BSEE and BOEM propose dropping Arctic same-season relief rig mandate, RIN 1082-AA05, 91 FR 50998

What the record shows

Relief rig or SSID. Revised 30 CFR 250.472 would read: “you must either use a Subsea Isolation Device (SSID) or have access to a relief rig as an additional means to secure the well in the event of a loss of well control” [1]. An SSID and the well’s casing and cementing program would have to be designed to achieve a full shut-in “without causing an underground blowout or having reservoir fluids broach to the seafloor” [1]. The device would have to close and seal the wellbore independent of the blowout preventer, stay on the wellhead if the rig moves off location, and preserve isolation through the winter without relying on the rams’ elastomer elements, for example by using a well cap [1]. Required equipment includes dual shear rams with ram locks, one of them a blind shear ram; a control system independent of the blowout preventer’s, with remotely operated vehicle capability; dedicated subsea accumulators; and two side inlets for intervention [1]. It would be installed below the blowout preventer, at or before the time the preventer is first installed, and tested on the preventer schedule in 30 CFR 250.737 [1].

Operators that keep a relief rig could ask to delay access to it until the last casing point before a zone capable of flowing hydrocarbons in measurable quantities, if their application for permit to drill shows they will not encounter abnormally high-pressured zones or other geologic hazards [1]. The rule would also drop the tie to “expected seasonal ice encroachment,” basing timeframes on the rig’s capability in the ice conditions instead [1].

Containment equipment. The capping stack would still have to be positioned to reach the well within 24 hours of a loss of well control, with the same casing-point delay available [1]. The requirement that the containment dome and cap-and-flow system be positioned to arrive within seven days would be eliminated, though operators would still have to show access to that equipment, meet BSEE standards, test it and keep records [1].

Geography. The “Arctic OCS” would cover every planning area with any part north of 66°33′ N latitude [1]. That adds the Hope Basin Planning Area and the High Arctic Planning Area, which BOEM created in April 2025, to the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea areas the 2016 rule covered [1, 2].

Other changes. BOEM would eliminate the separate Integrated Operations Plan, moving some of its content into the exploration plan [1]. BSEE would remove references to the regional supervisor’s discretion to require capture of water-based muds and cuttings, citing overlap with EPA regulation; clarify that operators may propose alternatives to mudline cellars in ice-scour areas; align Arctic real-time monitoring with the requirements elsewhere on the OCS; and incorporate ASME B30.5-2021 for mobile cranes on artificial islands [1].

Lease suspensions. A new paragraph (d) in 30 CFR 250.175 would let BSEE grant a suspension of operations to an operator conducting drilling but prevented from finishing leaseholding operations by seasonal conditions unique to Alaska [1]. The suspension would stop the lease clock and extend the term by the same period [1]. BSEE would also add suspensions of production for unitized Alaska OCS leases, without the usual commitment to production, while lessees complete initial or continuing development obligations [1]. The preamble calls the 10-year maximum term for Alaska OCS leases “inadequate” to explore and reach sustained production without suspensions [1].

Costs. The bureaus classify the proposal as economically significant under E.O. 12866 and as deregulatory under E.O. 14192 [1]. They estimate annualized net benefits of $161 million in a “Full Arctic OCS Case” of up to about 70 wells from 2030 through 2049, and $137 million in a “Limited Arctic Case” of up to 36 nearshore Beaufort Sea wells, both at a 7 percent discount rate [1]. More than 99 percent of the net benefits come from the section 250.472 change, which the bureaus attribute to removing the 45-day shoulder season and the second drilling vessel [1]. They put annualized forgone benefits, mainly the risk of a longer spill if the blowout preventer, SSID and capping stack all fail, at $0.11 million and $0.06 million in the two cases [1].

Where it sits in the process

The 2016 rule took effect September 13, 2016 [2]. Its preamble assumed the relief rig requirement would shorten an estimated 116-day drilling season by 34 days and put shoulder-season costs at $84.42 million a year in years two and three and $177.95 million a year in years four through 10 [2].

At the request of Energy Secretary Rick Perry, made August 29, 2018, in coordination with Interior, the National Petroleum Council sent a supplemental Arctic assessment on April 26, 2019 [6]. The bureaus proposed revisions on December 9, 2020 [3], then withdrew that proposal in its entirety on June 29, 2021 [4]. The new preamble attributes the withdrawal to “a change in administration and policy” and ties the current proposal to E.O. 14153 and E.O. 14154, both signed in January 2025, and to Secretary’s Orders 3422 and 3418 [1]. Lanny E. Erdos, director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, signed the rule exercising the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management [1].

What happens before the Arctic drilling rule is final?

Comments to BSEE are due October 5; comments to OMB on information-collection burdens are due September 8 [1]. The bureaus consider the rulemaking a major federal action under NEPA and will update the environmental assessment prepared for the 2020 proposal, but “will not be publishing a draft EA for the proposed rule” [1]. They found the rule may have substantial direct effects on Alaska Native tribes and ANCSA corporations and plan to invite consultation by letter [1]. For the 2020 effort, the bureaus met with 23 of 25 invited Alaska Native entities between November 29, 2018, and January 30, 2019 [1]. The cost analysis assumes the rule is finalized in 2026 and that no drilling occurs before 2030 [1].

Positions on the record

The National Petroleum Council, an advisory committee to the Energy Secretary whose membership spans the oil and gas industries, wrote in 2019 that the same-season relief well requirement “is outdated” and that SSIDs and capping stacks “should be accepted in place of the requirement for same season relief well capability” [1, 6]. The council also called the 10-year primary lease term inadequate, saying exploration and development take 20 years or more, and noted that the last Beaufort Sea lease sale was in 2007 and the last Chukchi Sea sale in 2008 [6].

The 2016 rule answered an earlier council study by saying the bureaus found several of its statements “without support,” the relief-well claim among them [2]. The new preamble relies on the 2019 assessment and a 2018 BSEE-commissioned study by Bratslavsky and SolstenXP, and says neither was available in 2016 [1].

Interior’s announcement quoted Matt Giacona, acting director of the Marine Minerals Administration: “The Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf contains some of America’s most promising offshore resources” [5]. The preamble says the Chukchi Sea Planning Area holds 29.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil equivalent, which it says leads BOEM’s 2026 national assessment [1]. It also notes that Beaufort and Chukchi villages have raised concerns that vessel presence and noise could interfere with bowhead whale migration and subsistence harvests [1].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When are comments due on the Arctic exploratory drilling rule revisions?

October 5, 2026, through regulations.gov under Docket ID BSEE-2026-0133 or by mail referencing RIN 1082-AA05 [1]. Comments to OMB on the information-collection burden are due September 8, 2026 [1].

Would Arctic offshore operators still need a relief rig?

Only if they choose it. Operators drilling from a mobile offshore drilling unit would either install a subsea isolation device meeting new design and equipment standards or keep access to a relief rig [1].

Which Alaska offshore areas would the revised rule cover?

Every OCS planning area with any part north of 66 degrees 33 minutes north latitude, which adds the Hope Basin and the new High Arctic planning areas to the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea areas covered since 2016 [1, 2].

How much do the bureaus say the Arctic drilling rule changes would save?

Annualized net benefits of $161 million under a scenario with leasing in both the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, or $137 million under a nearshore-Beaufort-only scenario, at a 7 percent discount rate [1]. More than 99 percent comes from the relief rig and shoulder-season change [1].

Does the proposal approve any Arctic lease sale or drilling?

No. Interior said the proposal does not approve any specific lease sale, exploration plan, permit or drilling activity [5].

Note on sourcing

This report rests on the proposed rule as published at 91 FR 50998 and on the Interior Department's announcement. The regulatory impact analysis is described here only as the preamble summarizes it; the preamble points readers to a docket labeled "BSEE-2026-ABCD" for that analysis, while the rule's own docket is BSEE-2026-0133. The preamble gives the planned Arctic lease sales as falling between 2026 and 2031 in one passage and between 2026 and 2030 in another. The cost figures are the bureaus' scenario estimates, not forecasts, and the bureaus say realized savings would be lower or zero if no Arctic exploratory drilling occurs. No public statements from Alaska Native tribes, ANCSA corporations, North Slope local governments, environmental organizations or industry groups on this proposal had appeared in the record as of publication; earlier tribal input is described in the 2020 proposal, which this report does not draw on beyond its summary.

Sources

1. Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, proposed rule, 91 FR 50998 (FR Doc. 2026-15953)Federal Register (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), August 6, 2026 · federalregister.gov
2. Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, final rule, 81 FR 46478 (FR Doc. 2016-15699)Federal Register (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), July 15, 2016 · federalregister.gov
3. Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf--Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, proposed rule, 85 FR 79266 (FR Doc. 2020-25818)Federal Register (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), December 9, 2020 · federalregister.gov
4. Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf--Revisions to the Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, withdrawal of proposed rule, 86 FR 34172 (FR Doc. 2021-13803)Federal Register (Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management), June 29, 2021 · federalregister.gov
5. Department of the Interior Proposes Targeted Updates to Arctic Exploratory Drilling Rule to Advance American Energy DominanceU.S. Department of the Interior, August 3, 2026 · doi.gov
6. Supplemental Assessment to the 2015 Report Arctic Potential: Realizing the Promise of U.S. Arctic Oil and Gas ResourcesNational Petroleum Council, April 26, 2019 · npcarcticreport.org

Subject headings

• BSEE
• BOEM
• Interior
• Arctic
• offshore drilling
• Alaska
• rulemaking

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

1. Oct. 19, 2026No. 0028 · Lease notice · 2 shared headingsBOEM proposes Cook Inlet oil and gas Lease Sale BBC2 for March 3, 2027, on terms fixed by statute, Docket BOEM-2026-0925
2. Sept. 9, 2026No. 0022 · Report · 2 shared headingsBLM proposes 60-day permitting track for NPR-A oil production sites, RIN 1004-AF57, 91 FR 57091
3. Sept. 1, 2026No. 0020 · Record of decision · 1 shared headingOSM approves Navajo Mine No Name coal permit application in combined final EIS and record of decision, 91 FR 56204