to many standards that have been
incorporated by reference in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). These standards incorporated by the U.S. government in
rulemakings are offered at no cost in ``read only'' format and are
presented for online reading. However, there are no print or download
options. The website can be accessed at: <a href="https://ibr.ansi.org">https://ibr.ansi.org</a>.
For the convenience of the viewing public who may not wish to
purchase or view the incorporated documents online, the documents may
be inspected at BSEE's offices at: 1919 Smith Street, Suite 14042,
Houston, Texas 77002 (phone: 1-844-259-4779), or 45600 Woodland Road,
Sterling, Virginia 20166 (email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e99b8c8e9aa98b9a8c8cc78e869f">[email&#160;protected]</a>), by appointment only.
An appointment is required to ensure personnel are available to
accommodate the request and to account for competing agency obligations
or concerns, including those related to public health and natural
disasters. Additional information about where these documents can be
inspected or purchased can be found at Sec. 250.198, Documents
incorporated by reference, or by sending a request by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d4c3c1d5e6c4d5c3c388c1c9d0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

II. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

In response to the proposed rule, BSEE received 9 sets of submitted
comments containing general statements, specific comments on the
proposed provisions, and discussions of provisions not included in the
proposed rule. Comments included submittals from the following
entities: 1 manufacturer, 5 companies, 1 industry organization, 1 non-
governmental organization, and 1 classification society. All relevant
comments are posted at the Federal eRulemaking portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To access the comments at that website, enter
BSEE-2021-0003 in the Search box. BSEE reviewed all comments submitted,
and this section of the preamble contains brief summaries of the
relevant comments, as well as BSEE's responses.
BSEE received multiple comments expressing general support for the
proposed rule. Some of the commenters who expressed general support for
the proposed rule also provided specific detailed comments, which we
have addressed further in section III of this preamble. While these
commenters voiced support broadly for certain proposed changes, some of
them also disagreed with other specific proposals and provided
suggested revisions. Multiple commenters also provided statements or
comments that were not relevant to the proposed rule, and therefore
BSEE is not addressing them in this final rule.

General Comments

Summary of comments related to incremental submission of plans:
Multiple commenters suggested that BSEE clarify the regulations to
allow for incremental submission of certain plans.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenters' suggestions to allow
for incremental submission of certain plans. Incremental submission of
plans would complicate the BSEE approval process and require additional
BSEE time and resources to verify compliance with all requirements.
This piecemeal approach increases the potential for errors or gaps
within the plans, which may delay project implementation. The DWOP
process is purposefully divided into

[[Page 71079]]

multiple plans to allow BSEE approval of certain operations as the
project is developed. For example, BSEE approval of certain Conceptual
Plans would allow for the wells to be completed or the installation of
certain equipment, while BSEE approval of the DWOP would allow for well
production. BSEE requires all pertinent information associated with the
applicable plans within the DWOP process to be submitted as required in
Sec. Sec. 250.220 through 250.248. Furthermore, the final rule
provides clarity for the appropriate timing and submission requirements
for all plans covered under the DWOP process (e.g., see revisions to
Sec. Sec. 250.201, 250.220, 250.225, and 250.226). This final rule
also clarifies that not all projects will require the submittal of each
of the three Conceptual Plans and a DWOP. Specifically, certain New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plans or New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plans may not be required to have an
associated Project Conceptual Plan or DWOP.

Comments Related to the Independent Third Party (I3P)

Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed rule would substantially expand the role of I3Ps beyond
the scope of expected duties. The commenters also requested
clarification regarding the role and expected deliverables of I3Ps,
including I3P actions concerning verification, validation, and
certification and how those fit in with the terms ``fit for purpose''
and ``fit for service.''
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters that the I3P requirements
should be clarified and throughout this rulemaking has revised the
roles and expected responsibilities for I3Ps. For example, BSEE has
provided supplemental regulatory text that clarifies the meaning of the
terms ``fit for purpose'' and ``fit for service'' and to identify that
an I3P makes a ``fit for purpose'' determination and an operator makes
a ``fit for service'' determination. These added definitions are
consistent with the guidance of BSEE NTL Nos. 2019-G02 and 2019-G03.
In response to the comments, BSEE has also removed the term
``certification'' as it pertains to determining what is ``fit for
purpose'' and ``fit for service'' and is clarifying that a statement
from the appropriate entity is sufficient instead of a certification
statement.\2\ BSEE has also removed the term ``certification'' as it
pertains to I3Ps throughout Subpart B. See Section III of this preamble
for a complete discussion regarding the updated I3P expectations and
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Notwithstanding this terminology change, operators and I3Ps
should be aware that willfully and knowingly making materially false
statements to the government are actionable under 18 U.S.C. 1001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of comment: A commenter acknowledged that I3Ps can be a
powerful tool, but stated that BSEE must ensure that the criteria for
third party reviewers is sufficient.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter that I3Ps can be a useful
tool for added review and verifications. In this final rule, BSEE has
clarified the I3P qualifications and expectations to help ensure
appropriately qualified entities are performing this important work and
that BSEE has clear oversight of the process.
Summary of comments related to continued use of NTLs: Multiple
commenters expressed concerns with consistency between existing BSEE
guidance (NTL No. 2019-G02 and NTL No. 2019-G03) and the proposed rule
and were unsure as to whether BSEE intended to replace or supplement
the BSEE guidance.
Response: BSEE has made many revisions throughout the final rule to
provide consistency with existing BSEE guidance in the NTLs. For
example, BSEE has added the definitions of ``fit for purpose'' and
``fit for service'' to the final rule to provide that consistency (see
Section III of this preamble for discussions on consistency and
clarification of the content of the guidance documents). If the NTLs
conflict with this final rule, the final rule is controlling, and BSEE
will revise the NTLs, as necessary.
Summary of comments related to significance determination: A
commenter asserted that the rule was incorrectly identified as a non-
significant action. The commenter asserted that the rule includes
several significant alterations to the DWOP process currently used by
both the oil and natural gas industry and BSEE, including a substantial
expansion of the circumstances that would trigger the DWOP process, as
well as an expansion of the circumstances that would require review by
I3Ps. The commenter requested that BSEE reevaluate the significance
analysis.
Response: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
in the Office of Management and Budget determined that this rule is not
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, as amended. BSEE
disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the rule should be
considered significant. The DWOP process that is clarified in this rule
is the same process that BSEE has been using to review new and unusual
technologies and new and unusual technologies barriers for more than 20
years. Under its current regulations, BSEE has established conditions
of approval through the DWOP process under the authority of Sec.
250.141, ``May I ever use alternate procedures or equipment?'', to
enable it to review and approve applications using new technologies. In
response to the commenters request to reevaluate the significance
criteria, BSEE has conducted a final analysis of the regulations, and
OIRA confirmed that this final rule is not a significant regulatory
action. A summary of that analysis can be found in Section V of this
preamble.
Summary of comments related to grandfathering ongoing approvals and
actions: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that the proposed rule
would impact and significantly delay ongoing approval for projects that
have already been proposed and subject to BSEE review before the
effective date of the rule, or for equipment that has already been
reviewed by BSEE. The commenters identified that some of the projects
have already undergone years of review.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and revised Sec. 250.201
by adding new paragraph (d) to clarify that all plans covered under the
DWOP process that are initially submitted after the effective date of
this rule must comply with the requirements of this subpart. DWOPs that
were submitted to BSEE for approval prior to the effective date of this
rule, including revised or amended DWOPs, do not have to follow the new
DWOP process and may continue to follow the process that was in effect
before the effective date of these final regulations. BSEE considers
Conceptual Plans and DWOPs to be submitted when BSEE receives the
initial submittal. BSEE will work on a case-by-case basis to ensure
there are no significant delays for those ongoing projects or reviews.
BSEE may allow review pursuant to the new regulations if such a review
is requested by the operator.

Comments Related to the Use of New or Unusual Technology

Summary of comments: A commenter requested that BSEE not classify
equipment or procedures used in an HPHT environment as new or unusual
technology, as the HPHT technology is expanding and maturing.

[[Page 71080]]

Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter and does not consider
HPHT equipment to be fully mature. BSEE considers HPHT equipment to be
potentially high risk because it requires complex material selection,
material testing, design analysis, and validation testing. BSEE
understands and supports many engineering standards that are being
updated to address HPHT design. However, at this point BSEE intends for
operations in an HPHT environment to be fully reviewed and approved to
ensure safety and environmental protection. BSEE will continue to
evaluate HPHT projects, and at an appropriate time may revise the
regulations to remove HPHT from being considered new or unusual
technology once BSEE determines that it is fully established.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters recommended that BSEE
provide means to communicate about equipment or procedures that are or
are not considered new or unusual technology and a means for equipment
or procedures initially deemed to be new or unusual technology to later
be deemed as falling outside the definition of ``new or unusual
technology.''
Response: BSEE is not developing a list of equipment or procedures
considered to be new or unusual technology. It is impractical for BSEE
to list every potential piece of equipment or procedure that may fall
under the definition of new or unusual technology as there may be an
infinite number of variations of each type of equipment or procedure.
Furthermore, BSEE reviews each piece of equipment and procedure
individually to ensure that the equipment or procedure is appropriate
for the specific project proposed. This rule sets the parameters of
what is considered new or unusual technology. BSEE anticipates that
over time, consistently successful implementation of certain new or
unusual technologies will lead to BSEE revising the criteria for
determining what is considered new or unusual technology. After
appropriate experience and analysis of data, in a future rulemaking
BSEE may decide to no longer treat certain equipment or procedures used
in an HPHT environment as new or unusual technology. For example, BSEE
has become familiar with the freestanding hybrid riser (FSHR) systems
and does not consider that equipment new or unusual technology. In
2019, BSEE removed many of the FSHR prescriptive requirements and
associated certifications from the DWOP (see 84 FR 21932).
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
only operators can propose the use of new or unusual technology under
the DWOP process.
Response: The current regulatory structure focuses on entities--
such as lessees, operators, and grant holders--that submit permits to
BSEE for review and approval; this final rule, therefore, focuses on
regulation of those entities that use the permitting processes.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the full DWOP process should not be required to facilitate review of
new or unusual technology and recommended that BSEE provide clear
expectations and timing for all plans covered under the DWOP process
and actions or operations that can be taken during the process.
Response: In this final rule, BSEE has clarified the DWOP process
and the timing associated with each Conceptual Plan and the DWOP, as
applicable. BSEE has revised multiple sections to reflect the
appropriate timing (including what actions or operations can be taken
during the DWOP process) and submission requirements for all plans
covered under the DWOP process (e.g., see revisions to Sec. Sec.
250.201, 250.220, 250.225, and 250.226). BSEE has also clarified in
other sections (see, e.g., Sec. 250.220) that certain New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plans or New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plans (which may be used for drilling and
decommissioning) may not be required to have an associated Project
Conceptual Plan or DWOP. This clarification helps limit burdens on
industry, as not every proposed use of new or unusual technology will
require the submission of all plans defined in the DWOP process; only
those plans that are applicable will be required. There is a difference
between the DWOP process and submitting a DWOP. The DWOP process
identifies the overarching requirements for all associated plans (i.e.,
the Project Conceptual Plan, New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan,
New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan, and the
DWOP). The DWOP itself is just one plan included within the DWOP
process. BSEE expects operators to follow the DWOP process as
appropriate, which may only require the submittal of a certain
Conceptual Plan.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
proposed rule is overly prescriptive when identifying new or unusual
technology and barriers. This commenter expressed that the proposed
rule may limit or stifle innovation.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter's concerns that the
rule is overly prescriptive. These regulations outline the requirements
and expectations for using new or unusual technology. These regulations
will not limit or stifle innovation because BSEE uses the DWOP process
to evaluate and approve new or unusual technology, not to limit the
type of technology that may be submitted. BSEE has worked successfully
with industry for many years to implement new or unusual technology,
and BSEE will continue to work with any operator on the proposed use of
any new or unusual technology, even if that use is not explicitly
identified in the regulations. If an operator has any questions about
the applicability of the regulations to any new or unusual technology
or how the process will work for a specific equipment or process, that
operator may contact the appropriate Regional Supervisor for guidance
and actions on a case-by-case basis.
Summary of comments related to overlap between the contents of
Conceptual Plans and the DWOP: Multiple commenters expressed concerns
that there is significant overlap among the Conceptual Plans and the
DWOP requirements for the submission of information.
Response: BSEE agrees in part that the Conceptual Plans and the
DWOP may require the submission of similar information. However, the
final rule will not significantly change the contents and requirements
of the Project Conceptual Plan and the DWOP. This final rule clarifies
the nature of the required information submitted with each Conceptual
Plan and DWOP (see revisions to Sec. Sec. 250.227 through 250.242).
BSEE recognizes that the New and Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan and
New and Unusual Barrier Equipment Technology Conceptual Plan have
potentially similar requirements relative to the Project Conceptual
Plan and DWOP. However, the Conceptual Plans require the general
operational concepts and basis of design while the DWOP identifies the
specific design, fabrication, installation, and operational
requirements for the equipment.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters requested that BSEE
provide guidance for using alternate procedures or equipment requests
for using industry standards not incorporated by BSEE. A commenter also
recommended BSEE make the process for granting alternate procedures or
equipment and departure requests transparent to the public.
Response: Current BSEE regulations already outline the requirements
for

[[Page 71081]]

alternate procedures or equipment and departures in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 250.141 and 250.142, respectively. In reference to the
transparency of the alternate procedure or equipment and departure
requests, BSEE posts approval information on the BSEE website at:
<a href="https://www.data.bsee.gov/Company/Approvals/Default.aspx">https://www.data.bsee.gov/Company/Approvals/Default.aspx</a>.
Summary of comments: A commenter requested that BSEE increase
inspections, develop procedures to effectively enforce safety
violations, and improve oversight measures to fulfill its mandate.
Response: This rulemaking clarifies the DWOP process to ensure BSEE
receives proper information to evaluate and approve new or unusual
technology. BSEE has an established inspection program independent of
the DWOP process to help ensure compliance with the regulations and
enforce safety requirements. The equipment approved by BSEE through the
DWOP process will be inspected pursuant to the existing inspection
program. This rule does not alter the existing inspection program for
the actual operations. That inspection program is outside of the scope
of this rulemaking. However, BSEE is always seeking to improve its
regulatory oversight and enforcement and appreciates receiving relevant
recommendations.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concern that the
confidential and intellectual information submitted throughout the DWOP
process should be safeguarded and not released to the public domain.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter's concerns about the
release of confidential business information and will withhold such
information from public disclosure in accordance with law (see, e.g.,
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552).
Summary of comment: A commenter requested that BSEE provide
guidelines for how long DWOP process review is anticipated to take to
better align schedules leading to first production.
Response: BSEE cannot provide timelines for DWOP process review.
The review time for the DWOP process is handled on a case-by-case
basis, as each process is unique to a particular project. The size of
the project and complexity of the project, equipment, and processes all
factor into the length of time necessary for DWOP process review.

Summary of Comments Related to Economic Data

A commenter stated that the Proposed Rule is expected to increase
the cycle time by one to two years for new major capital projects due
to the magnitude of detailed information that is required to be
submitted with Conceptual Plans, both for projects of a conventional
nature and for projects that involve the use of ``new or unusual
technology'' (as defined in the Proposed Rule). The commenter asserted
that this increased cycle time for a project will impact the economics
and delay the schedule of the project.
The commenter also stated that the scope of Supplemental DWOP is
expanded well beyond the current requirements, and Table 2 of the
Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis does not take this into account
since it holds flat the number of Supplement DWOPs (312) to the
Baseline for DWOP Revisions for Equipment Change (312). The commenter
asserted that the change in scope could well cause the number of
Supplement DWOPs to double over the baseline. The commenter further
asserted that this would cause the 10-year cost reported in Table 7 for
both industry and government to be under reported.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the assertion that the rule will lead
to substantial delays in capital projects. Industry is already
submitting much of the project information for BSEE approval, so the
burden is not anticipated to be significant. Based on the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the overall reporting burden on
industry is expected to be an additional 67 hours per report compared
to the baseline, which is not reasonably likely to delay or increase
the cycle time for HPHT investment or deployment.
BSEE also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the rule
will expand the scope and lead to large increases in the number of
Supplemental DWOP Reports compared to the baseline. BSEE has clarified
that certain Conceptual Plans must be submitted for each piece of
equipment at an assembly level. This final rule also clarifies the
scope of Sec. 250.247 and identifies what conditions require operators
to submit Supplemental DWOPs consistent with the existing longstanding
practice for submittal of a Supplemental DWOP. The DWOP process
clarified in this rule is the same process that BSEE has been using to
review new and unusual technologies and new and unusual technologies
barriers for many years. Under existing regulations, BSEE has
established conditions of approval for new technologies for more than
20 years through the DWOP process under the authority of Sec. 250.141,
``May I ever use alternate procedures or equipment?'' BSEE expects that
the increased clarity regarding requirements and submission
expectations provided by this rule may in fact decrease the number of
Supplemental DWOPs that will need to be submitted. A supplement to a
DWOP is required for applicable development projects when there are
certain changes or additions that have not been approved by BSEE. The
Supplemental DWOP will only be as complex as the equipment or systems
not covered in the approved DWOP. BSEE uses this supplemental process
to ensure that all applicable equipment is properly reviewed and
approved before installation, well completion, or production.

III. Section-by-Section Summary and Responses to Comments on the
Proposed Rule

BSEE is finalizing revisions to the following regulations:

Subpart A--General

Definitions (Sec. 250.105)
Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to add definitions for ``BOP [blowout preventer]
systems and related equipment'' and ``HPHT environment.''
The proposed definition of ``BOP systems and related equipment''
included all pressure controlling and pressure containing well control
equipment that may or will be exposed to the well's maximum anticipated
surface pressure (MASP) during any phase of operation (i.e., drilling,
completion, workover, intervention, or abandonment). The proposed
definition also explained that well control equipment includes
equipment that is installed for the purpose of pressure control and
containment when it becomes necessary to physically enter a well bore
during drilling, completion, workover, intervention, or abandonment
modes of operation. The proposed definition of ``BOP systems and
related equipment'' is consistent with how BSEE defined the term in NTL
No. 2019-G03.
The proposed definition of HPHT environment was moved from Sec.
250.804(b) to this section and revised to refer to well conditions: (1)
that require equipment assigned a pressure rating greater than 15,000
psia or temperature rating greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit; (2)
where the MASP or shut in tubing pressure (SITP) is greater than 15,000
psia at the seafloor for a well with a subsea wellhead or at the
surface for a well with a surface wellhead; or (3) with a flowing
temperature greater than 350 degrees Fahrenheit measured at the
seafloor for

[[Page 71082]]

a well with a subsea wellhead or at the surface for a well with a
surface wellhead. The proposed definition is consistent with BSEE's
current definition of HPHT environments in existing Sec. 250.804(b)
and is identical to the definition in NTL No. 2019-G03.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE is finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec. 250.105 with
minor clarifications. BSEE is revising the proposed definition of BOP
systems and related equipment to clarify that well control equipment
includes equipment that is installed for the purpose of pressure
control and ``pressure'' containment. This revision clarifies the
original intent of the proposed definition.
BSEE is also revising the proposed definition of HPHT environment
to clarify that the criteria for evaluating MASP, SITP, and flowing
temperatures are evaluated ``at'' the seafloor instead of ``on'' the
seafloor. The temperature measuring device may be several feet above
the actual seafloor. The device is generally located on the subsea tree
and can be as high as 25 feet above the mudline.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that BSEE is
not including in the rule all of the definitions contained in the
existing BSEE NTL Nos. 2019-G02 and 2019-G03.
Response: BSEE does not agree that adding all of the definitions
from the NTLs are necessary. BSEE has determined that some of the
definitions in the NTL are more appropriate in the context of the
associated guidance contained in the NTLs. However, as described in
Section III of this preamble and in response to comments, BSEE has
revised the definitions of ``BOP systems and related equipment'' and
``HPHT environment'' in the proposed rule for consistency with BSEE NTL
Nos. 2019-G02 and 2019-G03. The referenced NTLs were created prior to
significant BSEE HPHT reviews occurring. Now that BSEE has been
reviewing HPHT projects for several years, we have identified what
information is pertinent for regulation. BSEE will revise the existing
NTLs, as necessary, to provide additional guidance for HPHT operations.
The content of the existing applicable NTLs may still be relevant, but
they may be revised to reflect the content incorporated into these
regulations and updated processes.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
definition of BOP systems and related equipment is too broad and may be
interpreted to include equipment beyond what is traditionally
considered a BOP system.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter. BSEE considers any
piece of temporary equipment used to contain or control well bore
fluids and pressure during drilling, completions, workover,
intervention, or abandonment operations to be part of the BOP systems
or related equipment. The concept of BOP system and related equipment
has been utilized for many years in the existing BSEE regulations (see
previous Sec. 250.732(c) and existing Sec. 250.735). The definition
of BOP systems and related equipment provides clarity consistent with
the use of the term as identified in the regulations and is not
intended to significantly alter or expand the scope of the definition.
If there are any questions about what equipment is properly defined as
part of a BOP system or related equipment, please contact the
appropriate BSEE Regional Supervisor.
Summary of comments: A commenter stated that the definition of HPHT
environment needs further clarity regarding the terms MASP and
``flowing temperature'' to ensure it is applied appropriately.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter that the definition
needs to be revised to further explain the terminology of the
definition. This definition of HPHT environment is consistent with the
definition of an HPHT environment in current regulations (see Sec.
250.804(b)) and with BSEE's longstanding approach for considering HPHT
environment criteria, including the use of the NTLs that further
clarify applicable terms like MASP (e.g., BSEE NTL No. 2019-G03). This
rule is not changing the meaning of any terms used within that
definition, and their meanings will continue consistent with the
current regulations and guidance. If there are any questions about what
is considered an HPHT environment, please contact the appropriate BSEE
Regional Supervisor.
Service Fees (Sec. 250.125)
Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 250.125 by adding
new service fees for BSEE review of submittals associated with the DWOP
process. Specifically, BSEE proposed adding service fees for processing
a Project Conceptual Plan, New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan,
New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan, revised DWOP,
Combined Conceptual Plan/DWOP, and Supplemental DWOP. BSEE also
proposed revising the cost recovery fee amount for DWOP approval to
reflect current BSEE review and processing timeframes. These service
and cost recovery fees would cover BSEE's costs for administrative and
technical review of each identified submittal and processing.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE is finalizing the service fee categories as proposed with one
minor textual revision in paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 250.125. BSEE
revised the fourth category to include the word ``Equipment'' to make
it consistent with the title of that Conceptual Plan. BSEE is also
revising all the proposed service fee amounts listed in paragraph
(a)(2) to more accurately reflect the revised processes and the
estimated BSEE review time for the listed services. For example, BSEE
now expects a separate New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan for each separate piece of applicable equipment and has
reduced the service fee amount accordingly. Each project may require a
different number of New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plans based on the equipment being used. Accordingly, the
new fee reflects the BSEE evaluation time per plan and not per project,
which was the basis of the fee initially analyzed in the proposed rule.
The service fee amounts are revised as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed fee Final fee
Service--processing of the following: amount amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP)
Process:
(i) Project Conceptual Plan......... $2,510 $2,697
(ii) New or Unusual Technology 32,611 7,964
Conceptual Plan....................
(iii) New or Unusual Technology 71,570 15,104
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan..
(iv) DWOP........................... 13,907 10,647
(v) Revised DWOP.................... 896 963
(vi) Combined Conceptual Plan/DWOP.. 8,959 13,856

[[Page 71083]]

(vii) Supplemental DWOP............. 8,959 9,626
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of comments: A commenter recommended that BSEE add a fee
schedule for an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) to submit a
generic equipment plan.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter regarding requiring an
OEM to submit an equipment plan and to add a service fee for such a
filing. The DWOP process requires submittal of the appropriate plans
and permits (see Sec. 250.201) by those entities who are covered under
the definition of ``you,'' which includes a lessee or designated
operator. BSEE is not including the OEM as an entity to submit plans
because an OEM is not the end user of the equipment. BSEE will review
plans specific to each project and prefers not to review generic
equipment plans in addition to the project-specific plans, as doing so
would duplicate the review burden on BSEE.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that only one
service fee should apply to each Conceptual Plan covering the whole
project regardless of the number of pieces of equipment or components
covered by the plan.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter as only one
service fee is required for each applicable Conceptual Plan (see
Sec. Sec. 250.227(t), 250.228(a)(15), and 250.229(j)). BSEE, however,
does not agree that all Conceptual Plans can cover multiple pieces of
equipment. For example, BSEE now expects a separate New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan for each separate piece of
applicable equipment and has reduced the service fee amount accordingly
(see Sec. Sec. 250.226(b)(5) and 250.226(c)(5)). Because the nature of
plan submittals and the number of plans may vary for each project, BSEE
has determined that a service fee for BSEE review on a per-plan basis
more accurately reflects the resources expended than a service fee on a
per-project basis.
Documents Incorporated by Reference (Sec. 250.198)
Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (e)(82) of Sec. 250.198, which
currently incorporates ANSI/API Spec. 6A, Specification for Wellhead
and Christmas Tree Equipment, to add new references to Sec. Sec.
250.518 and 250.619, making this standard applicable to completion and
workover operations. The proposed changes to this paragraph are
administrative and reflect the substantive changes made to Sec. Sec.
250.518 and 250.619 that incorporate by reference this standard and are
addressed further in the section-by-section discussion for these two
sections.
BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (e)(86) of Sec. 250.198 to
update the incorporation of ANSI/API Spec. 11D1 to the third edition of
that standard. BSEE reviewed the new edition and the differences
between the second and third editions of ANSI/API Spec. 11D1 and
determined that the third edition is appropriate to incorporate into
the regulations. The ANSI/API Spec. 11D1 third edition now includes an
improved testing procedure for design verification and validation of
packers and bridge plugs. The most significant change from the second
edition to the third edition was the addition of the enhanced
validation of the testing processes.
BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (e)(91) of Sec. 250.198,
which currently incorporates ANSI/API Spec. 17D, Design and Operation
of Subsea Production Systems--Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment,
Second Edition, to add new references to Sec. Sec. 250.518 and
250.619, making this standard applicable to completion and workover
operations. The proposed changes to this paragraph are administrative
and reflect the substantive changes made to Sec. Sec. 250.518 and
250.619 that incorporate by reference this standard and are addressed
further in the section-by-section discussion for these two sections.
BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (i)(1) of Sec. 250.198,
which currently incorporates NACE Standard MR0175-2003, Standard
Material Requirements, Metals for Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress
Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Sour Oilfield Environments, Revised
January 17, 2003, to add new references to Sec. Sec. 250.518 and
250.619, making this standard applicable to completion and workover
operations. The proposed changes to this paragraph are administrative
and reflect the substantive changes made to Sec. Sec. 250.518 and
250.619 that incorporate by reference this standard and are addressed
further in the section-by-section discussion for these two sections.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on the incorporation by reference
of the proposed industry standards in this section and is including the
proposed language in the final rule without change.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed general support
for BSEE updating out of date standards and requested BSEE to consider
many additional standards to be incorporated into the regulations.
Response: BSEE supports the actions of ensuring referenced
standards are not out of date and reflect the recent editions; however,
BSEE cannot add new standards to this rulemaking without specifically
identifying them for public comment. BSEE may consider all of the
recommended standards for incorporation in future BSEE rulemaking
actions.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that reliance
on industry standards undermines safety.
Response: BSEE follows the policies of OMB circular A-119, which
directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of
government-unique standards, except when they are inconsistent with law
or otherwise impractical. BSEE recognizes the positive contribution of
standards development and related activities. When properly conducted,
standards development can increase productivity and efficiency in
government and industry, expand opportunities for international trade,
conserve resources, improve health and safety, and protect the
environment. BSEE has reviewed the incorporated standards to ensure
that they provide the necessary level of safety. BSEE also complies
with the requirements to utilize standards according to the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Pub. L. 104-113 (March 7,
1996)).

Subpart B--Plans and Information

This final rule will restructure Subpart B--Plans and Information,
under the following undesignated headings to assist the reader in
finding the subject matter provisions they are looking for in the
regulations:

--GENERAL INFORMATION;
--BARRIER EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS;

[[Page 71084]]

--ACTIVITIES AND POST-APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EP, DPP, DWOP, AND
DOCD;
--DEEPWATER OPERATIONS PLAN (DWOP) PROCESS;
--CONCEPTUAL PLANS; and
--DWOP APPROVAL.

General Information

Definitions (Sec. 250.200)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.200 by adding
the acronym HPHT. BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (b) of Sec.
250.200 by adding, revising, or removing the following definitions, as
noted:

--Add a definition for Barrier categorization to identify barriers as
one of the following two categories:

Category 1 Barrier, which would mean any equipment, component, or
assembly that functions as part of a primary barrier during any
operational phase of its life cycle. The operational phases of the
barrier equipment, component, or assembly are drilling, completion,
workover, intervention, injection, production, or abandonment; and
Category 2 Barrier, which would mean any equipment, component, or
assembly that normally functions as part of a secondary barrier system
in all operational phases of its life cycle, except when a primary
barrier fails. The operational phases of the barrier equipment,
component, or assembly are drilling, completion, workover,
intervention, injection, production, or abandonment. BSEE may consider
non-barrier structural components of a barrier system as Category 2
barriers if failure of that structural component could reasonably
result in a primary barrier failure.

--Add a definition for Primary Barrier system, which would mean the
component or group of components that are designated as the principle
means of isolating the source of hydrocarbons and/or pressure from
people and the environment.
--Add the definition for Secondary Barrier system, which would mean the
component or group of components that are designated as the secondary
means of isolating the source of hydrocarbons and/or pressure from
people and the environment.
--Revise the definition for New or unusual technology to include
equipment or procedures used for any drilling, completion, workover,
intervention, injection, production, pipeline, platform,
decommissioning, or abandonment operation that meets any of the
following criteria:

(1) Has not been approved for use or used extensively in a BSEE OCS
Region;
(2) Has not been approved for use or used extensively under the
anticipated operating conditions;
(3) Has operating characteristics that are outside the performance
parameters established in 30 CFR part 250;
(4) Will operate in an HPHT environment as defined in proposed
Sec. 250.105; or
(5) Is part of a primary or secondary barrier system that uses
materials, design analysis techniques, validation testing methods, or
manufacturing processes not addressed in existing industry standards.

--Replace the definition for non-conventional production or completion
technology with subsea tieback development technology. The definition
of subsea tieback development technology would still include the
current examples of floating production systems, tension leg platforms,
spars, Floating Production Storage and Offloading Vessel (FPSO)
systems, guyed towers, compliant towers, subsea manifolds, and subsea
production components, and would add subsea wells, hybrid wells, and
other subsea completion components to the list of examples.
--Remove the definitions of modification, offshore vehicle, resubmitted
OCS plan, revised OCS plan, and supplemental OCS plan.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received and considered comments on this section and is
finalizing the proposed Sec. 250.200 with the following clarifying
revisions:

--Adding the acronym for Independent Third Party (I3P). This addition
helps provide clarity for this common term used in the regulations.
--Revising the definition of Category 1 Barrier to remove ``system''
from the term. BSEE is removing this term because it is unnecessary to
define from a system level and is sufficient to define on an individual
level. BSEE wants to ensure the flexibility to review the appropriately
identified equipment even if only a single piece of equipment.
--Revising the definition of Category 2 Barrier to clarify that it
means any equipment, component, or assembly that normally functions as
part of a secondary barrier ``during any'' operational phase instead of
``in all'' operational phases. This revision clarifies when a Category
2 Barrier should be used. BSEE also is clarifying that BSEE may
consider non-barrier structural components of a barrier system as a
Category 2 Barrier if failure of this structural component could
reasonably result in a ``primary'' barrier failure. This revision
clarifies the consideration of a Category 2 Barrier to be consistent
with its definition and applicability only when there is a Primary
Barrier failure instead of any barrier failure.
--Adding the definition of Fit for Purpose to mean a determination made
by an I3P at the conclusion of I3P review that the barrier equipment
design has been verified and validated in conformance with recognized
engineering standards and any additional project specification
requirements; that the material selection, design verification
analysis, design validation testing, and quality control are
appropriate to justify the technical specifications; and that the
technical specifications meet or exceed a project's site specific
functional requirements. The addition of this definition provides
clarity about the expectations and actions of an I3P and is consistent
with the associated revisions to Sec. Sec. 250.226 and 250.230 through
250.233.
--Adding the definition of Fit for Service to mean a determination made
by the operator that the material selection, design verification
analysis, design validation testing, and quality control of the barrier
equipment is appropriate to justify the technical specifications and
that the technical specifications meet or exceed a project's site-
specific functional requirements. This addition provides clarity about
the expectations and actions of an operator when providing required
determinations for a site-specific project and is consistent with the
associated requirements of the DWOP process.
--Revising the definitions of Primary Barrier and Secondary Barrier by
removing the terms ``system'', ``or group of components'', and ``of
hydrocarbons and/or pressure'', resulting in the defined terms meaning
the equipment, material, component, or assembly that is designated as
the primary or secondary means of isolating the hydrocarbon pressure
source from people and the environment. These revisions provide clarity
and consistency with other applicable definitions (e.g., Category 1
Barrier and Category 2 Barrier) and with how the terms are used in
Sec. 250.206. Also based on comments, BSEE clarified the applicability
of the barriers encompassing those that isolate a

[[Page 71085]]

``hydrocarbon pressure source.'' This clarification confirms the
original intent of the definitions, further ensuring personnel safety
and environmental protection from the potential release of
hydrocarbons.
--Revising the definition of Subsea Tieback Development Technology by
removing an unnecessary acronym and adding production risers and export
risers to the list of applicable technology. These identified risers
have always been an integral part of subsea tieback development
technology and BSEE is adding them for clarification.

Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the definition of ``New or unusual technology'' is too broad and would
unnecessarily expand the application of the DWOP process. Commenters
also expressed concerns that the language ``used extensively'', which
is used in the definition for ``New and unusual technology'', is vague
and gives no criteria as to when equipment will no longer be considered
new or unusual in the context of HPHT equipment. Some commenters
recommended that the definition of new or unusual technology should not
include equipment covered by industry standards.
Response: BSEE disagrees in part with the commenters' concerns.
BSEE recognizes that the definition in this rule expands the scope of
what is considered new or unusual technology; however, this expansion
helps cover the critical projects, equipment, or procedures identified
by BSEE that must follow the DWOP process. BSEE has determined that
this expanded scope is necessary to ensure safe operations in HPHT
environments.
To clarify the scope, BSEE has also revised other definitions in
this final rule to clarify the equipment, materials, components, or
assemblies that may be used (e.g., Category 1 and 2 Barriers, Primary
and Secondary Barriers, and Subsea Tieback Development Technology).
BSEE has also successfully used the longstanding definition of ``New or
unusual technology'' in the current regulations in Sec. 250.200, which
already uses the language ``used extensively'' as part of the
definition. Accordingly, BSEE does not agree that the term will be too
vague for its intended purposes.
In this rule BSEE is not using industry standards as a criterion
for determining new or unusual technology. Multiple standards could be
used for one piece of equipment, and BSEE has not incorporated into the
regulations every potential industry standard. Also, BSEE may not have
reviewed or evaluated the standards not incorporated in the regulations
prior to Conceptual Plan or DWOP submittal, and standards generally do
not address site specific reviews of the equipment. New technology
applications are individualized even when the same idea is used in
different locations. BSEE needs to ensure the equipment or procedures
are appropriate for the conditions in which they will be used. Once
industry and BSEE understand the full risks and mitigations from the
specific application and use, then BSEE may determine that the
equipment no longer needs to be categorized as new or unusual
technology.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
the expectations of the I3P and operators for determining what is ``fit
for purpose'' and ``fit for service,'' respectively. The commenters
recommended that BSEE clarify the differences between determining what
is ``fit for purpose'' and what is ``fit for service,'' consistent with
BSEE guidance.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters, and the final rule now
includes definitions for both terms. The addition of these definitions
provides clarity and certain expectations for the I3P or operator
conducting the relevant determinations. The added definitions are
consistent with the guidance of BSEE NTL Nos. 2019-G02 and 2019-G03,
with minor corresponding edits to reflect their applicability specific
to the DWOP process.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
proposed rule extends the barrier envelope beyond the scope of
isolating pressure systems from hydrocarbons.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter. BSEE has revised the
definitions of primary and secondary barriers to clarify applicability
to hydrocarbon pressure sources. These revisions to the definitions
clarify BSEEs original intent and limit the scope of the primary and
secondary barriers to only hydrocarbon pressure sources.

What plans and information must I submit before I conduct any
activities on my lease or unit? (Sec. 250.201)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise existing paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.201 to
reflect the creation of the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan,
the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan, and the Project
Conceptual Plan. This section provides general information about each
plan and identifies when BSEE approval is necessary. BSEE proposed
paragraph (a) to clarify when each plan approval is required for
certain activities. An operator is only required to submit the
applicable Conceptual Plan(s). Each of these Conceptual Plans are
standalone plans and are not contingent upon approval of each other.
BSEE also proposed to remove existing paragraph (c), which includes
the limiting information provisions. The limiting information
provisions allow the Regional Director to limit the amount of
information or analyses required to be included with the submitted
plans or documents, covered by Subpart B of 30 CFR part 250, under
certain conditions. The narrower scope of the information described in
the proposed rule aligns with the Bureau's roles, authorities, and
regulations established in 2011 when BSEE separated from the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) (see 76 FR 64432).
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received and considered comments on this section and is
finalizing the proposed section with the following revisions based on
the comments received:

--In paragraph (a), BSEE is adding ``(or relevant portions thereof)''
after the listed plans. This addition clarifies that certain lease
activities can be conducted if the appropriate portions of the
Conceptual Plans are submitted to BSEE and approved as identified in
Sec. 250.226;
--In the table under paragraph (a)(1), BSEE is revising the information
under the heading ``Additional information'' to designate the first
paragraph as (a)(1)(i) and clarifying that the New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plan must be approved by BSEE before it will
approve any associated application or permit involving the use of new
or unusual technology. BSEE is also adding new paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(iii), and (iv) to clarify that the New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan may be independent of a project Conceptual Plan or
DWOP, that BSEE will not approve the Conceptual Plan until all
associated I3P Reports (if required) are submitted and reviewed by
BSEE, and that the Conceptual Plan may not contain equipment identified
as a primary or secondary barrier;
--In the table under paragraph (a)(2), and throughout the rule, BSEE is
revising the name of the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual
Plan to New or Unusual

[[Page 71086]]

Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan. This revision is made
based on comments received to clarify the scope of the plan and to be
consistent with the terminology and use of equipment covered by the
plan. BSEE is also clarifying that the New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan requirements apply to new or unusual
technology ``that is identified'' as barrier equipment. The final rule
also revises paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to state that this type of plan must
be approved ``by BSEE before it will approve any associated application
or permit application (e.g., pipeline, platform, APD, APM) involving
the use of new or unusual technology identified as barrier equipment as
applicable for the permit scope.'' The final rule also adds new
paragraph (a)(2)(iii), which states that BSEE will not approve this
Conceptual Plan until all associated I3P Reports are submitted and
reviewed by BSEE. These additions clarify the BSEE Conceptual Plan
approval process and submittal requirements associated with the
applicable Conceptual Plans. These additions are based on comments
received and are consistent with the relevant revisions to the
associated plans covered under Sec. 250.226 (``When and how must I
submit each applicable Conceptual Plan?'');
--In the table under paragraph (a)(3), BSEE is clarifying that the
Project Conceptual Plan may include certain new or unusual technology.
BSEE is also revising the information under the heading ``Additional
information'' to designate the proposed paragraph as (a)(3)(i),
removing the incorrect reference to the Application for Permit to Drill
(APD), and adding new paragraph (a)(3)(ii) to clarify that BSEE must
approve any relevant new or unusual technology associated with
completion operations before BSEE approves the Project Conceptual Plan.
These additions clarify the BSEE Project Conceptual Plan approval
process and submittal requirements associated with the Project
Conceptual Plans. These revisions ensure proper information has been
approved or is included with in the applicable Conceptual Plan for BSEE
approval. These additions are based on comments received and are
consistent with the relevant revisions to the Conceptual Plans covered
under Sec. 250.226 (``When and how must I submit each applicable
Conceptual Plan?''). BSEE removed the incorrect reference to the APD
because it is not applicable to the Project Conceptual Plan and
activities covered under that plan;
--In the table under paragraph (a)(4)(i), BSEE removed the reference to
the new or unusual technology barrier equipment because it is redundant
with the definition of new or unusual technology; and
--BSEE added new paragraph (d) to clarify that all DWOP process plans
initially submitted after the effective date of this rule must comply
with the requirements of this subpart.

Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the terms
used in the table are not consistent with the definitions and requested
that BSEE provide clarification on when lease activities can commence
under each applicable plan.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and has revised the table
to reflect the additional information associated with the applicable
plans. BSEE has also revised Sec. 250.226 to further reflect the
actions that may be taken at each step of each applicable plan (see the
applicable discussions of Sec. 250.226 in Section IV of this
preamble). The revisions to this section and Sec. 250.226 further
clarify the original intent of the proposed rule and the ability to
conduct certain lease activities associated with the applicable plans.
Summary of comments: A commenter requested that BSEE limit the
request of additional information at the Conceptual Plan stage to the
adequacy of the requirements included in the plan and the adequacy of
the documentation or verification of details.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and expects the
request for additional information under paragraph (b) to be limited to
that applicable information needed to evaluate the proposed plan or
permit. However, no revisions to this paragraph are necessary as the
context of the current provisions are limited already to the scope of
the associated plan or permit covered under paragraph (a).

How must I protect the rights of the Federal government? (Sec.
250.202)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content of existing Sec. 250.204 to this
section without revision.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is
including the proposed language in the final rule without change.

Are there special requirements if my well affects an adjacent property?
(Sec. 250.203)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content of existing Sec. 250.205 to this
section without revision.
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is
including the proposed language in the final rule without change.

Requirements for High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) Barrier
Equipment (Sec. 250.204)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed this new section to clarify what information an
operator would be required to submit to BSEE if the operator plans to
install HPHT barrier equipment. This section cross-references the
applicable DWOP process requirements associated with the New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan (e.g. Sec. Sec. 250.229
and 250.242). These additions are necessary to help ensure that the
equipment is fit for service in the specific HPHT environment. BSEE's
review and approval of information submitted during the DWOP process is
intended to occur in conjunction with BSEE's review and approval of
associated applications or permits (e.g., APD, Application for Permit
to Modify (APM), pipeline, and production safety system).
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is revising this section to
reflect the sequential order of submission of the applicable plans and
permits and clarify that if an operator plans to install HPHT barrier
equipment, then it must submit information with its applicable Project
Conceptual Plan, New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual
Plan, DWOP, and applicable permit(s). BSEE also clarified the last
sentence of the section to include Sec. Sec. 250.229 and 250.242 as
examples ``(e.g.,)'' of the applicable DWOP Process requirements.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that this
section is inconsistent with other submittal requirements. The
commenter also stated that certain uses of HPHT barrier equipment do
not require every step in the DWOP Process.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and is ensuring
that this section lists all plans that would be applicable to the use
of HPHT barrier equipment. BSEE disagrees with the commenter that
revisions are necessary

[[Page 71087]]

to demonstrate that only parts of the DWOP process apply. The last
sentence of this section already states that the operator must follow
the applicable DWOP process requirements. This does not mean that every
DWOP process step must be followed as there are situations where
certain parts may not be required. For example, certain New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plans do not require submittal
of a DWOP. BSEE is revising the last sentence of the paragraph to
include a general reference to Sec. Sec. 250.229 and 250.242 as
examples of possible DWOP process requirements.
BSEE proposed to reserve Sec. 250.205 and this section is reserved
in this regulation.

Barrier Equipment and Systems

What equipment does BSEE consider to be a barrier? (Sec. 250.206)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed that this section codify some of the barrier concepts
from BSEE NTL No. 2009-G36. Many parts of existing BSEE regulations
under 30 CFR part 250, subparts D, E, F, G, H, J, and Q, are dedicated
to establishing barrier requirements. This section would clarify that
BSEE considers a barrier or barrier system to be any engineered
equipment, materials, component, or assembly that is installed to
contain a hydrocarbon pressure source(s) to prevent harm to people or
the environment. BSEE recognizes barriers that are either non-
mechanical or mechanical in nature, permanently or temporarily
installed, pressure controlling, and/or pressure containing barriers.
Pressure controlling barriers must be able to be activated on demand.
The proposed rule also clarified that barriers or barrier systems are
required to be able to function and/or be pressure tested repeatedly to
defined acceptance criteria. If the barrier or barrier system is
classified as Safety and Pollution Prevention Equipment (as described
under Sec. 250.801(a)), then it must also be compliant with the leak
test requirements established in Subpart H of 30 CFR part 250. Any
specific engineered equipment, materials, components, or assembly that
exist within a barrier system that are not tested would not be
considered a barrier. This section would not alter or impact any
existing regulation; it only documents a principle that is the basis of
many BSEE regulations.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received multiple comments on this section and has revised the
language in the final rule with the following revisions based on those
comments.

--BSEE is making this section consistent with the revisions to the
definitions under Sec. 250.200 and clarifying that barriers are
installed to contain hydrocarbon pressure sources to prevent harm to
people and the environment. This revision clarifies the purpose of
barriers and provides consistent terminology;
--Removing the parenthetical that non-mechanical or mechanical in
nature barriers are only recognized by BSEE as barriers. BSEE removed
this parenthetical to avoid confusion and be consistent with the
definitions and terms defined in Subpart B of 30 CFR part 250 and in
Sec. 250.200;
--Adding an example of activating a barrier on demand to include the
parenthetical ``(i.e., closed by an operator or automated safety
system).'' This was added to provide guidance and clarity to the intent
of activation of a barrier and does not change the associated
requirement;
--Revising the second to last sentence to clarify that operators must
function test and pressure test any pressure controlling barriers and
adding that the operator must also pressure test any pressure
containing barrier to defined acceptance criteria that can be repeated.
BSEE clarified these requirements to eliminate confusion about the
types of testing that is applicable to only pressure controlling as
opposed to pressure containing barriers. BSEE does not specify the
exact testing requirements or testing timeframes in order to not limit
the use of new or unusual technology, such as single use barrier
technology. However, the operator must identify and demonstrate the
defined acceptance criteria to ensure that the barrier or barrier
system can be used as designated; and
--Removing the last proposed sentence because Safety and Pollution
Prevention Equipment is already covered under 30 CFR part 250, subpart
H and is unnecessary in Subpart B.

Summary of comments: A commenter recommended clarifying that the
barriers discussed in this section apply to hydrocarbon sources to
prevent the requirements being taken out of context for including other
non-barrier pressure containing components.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and removed the words ``or
other'' to clarify that the barriers are installed to contain
hydrocarbon pressure sources. BSEE has revised this section to ensure
consistency with the definitions of applicable terms and clarify that
the barrier envelope covered by these definitions is limited to
hydrocarbon pressure sources. These revisions to this section and
corresponding edits to the definitions section clarify BSEEs original
intent and limit the applicable scope of the barrier or barrier system
to only hydrocarbon pressure sources.
Summary of comments: A commenter requested BSEE to clarify the term
``activated on demand.''
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and clarified the term
``activated on demand'' by providing a parenthetical that includes
``closed by an operator or automated safety system.'' This
clarification does not change the meaning or intent of the proposed
requirements and only provides two examples of what is meant by the
term activated on demand.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
the purpose of function testing and pressure testing of barriers and
suggested that function testing and pressure testing are only used for
determining failures.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenters that function
testing and pressure testing help determine failures; however, BSEE
also uses pressure testing and function testing to help ensure that the
barrier or barrier system is capable of being used as designed for the
specific conditions. This section does not specify any specific
function testing or pressure testing acceptance criteria. BSEE
clarified these requirements to eliminate confusion about the types of
testing that is applicable to only pressure controlling as opposed to
pressure containing barriers. BSEE does not want to limit the use of
new or unusual technology, such as single use barrier technology, by
specifying the exact testing requirements or testing timeframes.
However, the operator must identify and demonstrate the defined
acceptance standard to ensure that the barrier or barrier system can be
used as designated.

How must barrier systems be used? (Sec. 250.207)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to require operators to install and maintain a
primary and secondary barrier system to prevent a loss of containment
during any operational phase of a well, flowline, pipeline, production,
or riser system. It is BSEE's goal to prevent loss of containment by
minimizing single point failures wherever possible. Given the

[[Page 71088]]

probability that any barrier may fail during its service life due to
age, corrosion, wear, damage, the environment, or accidents, the best
mitigation is redundancy. This section would not alter or impact any
existing regulation; it only documents a principle that is the basis of
many BSEE regulations.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is
including the proposed language in the final rule without change.

Activities and Post-Approval Requirements for the EP (Exploration
Plan), DPP (Development and Production Plan), DWOP, and DOCD
(Development Operations Coordination Document)

How must I conduct activities under an approved EP, DPP, or DOCD?
(Sec. 250.208)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed that this section be similar to the language in 30
CFR 550.280, How must I conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP,
or DOCD? During the 2011 regulatory split between BSEE and BOEM, the
content of this section was inadvertently removed from 30 CFR part 250;
however, the content is still applicable to BSEE and should be included
in 30 CFR part 250, as well as in 30 CFR part 550.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received and considered a comment regarding this proposed
provision and includes the proposed language in the final rule with the
minor wording change to paragraph (a)(2) to state that the actions
``may'' result in the lack of compensation and to fix an incorrect
citation. BOEM removed 30 CFR 556.77 from the regulations; the new
applicable regulation is 30 CFR 556.1102.
Summary of comment: A commenter expressed concerns that the
proposed language does not reflect that lease cancellation and right-
of-way forfeiture occur through a judicial process and that the last
sentence in paragraph (a)(2) is not compatible with 30 CFR 550.185(b)
and 30 CFR 556.77 because those provisions do not categorically
preclude compensation in all circumstances.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter in part. The language
in paragraph (a)(2), like 30 CFR 550.280(a)(2), accurately reflects the
language in 43 U.S.C. 1334(c) or (d), 30 CFR 550.185, and 30 CFR
556.1102. This addition to the BSEE regulations is not intended to
alter any applicable judicial process or change the longstanding
requirements of the BOEM regulations. Pursuant to the commenter's
suggestion, BSEE has revised the regulation to reflect that the actions
``may'' result in the lack of compensation.

What must I do to conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP, or
DOCD? (Sec. 250.209)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
The content of this proposed section would be similar to the
language in 30 CFR 550.281, What must I do to conduct activities under
the approved EP, DPP, or DOCD?, paragraphs (a) and (b). During the 2011
regulatory split between BSEE and BOEM, the content of this section was
inadvertently removed from this part; however, the content is still
applicable to BSEE and should be included in 30 CFR part 250, as well
as in 30 CFR part 550.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on this proposed section and is
including the proposed language in the final rule without change.

Do I have to conduct post-approval monitoring? (Sec. 250.210)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move this section from Sec. 250.282. BSEE also
proposed to add revisions to clarify that the Regional Supervisor may
direct operators to conduct monitoring programs in association with
their approved EP, DPP, DWOP, or DOCD.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received and considered a comment regarding this proposed
provision and includes the proposed language in the final rule without
change.
Summary of comment: A commenter stated that paragraph (b) is vague
and ambiguous and fails to put industry on notice of the standards with
which it must comply. The commenter recommended that BSEE revise this
paragraph to clarify the requirements for preparing and submitting
monitoring plans.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter and has successfully
used the language regarding monitoring programs as a longstanding
requirement (see previous Sec. 250.282). For example, BSEE has
successfully directed the use of monitoring programs to minimize the
risk of vessel strikes to protected species and provided clarifying
guidance for implementing those monitoring programs (see BSEE NTL No.
2012-G01).

What are my new or unusual technology failure reporting requirements?
(Sec. 250.211)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to clarify the new or unusual technology failure
reporting requirements. Currently, BSEE does not receive new or unusual
technology failure data associated with approved DWOPs; however, BSEE
has recently requested new or unusual technology failure data as a
condition of DWOP approval. The proposed section would require an
operator to notify BSEE within 30 days of a failure and provide a
written report identifying the root causes of the failure. This new
section is intended to provide BSEE with a better understanding of
operational limitations of equipment associated with an approved DWOP.
Existing failure and incident reporting requirements in Sec. Sec.
250.188, What incidents must I report to BSEE and when must I report
them?; 250.730, What are the general requirements for BOP systems and
system components?; and 250.803, What SPPE failure reporting procedures
must I follow?, may be used to help fulfill the new or unusual
technology failure reporting requirements of this section. This section
is not a substitute for other currently applicable failure or incident
reporting requirements.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is revising this section by
clarifying the definition of a failure to include any condition that
prevents the equipment from meeting its functional specification. The
final rule also removes the terms ``recovered and repaired or
replaced'' as elements the proposed rule listed as triggering a
requirement to notify the Regional Supervisor. BSEE is also revising
the term ``written report'' to ``failure analysis report'' and
clarifies that an operator must provide the failure analysis report as
soon as it is available following the notification and that the failure
analysis report must include any results and potential root causes.
These revisions provide consistency with the same terminology and
expectations for failure reporting used throughout BSEE regulations
(e.g., Sec. Sec. 250.188, 250.730 and 250.803).
Summary of comments: A commenter stated that the proposed rule is
too broad and would capture non-failures. For example, the commenter
stated that

[[Page 71089]]

simply needing to recover equipment does not mean the equipment
experienced a failure and does not provide a distinction between
failure notification and submission of a failure report.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and has revised the
definition of failure in this section to mean any condition that
prevents the equipment from meeting its functional specification. BSEE
also removed the requirement for reporting if the new or unusual
technology has to be recovered and repaired or replaced. This revision
is necessary for consistency with similar terminology used throughout
BSEE regulations and within the failure reporting requirements and
submissions to BSEE. BSEE also revised this section to provide clarity
that the failure analysis report must be submitted as soon as available
following the notification. BSEE requires submittal of the failure
notice first and then submittal of the failure analysis, thereby
providing a clear order for submittal of failure information to BSEE.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that a root
cause analysis may not always be possible.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and understands that there
are circumstances where a root cause analysis may not be possible.
Therefore, BSEE has revised this section to clarify that the report
must include any results and potential root causes for the failure.
BSEE values failure data and uses the failure information, including
root causes, to identify failure trends and potential issues.
BSEE proposed to reserve Sec. Sec. 250.212-250.219, and these
sections are reserved in this regulation.

Deepwater Operations Plan (DWOP) Process

What is the DWOP process? (Sec. 250.220)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from Sec. 250.286 to this
section and include the following revisions and additions:
Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.220 would clarify that the DWOP
process is not only used for review of subsea tieback development
technology, but also applies to deepwater development projects and
other projects or systems that use new or unusual technology during any
phase of drilling, completion, workover, intervention, injection,
production, pipeline, platform, decommissioning, or abandonment
operations. These additions clarify when the DWOP process is necessary
and correspond with the proposed additions of the new or unusual
technology requirements.
Proposed paragraph (b) would add that the DWOP process does not
replace other BSEE applications or permits (e.g., APD, APM, pipeline,
and platform). Other minor revisions to this paragraph reflect the
corresponding additions to the proposed new or unusual technology
requirements for the DWOP process.
Proposed paragraph (c) would clarify that the DWOP process consists
of two phases: the Conceptual Plans and the DWOP. The current DWOP
regulations do not differentiate between the DWOP process and the DWOP
plan itself, as they currently use the term DWOP to refer to both. This
proposed section would clarify the terms and is intended to reduce
confusion about the different phases of the DWOP process. The proposed
DWOP requirements are not intended to require the submittal of a DWOP
for operations not currently covered under the DWOP plan stage (e.g.,
drilling and decommissioning), but would require submittal of the
appropriate Conceptual Plan. Proposed Sec. Sec. 250.227 through
250.229 would identify the contents of the Conceptual Plans. Proposed
Sec. Sec. 250.236 through 250.242 would identify what the DWOP must
contain.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is finalizing this proposed
section and including a new paragraph (d) to clarify that not all
projects will require the submittal of all three Conceptual Plans and a
DWOP. Specifically, this revision clarifies that projects requiring New
or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plans or New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plans may not be required to have an
associated Project Conceptual Plan or DWOP.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed rule lacks clarity for how the DWOP process is fully used
for all applicable types of operations and if each step of the DWOP
process is required for every type of equipment or operation.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has revised this
section by adding new paragraph (d) and the respective DWOP process
sections to add clarity that not all projects will require the
submittal of each Conceptual Plan and DWOP. There are circumstances
when only a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan or a New or
Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptional Plan is required to
be submitted to BSEE without a Project Conceptual Plan or DWOP. For
applicability requirements, see Sec. 250.225 for each Conceptual Plan
and Sec. 250.235 for the DWOP.

When must I use the DWOP process? (Sec. 250.221)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from Sec. 250.287 to this
section and to clarify that the DWOP process is applicable to any
project in water depths greater than 1000 feet and to any project that
will include the use of subsea tieback development technology,
regardless of water depth, or new or unusual technology for any
drilling, completion, workover, intervention, injection, production,
pipeline, platform, decommissioning, or abandonment operations. These
revisions provide consistency and reflect corresponding additions to
the proposed new or unusual technology and DWOP process requirements.
BSEE has always required DWOPs when a development is situated in
water depths of 1000 feet or greater or when subsea tieback development
technology is used in any water depth. BSEE proposes to promulgate
regulations that include our existing practices regarding the expansion
of new or unusual technology. BSEE also proposed to add requirements
for the DWOP process when any new or unusual technology is used for
drilling, completion, workover, intervention, injection, production,
pipeline, platform, decommissioning, or abandonment projects. This
would provide consistency for all new or unusual technology reviews.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received comments on this section as proposed and is
finalizing it with a minor revision to paragraph (b) to remove the
words ``you must.'' This paragraph was intended to be a suggestion for
operators to contact BSEE if they have any questions about the
classification of certain technology and is not a requirement.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters requested that BSEE list
or create a database that indicates what equipment, components, or
procedures are considered new or unusual technology or new or unusual
barrier technology.
Response: BSEE disagrees with this comment and is not developing a
database to list every new or unusual technology. It is the operator's
responsibility to ensure any new or unusual technology is appropriately
identified and approved by BSEE before operational use. Also, such a
database may be of limited use as each OEM may

[[Page 71090]]

have unique equipment designs and individual components do not
necessarily all work together for specific projects.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that this
section would unnecessarily expand the complete DWOP process to cover
operations not previously covered by the process and would create
redundant filings and impose undue burdens.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter. BSEE has clarified in
other sections (see Sec. 250.220(d)) that projects requiring New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plans or New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plans (which may be used for drilling and
decommissioning) may not be required to have an associated Project
Conceptual Plan or DWOP. This clarification will eliminate any undue
burden on industry by only requiring submission of the applicable plans
in the DWOP process.
BSEE proposed to reserve Sec. Sec. 250.222-250.224, and these
sections are reserved in this regulation.

Conceptual Plans

What are the types of Conceptual Plans that I must submit? (Sec.
250.225)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed a new section that would identify the three types of
proposed Conceptual Plans:

--A Project Conceptual Plan would be required for any project that is
planned in water depths greater than 1000 feet or will include the use
of subsea tieback development technology, regardless of water depth
(see proposed Sec. 250.221 paragraphs (a)(1) and (2));
--A New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan would be required for any
project or system that involves equipment or systems that are
considered new or unusual technology (see proposed Sec. 250.200 for
the definition of new or unusual technology); and
--A New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan would be required
for any project or system involving new or unusual technology that is
also identified as a primary or secondary barrier (see proposed Sec.
250.200 for the definition of primary or secondary barriers).

This proposed section would add clarity by describing the proposed
types of Conceptual Plans. The proposed requirements for each
Conceptual Plan are discussed in the applicable corresponding sections,
Sec. Sec. 250.227 through 250.229. An operator must submit the
applicable Conceptual Plan(s) based on specifics of the proposed
project. The operator may be required to submit multiple Conceptual
Plans.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received comments on this section and is finalizing the
proposed content with the following revisions based on the comments:

--Paragraph (a) is revised by adding clarification that a Project
Conceptual Plan is also required if the project will use new or unusual
technology for completion, injection, production, pipeline, or platform
projects. This addition clarifies the scope of the Project Conceptual
Plan and how applicable new or unusual technology fits within that
plan. A Project Conceptual Plan would not be needed when new or unusual
technology is being used for drilling or decommissioning operations.
--Paragraph (b) is revised by making the first sentence consistent with
the definition of new or unusual technology by changing the proposed
phrase ``involves equipment or systems'' to ``involves equipment or
procedures''. BSEE is also adding the clarification that the New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan is applicable for drilling,
completion, workover, intervention, injection, production, pipeline,
platform, decommissioning, or abandonment operations. This revision
clarifies the scope of operations covered under the New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plan.
--Paragraph (c) is revised to also clarify that the New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan is applicable for
drilling, completion, workover, intervention, injection, production,
pipeline, platform, decommissioning, or abandonment operations. This
revision clarifies the scope of operations covered under the New or
Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan. BSEE also added
``Equipment'' to the title of the plan to clarify the distinctions
between this plan and the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan.

Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed activities of drilling and decommissioning cannot be
covered under a Project Conceptual Plan and is outside the scope of
previous BSEE guidance and practice. The commenters also expressed
concerns that, if a Project Conceptual Plan is required for drilling
operations, that requirement could not be met before drilling.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has revised this
section to clarify that a Project Conceptual Plan is not required for
certain operations (e.g., drilling and decommissioning). This
clarification is consistent with BSEE guidance and the original scope
of the Project Conceptual Plan. BSEE does not share the commenters'
concerns about timing requirements prior to drilling the well because
drilling operations are not covered under the Project Conceptual Plan.
BSEE has also further clarified in Sec. 250.226 when each applicable
Conceptual Plan is required and the timing of conducting certain
operations covered under each plan.
Summary of comments: A commenter asked if a non-site-specific
voluntary equipment Conceptual Plan and the well design Conceptual Plan
will still be part of the HPHT approval process (see BSEE NTL No. 2019-
G02 and 2019-G03).
Response: Non-site-specific voluntary equipment Conceptual Plans
are not required. Operators should plan to submit site-specific
equipment qualification for their HPHT project pursuant to Sec. Sec.
250.228 and 250.229 as applicable. The identified content of the Well
Design Conceptual Plans is still part of the HPHT process pursuant to
the applicable regulations referenced in BSEE NTL 2019-G02 (e.g., see
Sec. Sec. 250.420, 250.462, 250.505, 250.514, 250.518, 250.605,
250.613, 250.614, and 250.732).
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
proposed rule is unclear regarding overlap between the proposed New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan and the New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Conceptual Plan. The commenter requested that BSEE clarify that
barrier equipment would only require the New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Conceptual Plan and not the New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and has revised
the name of the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan to
the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan. This
revision clarifies the scope of the New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plan and uses consistent terminology and
descriptions of equipment covered by the plan. If a New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan is required, the operator
would not have to also submit a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plan for the same equipment (see revisions to Sec. 250.201).

[[Page 71091]]

When and how must I submit each applicable Conceptual Plan? (Sec.
250.226)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from Sec. Sec. 250.288 and
250.290 to Sec. 250.226, with revisions to clarify that an operator
must submit its Conceptual Plans to the Regional Supervisor after the
operator decides on the general concept(s) for a project or system, and
before it begins final engineering design of the equipment, well, well
safety control system, or subsea production systems. These revisions
would help ensure that the operator considers the information
associated with the proposed Conceptual Plans when submitting an
associated application or permit application (e.g., APD, APM, pipeline,
platform). BSEE proposed to add a table to organize and clarify
information associated with the three types of proposed Conceptual
Plans as follows:
Proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.226 would include content from
Sec. 250.290 and would further clarify that BSEE must approve a
Project Conceptual Plan before an operator may complete a production or
injection well or install a tree.
Proposed paragraph (b) would add the following requirements
regarding a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan:

--The operator may not install any new or unusual technology until BSEE
approves the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan;
--BSEE must approve the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan
before BSEE will approve any associated application or permit (e.g.,
pipeline, platform, APD, APM); and
--The Regional Supervisor may require the operator to use an I3P to
perform certain functions and verifications in accordance with Sec.
250.231, as applicable. This addition would allow I3P services to
assist BSEE's review of new or unusual technology that may involve
technically complex engineering and require a high degree of
specialized engineering knowledge, expertise, and experience to
evaluate thereby helping to ensure that BSEE conducts appropriate
reviews of new or unusual technology plans.

Proposed paragraph (c) would add the following requirements
regarding a New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan:

--The operator must submit a New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Conceptual Plan for any project or system involving new or unusual
technology that is also identified as a primary or secondary barrier;
--BSEE must approve the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual
Plan prior to new or unusual technology barrier equipment installation;
--BSEE must approve the new or unusual technology barrier equipment
before BSEE will approve any associated application or permit
application (e.g., pipeline, platform, APD, APM); and
--An operator submitting a New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual
Plan must use an I3P to perform certain functions and verifications in
accordance with proposed Sec. 250.231,

What are the I3P review requirements for Conceptual Plan reviews?

Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is finalizing the proposed content
with the following revisions:

--Revising the introductory paragraph by removing the term ``begin
final'' engineering design and replacing it with ``finalize.'' This
revision clarifies the intent of the submittal timing requirement
concerning Conceptual Plans. BSEE wants to ensure that engineering
design is not complete before BSEE approves the concept in case any
change is required.
--Paragraph (b)--Revising the order of content under the table heading
``Additional information'' and adding paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iii), paragraph (b)(3), and (b)(4) to read as follows: (1) Operations
and approval timing requirements are as follows:

(i) You may not install any new or unusual technology until BSEE
approves your New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan;
(ii) You may not complete any production or injection well or
install a tree before BSEE has approved all New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plans associated with all well completion equipment and the
Project Conceptual Plan; and
(iii) BSEE must first approve your New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan associated with subsea production systems before the
DWOP may be approved. You may install this new or unusual technology
following BSEE permit approval (e.g., pipeline application) and prior
to DWOP approval.
(2) The Regional Supervisor may require the operator to use an I3P
to perform certain functions and verifications in accordance with Sec.
250.231, as applicable.
(3) BSEE will not approve a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plan until you submit and BSEE reviews all I3P Reports (if any
required).
(4) BSEE must approve your New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plan before approval of any associated application or permit (e.g.,
pipeline application, platform application, APD, APM).
(5) You must submit separate New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plans for each piece of equipment at an assembly level (e.g., BOP,
tree, wellhead system, or tubing head spool).
These revisions clarify certain expectations and timing for
applicable submittals associated with the New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan.

--Paragraph (c)--Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) and
adding paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) and paragraph (c)(5) to
read as follows:

(c)(2) Operations and approval timing requirements are as follows:
(i) BSEE must approve your New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plan prior to you installing new or unusual
technology identified as barrier equipment
(ii) You may not complete any production or injection well or
install the tree before BSEE has approved all the New or Unusual
Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plans associated with all well
completion equipment and the Project Conceptual Plan, and
(iii) BSEE must first approve your New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan associated with subsea production
systems before the DWOP may be approved. You may install this equipment
with BSEE permit approval (e.g., pipeline application) and prior to
DWOP approval.
(3) BSEE must first approve your New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plan before BSEE will approval any associated
application or permit application (e.g., pipeline application, platform
application, APD, APM).
(4) BSEE will not approve New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plans until you submit and BSEE reviews all
required I3P Reports pursuant to Sec. 250.231.
(5) You must submit separate New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plans for each piece of equipment at an assembly
level (e.g. BOP, tree, wellhead system, tubing head spool).
These revisions clarify certain expectations and timing for
applicable submittals associated with the New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan.

[[Page 71092]]

Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that it
is unrealistic to submit all the applicable Conceptual Plan information
before beginning final engineering design.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenters and has revised
this section to clarify the expectation that applicable Conceptual
Plans require submittal of the plans before finalizing the engineering
designs. This revision clarifies the intent of the submittal timing
requirement concerning Conceptual Plans. BSEE wants to ensure that
engineering design is not complete before BSEE approves the concept in
case any change is required. This revision also provides latitude for
the operators to make the determination of what constitutes a finalized
engineering design.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed rule establishes unrealistic sequencing for Conceptual
Plan approvals and requested clarification to ensure certain operations
(e.g., drilling) can commence as appropriate before BSEE approval of
certain plans (e.g., Project Conceptual Plan and DWOP).
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and has clarified
the expectations in this section and timing requirements associated
with each applicable Conceptual Plan. BSEE has also revised multiple
other sections to also reflect the appropriate timing and submission
requirements for all plans covered under the DWOP process (e.g., see
revisions to Sec. Sec. 250.201, 250.220, and 250.225).

What must the Project Conceptual Plan contain? (Sec. 250.227)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to require a Project Conceptual Plan to include the
basis of design that the operator would use to develop the field.
Proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (i)(1) of Sec. 250.227 would
reflect the content of existing Sec. 250.289. In addition, BSEE
proposed that the section would require the operator to include certain
information in the Project Conceptual Plan, including, but not limited
to, information such as facility descriptions, schedule of development
activities, certain schematics, and well information.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is finalizing the content of
proposed Sec. 250.227 with the following revisions:

--Redesignating proposed paragraphs (i)(5) as (j), (j) through (q) as
(k) through (r) respectively, and (r) as (t).
--Adding new paragraph (s) to list requests for any alternate
procedures or equipment or departure requests associated with the
applicable Conceptual Plans needed for well completion operations.
--Revising paragraphs (c), (d), (f), (i), (j), and (q) as follows:

Paragraph (c)--clarifies that BSEE expects the ``estimated''
distance from each well.
Paragraph (d)--changes the requirement from a confirmation that the
subsea production safety system will comply with 30 CFR part 250,
subpart H to a statement that the subsea production safety system will
be designed to comply with Subpart H.
Paragraph (f)--clarifies that for a subsea tieback to an existing
facility the operator must submit: a description of known structural
modifications needed to accommodate the tieback, including a statement
about whether these may be minor or major modifications; the BSEE-
approved service life of the existing facility; and a description of
how modifications will be evaluated for effects on the BSEE-approved
service life.
Paragraph (i)--clarifies (i)(1) to include a ``proposed'' well
location plat; (i)(2) to include a ``conceptual'' subsea field
schematic containing infrastructure as applicable and adds additional
examples, including manifolds, subsea booster pumps, and high integrity
pressure protection systems; and (i)(4) to include ``proposed''
wellbore and completion schematics.
Paragraph (j)--clarifies that BSEE expects only a description of
the drilling and completion systems.
Paragraph (q)--removes the term ``activities'' because some of the
listed items are not activities but are physical objects. BSEE also
added risers to the list of examples applicable to new or unusual
technology.
BSEE understands that certain information is not finalized at this
stage of a project, and these revisions clarify the BSEE intent to
reflect information that is available or that can be available for the
Project Conceptual Plan.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters requested that BSEE
clarify the informational requirements for the Project Conceptual Plan.
The commenters expressed concerns that specific information may not be
precisely known at this stage and may be more appropriate for the DWOP.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters that certain types of
information may not be available at this stage of a project and has
revised this section to better reflect the submission of information
that is appropriate and available at the Project Conceptual Plan stage
(e.g., the ``estimated'' distance from each well, a description of only
``known'' modifications to a facility, schematics including the
``proposed'' well locations, and a ``description'' of the drilling
system). These revisions clarify the submission requirements and help
alleviate the commenters' concerns regarding information availability
for the Project Conceptual Plan.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the term
``Basis of Design'' means different things to different operators and
recommended that BSEE remove the term.
Response: BSEE agrees that the term ``Basis of Design'' can mean
different things depending on the components in question and their
application. BSEE does not agree that removing the term is necessary
because it is a common conceptual term well understood in the industry.
BSEE is involved with operators in the early stages of HPHT projects,
and uncertainties regarding terminology can easily be addressed on a
case-by-case basis to ensure submittals fulfill regulatory
requirements.

What must the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan contain? (Sec.
250.228)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.228 to require certain
information to be included in the New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plan including, but not limited to, how the New or Unusual Technology
Conceptual Plan fits within the overall site-specific project, a
description of the technology, information on inspection and testing
capabilities, risk assessments and failure mode analysis, operating
procedures, and schematics.
BSEE proposed paragraph (b) to allow for the Regional Supervisor to
require the use of an I3P according to proposed Sec. 250.230 if the
system or equipment requires a high degree of specialized or
technically complex engineering knowledge, expertise, and experience to
evaluate, or is not addressed in existing industry standards. This
addition would help BSEE ensure that the equipment or process is
appropriate for use in the specific environmental and operating
conditions. In addition, the Regional Supervisor would be able to
require operators to follow I3P requirements under Sec. 250.231, on a
case-by-case basis. Finally, this section proposed to instruct
operators to direct any questions about I3P requirements for New or
Unusual

[[Page 71093]]

Technology Conceptual Plans to the Regional Supervisor.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is finalizing the content of
proposed Sec. 250.228 with the following revisions:

--Paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(5)(ii) add the requirement to describe not
only the barrier, but also the ``safety'' system as applicable.
Paragraph (a)(11) clarifies the detailed schematic is applicable to
identifying all components. Paragraph (a)(13) clarifies that the list
of alternate procedures or equipment requests and departure request
required are those applicable to the new or unusual technology proposed
in a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan. And finally, paragraph
(a)(14) removes the requirements for a ``certification'' and requires
instead a statement that the technology is fit for service.
--Paragraphs (b) and (b)(1) fix incorrect cross references since the
final rule updated the applicable section numbers, and make some
grammatical improvements.

Summary of comments: A commenter suggested that BSEE should move
this section and section Sec. 250.229 outside of the DWOP process and
expressed concerns that these sections expand the circumstances in
which thew DWOP process is required.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter that this section
should be moved outside of the DWOP process. However, in light of these
concerns, BSEE has clarified the applicability of each Conceptual Plan
to relevant operations. BSEE has clarified in other sections (e.g., see
Sec. 250.220) that projects requiring certain New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plans or New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Equipment Conceptual Plans (which may be used for drilling and
decommissioning) may not be required to have an associated Project
Conceptual Plan or DWOP. This clarification helps limit the burden on
industry as not every project using new or unusual technology requires
every plan covered under the DWOP process.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the proposed rule inadvertently requires I3P to certify ``fit for
service,'' a standard ostensibly outside the I3P's expertise. The
commenters also expressed concerns with the ``certification'' statement
associated with both ``fit for purpose'' and ``fit for service''
determinations and suggested that BSEE remove the term
``certification'' from the requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters that there is confusion
surrounding the terminology of ``fit for purpose'' and ``fit for
service'' and how the I3P provides appropriate verifications and
reviews. BSEE has therefore added definitions of both ``fit for
purpose'' and ``fit for service'' to clarify who is responsible for
each statement. In response to the comments, BSEE has also removed the
term ``certification'' as it pertains to fit for purpose and fit for
service and is clarifying that a statement from the I3P or operator
respectively is sufficient. Such a statement is within the scope of the
I3P's expertise.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concern with the
discretion of the Regional Supervisor to require an I3P. The commenter
stated that this provision does not provide any regulatory certainty
when an I3P will be required. The commenter also expressed concerns
that the Regional Supervisor discretion for the use of an I3P may cause
setbacks or inefficiencies to the Conceptual Plan process.
Response: The existing HPHT regulation (e.g., Sec. 250.232) and
NTLs provide guidelines for I3P report requirements. BSEE has
incorporated most of the I3P guidance from the existing NTLs into these
regulations, which provide clarity regarding when an I3P is required.
Under Sec. 250.228(b), BSEE may require I3P reports for this type of
Conceptual Plan when the operator proposes to use a ``system or
equipment [that] requires a high degree of specialized or technically
complex engineering knowledge, expertise, and experience to evaluate,
or if existing industry standards do not address the system or
equipment you propose to use.'' BSEE is retaining this discretion to
allow it to adjust to equipment development and maturation over time.
BSEE encourages operators to reach out to the Regional Supervisor early
in the project development process to get additional clarity regarding
when an I3P will be necessary (Sec. 250.228(b)(2)). BSEE will notify
the operator at the earliest possible stage to help ensure there are no
setbacks or delays with I3P applicability in the Conceptual Plan
approval.

What must the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual
Plan include? (Sec. 250.229)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed this section to require the following information to
be included in the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plan: a
description of how the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual
Plan fits within the overall site specific project; a diagram depicting
the primary and secondary barriers; a list of the engineering standards
that will be used in the equipment's material selection and
qualification, design verification analysis, and design validation
testing; a list of the functional requirements (i.e., environmental,
and physical loads (magnitude and frequency)) for which the barrier
equipment is being designed; a description of the barrier equipment's
safety critical functions, (i.e., function(s) performed by or inherent
to the equipment enabling it to achieve or maintain a safe state); an
I3P nomination; an I3P verification plan; and I3P reports as required
in proposed Sec. 250.232.
BSEE also proposed paragraph (l) to clarify that, after BSEE
receives all of the required I3P reports, the operator must submit a
certification statement that the barrier equipment is fit for service
in the applicable environment (for the specific project location).
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received, BSEE is finalizing the proposed content
with the following revisions.

--Throughout the rule--renaming the New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Conceptual Plan as the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan. This revision clarifies that this Conceptual Plan
applies only to barrier equipment.
--Paragraph (b)--requiring a detailed schematic instead of a diagram.
--Paragraph (e)--clarifying that the list of alternate procedures or
equipment requests and departure requests required are those applicable
to the new or unusual technology barrier equipment proposed in the New
or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan.
--Fixing incorrect cross references due to renumbering certain sections
in this final rule.
--Removing the I3P reports under proposed paragraph (j) and the fit for
service statement in proposed paragraph (l), then moving that
information to its own new section (see Sec. 250.230). As a result of
removing the content, BSEE is also redesignating proposed paragraph (k)
as (j).

Summary of comments: A commenter requested clarification that HPHT
barrier equipment intended for 20K completions (for example, HPHT
wellheads or production liners) can be installed during the 15K
drilling phase

[[Page 71094]]

prior to approval of the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan.
Response: An operator may install HPHT barrier equipment prior to
approval of the New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual
Plan prior to the HPHT phase of operations, if all wellheads and
casings are approved by BSEE in the applicable application or permit
(for example see Sec. 250.410 for APDs and Sec. Sec. 250.465 and
250.513 for APMs). However, all 20K well construction components are
subject to equipment qualification review and BSEE approval prior to
entering the HPHT phase of operations (see Sec. 250.229). If
components are installed but are denied Conceptual Plan approval, the
well will not be allowed to enter the HPHT phase of operation.

When are you required to submit an I3P Report? (Sec. 250.230)

Summary of Final Rule Revisions
This is a new section for this final rule that contains the
information previously covered under proposed Sec. 250.229 paragraphs
(j) and (l). This section clarifies that submittal of the I3P reports
is required in Sec. 250.229 and when required by BSEE pursuant to
Sec. 250.228. BSEE added this section because I3P reports can be
applicable to both a New or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan, as well as a New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plan.
Summary of Comments
BSEE did not receive any comments on the proposed content covered
in this new section. BSEE did receive other I3P-related comments, and
those comments are discussed in the appropriate sections (e.g., see
Sec. Sec. 250.228 and 250.231).

What are the requirements for the Independent Third Party (I3P)
nomination? (Sec. 250.231)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed this section to outline the requirements for the
operator's nomination of an I3P to be used in conjunction with
applicable Conceptual Plans. Paragraph (a) would add the nomination
criteria for the I3P to review the design verification and design
validation classification of the OEM, including that the I3P must be a
technical classification society, a licensed professional engineering
firm, or a registered professional engineer capable of providing the
required certifications and verifications. This paragraph would also
clarify that the I3P nomination must be submitted to BSEE for approval
and must include the following information:

--Previous experience in third-party verification or experience in the
design, fabrication, or installation of applicable offshore oil and gas
equipment;
--Technical capabilities of the individual or the primary staff for the
specific project;
--Size and type of organization or corporation;
--In-house availability of, or access to, appropriate technology to
review the specific project (this should include computer programs,
hardware, and testing materials and equipment as applicable);
--Ability to perform the I3P functions for the specific project
considering current commitments (e.g., project timelines, schedules,
and personnel availability); and
--Previous experience with BSEE requirements and procedures.

This proposed section would help ensure that BSEE is informed of
the I3P competencies and show that the I3P is qualified to perform the
required verifications and certifications of Subpart B.
Paragraph (b) would require that operators allow the I3P to access
all associated documentation and equipment related to items in proposed
Sec. 250.229(i) to perform the complete reviews in accordance with
proposed Sec. 250.231. This may include OEM documents or access to the
fabrication and manufacturing locations. The operator is responsible
for ensuring that the I3P has the appropriate information to complete
the required verifications and certifications. This documentation is
necessary for the I3P to conduct its review and verify, as appropriate,
that the equipment is designed and manufactured to operate within its
specified operating limits.
Multiple I3Ps may be used to conduct the applicable verifications.
These proposed revisions are not intended to limit the number of I3Ps,
as operators may need multiple I3Ps to cover multiple types of
equipment covered under all applicable Conceptual Plans.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Due to the addition of new Sec. 250.230, BSEE is renumbering this
section as Sec. 250.231. Based on comments received and after review
of comments, BSEE is also revising this section as follows:

--Paragraph (a) is removing the term ``when required by BSEE'' because
it is redundant of the requirements for I3P nominations under the
applicable Conceptual Plans. BSEE is also removing the reference to I3P
``certifications'' and clarifies that the I3P provides verifications
and validations in line with the expectations of the I3P. BSEE is
clarifying that the operator must submit the I3P nomination(s) within
the applicable Conceptual Plan for separate BSEE acceptance before BSEE
will approve the applicable Conceptual Plan. This clarification was
added because I3P nominations can be applicable to both the New or
Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan as well as the New
or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan. Lastly, BSEE is also clarifying
the list of appropriate technology in paragraph (a)(4) by removing
``testing materials'' and that the appropriate technology is not
limited to what is listed.
--Paragraph (b) is fixing certain cross references and clarifying that
you must ensure the I3P has access to relevant OEM documentation,
including relevant documentation and data labeled as confidential and
proprietary. BSEE also wants to ensure the I3P has access to the OEM
fabrication and manufacturing locations only if necessary to review the
data. These revisions will help ensure the I3P has access to data
necessary to provide the required verifications and validations.
--Paragraph (c) is added to clarify that an operator may propose to use
an I3P previously accepted by BSEE for the same project, and not submit
the items required under paragraph (a), if the BSEE-accepted I3P
qualifications are still valid and applicable. The operator must also
provide evidence of the previous I3P nomination acceptance. These
additions help streamline the use of I3Ps within a project and reduce
unnecessary submittal of duplicative information.

Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns with the term
``when required by BSEE'' and requested it to be removed. The commenter
stated this change is necessary because the I3P requirements are
sufficiently covered within the applicable Conceptual Plan
requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and has removed the term
``when required by BSEE'' from the introductory paragraph to Sec.
250.231. It is not necessary to include this term, as the I3P
nomination requirement is sufficiently covered under the applicable
Conceptual Plans.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters requested clarification on

[[Page 71095]]

the BSEE expectations and actions for the I3P nominations.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has revised Sec.
250.231(a) to clarify that operators must submit the I3P nominations
before BSEE will approve the applicable Conceptual Plan.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
allowing I3Ps unrestricted access to OEM fabrication and manufacturing
locations.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenters' concerns over
I3P access to OEM locations and has revised this section to reflect
that the I3P needs access to review equipment and data, particularly
with respect to the elements described in Sec. 250.229(i) concerning
the I3P verification plan. BSEE wants to ensure that the appropriate
equipment and data are available to the I3Ps to conduct the required
verifications and validations of the project.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns with the in-
house availability of testing materials. The commenter was concerned
that the I3P can require re-verification and re-testing as part of the
validation at their own facilities.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter's concerns and
would not expect an I3P to require re-verification or re-testing at its
own facility. BSEE has removed the reference to testing materials from
the list of availability of appropriate I3P technology. BSEE is
removing this reference to help limit any misconceptions regarding the
I3P reviews. It is BSEE's expectation that I3Ps will have the
appropriate technology to be able to conduct the required verifications
and validations of the specific project.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
the term ``certification'' associated with I3P capabilities and
suggested BSEE to remove the term ``certification'' from the
requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters that there is confusion
surrounding the terminology of certification for I3Ps. BSEE has added
definitions of ``fit for purpose'' to clarify I3P requirements and
expectations. In response to the comments, BSEE has also removed the
term ``certification'' as it pertains to I3P qualifications.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the I3P
nomination process is too onerous and that BSEE should streamline the
requirements to be more consistent with BSEE guidance.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and is adding
Sec. 250.231(c) to clarify that the operators may propose to use a
previously accepted I3P from the same project if the qualifications are
still valid. This revision will help streamline the use of existing
I3Ps within a project and help limit unnecessary duplicative
submissions of the nomination information. This is consistent with
current practice (previous Sec. 250.732(b)) and BSEE guidance.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that this
section implies that multiple I3Ps can be nominated and that equipment,
assembly, or systems should be verified and validated by the same I3P.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter's concerns regarding
use of multiple I3Ps for different verifications and validations. Only
one I3P is required for nomination per applicable Conceptual Plan at a
time for the requirements under this section (see, e.g., Sec.
250.229(h)). This section defines the qualifications for acceptable
I3Ps. However, the operator retains the ability to propose different
I3Ps for different equipment or new technologies within the same
project. For example, a classification society may be a better I3P for
a floating production facility, and a professional engineering firm
maybe a better I3P for a riser design.

What are the I3P review requirements for Conceptual Plan reviews?
(Sec. 250.232)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to identify the requirements for the I3P review.
Paragraph (a) would require the I3P to review the following information
regarding the applicable equipment or system:

--Basis of design, technical specification (if known at this point in
the design process), and functional requirements (i.e., environmental
and physical loads (magnitude and frequency));
--Risk assessment and failure mode analysis;
--Material specification, selection, qualification, and testing;
--Design verification analysis, including a structural/strength
analysis and fatigue assessment and/or analysis;
--If fatigue is identified as a potential failure mode in the required
fatigue assessment and/or analysis, the plan to record and gather data
(i.e., load monitoring) in order to conduct a future fatigue analysis;
--Design validation testing; and
--Fabrication, quality management system, and inspection and test
plan(s) that identifies the quality control/quality assurance process,
and inspection of the final products.

Paragraph (b) would require the I3P to submit a report to BSEE
documenting the review of each item covered under paragraph (a) of this
section. This paragraph would also require each report to identify all
OEM and operator documents used during the I3P reviews.
Paragraph (c) would require the I3P to submit a final report to
BSEE that summarizes each of the review requirements covered under
paragraph (a) of this section. This paragraph would also require the
final report to include the equipment and/or system's technical
specifications, including a certification statement that the equipment
and/or system is fit for purpose for the technical specification by the
I3P, and verification that the equipment's technical specifications
meet or exceed the project's functional requirements, including a
certification statement by the I3P that the equipment and/or system is
fit for purpose for the proposed project.
Paragraph (d) would clarify that, for any subsequent I3P review of
equipment and/or system's technical specification that was previously
approved in the operator's New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual
Plan, the Regional Supervisor may accept a final report in accordance
with Sec. 250.231(c), including the existing certification covered
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, in lieu of reports required in
paragraph (b). The I3P would be required to submit an updated
certification statement in accordance with Sec. 250.231(c)(2) for the
specific project.
This section would require I3P review of all New or Unusual
Technology Category 1 or Category 2 barrier equipment to help minimize
the risk of loss of containment on new barrier equipment through
reliance on the principle of qualified redundant barrier systems. The
concept of using an I3P review process has been used in the regulations
for various operations (e.g., Sec. Sec. 250.420, 250.732, and 250.914
through 250.918). The I3P review process within Sec. 250.231 would be
the same process described in NTL 2019-G03, ``Guidance for Information
Submissions Regarding Site Specific and Non-Site Specific HPHT
Equipment Design Verification Analysis and Design Validation Testing.''
The industry is currently using this NTL for the design verification
and validation analysis for HPHT barrier equipment that will be used in
the Gulf of Mexico. The verification processes in this section would be
similar to the basic

[[Page 71096]]

engineering design and manufacturing methodologies found in many
existing engineering standards.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Due to the addition of new Sec. 250.230, BSEE is renumbering this
section as Sec. 250.232. Based on comments received and after review
of comments, BSEE is also revising this section as follows:

--The introductory paragraph clarifies the applicability of I3P for the
applicable Conceptual Plan. This revision is necessary to clarify that
different Conceptual Plans may have I3P requirements (e.g., the New or
Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan or the New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan);
--Paragraph (a)(1) clarifies the technical specifications are
applicable to the equipment and the functional requirements are
appliable to the specific project and changed the ``i.e.'' to an
``e.g.'' because the parenthetical provides examples;
--The contents under proposed paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are now
located under paragraph (b), and the term ``certification'' was removed
to clarify the I3P is required to provide statements regarding ``fit
for purpose'' determinations; and
--The contents under proposed paragraph (d) are now redesignated as
paragraph (c) and modified to clarify that for any new project, the
operator may use previous I3P reviews of equipment or a system's
technical specifications that was approved in a previous Conceptual
Plan. This section would also clarify the intent of the proposed rule
by adding paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) to require the operator
to submit certain information to the Regional Supervisor to demonstrate
the previous I3P review is still valid (i.e., a statement that the
previous summaries of paragraph (a) and the previous fit for purpose
statement are still valid, verification that the equipment technical
specifications meet or exceed the project's functional requirements,
and a statement by the I3P that the equipment or system is fit for
purpose for the proposed project).

Summary of comments: A commenter suggested that BSEE should
explicitly state that equipment that has been previously verified and
validated through appropriate industry standards and reviewed by an I3P
should be exempted from further I3P review, unless there are
substantive design changes, such as a major change to the technical
specification.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and has revised
paragraph (d) to clarify the requirements for an operator to use
previously approved I3P reviews for any new project. BSEE also
clarified the information necessary to demonstrate that the previous
I3P reviews are still valid for the project. These revisions would help
streamline the use of previously approved I3Ps and limit unnecessary
and duplicative submittals for I3P reviews and ensure that the proper
information is submitted to demonstrate that previously approved I3P
reviews are still valid.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
the ``certification'' statement associated with both fit for purpose
and fit for service and suggested BSEE remove the term
``certification'' from the requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters that there is confusion
surrounding the terminology of certification for fit for purpose. In
response to the comments, BSEE has removed the term ``certification''
as it pertains to ``fit for purpose'' determinations and is clarifying
that a statement from the I3P is sufficient instead of a certification.
This revision is consistent with the addition of the definition of
``fit for purpose'' and clarifies the role of the I3P for certain
reviews.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns with the
requirements to provide a fatigue assessment or analysis and that the
requirements are ambiguous and unclear. The commentor believes that
such ambiguity could lead to inefficiencies and additional work that
will further delay field and lease development.
Response: BSEE views fatigue assessment or analysis as an important
tool for HPHT qualification. Operators should engage early with
equipment manufacturers to ensure the proper analysis is being
performed. Fatigue assessment is not a new concept and is well
understood by the industry. BSEE is not defining these terms because of
the broad range of potential equipment or facilities covered under the
project. BSEE has successfully used similar concepts for fatigue
evaluation in existing regulations (see Sec. 250.908) and does not
expect the identified terms to delay field or lease development based
on previous Conceptual Plan and DWOP experience.

General requirements for any I3P report. (Sec. 250.233)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to clarify expectations for the I3P reports. The
proposed rule proposed to require that an I3P report must be a
standalone document that clearly summarizes the verification work
performed and must contain a sufficient level of detail (i.e.,
quantitative information) and clarity to establish the basis of the
I3P's findings and recommendation(s). Each report would be required to
identify the OEM or operator documents reviewed, the detailed I3P
review, and convey the results of the I3P's review without requiring
BSEE to review any other referenced document. This section would
establish basic expectations for I3P reports and provide consistency
and uniformity for operator submittals and BSEE reviews. These reports
are an important tool for BSEE to conduct appropriate reviews and it is
imperative to ensure that these reports are comprehensive and clear.
These reports also contain information necessary for audit purposes.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Due to the addition of new Sec. 250.230, BSEE is renumbering this
section as Sec. 250.233 and fixing any applicable cross references.
Based on comments received and after review of comments, BSEE is also
revising this section to clarify that the I3P reports must clearly
summarize the required verification and validation work of the I3P.
BSEE is also removing the proposed requirement that the I3P reports
need to include the I3P recommendations. These revisions clarify the
role of the I3P and provide consistency with the expectations of the
I3P actions throughout this rulemaking.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the requirement to include I3P recommendations in the reports are
beyond the scope of the I3P duties for reviewing for conformance with
the specified requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has removed the term
``recommendations'' from the regulatory requirements for I3P reports.
BSEE wants to be consistent with the expectations and required actions
for I3Ps when conducting required verifications and validations.
BSEE proposed to reserve Sec. 250.234, and this section is
reserved in this regulation.

[[Page 71097]]

DWOP Approval

When and how must I submit the DWOP? (Sec. 250.235)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from Sec. 250.291 and revise the
section to clarify that a DWOP must be submitted to the Regional
Supervisor after BSEE has approved the operator's project Conceptual
Plan and the operator has substantially completed system design and
before the operator conducts post-completion installation activities
for a deepwater development project or for any project that will
involve the use of subsea tieback development technology in any water
depth, which may include new or unusual technology or new or unusual
technology barrier equipment. This section would also clarify that
operators cannot begin production from the well until BSEE approves the
DWOP. The revisions to this section would help ensure that there is
enough time for BSEE to review a DWOP, including resolution of any
potential issues, prior to DWOP approval. The operator should consider
the DWOP requirements when beginning to procure or fabricate the safety
and operational systems (other than a tree, because operators may
install a tree after Conceptual Plan approval), production platforms,
pipelines, or other parts of the production system.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE is reorganizing this section to provide clarification for the
DWOP requirements. Based on comments received and after review of
comments, BSEE is revising this section as follows:
Under newly designated paragraph (a), BSEE is clarifying that the
operator must submit the DWOP before conducting installation activities
post-well completion. BSEE is also adding paragraph (a)(3) to clarify
that an operator must submit the DWOP for an HPHT development project,
any project using Category 1 or 2 new or unusual technology barrier
equipment, or any project that uses new or unusual technology that may
impact the safety critical function of Category 1 or 2 barrier
equipment regardless of water depth. These revisions clarify what
projects are applicable to the DWOP submission and are consistent with
BSEE experience and approvals of DWOPs.
BSEE is also clarifying under newly designated paragraph (b) that
the operator may install subsea systems and associated pipelines once
they have applicable BSEE permit and Conceptual Plan approval. This
clarification helps establish the order of operations and actions that
can be taken before DWOP approval.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that this
section is unclear about the use of the DWOP and the New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plan or the New or Unusual Barrier Equipment
Conceptual Plan and requested BSEE to clarify the DWOP requirements.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter and has revised
this section to clarify that the DWOP submission is applicable to HPHT
development projects, as well as any project that uses Category 1 or 2
new or unusual technology barrier equipment, or any project that uses
new or unusual technology that may impact the safety critical function
of Category 1 or 2 barrier equipment regardless of water depth. This
clarification helps identify how the DWOP is applicable to certain
project that use HPHT equipment and new or unusual technology barrier
equipment. This revision also provides clarity and consistency with the
definitions of certain barrier equipment and associated Conceptual Plan
requirements.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
lack of clarity regarding which actions or operations can commence at
various stages of DWOP approval.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has revised paragraph
(a) of this section to clarify that the operator must submit the DWOP
before conducting installation activities after well completion. BSEE
is also revising paragraph (b) of this section to clarify that the
operator may install subsea systems and associated pipelines once the
operator has the approval of the applicable BSEE permit(s) and
Conceptual Plan(s). However, the operator may not begin production from
the well until BSEE approves the DWOP. These revisions provide clarity
and consistency with current BSEE practices and expectations of the
DWOP approval process.

What information must I submit with the DWOP? (Sec. 250.236)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
This proposed section is organizational in nature and would
identify the types of information that the operator must submit with
the DWOP by adding a table that lists the applicable sections and the
information to be included. In this section, BSEE would reorganize and
breakout the DWOP requirements by topic, as reflected in paragraphs (a)
through (f). These revisions would improve clarity for applicable
information requirements.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on these provisions of the
proposed rule and includes the proposed language in the final rule
without change.

What general information must my DWOP include? (Sec. 250.237)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to identify the general information that an operator
would be required to submit in the DWOP. The content of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this proposed section would be moved from current Sec.
250.292(o) and (q). This section would add paragraph (c) to require the
submission of a list of any associated industry standards not
incorporated in the regulations that the operator will use for project
design or operation.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and after review of comments, BSEE is
revising paragraph (a) by clarifying that the DWOP must include a list
of requests for any alternate procedures or equipment or departure
requests in accordance with Sec. Sec. 250.141 and 250.142,
respectively, and a list of any identified alternate procedures or
equipment or departures that the operator may request. BSEE is also
clarifying that if a Conceptual Plan was previously approved for the
project that already included the alternate procedures or equipment or
departure requests in accordance with Sec. Sec. 250.141 and 250.142
for the specific equipment identified in a Conceptual Plan, those do
not need to be listed in the DWOP unless the same alternate procedure
or equipment request or departure request is needed for a different
piece of equipment for post completion activities. These revisions
provide clarification of the context and expectations for including
requests covered under Sec. Sec. 250.141 and 250.142 in the DWOP.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
submittal of duplicative information regarding the applicable alternate
procedures or equipment and departure requests already identified in
approved associated Conceptual Plans.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has revised this
section to clarify the required submittal of alternate procedures or
equipment and departure requests. BSEE has also clarified that those
requests approved in the associated Conceptual Plans do not

[[Page 71098]]

need to be submitted in the DWOP unless the same alternate procedure or
equipment or departure requests are needed for a different piece of
equipment for post-completion activities. BSEE does not expect
operators to submit information of which they are unaware. However, if
an operator is aware that it is reasonably likely to submit such
information or departure request in the future, it is beneficial to
include it in the DWOP at this stage to help streamline DWOP approval.

What well or completions information must my DWOP include? (Sec.
250.238)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from current Sec. 250.292 and
include a revision to paragraph (c) to clarify that this section
requires information in the operator's DWOP about the design and
fabrication of each wellbore riser system deployed from a floating
production facility or TLP. This revision would clarify that these
informational requirements apply to wellbore risers as components of
the well and resolve confusion regarding the general term ``riser'' and
its applicability of multiple types of risers (e.g., pipeline risers
and wellbore risers) used on the OCS.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did receive a comment on these provisions of the proposed rule
but is including the proposed language in the final rule without
change.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
information requested in paragraphs (a) and (b) are duplicative and
unclear.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter. These are longstanding
requirements and have been successfully used in each applicable DWOP.
Paragraph (a) is typically a summary narrative with a graphical
representation of the wellbore that identifies casing and completion
components, among other characteristics. Paragraph (b) provides further
detail on the systems used for drilling and completion that result in
the final schematic configuration. These requirements are not
duplicative and have been used in existing regulations to allow for
variations in well proposals and information requests. The information
identified in these paragraphs is essential to ensure consistency with
the activities to be addressed in the associated well permits.

What structural information must my DWOP include? (Sec. 250.239)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move the content from current Sec. 250.292 to
this section and would include a revision to paragraph (b) to clarify
that the design, fabrication, installation, and monitoring information
would be required for the tendon or mooring systems, including the
turret or buoy system, as applicable. This revision would reflect
current equipment and operations common to DWOP approvals.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on the content of the proposed
provisions; however, BSEE moved the phrase ``including any major
modifications,'' to the end of the introductory paragraph to clarify
the intent of the paragraph.

What Production Safety System information must my DWOP include? (Sec.
250.240)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed in this section to identify the production safety
system information that an operator would be required to submit in the
DWOP, as applicable, to align with the activities the operator plans to
address in the associated production safety systems application. The
content of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e)(3) of this proposed
section would be moved from current Sec. 250.292. The additions to
this proposed section would require submission of the following
information:

--In paragraph (e)(1)--Methods, frequency, and acceptance criteria for
testing the underwater safety valves (USVs), surface controlled
subsurface safety valves (SCSSVs), and boarding shutdown valves;
--In paragraph (e)(2)--The function and testing of the host facility
emergency shutdown device (ESD) system and its interface to the subsea
system; and
--In paragraph (f)--Information on the design, operation, maintenance,
personnel competency, and testing of the subsea leak detection system
to protect the subsea field/infrastructure (e.g., trees, manifolds,
jumpers). BSEE proposed that operators must include procedures for how
to operate the system, ensure system functionality, identify a leak,
and take action when a leak is identified.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and after review of comments, BSEE is
removing the statement ``including a table summarizing the curtailment
of production and offloading based on operational considerations'' from
paragraph (a) and moving it to paragraph (b). This revision is
necessary because those operations are covered under paragraph (b).
BSEE is also revising paragraph (e) to remove the term
``certification'' to be consistent with other required statements and
the use of certifications.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that the
information in paragraph (a) regarding the table summarizing the
curtailment of production and offloading is unclear and may not be
applicable.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and is removing the
statement ``including a table summarizing the curtailment of production
and offloading based on operational considerations'' from paragraph (a)
and moving it to paragraph (b). This information is more applicable to
the contents of paragraph (b).
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns with
the use of a certification statement for compliance with Subpart H.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and has removed the term
``certification'' from paragraph (e). BSEE will still require a
statement that the production safety systems will comply with Subpart
H. Subpart H contains the requirements for production safety systems
and a certification is not necessary at this stage. BSEE wants to
ensure that the safety system requirements are considered at this stage
of the DWOP process.
Summary of comments: A commenter requested that BSEE clarify if a
description of the leak detection system or the actual procedures are
required.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter that the language is
unclear. The regulations in Sec. 250.240(f) require the submittal of
information concerning both the leak detection system itself and
procedures for how to operate the system, ensure system functionality,
identify a leak, and the actions to take when a leak is identified.

What subsea systems and pipeline information must my DWOP include?
(Sec. 250.241)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to identify the subsea systems and associated
pipeline systems information that must be included in a DWOP. The
content of paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this proposed
section would be moved from current

[[Page 71099]]

Sec. 250.292. Proposed paragraph (a) would require the operator to
identify the information common to the subsea system and the associated
pipeline system, which constitute all or part of a single project
development covered by the DWOP and is consistent with activities
addressed in an associated pipeline application, and would require the
submission of the following:

--A subsea field schematic depicting the planned subsea development
equipment and infrastructure, including wells/trees, non-pipe subsea
equipment, pipeline route(s), pipeline riser systems, umbilical(s), and
platform footprint;
--A description of the subsea development project detailing the subsea
and pipeline equipment design criteria and analysis procedures
(including industry standards, pressure and temperature ratings,
materials selection), testing methods, and general operational
procedures;
--A description of the fabrication and assembly/testing location of
subsea trees, pipelines, and non-pipe subsea equipment (manifold,
pipeline end manifold, pipeline end termination, subsea umbilical
termination assembly, subsea pumps, suction piles, etc.);
--A summary of the subsea tieback development technologies' Integrity
Management Program, including a plan for inspection and monitoring to
support assessment of system condition. This should include, but not be
limited to, the in-service inspections or surveys of hull and topsides
structures, tendons, moorings, and pipelines and/or wellbore riser
systems to assess and analyze component condition after each
significant environmental event (e.g., hurricane, earthquake, loop and
eddy currents, or mudslide) impacting the system, or once every 10
years, whichever occurs first; and
--A summary of safety and environmental controls.

Proposed paragraph (b) would require submission of the following
information about subsea systems that constitute all or part of a
single project development covered by the DWOP, as applicable:

--System control type (i.e., direct hydraulic or electro-hydraulic);
--Well tree(s), wellhead, and non-pipe equipment general arrangement
drawings and schematics, with size and valve type annotations to
illustrate the tree and other equipment in operation;
--Estimated shut-in tubing pressure for the proposed well(s), including
the calculations used to arrive at the estimate, specifying true
vertical depth, reservoir pressure, and the fluid gradient used, or a
brief discussion of the pressure volume temperature (PVT) data used for
estimation;
--Wellbore static bottomhole temperature and the estimated flowing
temperature at the tree, including a description of the method used to
calculate this estimate;
--A description of the umbilical(s) and umbilical connection(s),
including an umbilical cross-section schematic;
--A description of the chemical or other injection systems and/or
enhanced recovery systems the operator plans to use;
--A description of the corrosion monitoring and prevention/inhibition
processes;
--Details of any re-furbished and/or re-certified equipment that would
be used; and
--A schedule of development activities, including well completion,
facility installation, and anticipated date of first oil.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require an operator to include
pipeline information in its DWOP to align with the activities to be
addressed in the associated pipeline application(s), including:

--Design and fabrication information for each pipeline riser system;
--For projects that will use a pipeline free standing hybrid riser
(FSHR) on a permanent installation that uses a buoyancy air can
suspended from the top of the riser, the operator would be required to
provide the following information in its DWOP as part of the discussion
required by paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of Sec. 250.241: a detailed
description and drawings of the FSHR, buoy, and the associated
connection system; detailed information regarding the system used to
connect the FSHR to the buoyancy air can, and associated redundancies;
and descriptions of the monitoring system and monitoring plan for the
pipeline FSHR and the associated connection system for fatigue, stress,
and any other abnormal condition (e.g., corrosion) that may negatively
impact the riser system's integrity; and
--Pipeline and pipeline riser installation methods.

Submission of this information is consistent with what BSEE
currently requires in the DWOP (and has historically required). The
proposed requirements would clarify general language in the existing
regulation by adding specificity regarding scope.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and after review of comments, BSEE is
revising paragraph (a)(4) to clarify that the operator must also
include in the integrity management plan a description of how it will
determine when a significant environmental event has occurred and how
it will respond to such an event. This revision would help identify and
properly account for integrity management through significant
environmental events. BSEE is also revising paragraph (c)(1) to only
require ``general'' design and fabrication information for pipelines.
This revision addresses a situation where some of the specific design
and fabrication information may not be available at this stage. For the
purposes of the DWOP, the general design and fabrication information is
sufficient.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
certain information requested in this section is duplicative with
information covered under Conceptual Plans or the associated permits or
applications.
Response: BSEE disagrees with this comment. This section covers the
DWOP submittal, which presents information from a whole project
perspective. Conversely, Conceptual Plans focus on an individual
component or assembly.
Summary of comments: A commenter recommended that BSEE require that
operators' integrity management plans state their process for
determining significant environmental events.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and has revised paragraph
(a)(4) to require the operator to also provide a description in the
integrity management plan of how it will determine that significant
environmental events have occurred, and how it will respond to such an
event. This revision clarifies the scope of the integrity management
plan. It is BSEE's intent to ensure that operators discuss, plan for,
and address the impacts of the significant environmental events.
Summary of comments: A commenter asked for clarification as to the
source of the 10-year assessment.
Response: Based on BSEE experience with assessing facilities or
equipment through their entire lifecycle, the assessment cycle of 10
years in paragraph (a)(4) of this section is an incremental approach to
platform service life extension and monitoring. Often, operators ask
for infinite or significant years of increased life. BSEE's approach
has been to approve fewer years--either 5 or 10--and revisit

[[Page 71100]]

the calculations and inspection data later to ensure there are no
significant changes. BSEE will remain consistent with that approach and
utilize the identified assessment cycle. As BSEE gains more experience
with the assessments, BSEE will evaluate the efficiency of the
assessment cycle and may revise it as appropriate.
Summary of comments: A commenter asked if the NTLs help define the
affected area for inspections and assessments after a significant
environmental event.
Response: BSEE will continue to use the guidance of an NTL to help
identify the affected area of the significant environmental event
(e.g., see NTL No. 2021-G02). This information is very useful to focus
the inspections and assessments to those areas potentially impacted by
the significant environmental events.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that it is not
practical to directly monitor stress and fatigue in all components. The
commenter also stated that the assessment for stress should be
determined based on observed responses and analytical assessment.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter's concerns and is not
revising this section based on this comment. It is BSEE's expectations
that the operator must identify how it will monitor the FSHR and
associated connection system. BSEE does not want to limit how an
operator conducts the appropriate monitoring to ensure riser system
integrity.

What new or unusual technology information must my DWOP include? (Sec.
250.242)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed in this section to identify the new or unusual
technology information that must be included in the DWOP, including the
information referenced in the applicable Conceptual Plan. Proposed
paragraph (a) would require the submission of a description of any new
or unusual technology being used in a development project, including a
reference to previously approved New or Unusual Technology Conceptual
Plans or New or Unusual Technology Barrier Conceptual Plans.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require submission of a description of
any new or unusual technology not covered under the New or Unusual
Technology Conceptual Plan or New or Unusual Technology Barrier
Conceptual Plan. It would also require an operator to include the same
applicable information as required in Sec. Sec. 250.228 or 250.229.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on the substance of the provision
of this section and is finalizing the proposed revisions with
administrative changes to reflect the revisions to the name of the New
or Unusual Technology Barrier Equipment Conceptual Plan, as discussed
previously in this preamble.
Summary of comments: A commenter asked what service fee would be
required if an operator needed to submit the description of any new or
unusual technology not previously approved in the applicable Conceptual
Plan.
Response: BSEE will require the service fees listed in Sec.
250.125 for the plans required under the DWOP Process for the specific
project proposed.
BSEE proposed to reserve Sec. Sec. 250.243-250.244, and these
sections are reserved in this regulation.

May I combine the Project Conceptual Plan and the DWOP? (Sec. 250.245)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move to this section the content from current
Sec. 250.294, which addresses when an operator may submit a combined
Conceptual Plan and DWOP, and proposed to include the following
revisions:
The introductory paragraph would be revised to clarify that, if the
operator's development project meets the criteria in proposed
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, an operator may submit a
combined Conceptual Plan and DWOP that complies with all applicable
requirements for both, on or before the deadline for submitting the
Conceptual Plan, as described in proposed Sec. 250.226. Existing
paragraph (a), which allows the operator to submit a combined
Conceptual Plan and DWOP if the project is located in water depths of
less than 400 meters (1,312 feet), would be removed.
Existing paragraph (a) would be replaced with existing paragraph
(b), which allows a combined plan if the project is similar to projects
involving subsea tieback development technology for which the operator
has obtained approval previously. BSEE proposed to add a new paragraph
(b) to allow for the submission of a combined Conceptual Plan and DWOP
if the project does not involve either new or unusual technology or a
new platform. As previously stated at the beginning of the paragraph,
the operator must meet the criteria in paragraph (a) and (b) of
proposed Sec. 250.245 in order to be able to submit a combined
Conceptual Plan and DWOP.
These revisions would provide clarity for operators to streamline
the process, when appropriate, and would reflect conforming edits for
new or unusual technology. These revisions would reflect current BSEE
acceptance of combined submission of the Conceptual Plan and DWOP in
certain situations.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received a comment on these provisions and is making a
revision based on that comment. BSEE is changing the heading to read:
``May I combine the Project Conceptual Plan and the DWOP?'' and is
revising the introductory paragraph accordingly. BSEE is clarifying
that that the ``Project'' Conceptual Plan can be combined with the
DWOP.
Summary of comments: A commenter suggested that BSEE add the term
``project'' to the reference to the Conceptual Plans.
Response: BSEE is revising this section to clarify that a Project
Conceptual Plan may be combined with the DWOP if the project meets the
required criteria. This revision is consistent with paragraph (b) that
prohibits the combination of a Conceptual Plan and DWOP if the project
involves new or unusual technology.

When must I revise my DWOP? (Sec. 250.246)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to move to this section the content from current
Sec. 250.295 and to clarify when revision to an approved Conceptual
Plan or DWOP is necessary. Revision is necessary when there are changes
in the development project that alter the proposed plan or procedures,
but that do not involve a physical alteration of the equipment on the
platform or the seabed. As explained below, a supplement is required
when changes involve a physical alteration of the equipment on the
platform or the seabed. This section and the following section are
intended to reduce confusion by helping operators determine when a
revision or a supplement to the applicable Conceptual Plan or DWOP is
necessary.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and review of the comments, BSEE is
revising this section to clarify when a revision to a DWOP is
necessary. BSEE removed the reference to revising the Conceptual Plan
as it is not applicable to this section and clarified that revisions
are necessary only to the

[[Page 71101]]

approved DWOP to reflect any material change to the plan.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that requiring
a revision to the plan for ``any changes'' is too broad and burdensome.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter and wants to ensure the
information contained in the DWOP is accurate and consistent with the
applicable approved permit or application. BSEE has clarified the
difference between a revision and supplement and has revised the
service fees to adequately reflect the appropriate level of actions
necessary to complete the revision or supplement. However, BSEE also
clarified that any material change to the plan would require a
revision. This clarification is consistent with the language of the
previous regulations (see previous Sec. 250.295).
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that revisions
to the Conceptual Plans are not applicable to this section and should
be removed.
Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter and is removing the
reference to Conceptual Plan revisions. Revisions to the Conceptual
Plans are outside the scope of this section and it is unnecessary to
include them in this section.

When must I supplement my DWOP? (Sec. 250.247)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed in this section to identify when an operator must
supplement the approved DWOP to reflect additions or changes in the
development project.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require the operator to submit a
supplement to the DWOP to reflect any additions or changes in the
development project that physically alter the platform, process
facilities, equipment, or systems approved in the original Conceptual
Plan or DWOP. If a Supplemental DWOP proposes the addition of any wells
(e.g., a new subsea field) not approved in the original DWOP, the
operator may not complete or produce from the new well(s) until BSEE
approves the Supplemental DWOP.
Proposed paragraph (b) would require a supplement to the DWOP for
additions or changes that involve the addition of any new or unusual
technology to the project that was not previously approved under the
New or Unusual Technology Conceptual Plan, New or Unusual Technology
Barrier Conceptual Plan, or DWOP. This proposed paragraph would also
clarify that the operator may not install any new or unusual technology
until BSEE approves the Supplemental DWOP.
This section would be added to clarify when operators must submit
supplemental DWOPs. This section and the section above are intended to
reduce confusion by helping operators determine when a revision or a
supplement to the DWOP is necessary.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and review of the comments, BSEE is
revising paragraph (a) by removing the references to ``platform'' and
``process facilities'' from the list of items that, if physically
altered, would require a supplement to the DWOP and then clarifying
that it applies to equipment or systems upstream of the boarding
shutdown valve approved in the DWOP. BSEE is also removing the
reference of supplementing the DWOP based on the equipment and systems
approved in the original Conceptual Plan as it is not applicable to
this section.
BSEE is also revising paragraph (b) to clarify that under the
situation where there is an addition of new or unusual technology not
previously covered under an applicable Conceptual Plan or DWOP, an
operator may not install any new or unusual technology until BSEE
approves the applicable Conceptual Plan and supplemental DWOP. This
revision is necessary to ensure the new or unusual technology follows
the appropriate process including the applicable Conceptual Plan
approval.
Summary of comments: Multiple commenters expressed concerns that
the language describing a supplement to the DWOP is too broad and needs
clarification concerning when a supplement is required.
Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenters and is revising
this section to clarify when a supplement to the DWOP is required by
removing the references to ``platform'' and ``process facility'' and
clarifying that a supplement requirement applies only when there is a
physical change to the equipment or systems upstream of the boarding
shutdown valve. This clarification establishes when a supplemental DWOP
is necessary based on the scope of the equipment listed. For example,
BSEE would not expect a supplement of your DWOP for changing decking on
a platform.

What information must I include in my Supplemental DWOP? (Sec.
250.248)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to describe the information that must be included in
the supplement to the DWOP referenced in proposed Sec. 250.247.
Proposed paragraph (a) would require the same information for the
wells or equipment as required in the applicable Conceptual Plan and
DWOP requirements in Subpart B. This addition would ensure consistency
between the initial and supplemental submissions.
Proposed paragraph (b) would describe information for each
applicable Conceptual Plan or DWOP section that is being impacted by
the addition or change.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require documents demonstrating
payment of the new service fee for BSEE's review and processing of a
supplemental DWOP, as listed in the proposed revisions to Sec.
250.125.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on the content of this section
and is finalizing the provision as proposed.

Subpart D--Oil and Gas Drilling Operations

Hydrogen sulfide (Sec. 250.490)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (p) of this section, which
addresses metallurgical properties of equipment used in an
H<INF>2</INF>S environment. BSEE proposed revising the paragraph to
state that if operating in a zone with H<INF>2</INF>S present or when
the concentration of H<INF>2</INF>S in the produced fluid may exceed
0.05 pounds per square inch (psi) partial pressure of H<INF>2</INF>S,
the operator must use equipment that is constructed of materials with
metallurgical properties that resist or prevent sulfide stress cracking
(also known as hydrogen embrittlement, stress corrosion cracking, or
H<INF>2</INF>S embrittlement), chloride-stress cracking, hydrogen-
induced cracking, and other failure modes.
BSEE also proposed to revise this section to be consistent with the
requirements of NACE Standard MR0175-2003, ``Standard Material
Requirements, Metals for Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress Corrosion
Cracking Resistance in Sour Oilfield Environments, ''Revised January
17, 2003, incorporated by reference at existing Sec. Sec. 250.490 and
250.901 and NTL 2009-G31. Section 250.490 paragraph (p) currently
requires that the tubing and casing be designed for NACE requirements,
but incorrectly refers only to ``H<INF>2</INF>S present'' as the
concentration necessary to trigger this requirement. ``H<INF>2</INF>S
present'' is defined in existing Sec. 250.490 paragraph (b) as ``could
potentially result in atmospheric concentration of 20 ppm or more of
H<INF>2</INF>S.'' BSEE proposed language to clarify

[[Page 71102]]

that in either ``H<INF>2</INF>S present'' conditions or when
H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations in the produced fluid exceed 0.05 psi
partial pressure of H<INF>2</INF>S, the operator must use equipment
that is constructed of materials with certain metallurgical properties,
in accordance with NACE Standard MR0175-2003.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE is including the proposed language in the final rule without
change.
Summary of comments: A commenter recommended that BSEE reference
NACE MR0175 in the introductory text to paragraph (p).
Response: BSEE is not including the reference to NACE MR0175 in the
introductory text to this paragraph in the final rule because it is
currently referenced in existing paragraph (p)(2). BSEE already
requires BOP system components, wellhead, pressure-control equipment,
and related equipment exposed to H<INF>2</INF>S-bearing fluids to be in
conformance with NACE Standard MR0175. BSEE also requires conformance
with NACE MR0175 in other subparts of the BSEE regulations as it
pertains to other equipment (e.g., see Sec. Sec. 250.518(a)(2) and
250.619(a)(2) for tubing requirements).

Subpart E--Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations

Tubing and wellhead equipment (Sec. 250.518)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.518 to include
the following:

--The tubing string must be evaluated for burst, collapse, and axial
loads with appropriate safety and design factors for the pressure and
temperature environments of the completion, production, shut-in, and
injection load cases;
--The tubing string materials must be appropriate for the environment.
The operator must follow NACE Standard MR0175-2003 (as incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198) when H<INF>2</INF>S concentration may equal
or exceed 0.05 psi partial pressure; and
--The tubing string threaded connectors must be appropriate for the
loads identified in proposed paragraph (a)(1).

These revisions would reflect essential well design elements
addressed in industry standards. Current regulations discuss well
design specific to casing, but little is provided for tubing design,
which is equally critical for well integrity. Regulations currently
establish H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations that constitute a specific
threat to personnel and establish concentrations that trigger enactment
of H<INF>2</INF>S protocols. Additional requirements added to this
section would address H<INF>2</INF>S impacts to equipment integrity, as
these components must function as barriers to personnel and the
environment. Section 250.490 paragraph (p) currently requires that the
tubing and casing be designed for NACE requirements, but incorrectly
refers only to ``H<INF>2</INF>S present'' as the concentration
necessary to trigger this requirement. ``H<INF>2</INF>S present'' is
defined in existing Sec. 250.490 paragraph (b) as ``could potentially
result in atmospheric concentration of 20 ppm or more of
H<INF>2</INF>S.'' BSEE proposed to clarify that, in either
``H<INF>2</INF>S present'' conditions or when H<INF>2</INF>S
concentrations in the produced fluid exceed 0.05 psi partial pressure
of H<INF>2</INF>S, the operator must use equipment that is constructed
of materials with certain metallurgical properties, in accordance with
NACE Standard MR0175-2003.
BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (c) of this section to
include the design and testing of the wellhead, tree, and related
equipment in accordance with ANSI/API Spec. 6A (as incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198) or ANSI/API Spec. 17D (as incorporated by
reference in Sec. 250.198), as applicable. The proposed rule would
also add paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and (3) to clarify that:

--Newly completed dry trees (e.g., fixed, hybrid, or mudline
suspension) for production or injection wells must be equipped with a
minimum of one master valve and one surface safety valve (SSV),
installed above the master valve, in the vertical run of the tree;
--Newly completed subsea production or injection wells must be equipped
with a minimum of one USV installed in the horizontal or vertical run
of the tree (e.g., vertical or horizontal subsea trees); and
--Newly completed wells with a mudline suspension conversion to a
subsea tree must have a minimum of two casing strings tied back and
sealed below the tubing head. At a minimum, the production casing and
the next outer casing must be tied back to the wellhead to ensure
annular isolation.

BSEE proposed adding paragraph (c)(3) because ANSI/API Spec. 17D
does not address mudline suspension conversion to a subsea tree with
more than one casing tieback. The proposed revisions would also codify
similar language from NTL 2006 G-20, which would establish a
requirement for a minimum of two casing strings tied back and sealed
below the tubing head for a mudline suspension conversion to a subsea
tree.
BSEE proposed revising paragraph (d) to clarify that both the
subsurface safety equipment and surface safety equipment must comply
with applicable requirements of Subpart H.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE received a comment on this section, but is not making any
revisions based on that comment. BSEE is finalizing the proposed
content with a clarification in paragraph (a)(1) that the tubing string
must be evaluated with appropriate safety factors and material design
factors. This revision clarifies this regulation with the correct usage
of terms for engineering analysis.
Summary of comments: A commenter expressed concerns that certain
content in this section is redundant of the requirements of Subpart D
and should be removed.
Response: BSEE disagrees with the commenter and is not removing the
content. Finalizing the regulation based on the proposed language helps
ensure consistency among the different subparts and considerations for
operations when H<INF>2</INF>S is present.

Subpart F--Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations

Tubing and wellhead equipment (Sec. 250.619)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 250.619 to include
the following:

Additional requirements BSEE proposed to add to this section
address H<INF>2</INF>S impacts to equipment integrity, as these
components must function as barriers to personnel and the environment.
BSEE proposed to clarify that in either ``H<INF>2</INF>S present''
conditions or when H<INF>2</INF>S concentrations in the

[[Page 71103]]

produced fluid exceed 0.05 psi partial pressure of H<INF>2</INF>S, the
operator must use equipment that is constructed of materials with
certain metallurgical properties, in accordance with NACE Standard
MR0175-2003.
BSEE also proposed to revise paragraph (c) to include the design
and testing of the wellhead, tree, and related equipment in accordance
with ANSI/API Spec. 6A (as incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198)
or ANSI/API Spec. 17D (as incorporated by reference in Sec. 250.198),
as applicable. This section would also add paragraphs (c)(1), (2), and
(3) to clarify that:

--Newly completed dry trees (e.g., fixed, hybrid, or mudline
suspension) for production or injection wells must be equipped with a
minimum of one master valve and one SSV, installed above the master
valve, in the vertical run of the tree;
--Newly completed subsea production or injection wells must be equipped
with a minimum of one USV installed in the horizontal or vertical run
of the tree (for vertical or horizontal subsea trees); and
--Newly completed wells with a mudline suspension conversion to a
subsea tree must have a minimum of two casing strings tied back and
sealed below the tubing head. At a minimum, the production casing and
the next outer casing must be tied back to the wellhead, to ensure
annular isolation.

BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (d) to clarify that surface
safety equipment must be installed, maintained, and tested in
accordance with applicable sections of Subpart H, in addition to the
subsurface safety equipment.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on this section and is finalizing
the proposed content with the same clarification identified in Sec.
250.518 in paragraph (a)(1) that the tubing string must be evaluated
with appropriate safety factors and material design factors. This
revision clarifies this regulation with the correct usage of terms for
engineering analysis and is consistent with similar requirements in
Sec. 250.518.

Subpart G--Well Operations and Equipment

What information must I submit for BOP systems and system components?
(Sec. 250.731)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise existing paragraph (c)(4) of Sec. 250.731
to update a cross-reference to the definition of HPHT in accordance
with proposed Sec. 250.105.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
BSEE did not receive any comments on this provision of the proposed
rule and is including the proposed language in the final rule without
change.

What are the independent third party requirements for BOP systems and
system components? (Sec. 250.732)

Summary of Proposed Rule Revisions
BSEE proposed to revise existing paragraph (c) of Sec. 250.732 to
reflect the addition of the new or unusual technology and new or
unusual technology barrier requirements in Subpart B. BSEE proposed to
delete the independent third-party requirements under existing
paragraph (c) because that information would be covered under the new
DWOP process requirements. These proposed revisions would connect the
HPHT permitting (e.g., APD) requirements and the DWOP process
requirements and would improve BSEE's review and decision process. BSEE
proposed these revisions to help ensure that the specified equipment is
fit for service in the environmental conditions reasonably expected at
the operation's site.
BSEE also proposed to remove duplicative requirements now covered
under the DWOP new or unusual technology barrier requirements and would
provide greater detail considering that the Conceptual Plan review
occurs before use of HPHT equipment and would occur before application
review. BSEE proposed to consolidate the language and refer to the
applicable new or unusual technology barrier requirements and would
specify that BSEE would require Conceptual Plan and appropriate permit
approval before equipment installation. This addition would provide
clarification to operators unfamiliar with the applicable DWOP
requirements.
Summary of Final Rule Revisions
Based on comments received and review of the comments, BSEE is
revising paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) to remove the term
``certification'' to be consistent with other required statements and
the use of certifications. BSEE is also revising paragraph (c) to
clarify that the operator may not deploy the proposed BOP system and
related equipment that will or may be exposed to an HPHT environment
until BSEE approves the appropriate Conceptual Plan and permits (e.g.,
APD and APM). This clarification helps ensure the correct use of
terminology and description of equipment or systems. For example, BSEE
does not have a definition of ``HPHT BOP system,'' so that term was
removed.
BSEE also fixed incorrect cross references throughout this section
based on the updates to

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on August 30, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.