30 C.F.R. § 250.232

What are the I3P review requirements for Conceptual Plan reviews?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In accordance with each applicable Conceptual Plan, the I3P must:

(a) Review the following information regarding the applicable equipment and/or system:

(1) Basis of Design, technical specification of the equipment (if known at this point in the design process) and functional requirements of the specific project (e.g., environmental and physical loads (magnitude and frequency));

(2) Risk assessment and failure mode analysis;

(3) Material specification, selection, qualification, and testing;

(4) Design verification analysis, including:

(i) Structural/strength analysis, and

(ii) Fatigue assessment and/or analysis.

(5) If fatigue is identified as a potential failure mode, as identified in the fatigue assessment and/or analysis in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the plan to record and gather data (load monitoring) in order to conduct a future fatigue analysis;

(6) Design validation testing; and

(7) A fabrication, quality management system, and inspection and test plan that identifies the quality control/quality assurance process, and inspection of the final products.

(b) Submit a report to BSEE documenting the review of each item covered under paragraph (a) of this section. Each report must clearly identify all OEM and operator documents used during the I3P review. The report must also include:

(1) The equipment and/or system's technical specifications, including a statement that the equipment and/or system is fit for purpose for the technical specification by the I3P; and

(2) Verification that the equipment's technical specifications meet or exceed the project's functional requirements, including a statement that the equipment and/or system is fit for purpose for the proposed project by the I3P.

(c) For any new project, you may use previous I3P reviews of equipment and/or systems technical specification that was approved in a previous Conceptual Plan. The Regional Supervisor may accept a final report in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section that includes the following:

(1) A statement that the previous report submitted pursuant to of paragraph (b) of this section remains valid;

(2) Verification that the equipment's technical specifications meet or exceed the proposed project's functional requirements; and

(3) A statement by the I3P that the equipment and/or system is fit for purpose for the proposed project.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2013 · leading case: Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne, 548 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alaska Wilderness League v. Kempthorne, 548 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “MMS then conducts its environmental review pursuant to NEPA, 30 C.F.R. § 250.232 (c), and within thirty days issues a decision approving, disapproving, or requiring modifications to the EP.”

Century Expl. New Orleans, LLC v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 148 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “See 30 C.F.R. § 250.232 (c). The categorical exclusions memorandum did not breach any term of plaintiffs’ lease.”

Alaska Wilderness v. Kempthorne (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “MMS then conducts its environmental review pursuant to NEPA, 30 C.F.R. § 250.232 (c), and within thirty days issues a decision approv- ing, disapproving, or requiring modifications to the EP.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.