[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23569-23581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

30 CFR Part 250

[Docket ID: BSEE-2020-0016] 234E1700D2; ETISF0000.EAQ000 EEEE500000]
RIN 1082-AA02


Risk Management, Financial Assurance, and Loss Prevention--
Decommissioning Activities and Obligations

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 
issues this final rule to clarify and formalize its regulations related 
to decommissioning responsibilities of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and grant holders to ensure compliance 
with lease, grant, and regulatory obligations. This rule implements 
provisions of the proposed rule intended to clarify decommissioning 
responsibilities of right-of-use and easement (RUE) grant holders and 
to formalize BSEE's policies regarding performance by predecessors 
ordered to decommission OCS facilities. This rule withdraws the 
proposal to amend BSEE's regulations to require BSEE to proceed in 
reverse chronological order against predecessor lessees, owners of 
operating rights, and grant holders when requiring such entities to 
perform their accrued decommissioning obligations if the current 
lessees, owners, or holders have failed to perform.

DATES: This rule is effective May 18, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Malstrom, BSEE, at 
[email protected] or at (703) 787-1751.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    On October 16, 2020, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 
and BSEE published a proposed rule entitled ``Risk Management, 
Financial Assurance and Loss Prevention.'' (85 FR 65904). In this final 
rule, the Department of the Interior (Department or DOI) implements 
certain proposed revisions to regulations administered by BSEE. BOEM 
intends to issue a new proposed rule for the provisions within its 
regulatory purview.
    The BSEE-administered portion of the proposed rule would have 
established that BSEE could only proceed in reverse chronological order 
against predecessor lessees, owners of operating rights, and grant 
holders when requiring them to perform their accrued decommissioning 
obligations if the current lessees, owners, or holders failed to 
perform. The BSEE-administered provisions also proposed to clarify 
decommissioning responsibilities for RUE grant holders, promulgate as 
regulations BSEE policy surrounding the obligations of predecessors 
when ordered to decommission, and require that any party appealing and 
seeking to stay a final decommissioning order post a surety bond.
    This final rule focuses on clarifying decommissioning obligations 
of RUE grant holders and promulgating as regulations BSEE policy 
regarding the obligations of predecessors ordered to perform 
decommissioning. BSEE has decided to withdraw its proposal that would 
have established the reverse chronological order constraint on BSEE's 
pursuit of predecessor lessees, owners of operating rights, and grant 
holders for performance of their accrued decommissioning obligations. 
BSEE has also chosen not to finalize the proposed appeal bonding 
requirements.

Table of Contents

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations
II. Background of BSEE Regulations
    A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities
    B. Summary of Differences Between the Proposed and Final Rules 
for BSEE Provisions
III. Discussion of Comments
    A. Overview of Comments on the BSEE Portion of the Proposed Rule
    B. Specific Comments on the BSEE Portion of the Proposed Rule
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Revisions
V. Procedural Matters
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders (E.O.) 
12866, 13563 and 13771)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Congressional Review Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630)
    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental 
Policy)
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    J. National Environmental Policy Act
    K. Data Quality Act
    L. Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
    M. Clarity of This Regulation

I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

    To ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, 
the following acronyms and abbreviations are used in the preamble:

ASLM Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
DOI or Department Department of the Interior
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
IBLA Interior Board of Land Appeals
IC Information Collection
IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a sub-agency 
within OMB)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RCO Reverse Chronological Order
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
ROW Right-of-Way
RUE Right-of-Use and Easement

[[Page 23570]]

SBA Small Business Administration
Secretary Secretary of the Interior
S.O. Secretary's Order

II. Background of BSEE Regulations

A. BSEE Statutory and Regulatory Authority and Responsibilities

    BSEE derives its authority primarily from the OCS Lands Act 
(OCSLA), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 
regulate oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
operations on the OCS. Secretary's Order 3299 delegated authority to 
perform certain of these regulatory 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, and to ensure that those operations protect the environment, 
conserve the natural resources of the OCS, and implement advancements 
in technology. BSEE's regulatory program covers a wide range of 
facilities and activities, including decommissioning requirements, 
which are the primary focus of this rulemaking. Detailed information 
concerning BSEE's regulations and guidance to the offshore oil and gas 
industry may be found on BSEE's website at: http://www.bsee.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/index.

B. Summary of Differences Between the Proposed and Final Rules for BSEE 
Provisions

    For a comprehensive discussion of the proposed rule provisions, 
please refer to the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the 
Federal Register on October 16, 2020 (85 FR 65904). BSEE's responses to 
submitted comments is found in section III of this preamble. The 
changes made in response to comments include:
1. Timeframes for Responding to Decommissioning Orders--Sec. Sec.  
250.1704 and 250.1708(b)(1) Through (3)
    BSEE may issue an order to predecessors to perform accrued 
decommissioning obligations if subsequent assignees have failed to 
perform them. In the proposed rule, BSEE proposed to require such 
predecessors to take certain actions following receipt of an order to 
perform, including:
    (1) Beginning maintenance and monitoring within 30 days,
    (2) Designating an operator for decommissioning within 60 days, and
    (3) Submitting a decommissioning plan within 90 days.
    Multiple commenters asserted that the proposed 30/60/90-day 
timeframes for taking those actions were too short. In this final rule, 
BSEE is moving the provisions to Sec.  250.1708(a), retaining the 30-
day timeframe for beginning maintenance and monitoring, and extending 
the timeframes for compliance with the other two requirements as 
follows:
    (1) Designate an operator (or agent) for the decommissioning 
activities within 90 days of receiving the order; and
    (2) Submit a decommissioning plan to BSEE within 150 days of 
receiving the order.
    These revised timeframes provide clarity and consistency and allow 
sufficient time to implement the decommissioning process expeditiously 
and effectively.
2. Requiring a Surety Bond To Stay the Effectiveness of Decommissioning 
Orders During Appeal--Sec.  250.1709 and 30 CFR 290.7
    In the proposed rule, BSEE proposed to require a party that files 
an appeal of a BSEE decommissioning order and seeks to obtain a stay of 
that order during the appeal to post a surety bond in an amount 
adequate to ensure completion of the decommissioning activities. 
Multiple commenters asserted that such a surety bond is not necessary 
in light of other existing and adequate financial assurance 
requirements designed to secure decommissioning obligations. BSEE 
agrees with these commenters and is not finalizing the proposed appeal 
bond provisions in Sec.  250.1709 and 30 CFR 290.7.
3. The Reverse Chronological Order (RCO) Process for BSEE To Issue 
Predecessor Decommissioning Orders--Sec.  250.1708
    The proposed rule would have limited BSEE's ability to issue 
decommissioning orders by requiring BSEE to issue the orders to 
predecessors through an RCO process, i.e., to the most recent 
predecessor first. Multiple commenters expressed concerns and divergent 
views about this proposal and the appropriate approach for issuing 
decommissioning orders to predecessors when current interest holders 
fail to perform. Based on the comments received, BSEE is not finalizing 
the RCO provisions. BSEE will continue to evaluate the process for 
issuing decommissioning orders and will continue to issue 
decommissioning orders in the most efficient manner on a case-by-case 
basis, in accordance with its longstanding regulatory authority and 
practice.
4. Revising References to Predecessors in Subpart Q Definition of 
``You'' and ``I''--Sec.  250.1701(d)
    The proposed rule would have added references to the predecessors 
of various interest holders in the definitions of ``you'' and ``I'' 
applicable to the regulations in part 250 subpart Q. A commenter noted 
that these revisions should be applicable only to the regulations 
regarding the accrued decommissioning obligations of predecessors. BSEE 
has rephrased the definitions in this final rule to better reflect this 
intended outcome.

III. Discussion of Comments

    The Bureaus divided the comments received on the proposed rule into 
separate BOEM and BSEE dockets. In this section, BSEE addresses 
comments received on its proposals, beginning with an overview of 
comments and then proceeding to comments by section number.

A. Overview of Comments on the BSEE Portion of the Proposed Rule

    In response to the proposed rule, BOEM and BSEE received 
approximately 36 unique sets of comments from various entities, 
including individual companies, industry organizations, non-
governmental organizations, and private citizens. Of those 36 
commenters, 21 submitted comments on the BSEE-administered provisions. 
Some entities submitted comments on both BOEM and BSEE provisions. All 
relevant comments are posted at the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. To access comments on the BSEE docket at that 
website, enter BSEE-2020-0016 in the search box. BSEE reviewed all 
comments submitted. This section summarizes notable comments and BSEE's 
responses.

B. Specific Comments on the BSEE Portion of the Proposed Rule

    Summary: The majority of the comments that BSEE received expressed 
general support for the proposed rule. BSEE received supportive 
comments from oil and gas companies, contractors, industry trade 
groups, and a private citizen. Some of the commenters who expressed 
general support for the proposed rule also provided detailed comments 
on specific provisions, addressed further below. However, while these 
commenters voiced support broadly for the proposed changes, some of the 
commenters also asserted that specific provisions would impose 
unnecessary regulatory burdens and suggested revisions to the proposed 
regulatory text, as discussed below.

[[Page 23571]]

    Other commenters expressed general opposition to the proposed rule 
and many of its key provisions. For example, one non-governmental 
organization suggested that BOEM and BSEE should ``withdraw'' the 
proposed rule. For a discussion of the substantive comments in 
opposition to specific provisions and BSEE's responses, refer to later 
parts of this section.
1. RUE Grant Holders Accruing Liabilities
    Comment: Several commenters responded favorably to the proposal to 
amend part 250 subpart Q to expressly state that RUE grant holders 
accrue decommissioning obligations in the same manner as lessees, 
operating rights holders, and right-of-way (ROW) grant holders. One 
commenter observed that the proposal's alignment of RUE references in 
Sec. Sec.  250.1700, 250.1701, 250.1702, 250.1703, and 250.1725, in 
conjunction with BOEM's proposed revisions to 30 CFR parts 550 and 556, 
which would also use RUE terminology, more accurately reflect existing 
practices on the OCS.
    Response: BSEE agrees with the commenters and is including the 
proposed provisions in the final rule without change.
2. 30/60/90 Day Timeframes for Responding to Predecessor 
Decommissioning Orders
    Comment: Multiple commenters submitted substantive comments on 
proposed Sec.  250.1708(b), which proposed timeframes for predecessors 
to take initial organizational measures and submit decommissioning 
plans following receipt of an order to perform accrued decommissioning 
obligations. Commenters generally embraced the concept of a tiered 
series of dates for predecessors to begin monitoring and maintaining 
facilities, select a designated operator, and submit a decommissioning 
plan. However, these same commenters said the timeframes for completing 
these steps at proposed Sec.  250.1708(b)(1) through (3) were 
unreasonably short. The commenters stated that complex well fields and 
platforms would require more time for development of suitably robust 
decommissioning plans. Another commenter noted that predecessor parties 
will need time to obtain records and diagrams of facilities from 
current interest holders, who may not be cooperative in providing 
access to documents or facilities.
    Response: When current interest holders fail to perform required 
decommissioning, BSEE must ensure that predecessors holding the accrued 
obligations expeditiously and properly monitor, maintain, and 
decommission wells, pipelines, and facilities to minimize safety 
hazards, environmental harm, and interference with navigation or other 
uses of the OCS (such as fishing and future resource development). 
However, BSEE understands and agrees with the commenters' concerns 
about the timeframes. Therefore, BSEE is modifying the proposed 
timeframes, which are now found in final Sec.  250.1708(a), as follows:
    (1) Begin maintaining and monitoring within 30 days of receiving 
the order (as proposed);
    (2) Designate the operator or agent for the decommissioning 
activities within 90 days of receiving the order (as opposed to 60 days 
in proposed rule); and
    (3) Submit a decommissioning plan to BSEE within 150 days of 
receiving the order (as opposed to 90 days in proposed rule).
    BSEE also retains discretion to extend or shorten these timeframes 
under extenuating circumstances to effectively implement the 
decommissioning process.
3. Bonding for Appeals of Decommissioning Orders
    Comment: BSEE's proposal (at Sec.  250.1709 and 30 CFR 290.7) to 
require a surety bond for stays of decommissioning orders pending 
appeal met with mixed views. Most commenters understood BSEE's 
rationale for establishing a mechanism to protect against the risks of 
default during the pendency of appeals filed with the Interior Board of 
Land Appeals (IBLA). Some raised no objections to the surety bond 
requirement as proposed. Other commenters contended that BSEE does not 
need such bonds because BSEE can defend its order by opposing a motion 
to stay. Furthermore, these commenters asserted that a party who 
successfully obtains a stay of a decommissioning order under the IBLA's 
standards should not be required to post security for the stayed order. 
One commenter also asserted that the proposed surety bond raised due 
process concerns.
    Response: While BSEE disagrees that the proposed provisions raise 
due process concerns, BSEE agrees with the commenters' assertions that 
the proposed surety bond would be unnecessary given existing IBLA 
procedures and existing requirements for financial assurance. 
Accordingly, BSEE is not finalizing the proposed appeal bond 
requirements.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the surety bond 
provisions should not apply to appellants who can demonstrate that they 
qualify under credit rating standards proposed or promulgated by BOEM 
at 30 CFR 550.166(d) and 556.901. The commenters questioned why BSEE 
would require a surety bond from a predecessor or interest holder if 
BOEM does not require additional financial assurance from that entity. 
Another commenter suggested that BSEE should monitor credit ratings 
continuously, like BOEM does, and rely on those credit ratings when 
determining whether a surety bond is required. In this manner, the 
commenter suggested that BSEE use BOEM's data to determine if a surety 
bond on appeal is necessary.
    Response: BSEE agrees that the proposed appeal bond is not 
necessary in light of existing financial assurance requirements and is 
not finalizing the proposed revisions to Sec.  250.1709 and 30 CFR 
290.7. DOI will continue to rely on other existing financial assurance 
requirements to ensure adequate security for decommissioning 
obligations.
4. Reverse Chronological Order (RCO)
    Comment: Many comments favored BSEE's proposal to constrain itself 
to issuing decommissioning orders in RCO, asserting it would avoid 
delays associated with the current process. As some commenters noted, 
going down the chain-of-title to identify recent predecessors would 
first focus on those parties that most recently obtained security for 
the outstanding decommissioning obligations on which the current 
interest holders defaulted. The use of an RCO method, according to some 
commenters, would be ``a more efficient method of unlocking any 
security posted by the defaulting party'' and would in turn hasten 
performance of decommissioning work.
    While these commenters broadly appreciated the RCO approach, they 
expressed divergent views as to how BSEE should issue decommissioning 
orders when current interest holders fail to perform their obligations. 
Some commenters urged BSEE to issue orders to the immediate predecessor 
of any defaulting party before engaging joint owners or co-lessees 
among the current set of interest holders. Other commenters expressed 
concern that BSEE would not use all available options to address 
decommissioning obligations with current interest holders before 
turning to predecessors.
    Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenters' divergent views 
of the proposed RCO process and has determined that the process is not 
the

[[Page 23572]]

most effective method for issuing decommissioning orders in all 
situations. Accordingly, BSEE is not finalizing the proposed RCO 
revisions. BSEE will continue to evaluate the process for issuing 
decommissioning orders and will continue to issue decommissioning 
orders to jointly and severally liable parties on a case-by-case basis.
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with BSEE's proposal to organize 
groups of predecessors by changes in designated operators over time, as 
proposed in Sec.  250.1708(a)(l), and urged BSEE to delete this 
subsection, arguing it unnecessary and confusing. The commenter 
recommended that, in the event a current lessee, sublessee, or grant 
holder defaults on its decommissioning obligation, BSEE should issue 
its decommissioning orders to the most recent predecessors in the chain 
of title of the defaulting party.
    Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter's suggestion to 
remove certain provisions of proposed Sec.  250.1708, including the 
relevant parts of the proposed Sec.  250.1708(a)(1). BSEE will retain 
the existing flexibility to issue decommissioning orders to jointly and 
severally liable parties on a case-by-case basis to ensure 
decommissioning obligations are conducted in a manner that ensures 
safety and protection of the environment.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that BSEE should reconsider proposed 
Sec.  250.1708(d), which would have allowed BSEE to depart from RCO in 
certain circumstances. The commenter suggested redrafting that 
provision to bring predictability to when and under what conditions RCO 
would be implemented. The commenter asserted that proposed Sec.  
250.1708(d) makes RCO ``unpredictable and wholly discretionary'' for 
BSEE and its regional supervisor.
    Response: Based on comments, BSEE is discarding the proposed RCO 
process requirements, including the exceptions described in proposed 
Sec.  250.1708(d). BSEE will retain the existing flexibility to issue 
decommissioning orders to jointly and severally liable parties on a 
case-by-case basis to ensure decommissioning obligations are conducted 
in a manner that ensures safety and protection of the environment.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that BSEE's proposed use of RCO would 
erode the joint and several liability provisions of leases. The 
commenter maintained that efforts to enforce decommissioning orders 
against the most recent predecessor might incentivize other 
predecessors to seek bankruptcy protection during the decommissioning 
process (which could take years or decades to ultimately collect 
funds), thus leading to fewer viable predecessors to perform 
decommissioning. The commenter claimed that the rationale for surety 
bonds demonstrates why the RCO process would be risky: while BSEE seeks 
to enforce a decommissioning order, predecessors may become insolvent, 
and infrastructure may deteriorate. While acknowledging that the 
proposed appeal surety bond would slightly mitigate this risk, the 
commenter noted that this bonding requirement would apply only to 
appeals and not to other aspects of the decommissioning process. 
Finally, the commenter argued that there ``is no good reason for BSEE 
to adopt this [RCO] approach, as BSEE appears to acknowledge. Any 
confusion and inefficiency among the parties is not an issue for BSEE 
to resolve.'' The commenter indicated that adopting RCO would make the 
decommissioning process less efficient and recommended that BSEE should 
instead issue decommissioning orders to all jointly and severally 
liable parties. Finally, the commenter requested that BSEE abandon the 
proposed rule or require all potentially liable lessees to post surety 
bonds pending final execution of and compliance with decommissioning 
orders.
    Response: BSEE shares the commenter's commitment to eliminating 
risk associated with decommissioning liabilities and to ensuring BSEE 
retains broad authority to enforce all decommissioning requirements. To 
the extent that the commenter suggests that the final rule will 
inadequately protect the public interest, BSEE disagrees. The 
commenter's primary concerns lie with the proposed RCO requirements, 
which BSEE is not codifying in this final rule. BSEE is finalizing the 
requirements for timely monitoring of facilities, assessing risks, and 
submitting plans once BSEE issues a decommissioning order to 
predecessors. BSEE retains its discretion concerning issuance of 
decommissioning orders, and BSEE will continue to exercise this 
authority to avoid unreasonable delays in decommissioning. BSEE will 
continue to evaluate the process for issuing decommissioning orders and 
will ensure that decommissioning takes place in a timely manner to 
safeguard safety and environmental protection.
5. Miscellaneous Comments
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the proposed rule would create 
more financial risks and that the proposed rule's financial assurance 
procedures would be inadequate and would limit BOEM's and BSEE's 
ability to enforce joint and several liability provisions. This 
commenter also stated that the proposed rule would be ``highly likely 
to cause environmental effects'' and, thus, would require an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    The commenter also asserted that the proposed rule would result in 
a mismatch between BOEM's proposal to ``base obligations on the 
financial strength of the strongest co-lessee'' and BSEE's proposal to 
``place primary decommissioning responsibilities on the most recent and 
likely financially weakest co-lessee.'' The overall effect would be to 
``shift the financial burden for decommissioning from large firms to 
smaller firms that have less ability to cover decommissioning costs,'' 
the commenter said.
    Response: To the extent that the commenter suggests that the final 
rule will increase financial risks or implement an inadequate procedure 
to protect the public interest, BSEE disagrees. BSEE also disagrees 
that the provisions being codified in the final rule are likely to 
cause environmental effects or that the final rule necessitates an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA. 
BSEE is not finalizing the proposed provisions of primary concern to 
the commenter in this final rule. The final rule clarifies and adds 
transparency to the process by which BSEE will enforce decommissioning 
obligations on existing lessees and RUE grant holders. The final rule 
does not alter or relieve the accrued liability of any party or alter 
or erode BSEE's enforcement authority. Accordingly, because the final 
rule is of ``an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or 
procedural nature,'' it meets the requirements for a Departmental 
categorical exclusion at 43 CFR 46.210(i) under NEPA. Further, 
extraordinary circumstances do not exist that would preclude the use of 
this categorical exclusion under 43 CFR 46.215.
    BSEE also disagrees that this rule diminishes BSEE's authority to 
enforce joint and several liability. This rule does not undermine any 
aspect of the joint and several liability regime. The commenter was 
primarily concerned with the proposed RCO requirements,

[[Page 23573]]

which have been discarded. BSEE retains its decision-making discretion 
concerning issuance of decommissioning orders, and BSEE will continue 
to exercise this authority to avoid unreasonable delays in 
decommissioning. BSEE will continue to evaluate the process for issuing 
decommissioning orders and will ensure that decommissioning takes place 
in a timely manner to safeguard safety and environmental protection.
    Comment: A commenter stated that entities that default on 
decommissioning obligations should be disqualified from operating on 
the OCS. The commenter asserted that BSEE is encouraging these 
operators to repeat their previous behavior and default again.
    Response: BSEE disagrees that the proposed or final rule encourages 
or rewards defaulting on obligations and notes that the regulatory 
provisions regarding disqualification are beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. BSEE retains its full enforcement authority, including the 
authority to issue notices of incidents of noncompliance, assess civil 
penalties, and refer operators to BOEM for disqualification.
    Comment: A commenter stated that all financial assurance available 
for decommissioning infrastructure should be available to the 
designated operator to assist in the decommissioning process.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
BOEM, not BSEE, is responsible for maintaining sufficient financial 
assurance instruments and determining when such instruments should be 
forfeited to bring the lease or grant into compliance with regulations 
and lease or grant terms, including decommissioning requirements.
    Comment: A commenter stated that BSEE should require certification 
by all current owners, including non-operating owners, who receive a 
decommissioning order stating that they have received the order and 
will either commit to participate in the decommissioning operations or 
explain why they contend that such performance is not required.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Regardless, BSEE disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. BSEE 
generally issues decommissioning orders to current interest holders 
only in limited contexts (e.g., hazards, idle iron). BSEE's regulations 
and lease terms plainly establish the parameters of decommissioning 
responsibilities for current interest holders without need for an 
order. Further, regulated entities who receive BSEE orders are required 
to comply with those orders or be subject to further enforcement; such 
commitments and explanations are not necessary or appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter stated that ``BSEE's proposal to redefine 
`you' '' may have unintended consequences that were unconsidered by the 
Proposed Rule or its associated Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). For 
example, it is unclear whether the term `predecessor' applies to 
present operations (there is no limiting phrase such as `depending on 
the context of the regulations' as found in BOEM's current regulations 
in 30 CFR 556.105), and these potential effects have not been discussed 
in the Preamble of the Proposed Rule nor assessed in BSEE's RIA.
    Response: BSEE agrees in part with the commenter's suggestions. 
BSEE's intent in adding references to predecessors as ``you'' or ``I'' 
in Sec.  250.1701(d) was only to ensure that those provisions of part 
250 subpart Q applicable to the accrued decommissioning obligations of 
predecessors could be clearly and appropriately applied to those 
entities as intended. BSEE has modified the language in final Sec.  
250.1701(d) to note the inclusion of predecessors in those terms ``as 
appropriate in the context of the particular regulation.''
    Comment: A commenter stated that predecessors will be significantly 
impacted by orders or demands placed on them by BSEE should current 
lessees or grant holders default on their decommissioning obligations.
    Response: BSEE disagrees with the implication that this rulemaking 
will significantly alter the impacts to predecessors from default by 
assignees. This rule does not address how or when the obligations 
accrue or are held by multiple parties. Under existing and longstanding 
regulations, all parties that accrue decommissioning obligations hold 
those obligations jointly and severally until those obligations are met 
(Sec.  250.1701). BSEE may call upon predecessors to perform their 
accrued decommissioning obligations if their assignee or a subsequent 
assignee fails to perform (30 CFR 556.710 and 556.805). This rule does 
not alter the nature of those obligations or BSEE authorities for 
issuing orders or demands to enforce them. Rather, it merely clarifies 
the process by which BSEE will carry out those existing authorities, 
largely in keeping with current practice and by providing greater 
transparency to predecessors regarding what to expect from that 
process. Accordingly, this comment does not warrant modifications to 
this rule.
    Comment: Multiple commenters asserted that Government approval of 
an assignment of record title interest or operating rights marks the 
point in time when no further decommissioning obligation accrues to an 
assignor (predecessor) on the lease.
    Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Current regulations that are not the subject of this rulemaking 
identify the point at which accrued obligations attach to assignors and 
assignees. See, e.g., 30 CFR 556.710-556.713. This rulemaking does not 
alter those provisions. Accordingly, this comment does not warrant any 
modifications to the language in this final rule.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that BSEE should use all the tools in 
its toolbox to ensure that the current operator timely addresses its 
idle iron obligations.
    Response: While this comment is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking, BSEE agrees with the commenter and currently exercises its 
authority to ensure operators and lessees address idle iron to ensure 
safety and environmental protection.

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Revisions

Part 250--Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf

Definitions (Sec.  250.105)
    This section of the current regulations defines certain terms used 
throughout part 250 and clarifies their meaning as used in certain 
subparts or sections, as applicable.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to amend Sec.  250.105 by removing the terms and 
definitions for ``Easement'' and ``Right-of-use'' and replacing them 
with a new term and definition for ``Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE).'' 
The revision would make BSEE's regulations consistent with BOEM's 
regulations. The proposed amendment would clearly define an RUE grant 
as an authorization to use a portion of the seabed not encompassed by 
the holder's lease to construct, modify, or maintain platforms, 
artificial islands, facilities, installations, and other devices 
established to support the exploration, development, or production of 
oil and gas, mineral, or energy resources on the OCS or a State 
submerged lands lease.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered the submitted comments and has included a slightly 
revised definition in the final rule. The revised definition adds after 
the word ``construct,'' ``secure to the seafloor,

[[Page 23574]]

use,'' and after the word ``platforms,'' ``sea floor production 
equipment.'' These changes make the relevant definition in part 250 
more consistent with BOEM's corresponding definitions proposed for 30 
CFR 550.105 and 30 CFR 556.105, and more accurately reflect the scope 
of rights available under an RUE grant.
What do the terms ``decommissioning,'' ``obstructions,'' and 
``facility'' mean? (Sec.  250.1700)
    This section of the current regulations defines certain terms used 
throughout the decommissioning regulations in part 250 subpart Q.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to revise the section heading to include the term 
``predecessor'' and to revise paragraph (a)(2) to include the area of 
an RUE grant among the areas that, through decommissioning, must be 
returned to a condition that meets the requirements of BSEE and other 
applicable agencies. This revision aligns with the other proposed 
revisions to the decommissioning obligations associated with RUE 
grants. BSEE also proposed to add a new paragraph (d) defining the term 
``predecessor'' to mean a prior lessee, operating rights owner, or RUE 
or ROW grant holder that is liable for accrued obligations on that 
lease or grant. This definition is designed to clarify which entities, 
including assignors, remain liable for the decommissioning obligations 
that accrued during their prior ownership of an interest in a lease or 
grant for purposes of the proposed provisions establishing BSEE's 
modified approach toward enforcement of such obligations.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered the comments submitted on the proposed section and 
has included the proposed revisions in the final rule without any 
substantive changes.
Who must meet the decommissioning obligations in this subpart? (Sec.  
250.1701)
    This section of the current regulations identifies who is 
responsible and liable for decommissioning obligations.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to add new paragraph (c) to this section and 
redesignate the existing paragraph (c) as paragraph (d). The new 
paragraph (c) would clarify that all holders of an RUE grant are 
jointly and severally liable, along with other liable parties, for 
meeting decommissioning obligations on their RUE, including those 
pertaining to a well, pipeline, platform, or other facility, or an 
obstruction, as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is 
met. BSEE also proposed to revise the current definition of ``you'' in 
existing paragraph (c) (redesignated as paragraph (d) under the 
proposed rule) to include RUE grant holders and predecessors-in-
interest among the parties categorized as ``you'' or ``I'' for purposes 
of the part 250 subpart Q decommissioning regulations. These revisions 
were designed to ensure alignment between Sec.  250.1701 and the other 
proposed revisions to subpart Q.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered the comments submitted on this proposed section and 
has included the proposed revisions in the final rule with two minor 
changes. First, BSEE clarifies in new paragraph (c) that prior owners 
of operating rights who accrued decommissioning obligations for 
facilities or obstructions that remain on an RUE grant are still 
jointly and severally liable until those obligation are met. This 
revision provides consistency with paragraphs (a) and (b). Second, as 
discussed above in section III of this preamble, in response to public 
comment, BSEE has modified the incorporation of predecessors into the 
definitions of ``you'' and ``I'' to attach only ``as appropriate in the 
context of the particular regulation.''
When do I accrue decommissioning obligations? (Sec.  250.1702)
    This section of the current regulations identifies certain 
operations or actions by which decommissioning obligations accrue.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (e) to clarify that all holders 
of a pipeline ROW grant would accrue the obligation to decommission. 
BSEE also proposed to redesignate paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) and 
add a new paragraph (f). Under the proposed paragraph (f), an entity 
would accrue decommissioning obligations when it is or becomes the 
holder of an RUE grant on which there is a well, pipeline, platform, 
other facility, or an obstruction. These proposed changes were designed 
to implement the RUE decommissioning principles discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and to reflect BSEE practice related to 
multiple ROW grant holders.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered the comments submitted on the proposed section and 
has included the proposed revisions in the final rule with a minor 
revision in paragraph (e) to add the word ``grant'' after ``right-of-
way'' to ensure the proper term is utilized correctly.
What are the general requirements for decommissioning? (Sec.  250.1703)
    This section of the current regulations identifies certain steps or 
actions that must be taken when a facility is no longer useful for 
operations.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to revise paragraph (e) to clarify that an RUE grant 
holder must clear the seafloor of all facilities and obstructions 
created by its RUE grant operations. This revision was designed to 
ensure alignment between Sec.  250.1703 and the other proposed 
revisions to subpart Q, including the RUE decommissioning principles 
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered the comments submitted on the proposed section and 
has included the proposed revisions in the final rule with a minor 
correction of a typographical error by replacing the proposed rule's 
reference to ``right-way'' with the appropriate and intended ``right-
of-way.''
What decommissioning applications and reports must I submit and when 
must I submit them? (Sec.  250.1704)
    This section of the current regulations requires submittal of 
specified decommissioning applications and reports. This section also 
identifies the required timeframes to submit the applicable documents 
to BSEE and includes additional instructions.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to add a new paragraph (b) in the table to provide 
that predecessors-in-interest who receive decommissioning orders under 
proposed Sec.  250.1708 must submit a decommissioning plan for BSEE 
approval within 90 days of receiving the order. The proposed Sec.  
250.1708 would require that the decommissioning plan include a scope of 
work and schedule to address wells, pipelines, and platforms. This 
proposed revision reflects the changes in proposed Sec.  250.1708, 
regarding decommissioning plans, discussed below.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    After consideration of the comments received on this proposed 
section and as explained in the responses to comments in section III of 
this preamble, BSEE is extending the timeframe in paragraph (b) for 
order recipients to submit their decommissioning plan from 90 to 150 
days. These changes are necessary to reflect corresponding edits to 
Sec.  250.1708(a). BSEE is also changing the word ``upon'' in the first 
column of the proposed paragraph (b) to the word ``after,'' as a 
grammatical correction, and updating internal regulatory cross-

[[Page 23575]]

references to address the below-discussed changes to Sec.  250.1708.
How will BSEE enforce accrued decommissioning obligations against 
predecessors? (Sec.  250.1708)
    As provided for in the proposed rule, this new section explains how 
BSEE will issue decommissioning orders to predecessors-in-interest for 
accrued decommissioning obligations. Additionally, this section 
clarifies the actions predecessors must take once an order is issued.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to add a new Sec.  250.1708 (in place of the 
currently reserved Sec.  250.1708). Under proposed paragraph (a) of 
this section, BSEE would issue decommissioning orders to predecessor 
lessees and other interest holders in reverse chronological order 
through the chain-of-title when holding such predecessors responsible 
for accrued decommissioning obligations. Also under proposed paragraph 
(a), BSEE would issue such orders to groups of predecessors organized 
according to changes in the designated operator over time, as well as 
to any predecessor who assigned interests to a party that has 
defaulted.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require recipients of such 
predecessor-in-interest orders to identify a single entity to begin 
maintaining and monitoring any facility identified in the order within 
30 days of receiving it. It would also require recipients to designate 
a single entity as the operator for decommissioning operations within 
60 days of receiving the order. Further, it would require recipients to 
submit a decommissioning plan within 90 days of receiving the order 
that included the scope of work and schedule for site clearance of all 
facilities, pipelines, and obstructions identified in the order. 
Finally, proposed paragraph (b) would require recipients to perform the 
required decommissioning in the time and manner specified by BSEE in 
its decommissioning plan approval.
    Proposed paragraph (c) would specify that failure by a predecessor-
in-interest to comply with an order to maintain and monitor a facility 
and to submit a decommissioning plan may result in various enforcement 
actions, including civil penalties and disqualification as an operator.
    Proposed paragraph (d) would allow BSEE to depart from the RCO 
sequence and to issue orders to any or all predecessors-in-interest to 
perform their respective accrued decommissioning obligations when:
    (1) None of the predecessors who had been ordered to perform 
obtained approval of a decommissioning plan or performed 
decommissioning according to an approved decommissioning plan;
    (2) The regional supervisor determined that there was an emergency 
condition, safety concern, or environmental threat, such as improperly 
maintained and monitored facilities, leaking wells or vessels, 
sustained casing pressure on wells, or lack of required valve testing; 
or
    (3) The regional supervisor determined that applying the RCO 
sequence would unreasonably delay decommissioning.
    Proposed paragraph (e) would clarify that BSEE's issuance of 
decommissioning orders to additional predecessors-in-interest does not 
relieve any current lessee or grant holder, or any other predecessor, 
of its obligations to comply with any prior decommissioning order or to 
satisfy its accrued decommissioning obligations.
    Proposed paragraph (f) would provide that the appeal of any 
decommissioning order did not prevent BSEE from proceeding against 
other predecessors under proposed paragraph (d).
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE considered comments on the proposed revisions and has modified 
Sec.  250.1708 of the final rule as discussed here and above in section 
III. BSEE discarded proposed paragraphs (a) and (d) because it is not 
proceeding with the proposed RCO process. Proposed paragraphs (b) and 
(c) are now paragraphs (a) and (b) respectively in the final rule with 
minor revisions. Proposed paragraphs (e) and (f) are redesignated as 
paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively in the final rule.
    BSEE is revising paragraph Sec.  250.1708(a) in the final rule by 
adding ``unless otherwise specified in the order'' to acknowledge its 
authority under existing regulations to order performance on timelines 
other than those established in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3), when 
warranted by the circumstances. See, e.g., Sec. Sec.  250.101, 250.106, 
250.107, 250.1711, and 30 CFR 556.710. BSEE is revising paragraph Sec.  
250.1708(a)(2) in the final rule to allow the designation of an 
operator ``or agent,'' consistent with its current regulation. As 
explained above in section III, in response to comments, BSEE is also 
revising the timeframes in paragraphs Sec.  250.1708(a)(2) and (3) of 
the final rule as follows:
    (2) Designate the operator or agent for the decommissioning 
activities within 90 days of receiving the order; and
    (3) Submit a decommissioning plan to BSEE within 150 days of 
receiving the order.
When do I have to remove platforms and other facilities? (Sec.  
250.1725)
    This section of the current regulations identifies the timeframes 
and certain required actions when removing platforms and facilities.
    Summary of proposed revisions:
    BSEE proposed to expand the first sentence of paragraph (a) to 
provide that an RUE grant holder must remove all platforms and other 
facilities within 1 year after the RUE grant terminates unless the 
grant holder receives approval to maintain the structure to conduct 
other activities. This proposed revision was designed to ensure 
alignment between Sec.  250.1725 and the other proposed revisions to 
part 250 Subpart Q regarding the RUE decommissioning principles 
discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule.
    Summary of final rule revisions:
    BSEE has considered the comments submitted on the relevant topics 
of the proposed section, and BSEE has included the proposed language in 
the final rule without change.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866, 13563 
and 13771)

    E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review 
all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this final rule and determined 
that, with the limited scope of proposed changes being finalized, it is 
no longer a significant action under E.O. 12866.
    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for 
improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, 
and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. 
directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens 
and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where 
these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory 
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes that regulations must be based on the 
best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for 
public participation and an open exchange of ideas. BSEE has developed 
this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulations when there is 
likely to be a significant economic impact on a

[[Page 23576]]

substantial number of small entities and to consider regulatory 
alternatives that will achieve the agency's goals while minimizing the 
burden on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to 
certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the regulation 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    BSEE completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis to assess 
the impact of this final rule on small entities. BSEE concludes its 
changes will not result in any incremental change to the existing 
burdens on small entities. This final rule merely clarifies and aligns 
current regulations regarding accrual of decommissioning liability with 
current policy and practice. The final rule provides clarity and 
transparency regarding the manner in which BSEE enforces those existing 
liabilities. Impacts on individual predecessors-in-interest that BSEE 
may approach in any particular circumstances are highly case-dependent 
and too uncertain to evaluate at a general level. Regardless, the final 
rule largely leaves existing regulation and BSEE practice unchanged.
Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA)
    BSEE did not receive any public comments on the IRFA, or that 
addressed impacts on small businesses.
    In response to public comments on other issues, BSEE discarded its 
proposals to enforce accrued decommissioning obligations against 
predecessor lessees, owners of operating rights, or grant holders in 
RCO following default by the current lessees, owners, or interest 
holders. BSEE also discarded its proposal to require any party 
appealing and seeking to stay a final decommissioning order to post a 
surety bond. Accordingly, any potential impacts on small entities 
arising from these proposed revisions will not be realized.
    This final rule focuses on clarifying the decommissioning 
responsibilities of RUE grant holders and formalizing BSEE's practices 
associated with decommissioning orders to predecessors-in-interest. 
BSEE is making its procedures for enforcing decommissioning compliance 
more transparent. This will provide the affected companies with greater 
certainty regarding when they may be approached and how they will be 
expected to comply with BSEE's decommissioning orders. BSEE considers 
these changes to be a regulatory codification of long-standing 
practice. As a result, BSEE concludes that all companies--large or 
small--operating on the OCS will not face an increased burden over the 
current baseline of regulatory requirements and current practice.
Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of Small 
Entities to Which the Final Rule Will Apply
    The RFA defines a small entity as either a small business, a small 
not-for-profit organization, or a small governmental jurisdiction. BSEE 
determined that the final rule will not impact small not-for-profit 
organizations or small government jurisdictions. Thus this analysis 
focuses on impacts to small businesses.
    The final rule will affect OCS lessees and RUE and pipeline ROW 
grant holders. BSEE adopts and incorporates the relevant analysis from 
BOEM's IRFA analysis. BOEM estimated that 455 companies have ownership 
interests in OCS leases and grants. The definition of small business 
varies from industry to industry to reflect industry size differences. 
Companies that will operate under this final rule are classified 
primarily under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
codes 211120 (``Crude Petroleum Extraction''), 211130 (``Natural Gas 
Extraction''), and 486110 (``Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil and 
Natural Gas''). For NAICS classifications 211120 and 211130, the Small 
Business Administration defines a small business as one with fewer than 
1,250 employees; for NAICS code 486110, as one with fewer than 1,500 
employees. Based on this criterion, approximately 319 (70 percent) of 
the companies subject to this final rule met the definition of a small 
business. All these small businesses are potentially impacted by this 
rule. Therefore, BSEE expects that the final rule will affect a 
substantial number of small entities.
    BSEE notes that small businesses that acquire interests in OCS 
leases and grants do so with full knowledge of the joint and several 
liability regulatory framework. This framework binds them to a 
decommissioning obligation until it is met, even when that obligation 
might be contingent upon an assignee's default. This final rule 
clarifies and aligns BSEE's regulatory framework governing liability 
and decommissioning obligation with its current policy and practice. 
Therefore, BSEE believes the additional cost of this final rule is zero 
for all affected companies, including small businesses, because the 
rule reinforces the current baseline. For these reasons, BSEE believes 
the final rule is unlikely to significantly affect small businesses.

C. Congressional Review Act

    This rule will clarify and add transparency to existing 
requirements. The changes will not have any negative impact on the 
economy or any economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or 
other units of government. The changes codified in the final rule 
clarify interested parties' decommissioning liabilities for facilities 
on RUE grants and provide predecessors-in-interest with explicit 
decommissioning compliance expectations. Accordingly, this rule is not 
a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Congressional Review Act 
because implementation of this rule will not:
    (a) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
    (b) Result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; or
    (c) Result in significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic and export markets.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $189 million per 
year.\1\ This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on 
State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Moreover, 
the rule would not have disproportionate budgetary effects on these 
governments. A statement containing the information required by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required, 
and BSEE has chosen not to prepare such a statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The private-sector cost threshold established in UMRA in 
1996 was $100 million. After adjusting for inflation, the 2022 
private-sector threshold is $189 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 12630)

    This final rule does not effect a taking of private property or 
otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a 
takings implication assessment is not required.

F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not 
have sufficient

[[Page 23577]]

federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact 
statement is not required.

G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all 
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal 
standards.

H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Departmental Policy)

    BSEE strives to strengthen its government-to-government 
relationships with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes through a 
commitment to consultation with the Tribes and recognition of their 
right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We are also respectful 
of our responsibilities for consultation with Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations. We have evaluated the rule under 
the Department's consultation policy, under Departmental Manual part 
512 chapters 4 and 5, and under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and 
determined that there are no substantial direct effects on Tribes.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This final rule contains a collection of information that we have 
submitted to OMB for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, 
and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB previously 
reviewed and approved the information collection requirements in part 
250 Subpart Q and assigned OMB Control Number 1014-0010, which expires 
April 30, 2023. We are seeking OMB renewal of this control number for 
another 3 years.
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 
16, 2020 (85 FR 65904) and solicited comments on the collections of 
information for 60 days. Those comments are discussed below.
    This final rule will add new collections of information under 30 
CFR part 250 Subpart Q related to the decommissioning of oil, gas, and 
sulfur infrastructure on the OCS. These regulatory requirements are the 
subject of this information collection request.
    We use the information collected under Subpart Q to ensure that OCS 
operations are carried out in a safe and environmentally protective 
manner, do not interfere with the rights of other OCS users, and 
balance the conservation and development of OCS resources. The 
following regulatory changes will affect the annual burden hours; 
however, they will not impact non-hour cost burdens.
    The final rule will formalize and make explicit BSEE practice and 
expectations surrounding enforcement of accrued decommissioning 
obligations against predecessors-in-interest following failure to 
perform by current lessees, operating rights holders, and grantees.
Changes to the IC Between the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule Based on 
Comments
    After consideration of the public comments and as explained in 
section III of this preamble, BSEE is extending the timeframe for 
submitting decommissioning plans in new Sec.  250.1708(a) from 90 to 
150 days. The final rule will require all predecessors-in-interest who 
receive a decommissioning order to submit a work plan and schedule as 
directed under Sec. Sec.  250.1704(b) and 250.1708(a). BSEE considers 
this necessary to protect the public from incurring future 
decommissioning costs and to prevent safety and environmental risks 
posed by delayed decommissioning. Within 150 days of receiving a 
decommissioning order under Sec.  250.1708, the recipients must submit 
a work plan and schedule that addresses all wells, platforms, other 
facilities, pipelines, and site clearance. This requirement will add an 
estimated 4,320 annual burden hours to the existing OMB control number 
(+4,320 annual burden hours).
    After consideration of the public comments and as explained in 
section III of this preamble, BSEE is discarding its proposal to 
require any party appealing and seeking a stay of a decommission order 
to post a surety bond.
    Title of Collection: ``Revisions to Regulations under 30 CFR part 
250 Subpart Q--Decommissioning.''
    OMB Control Number: 1014-0010.
    Form Number: None.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Respondents/Affected Public: Potential respondents are Federal OCS 
oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and operators and RUE and ROW grant 
holders.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: Currently, there are 
approximately 550 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulfur lessees and RUE and 
ROW grant holders. Not all the potential respondents will submit 
information in any given year, and some may submit multiple times.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 3,248 responses.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 15,997 hours.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Frequency of Collection: Submissions are generally on occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: $1,143,556.

                                         Burden Table--Burden Breakdown
               [New requirements shown in bold; Changes to existing requirements are italicized.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Annual burden
    Citation 30 CFR part 250      Reporting requirement       Hour burden      Average number of       hours
           subpart Q                        *                                   annual responses     (rounded)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Non-hour cost burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     General
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1704(h); 1706(a), (f); 1712;     These sections contain    APM burden covered under 1014-0026.    ..............
 1715; 1716; 1721(a),(d), (f)-    references to
 (g); 1722(a), (b), (d);          information,
 1723(b); 1743(a); Sub G.         approvals, requests,
                                  payments, etc., which
                                  are submitted with an
                                  Application for
                                  Permit to Modify
                                  (APM), the burdens
                                  for which are covered
                                  under its own
                                  information
                                  collection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1700 thru 1754.................  General departure and     Burden covered under Subpart A 1014-                0
                                  alternative                              0022.
                                  compliance requests
                                  not specifically
                                  covered elsewhere in
                                  Subpart Q.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1703; 1704.....................  Request approval for             Burden included below.                       0
                                  decommissioning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23578]]

 
1704(b); 1708(a)...............  Submit work plan &      1,440...............  3 submittals.....           4,320
                                  schedule under Sec.
                                  250.1708(a) that
                                  addresses all wells,
                                  platforms and other
                                  facilities,
                                  pipelines, and site
                                  clearance within 150
                                  days upon receiving
                                  an order to perform
                                  decommissioning;
                                  additional
                                  information as
                                  requested by BSEE.
1704(j), (k)...................  Submit to BSEE, within  1...................  1,320 summaries             1,320
                                  120 days after                                (including
                                  completion of each                            pipelines)/
                                  decommissioning                               additional
                                  activity (including                           information.
                                  pipelines), a summary
                                  of expenditures
                                  incurred; any
                                  additional
                                  information that will
                                  support and/or verify
                                  the summary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1704(j); NTL...................  Request and obtain      15 min..............  75 requests......              19
                                  approval for
                                  extension of 120-day
                                  reporting period;
                                  including
                                  justification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1704(j)........................  Submit certified            Exempt from the PRA under 5 CFR                   0
                                  statement attesting                  1320.3(i)(1).
                                  to accuracy of the
                                  summary for
                                  expenditures incurred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1712...........................  Required data if         Requirement not considered information               0
                                  permanently plugging     collection under 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(9).
                                  a well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1713...........................  Notify BSEE 48 hours    0.5.................  725 notices......             363
                                  before beginning
                                  operations to
                                  permanently plug a
                                  well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1721(f)........................  Install a protector       Burden covered under subpart I 1014-                0
                                  structure designed                       0011
                                  according to 30 CFR
                                  part 250, Subpart I,
                                  and equipped with
                                  aids to navigation.
                                  (These requests are
                                  processed via the
                                  appropriate platform
                                  application, 30 CFR
                                  part 250 subpart I by
                                  the Office of
                                  Structural and
                                  Technical Support
                                  (OSTS.))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1721(e); 1722(e), (h)(1);        Identify and report          U.S. Coast Guard requirements.                   0
 1741(c).                         subsea wellheads,
                                  casing stubs, or
                                  other obstructions;
                                  mark wells protected
                                  by a dome; mark
                                  location to be
                                  cleared as navigation
                                  hazard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1722(c), (g)(2); 1704(i).......  Notify BSEE within 5    1...................  11 notices.......              11
                                  days if trawl does
                                  not pass over
                                  protective device or
                                  causes damages to it;
                                  or if inspection
                                  reveals casing stub
                                  or mud line
                                  suspension is no
                                  longer protected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1722(f), (g)(3)................  Submit annual report    2.5.................  98 reports.......             245
                                  on plans for re-entry
                                  to complete or
                                  permanently abandon
                                  the well and
                                  inspection report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1722(h)........................  Request waiver of       1.5.................  4 requests.......               6
                                  trawling test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1725(a)........................  Requests to maintain      Burden covered under Subpart I 1014-                0
                                  the structure to                         0011
                                  conduct other
                                  activities are
                                  processed, evaluated
                                  and permitted by the
                                  OSTS via the
                                  appropriate Platform
                                  Application process,
                                  30 CFR part 250
                                  Subpart I. (Other
                                  activities include
                                  but are not limited
                                  to activities
                                  conducted under the
                                  grants of rights-of-
                                  way (ROWs), rights--
                                  of-use and easement
                                  (RUEs), and alternate
                                  use rights-of-use and
                                  easement authority
                                  issued under 30 CFR
                                  part 250 Subpart J,
                                  30 CFR 550.160, or 30
                                  CFR part 585, etc.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1725(e)........................  Notify BSEE 48 hours    0.5.................  133 Notices......              67
                                  before beginning
                                  removal of platform
                                  and other facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1726; 1704(a)..................  Submit initial          20..................  2 applications...              40
                                  decommissioning
                                  application in the
                                  Pacific and Alaska
                                  OCS regions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1727; 1728; 1730; 1703;          Submit final            28..................  153 applications.           4,284
 1704(c); 1725(b).                application and
                                  appropriate data to
                                  remove platform or
                                  other subsea facility
                                  structures (This
                                  included alternate
                                  depth departures and/
                                  or approvals of
                                  partial removal or
                                  toppling for
                                  conversion to an
                                  artificial reef.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       $4,684 fee x 153 = $716,652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1729; 1704(d)..................  Submit post platform    9.5.................  133 Reports......           1,264
                                  or other facility
                                  removal report;
                                  supporting
                                  documentation; signed
                                  statements, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1740; 1741(g)..................  Request approval to     12.75...............  30 requests/                  383
                                  use alternative                               contacts.
                                  methods of well site,
                                  platform, or other
                                  facility clearance;
                                  contact pipeline
                                  owner/operator before
                                  trawling to determine
                                  its condition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1743(b); 1704(g), (i)..........  Verify permanently      5...................  117                           585
                                  plugged well,                                 certifications.
                                  platform, or other
                                  facility removal site
                                  cleared of
                                  obstructions;
                                  supporting
                                  documentation; and
                                  submit certification
                                  letter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1750; 1751; 1752; 1754; 1704(e)  Submit application to   10..................  142 L/T                     1,420
                                  decommission pipeline                         applications.
                                  in place or remove
                                  pipeline (Lease Term
                                  or Right-of-Way).
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23579]]

 
                                                              $1,142 L/T decommission fee x 142 = $162,164.
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                         10..................  122 ROW                     1,220
                                                                                applications.
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            $2,170 ROW decommissioning fees x 122 = $264,740.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1753; 1704(f)..................  Submit post pipeline    2.5.................  180 reports......             450
                                  decommissioning
                                  report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden...............  ......................  ....................  3,248 Responses..   15,997 hours.
                                                                              ----------------------------------
                                                                               $1,143,556 Non-Hour Cost Burdens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L/T = Lease Term.
ROW = Right-of-Way.

J. National Environmental Policy Act

    A detailed environmental analysis under NEPA is not required if a 
rule is covered by a categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 46.205). This 
rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a 
Departmental categorical exclusion because this rule is ``of an 
administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.'' We 
have also determined that the rule does not implicate any of the 
extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require 
further analysis under NEPA.

K. Data Quality Act

    In developing this rule, we did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).

L. Effects on the Nation's Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    Under E.O. 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit to 
OMB a statement of energy effects for ``significant energy actions.'' 
This statement should include details of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price 
increases, and increased use of foreign supplies) expected to result 
from the action and a discussion of reasonable alternatives and their 
effects.
    The rule does not add new regulatory compliance requirements that 
lead to adverse effects on the Nation's energy supply, distribution, or 
use. The rule is not expected to affect the cost of energy. The 
provision regarding decommissioning responsibility for facilities on 
RUE grants does not increase the cost borne by industry but could share 
the financial burden and responsibility among applicable parties in a 
manner consistent with current regulatory and industry practice. 
Moreover, because BSEE's regulatory changes apply only after activities 
(e.g., exploration, development, and production) have ended, those 
changes would not affect the Nation's energy supply, distribution, and 
use. This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition 
in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not 
required.

M. Clarity of This Regulation

    BSEE is required by E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and Presidential 
memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This 
means that each rule BSEE publishes must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    BSEE has drafted this rule in compliance with these requirements.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

    Administrative practice and procedure, Continental shelf, 
Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Federal 
lands, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and 
gas exploration, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Rights-
of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.

Laura Daniel-Davis,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, BSEE amends 30 CFR part 250 
as follows:

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

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

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 U.S.C. 
1321(j)(1)(C); 43 U.S.C. 1334.

Subpart A--General

0
2. Amend Sec.  250.105 by removing the definitions of ``Easement'' and 
``Right-of-use'' and adding, in alphabetical order, the definition for 
``Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  250.105  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE) means a right to use a portion of 
the seabed at an OCS site, other than on a lease you own, to construct, 
secure to the seafloor, use, modify, or maintain platforms, sea floor 
production equipment, artificial islands, facilities, installations, 
and other devices, established to support the exploration, development, 
or production of oil and gas, mineral, or energy resources from an OCS 
or State submerged lands lease.
* * * * *

Subpart Q--Decommissioning Activities

0
3. Amend Sec.  250.1700 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(a)(2) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

[[Page 23580]]

Sec.  250.1700  What do the terms ``decommissioning,'' 
``obstructions,'' ``facility,'' and ``predecessor'' mean in this 
subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Returning the lease, pipeline right-of-way, or the area of a 
right-of-use and easement to a condition that meets the requirements of 
BSEE and other agencies that have jurisdiction over decommissioning 
activities.
* * * * *
    (d) Predecessor means a prior lessee or owner of operating rights, 
or a prior holder of a right-of-use and easement grant or a pipeline 
right-of-way grant, that is liable for accrued obligations on that 
lease or grant.

0
4. Revise Sec.  250.1701 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1701  Who must meet the decommissioning obligations in this 
subpart?

    (a) Lessees, owners of operating rights, and their predecessors are 
jointly and severally liable for meeting decommissioning obligations 
for facilities on leases, including the obligations related to lease-
term pipelines, as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is 
met.
    (b) All holders of a right-of-way grant and their predecessors are 
jointly and severally liable for meeting decommissioning obligations 
for facilities on their right-of-way, including right-of-way pipelines, 
as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is met.
    (c) All right-of-use and easement grant holders and prior lessees 
or owners of operating rights of the parcel on whose leases there 
existed facilities or obstructions that remain on the right-of-use and 
easement grant are jointly and severally liable for meeting 
decommissioning obligations, including obligations for any well, 
pipeline, platform or other facility, or an obstruction, on their 
right-of-use and easement, as the obligations accrue and until each 
obligation is met.
    (d) In this subpart, the terms ``you'' or ``I'' refer to lessees 
and owners of operating rights as to facilities installed under the 
authority of a lease; to pipeline right-of-way grant holders as to 
facilities installed under the authority of a pipeline right-of-way 
grant; and to right-of-use and easement grant holders as to facilities 
constructed, modified, or maintained under the authority of the right-
of-use and easement grant. Predecessors to any of these interest 
holders are also included within the scope of these terms as 
appropriate in the context of the particular regulation.

0
5. Amend Sec.  250.1702 by revising paragraph (e), redesignating 
paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and adding new paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  250.1702  When do I accrue decommissioning obligations?

* * * * *
    (e) Are or become a holder of a pipeline right-of-way grant on 
which there is a pipeline, platform, other facility, or an obstruction;
    (f) Are or become the holder of a right-of-use and easement grant 
on which there is a well, pipeline, platform, other facility, or an 
obstruction; or
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  250.1703 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1703  What are the general requirements for decommissioning?

* * * * *
    (e) Clear the seafloor of all obstructions created by your lease, 
pipeline right-of-way, or right-of-use and easement operations;
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  250.1704 by redesignating paragraphs (b) through (j) as 
paragraphs (c) through (k) respectively, and adding new paragraph (b) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1704  What decommissioning applications and reports must I 
submit and when must I submit them?

* * * * *

             Decommissioning Applications and Reports Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decommissioning applications and
             reports                When to submit       Instructions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
(b) Submit decommissioning plan   Within 150 days of  Include
 per Sec.   250.1708(a)(3) that    receiving an        information
 addresses all wells, platforms    order to perform    required under
 and other facilities,             decommissioning     Sec.
 pipelines, and site clearance     under Sec.          250.1708(a)(2)
 after receiving an order to       250.1708.           and (3).
 perform decommissioning.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
8. Add Sec.  250.1708 to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1708  How will BSEE enforce accrued decommissioning 
obligations against predecessors?

    (a) When BSEE issues an order to predecessors to perform accrued 
decommissioning obligations, the order recipients must, unless 
otherwise specified in the order:
    (1) Within 30 days of receiving the order, begin maintaining and 
monitoring, through a single entity identified to BSEE, any facility, 
including wells and pipelines, as identified by BSEE in the order and 
in accordance with applicable requirements under this part (including, 
but not limited to, testing safety valves and sensors, draining 
vessels, and performing pollution inspections);
    (2) Within 90 days of receiving the order, designate a single 
entity to serve as operator or agent for the decommissioning 
operations;
    (3) Within 150 days of receiving the order, submit through the 
entity identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section a decommissioning 
plan for approval by the Regional Supervisor that includes the scope of 
work and a reasonable decommissioning schedule for all wells, platforms 
and other facilities, pipelines, and site clearance, as identified in 
the order; and
    (4) Perform the required decommissioning in the time and manner 
specified by BSEE in its decommissioning plan approval.
    (b) Failure to comply with the obligations under paragraph (a) of 
this section to maintain and monitor a facility or to submit a 
decommissioning plan may result in a Notice of Incident of 
Noncompliance and potentially other enforcement actions, including 
civil penalties and disqualification as an operator.
    (c) BSEE's issuance of orders to any predecessors will not relieve 
any current lessee or grant holder, or any other predecessor, of its 
obligations to comply with any prior decommissioning order or to 
satisfy any accrued decommissioning obligations.

[[Page 23581]]

    (d) A pending appeal, pursuant to 30 CFR part 290, of any 
decommissioning order does not preclude BSEE from proceeding against 
any or all predecessors other than the appellant.

0
9. Amend Sec.  250.1725 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  250.1725  When do I have to remove platforms and other 
facilities?

    (a) You must remove all platforms and other facilities within 1 
year after the lease, pipeline right-of-way, or right-of-use and 
easement terminates, unless you receive approval to maintain the 
structure to conduct other activities. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-08051 Filed 4-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P