Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 1521 

must state your preference prominently 

at the beginning of your comment. All 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

Authority: This NOA was prepared under 

Council on Environmental Quality NEPA 

regulations, 40 CFR 1500–1508 (as in place 

before July 16, 2020) and published in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 

46.435. 

William Yancey Brown, 

Chief Environmental Officer, Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00100 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement 

[Docket ID BSEE–2020–0015; 21XE8370SD// 

EEGG600000//ED1OS0000.ERD000] 

Notice of Public Comment Period 

AGENCY: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI), Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) is 

conducting an independent external 

peer review of a recent study titled, 

OSRR 1063: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 

Report: Computational Fluid Dynamics 

(CFD) Model for Predicting Wellhead 

Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and 

Intermediate Scales: Interim Report 

(July 30, 2020). This peer review will 

aid BSEE gather input from the 

scientific community on the technical 

methodologies and results in this 

interim final report. Background 

information on BSEE’s Oil Spill 

Response Research (OSRR) 1063 study 

is provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. Information 

regarding BSEE’s peer-review process is 

available at: https://www.bsee.gov/whatwe-do/research/peer review. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before February 

8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on 

this notice by either of the following 

methods listed below: 

• Electronically go to http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter BSEE–2020–0015 then click 

search. Follow the instructions to 

submit public comments and view all 

related materials. We will post all 

comments. 

Written comments should be 

submitted on or before February 8, 2021. 

Relevant public comments within the 

BSEE Charge for the scope of this peer 

review (outline below) and directly 

addressing the scientific and technical 

issues in BSEE’s 13 Charge Questions 

(outlined below) will be provided to the 

peer reviewers. BSEE may not be able to 

fully consider comments submitted after 

February 8, 2021. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

name, contact (phone, and/or email) by 

one of the following methods: 

• Mail: Karen N. Stone, Program 

Manager, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement, Oil Spill 

Preparedness Division, Response 

Research Branch, 45600 Woodland 

Road, VAE–OSPD, Sterling, VA 20166. 

Email: karen.stone@bsee.gov. Do not 

submit information considered to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute to BSEE 

electronically through email. Please 

contact the BSEE staff listed under the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section for special instructions before 

submitting comments considered to be 

CBI or otherwise protected. 

To provide public involvement in this 

peer-review process, BSEE is 

announcing and inviting written public 

comments on the scientific and 

technical merit of the interim OSRR 

1063 report. The interim OSRR 1063 

report is available on BSEE’s OSRR 

website located at: https://

www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/oilspill-preparedness/oil-spill-responseresearch. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen N. Stone, Program Manager, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 

Oil Spill Preparedness Division, 

Response Research Branch, 45600 

Woodland Road, VAE–OSPD, Sterling, 

VA 20166. 

Telephone number: (703) 787–1810. 

Email address: karen.stone@bsee.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

BSEE Charge for the Scope of This Peer 

Review 

In order to focus the peer-review 

process effectively on the 13 Charge 

Questions, BSEE has carefully defined 

the scope of this peer review for the 

Interim report of the BSEE Study titled, 

OSRR 1063: Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 

Report: Computational Fluid Dynamics 

(CFD) Model for Predicting Wellhead 

Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and 

Intermediate Scales: Interim Report 

(July 30, 2020). Written comments 

should stay within the BSEE Scope 

defined below. 

The scope of this peer review focuses 

only on the scientific and technical 

merit of the assumptions, inputs, 

methodologies, modeling with 

experimental validation, and results for 

the BSEE study titled, OSRR 1063: BSEE 

Report: Computational Fluid Dynamics 

(CFD) Model for Predicting Wellhead 

Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and 

Intermediate Scales: Interim Report 

(July 30, 2020). This peer review is 

scientific and technical in nature and 

includes reviewing the methods, 

assumptions, data quality, the strengths 

of any inferences made, and the overall 

strengths and limitations of the study. 

The peer-review scope includes the 

material, fabrication, computations, 

testing, engineering factors, modeling 

with experimental validation, results, 

and final recommendations generated 

from the OSRR 1063 study. 

The following are considered Out-ofScope for this peer review and will not 

be considered during this peer-review 

process: 

• General comments related to 

intentional wellhead ignition as a 

primary response method, because this 

peer review is focused only on the 

methods and approach for predicting 

wellhead burn efficiency at the bench 

and intermediate scales. 

• Comments on, or suggestions for, 

alternate modeling methods to predict 

wellhead burn efficiencies except for 

comments on any omissions or errors 

identified in the specific methods used 

for modeling and experimental 

validations of the model in the OSRR 

1063 study referenced above because 

this peer review focuses on the research 

already completed for this OSRR 1063 

study. 

• Comments related to BSEE policies, 

decisions, or current or proposed BSEE 

regulations. 

Public comments should focus on the 

scientific and technical merit of the 

OSRR 1063 study and be organized 

under BSEE’s 13 Charge Questions. 

BSEE Charge Questions 

1. Were the objectives of the study 

clearly defined? If not, what are your 

recommendations for improving the 

description of this study’s objectives? 

2. Were the assumptions regarding 

wellhead conditions and two-phase 

wellbore flow (including film thickness 

and instability, liquid entrainment, and 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
1522 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 

droplet diameter and its influence on 

wellhead ejection behavior) adequately 

characterized? Were there any apparent 

strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 

errors? Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

3. Was the physical model for multiphase flow adequately developed to 

capture the liquid droplet phase and the 

gas-phase flow field? Were the soot and 

radiation models adequately 

characterized? Were Lagrangian droplet 

dynamics and thermophysics 

adequately incorporated into the model? 

Were there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

4. Does the droplet injection model 

adequately simulate realistic diameters 

and velocities of two-phase, high-speed 

flows that would occur during a 

wellhead blowout event? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

5. Does the validation process capture 

the controlling physical properties to a 

sufficient level of accuracy, including 

transport and boundary conditions at 

the bench- and intermediate-scales for 

both gas-phase and two-phase turbulent 

spray? Were there any apparent 

strengths, weaknesses, omissions, or 

errors? Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

6. Were the phase doppler 

anemometry and diffuse back-light 

illumination imaging diagnostic 

methods (6.1.1 and 6.1.2 below) for the 

droplet behavior measurements 

appropriately designed, clearly 

described, and adequate to capture 

droplet behavior for the Gas Phase and 

Two-Phase Spray Flame? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

6.1.1. Phase Doppler Anemometry 

6.1.2. Diffuse Back-Illumination Imaging 

7. Were the diagnostic methods (7.1.1 

and 7.1.2 below) for the temperature 

measurements appropriately designed, 

clearly described, and adequate to 

capture temperature for the Gas Phase 

and Two-Phase Spray Flame? Were 

there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

7.1.1. Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman 

Spectrometry-based Thermometry 

(CARS) 

7.1.2. 3-Color High-Speed Pyrometry 

8. Do the results adequately 

characterize evidence of the droplet 

characteristics, including droplet 

breakup, the droplet size (diameter), 

droplet speed, and the duration of a 

droplet in fire (bench- and intermediatescales)? Does the research product 

accurately expand predictions of droplet 

diameters beyond current limited 

validated ranges? Were there any 

apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

9. Does the research product 

accurately characterize the impact of 

two-phase flow regimes (bubble, slug, 

and churn) on the effluent plume 

(bench- and intermediate-scales)? Were 

there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Provide an explanation for your 

answers. 

10. Does the research product 

adequately address how the wellbore 

flow would influence the ejected spray 

plume behavior, which directly 

influences how the oil and gas burns 

and how much will either fall back to 

the surface or remain vapor? Were there 

any apparent strengths, weaknesses, 

omissions, or errors? Explain your 

answers. 

11. Does the research product 

accurately predict the length of fire 

plume, location of flame anchoring, 

height of flame, width/angle, expansion, 

etc.? Were there any apparent strengths, 

weaknesses, omissions, or errors? 

Explain your answers. 

12. Does the research product 

determine the primary mechanism 

driving burn efficiency? 

13. Were the conclusions based on the 

OSRR 1063 study findings in the report 

logical and appropriate based on the 

results? What other conclusions related 

to the study were made and are 

appropriate? Are there any additional 

study findings or conclusions that could 

be drawn from the study? Provide an 

explanation for your answers. 

Background on OSRR 1063 Study 

BSEE oversees oil spill planning and 

preparedness for oil and gas 

exploration, development, and 

production facilities in both state and 

Federal offshore waters of the United 

States. BSEE’s Oil Spill Preparedness 

Division (OSPD) is responsible for 

promulgating regulations pursuant to 

BSEE’s delegated authority under the 

Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1321), 

and implementing those regulations (30 

CFR part 254). 

To receive the necessary approvals 

under 30 CFR part 254, operators of oil 

and gas facilities operating seaward of 

the coastline must demonstrate that they 

are prepared to respond to a loss of well 

control event and a ‘‘worst case’’ 

discharge release (30 CFR 254.26; 

254.51–.53). For decades, intentional 

wellhead ignition has been viewed as a 

possible source control method for wellhead blowouts in ice-bound 

environments. BSEE is researching this 

response method to better understand 

its efficiencies and limitations in the 

North Slope area of Alaska. As part of 

this review process, BSEE contracted 

the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory 

(NRL) to first conduct a review of an 

interested party’s report and related 

scientific literature and provide 

preliminary technical guidance on the 

feasibility of wellhead burning as a 

mitigation method. The review suggests 

scientific evidence is lacking to fully 

support claims that wellhead burning 

would be highly efficient and would 

result in little to no unburned oil fallout 

for the proposed project. BSEE then 

contracted NRL to conduct a scientific 

research project. The research project’s 

primary objective was to develop a CFD 

model of wellhead burning validated 

with experimental data at multiple 

scales. BSEE is seeking an independent 

peer review of the interim final NRL 

report for this research program titled 

OSRR 1063: BSEE Report: CFD Model 

for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning 

Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate 

Scales: Interim Report (July 30, 2020). 

BSEE considers this study to be a 

highly influential scientific assessment. 

Scott A. Angelle, 

Director, Bureau of Safety and Environmental 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00148 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–VH–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1469 (Final)] 

Wood Mouldings and Millwork 

Products From Brazil; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On January 4, 2021, the 

Department of Commerce published 

notice in the Federal Register of a 

negative final determination of sales at 

less than fair value in connection with 

the subject investigation concerning 

Brazil (86 FR 70). Accordingly, the 

antidumping duty investigation 

concerning wood mouldings and 

millwork products from Brazil 

(Investigation No. 731–TA–1469 (Final)) 

is terminated. 

DATES: January 4, 2021. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES