Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40069 

amended. Accordingly, the amendment 

is effective August 11, 2009. 

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations 

(Government agencies). 

Text of Amendment 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 200—ORGANIZATION; 

CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND 

INFORMATION AND REQUESTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 200, 

subpart A, continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77o, 77s, 77sss, 78d, 

78d–1, 78d–2, 78w, 78ll(d), 78mm, 80a–37, 

80b–11, and 7202, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. Section 200.30–4 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as 

follows: 

§ 200.30–4 Delegation of authority to 

Director of Division of Enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(13) For the period from August 11, 

2009 through August 11, 2010, to order 

the making of private investigations 

pursuant to section 19(b) of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77s(b)), 

section 21(b) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(b)), section 

42(b) of the Investment Company Act of 

1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–41(b) and section 

209(b) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–9(b)). Orders issued 

pursuant to this delegation during this 

period will continue to have effect after 

August 11, 2010. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 5, 2009. 

By the Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–19116 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 2 

Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances; 

Epinephrine 

CFR Correction 

In Title 21 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 1 to 99, revised as of 

Apr. 1, 2009, on page 66, § 2.125(e)(2)(v) 

is reinstated as follows: 

§ 2.125 Use of ozone-depleting substances 

in foods, drugs, devices, or cosmetics. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Epinephrine. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19297 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Minerals Management Service 

30 CFR Part 250 

[Docket ID: MMS–2008–OMM–0023] 

RIN 1010–AD55 (Formerly AD50) 

Technical Changes to Production 

Measurement and Training 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service 

(MMS), Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule will revise the 

production measurement regulations to 

establish meter proving, meter 

verification/calibration, and well test 

requirements after hurricanes and other 

events beyond the control of the lessee. 

This rulemaking will eliminate some 

reporting burden on industry, and it 

will eliminate the need for MMS to 

grant waivers to the reporting 

requirements in certain situations. The 

final rule will also add new definitions 

providing clarity in the training 

regulations, which should lead to 

improved training of Outer Continental 

Shelf workers. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes 

effective on September 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Ensele, Regulations and 

Standards Branch, at (703) 787–1583. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 17, 2008, MMS published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 

Federal Register entitled ‘‘Technical 

Changes to Production Measurement 

and Training Requirements’’ (73 FR 

53793). The comment period for that 

proposed rule closed on November 17, 

2008. In response to the proposed rule, 

MMS received seven sets of comments. 

One entity submitted two responses. 

The commenters included two trade 

organizations (Offshore Operators 

Committee (OOC) and National Ocean 

Industries Association (NOIA)), two 

energy companies, one industry training 

company, and one individual. We have 

posted all of the comments received on 

our Web site at: http://www.mms.gov/

federalregister/PublicComments/

TechnicalChangestoProduction

MeasurementTraining.htm. 

We considered all of the comments 

we received on the proposed rule. 

Following is a discussion of the relevant 

comments MMS received: 

Revisions to Subpart L—Oil and Gas 

Production Measurement, Surface 

Commingling, and Security 

We received suggestions from two 

entities regarding the proposed 

revisions to subpart L. The NOIA and 

OOC appreciate that the proposed rule 

will eliminate requirements for having 

to obtain certain waivers following force 

majeure events and suggested that 

similar revisions be made to the testing 

requirements in subpart H, Oil and Gas 

Production Safety Systems. Since we 

did not propose this change to subpart 

H, we cannot incorporate it into this 

final rulemaking. We will consider this 

suggestion in a future rulemaking. 

The OOC provided additional 

suggestions. The OOC suggested that 

language be added to each of the 

following four paragraphs: 

1. In § 250.1202(d)(3) add ‘‘and 

monthly thereafter but do not exceed 42 

days between meter factor 

determinations.’’ The OOC states this 

would make clear that this is not a make 

up proving, and the time starts over 

with the proving after returning to 

service. 

2. In § 250.1202(k)(3) revise the 

ending to read ‘‘* * * within 15 days 

after being returned to service and 

monthly thereafter.’’ The OOC states 

that this should be added for clarity. 

3. In § 250.1202(k)(4) revise the 

ending to read ‘‘* * * within 15 days 

after being returned to service and 

quarterly thereafter.’’ The OOC states 

that this should be added for clarity. 

4. In § 250.1204(b)(1) revise the 

ending to read ‘‘* * * within 15 days 

after being returned to service and 

bimonthly (or other frequency approved 

by the Regional Supervisor) thereafter.’’ 

The OOC states that this should be 

added for clarity. 

We agree with these suggestions, and 

will incorporate them in the final rule. 

Since § 250.1203(c)(1) was similarly 

worded, we incorporated OOC’s 

language in the regulatory text there 

also. 

The OOC also suggested that the force 

majeure waiver should be applied to the 

testing requirements for the master 

meter in § 250.1202(e)(3). We did not 

make this revision because we do not 

believe it is appropriate for a master 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

meter used in royalty meter provings. 

Only 3 percent of the sales metering 

locations in the Gulf of Mexico use 

master meters for meter proving and a 

departure has never been requested to 

the best of our knowledge. We will deal 

with any departure requests on these 

master meters on a case-by-case basis. 

In addition to the changes we made in 

response to the NOIA and OOC’s 

comments, in § 250.1203(c)(1), we have 

changed the terms ‘‘calibrate,’’ 

‘‘calibrations,’’ and ‘‘calibrated’’ to 

‘‘verify/calibrate,’’ ‘‘verification/ 

calibration,’’ and ‘‘verified/calibrated’’ 

to be consistent with the revision of the 

definition promulgated on April 15, 

2008 (73 FR 20171). We also added the 

word ‘‘operating’’ before ‘‘allocation 

meters’’ in § 250.1202(k)(3) and (k)(4) 

because it appears in the existing 

regulation but was inadvertently 

omitted from the proposed rule and 

added it before ‘‘meters’’ in (c)(1) for 

consistency. In addition, we added the 

phrase ‘‘the previous month’’ in 

§ 250.1202(k)(3) and (4) after ‘‘per 

meter’’ in each subparagraph. This 

clarifies that the daily average (the 

volume measured by the particular 

meter for the month divided by the 

number of days in that month) is based 

on the previous month. In 

§ 250.1204(b)(1), we changed the 2- 

month time period to 60 days. In the 

existing regulation, 2 months is defined 

parenthetically as 60 days. We also 

changed the word ‘‘service’’ to 

‘‘production’’ to more accurately 

describe the function of wells. 

Revisions to Subpart O—Well Control 

and Production Safety Training 

We received comments and 

suggestions from four entities regarding 

the revisions to subpart O. The training 

company agreed with the proposed 

revisions. The OOC submitted the 

following general comment regarding 

the proposed rule: 

OOC is of the opinion that the vast 

majority of the OCS workforce is well trained 

and capable of performing their specific jobs. 

The fact that MMS interviews, in MMS’s 

opinion, indicated a poorer understanding of 

MMS regulations and the training 

requirements does not directly relate to the 

offshore workers ability to perform specific 

jobs on a complex. Likewise, INCs issued 

during audits have primarily been associated 

with training requirements for contractors 

being spelled out, recordkeeping and 

documentation. OOC is not aware of any 

INCs or incidents offshore that have been the 

result of lack of training. MMS testing of a 

very small sample of 3 employees in well 

control and 3 in production safety systems 

two years ago is also not an indicator of lack 

of understanding of MMS requirements given 

the large number of offshore workers (30,000 

or more in any given day). It is OOC’s 

opinion that the preamble discussion 

associated with this Subpart O revision does 

not accurately portray the current capability 

of the offshore workforce. A large portion of 

MMS complaints are in the area of field 

personnel not knowing in detail all of the 

training program requirements and timing 

that were drafted by office personnel to meet 

compliance needs. It would seem that it 

should be more important for the field 

personnel to know what to do and why they 

are doing it than to know that they have to 

be re-trained XX number of months apart. 

Since publishing the proposed rule on 

September 17, 2008, MMS has 

developed and implemented a subpart 

O pilot testing program, in accordance 

with the current subpart O regulations 

(30 CFR 250.1507(c)). As part of this 

pilot test program, MMS developed a 

series of five written production tests 

designed to evaluate both lessee and 

contract personnel involved with Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) production 

safety operations. These tests were 

developed to evaluate an employee’s 

understanding of not only basic 

production safety devices, such as 

surface and subsurface safety 

equipment, but additional areas of 

production operations, including 

separation, dehydration, compression, 

sweetening, and metering. 

In recent years, MMS has been 

concerned that the majority of in-house 

and third-party-led production training 

schools focus their efforts primarily on 

surface and subsurface safety equipment 

testing and installation and reporting 

requirements, and not on other equally 

important aspects of offshore oil and gas 

production operations, including, but 

not limited to, separation, dehydration, 

compression, sweetening, and metering 

activities. The pilot testing program was 

designed in part to evaluate these other 

components of production operations. 

From the period of November 1, 2008, 

through January 31, 2009, MMS 

conducted 31 written production tests 

on the OCS in both the Gulf of Mexico 

and Pacific Regions. Though all 

personnel passed these tests in 

accordance with MMS grading policies 

(e.g., passing is a score greater than 70 

percent; the lowest score received was 

a 74 percent by a lead production 

operator), there were problem areas 

identified, which validates our concern 

about the knowledge of the other 

components of production operations. 

The majority of the questions answered 

incorrectly on the 31 written production 

tests fall within the following five 

categories: 

1. Equipment test intervals for 

temperature safety highs (TSH) on 

compressors and fired components; 

2. Equipment test intervals for burner 

safety lows (BSL) and tubing plugs; 

3. Wellhead components, including 

casing valves and casing heads; 

4. Pressure relief valve settings on oil 

and gas separators; and 

5. Lease automatic custody transfer 

(LACT) units. 

The MMS believes that the original 

test results presented in the proposed 

rule and the results of the additional 

testing mentioned above indicate a lack 

of understanding of the regulations 

covering production and drilling 

operations safety by offshore workers. 

The results also indicate a lack of 

understanding of the training 

regulations by industry. Therefore, we 

believe the minor changes to the 

training regulations in this final rule are 

necessary to emphasize the importance 

of knowledge of MMS regulations and 

the importance of periodic training and 

assessment of training needs for lessees, 

operators, and contract personnel. 

The proposed revisions consisted of 

adding two new definitions (contractor 

and periodic) to subpart O, and revising 

one existing definition (production 

safety). The following is the definition 

of contractor from the proposed rule: 

Contractor means anyone performing 

work for the lessee. However, these 

requirements do not apply to 

contractors providing domestic services 

to the lessee or other contractors. 

Domestic services include janitorial 

work, food and beverage service, 

laundry service, housekeeping, and 

similar activities. 

The OOC suggested that a more 

concise definition be used as follows: 

Contractor means anyone other than 

an employee performing well control 

and production safety duties for the 

lessee. 

The OOC stated that this definition is 

consistent with the definition of 

employee in subpart O. It also 

delineates between those contractors 

performing well control or production 

safety operations (required to have 

training by subpart O) and those 

contractors not performing well control 

or production safety operations, such as 

providers of domestic services, painters, 

inspectors, etc., and others the lessee 

may utilize in conducting day-to-day 

operations. We agree with this 

suggestion. Additionally, the existing 

regulations also use the term contract 

personnel, so we have added that to the 

definition of contractor. The revised 

definition is as follows: 

Contractor and contract personnel 

mean anyone, other than an employee of 

the lessee, performing well control or 

production safety duties for the lessee. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40071 

Following is the definition of periodic 

from the proposed rule: 

Periodic means occurring or recurring 

at regular intervals. Each lessee must 

specify the intervals for periodic 

training and periodic assessment of 

training needs in their training 

programs. 

The OOC noted that the second 

sentence is not a definition, but is a 

reminder of requirements found 

elsewhere in subpart O. We agree with 

OOC that the second sentence is not a 

definition, but the reason for proposing 

this definition was to remind the lessees 

of those requirements for periodic 

training and periodic assessment of 

training needs. Some lessees were not 

conducting the periodic training and 

assessment requirements. We will leave 

the reminder in the definition. 

The following is the definition of 

production safety from the proposed 

rule: 

Production safety includes safety in 

production operations, as well as the 

installation, repair, testing, 

maintenance, and operation of surface 

or subsurface safety devices. Production 

operations include, but are not limited 

to, separation, dehydration, 

compression, sweetening, and metering 

operations. 

Two commenters suggested that this 

definition would be difficult to apply 

and cause uncertainty. One of them 

suggested using the definition of 

production safety in MMS Notice to 

Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 2008– 

N03, Well Control and Production 

Safety Training. The OOC suggested a 

definition of production safety that was 

consistent with the definition in the 

NTL. The following is the definition 

from NTL No. 2008–N03: 

Production safety means production 

operations, as well as the installation, 

repair, testing, maintenance, or 

operation of surface or subsurface safety 

devices. Production operations include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

separation, dehydration, compression, 

sweetening, and metering operations. 

We agree that the proposed definition 

could cause uncertainty, and we also 

believe that the definition in the NTL 

can be improved for use in this final 

rule. Therefore, we have revised the 

proposed definition of production safety 

for the final rule as follows: 

Production safety includes measures, 

practices, procedures, and equipment to 

ensure safe, accident-free, and 

pollution-free production operations, as 

well as installation, repair, testing, 

maintenance, and operation of surface 

and subsurface safety devices. Production operations include, but are not 

limited to, separation, dehydration, 

compression, sweetening, and metering 

operations. 

One of the energy companies asked if 

it is our intent to include safety related 

to hazard communications, hearing 

conservation, water survival, etc., in this 

rulemaking. This definition excludes 

hazard communication, hearing 

conservation, water survival, and other 

similar types of safety. Most of those 

topics may be covered in a future 

rulemaking dealing with safety and 

environmental management issues. (See 

proposed rule published on June 17, 

2009, 74 FR 28639). 

Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order (E.O.) 12866) 

This final rule is not a significant rule 

as determined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and is 

not subject to review under E.O. 12866. 

(1) This final rule will not have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy. It will not adversely affect 

in a material way the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities. The revisions to the 

production measurement regulations 

will only have a small positive effect on 

industry in the event of a hurricane or 

other incident beyond the control of the 

lessee that results in a facility being off 

production for an extended period of 

time. The revisions to the training 

regulations will cause some lessees and 

operators to revise their training 

programs. We estimate that 50 of the 

130 lessees and/or operators have 

already modified their training plans, 

and will not be affected by the revisions 

to subpart O. The remaining 80 lessees 

and/or operators will have to modify 

their training plans. Of the 80 lessees 

and/or operators, MMS estimates that 56 

are small businesses, and that 24 are 

large companies. The majority of small 

operators have an off-the-shelf type 

training plan. The MMS estimates that 

a modification to this type of plan 

would cost about $500. The large 

companies would most likely revise 

their training plans in-house at a 

slightly lower cost than revising an offthe-shelf plan. For the purpose of 

estimating the total cost to industry, 

MMS will use the higher estimate. The 

total cost for revising training plans to 

industry would be $500 multiplied by 

80 lessees/operators, which would equal 

$40,000. The cost to retrain the 

employees from the 80 companies 

would be about $200 per person. This 

is based on the price of a typical 3-day 

production operations safety course 

costing $600 per person (i.e., $200 per 

person per day). Adding 1 day to the 

course would be necessary to cover the 

operations mentioned in the revised 

definition of production operations. The 

MMS estimates that four employees per 

company would need the additional day 

of training, so the additional cost would 

be $200, multiplied by four employees 

per company, multiplied by 80 

companies, which would equal $64,000. 

The total cost to industry from the 

subpart O changes would be $40,000 

plus $64,000, which would equal 

$104,000. Therefore, this final rule will 

not have a significant economic effect 

on industry. 

(2) This final rule will not create a 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency. No other 

agencies regulate oil and gas operations 

on the OCS. 

(3) This final rule will not alter the 

budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

or obligations of their recipients. 

(4) This final rule will not raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in E.O. 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department of the Interior 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 

The production measurement changes 

in this final rule will affect lessees and 

operators of leases in the OCS. This 

includes about 130 active Federal oil 

and gas lessees. Small lessees that 

operate under this rule fall under the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes 211111, Crude 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction, 

and 213111, Drilling Oil and Gas Wells. 

For these NAICS code classifications, a 

small company is one with fewer than 

500 employees. Based on these criteria, 

an estimated 70 percent of these 

companies are considered small. This 

final rule, therefore, will affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The changes to subpart L will not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because the effects would only occur if 

a facility is rendered out-of-service 

because of a hurricane or other event 

out of the control of the lessee. The 

overall effects will be very minor but 

positive, since the final rule temporarily 

relieves the lessee of specific reporting 

requirements related to metering and 

well tests. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40072 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

The revised and new definitions in 

the training regulations in subpart O 

will cause some lessees and operators to 

revise their training plans. The MMS 

estimates that 80 operators will have to 

modify their training plans due to the 

changes to the definition of production 

operations. Of the 80 operators, MMS 

estimates that 56 are small businesses. 

This is a substantial number of small 

operators. The majority of small 

operators have off-the-shelf type 

training plans. The MMS estimates that 

a modification to this type of plan will 

cost about $500. The total cost to the 

small operators will be $500 multiplied 

by 56 operators, which equals $28,000. 

The cost to retrain the employees from 

the 56 companies will be about $200 per 

person. This is based on the price of a 

typical 3-day production operations 

safety course costing $600 per person. 

Adding 1 day to the course will be 

necessary to cover the operations 

mentioned in the revised definition of 

production operations. The MMS 

estimates that four employees per 

company will need the additional day of 

training, so the additional cost will be 

$200, multiplied by four employees per 

company, multiplied by 56 companies, 

which will equal $44,800. The total cost 

to small businesses due to the changes 

in the subpart O regulations will be 

$28,000 plus $44,800, which equals 

$72,800. Therefore, this final rule will 

not have a significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Comments from the public are 

important to us. The Small Business and 

Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement 

Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness 

Boards were established to receive 

comments from small business about 

Federal agency enforcement actions. 

The Ombudsman will annually evaluate 

the enforcement activities and rate each 

agency’s responsiveness to small 

business. If you wish to comment on the 

actions of MMS, call 1–888–734–3247. 

You may comment to the Small 

Business Administration without fear of 

retaliation. Allegations of 

discrimination/retaliation filed with the 

Small Business Administration will be 

investigated for appropriate action. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This final rule is not a major rule 

under (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act. This final rule: 

a. Will not have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more. 

The effects of the subpart L changes are 

minor, but positive, and will only occur 

if there were a hurricane or other event 

beyond the lessee’s control that will 

cause the temporary shut-in of a facility. 

The effects on small business of the 

subpart O changes are approximately 

$72,800. See the analysis of these costs 

in the previous section of this preamble 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’. 

b. Will not cause a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers, 

individual industries, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies, or 

geographic regions. As stated above, any 

effects due to the subpart L revisions 

will be positive for the industry and the 

Federal Government. The effects due to 

the revisions to subpart O will be minor. 

c. Will not have significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

The effects due to this final rule will be 

a result of temporary relief from 

reporting requirements and minor 

changes to training requirements, so 

there will be no adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. The 

requirements will apply to all entities 

operating on the OCS. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This final rule will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments or the private sector 

of more than $100 million per year. The 

final rule will not have a significant or 

unique effect on State, local or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

final rule only applies to oil and gas 

operations on the OCS. A statement 

containing the information required by 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required. 

Takings Implication Assessment (E.O. 

12630) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, the 

final rule will not have significant 

takings implications. The final rule is 

not a governmental action capable of 

interference with constitutionally 

protected property rights. A Takings 

Implication Assessment is not required. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this 

final rule will not have federalism 

implications. This final rule will not 

substantially and directly affect the 

relationship between the Federal and 

State governments. This final rule 

applies only to oil and gas operations on 

the OCS. To the extent that State and 

local governments have a role in OCS 

activities, this final rule will not affect 

that role. A Federalism Assessment is 

not required. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

This final 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 

Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) 

requiring that all regulations be written 

in clear language and contain clear legal 

standards. 

Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 

13175) 

Under the criteria in E.O. 13175, we 

have evaluated this final rule and 

determined that it has no substantial 

effects on Federally recognized Indian 

Tribes. There are no Indian or Tribal 

lands in the OCS. 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This rulemaking contains a new 

information collection requirement; 

therefore, a submission to OMB under 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is 

required. The OMB has approved the 

new requirement under OMB Control 

Number 1010–0178 (expiration date 

August 31, 2012, for a total of 144 

burden hours). Once the rulemaking 

becomes effective and the one-time 

requirement has been achieved, we will 

discontinue this collection. 

The title of the collection of 

information for the rule is ‘‘30 CFR Part 

250, Subpart O, Technical Changes to 

Production Measurement and Training 

Requirements.’’ 

Respondents include Federal OCS oil 

and gas lessees and/or operators. 

Responses to this collection are 

mandatory, and the frequency of 

reporting once. The information 

collection does not include questions of 

a sensitive nature. The MMS will 

protect information according to the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552) and its implementing regulations 

(43 CFR part 2) and 30 CFR 250.197, 

‘‘Data and information to be made 

available to the public or for limited 

inspection.’’ 

The collection of information required 

by the current 30 CFR part 250, subpart 

L regulations, Oil and Gas Production 

Measurement, Surface Commingling, 

and Security, is approved under OMB 

Control Number 1010–0051, expiration 

7/31/10 (8,533 hours). The regulation 

will not impose any new information 

collection burdens for this subpart. 

However, it does reduce the number of 

general departure requests for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40073 

§ 250.1204(b)(1). When the rule becomes 

effective, we will make an adjustment 

decrease to the paperwork burden. 

The rulemaking for 30 CFR part 250, 

subpart O, Well Control and Production 

Safety Training, will require some 

lessees and/or operators to modify their 

current training programs due to the 

changes to the definitions in subpart O. 

We estimate that this would be a onetime new paperwork burden on 24 

operators who will modify their 

programs in-house (6 hours per 

modification) for a total of 144 burden 

hours. Those operators who purchase 

their off-the-shelf training programs will 

incur costs to modify the programs. This 

is considered a regulatory cost of doing 

business and is not a paperwork burden. 

Existing paperwork requirements for 

current subpart O are approved under 

1010–0128, expiration 8/31/09 (under 

renewal, 2,106 hours). 

The comments received in response to 

the proposed rule did not address the 

information collection; therefore, there 

were no changes in the one new 

information collection requirement from 

the proposed rule to the final rule. 

An agency 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. The public may 

comment, at any time, on the accuracy 

of the information collection burden in 

this rule and may submit any comments 

to the Department of the Interior; 

Minerals Management Service; 

Attention: Regulations and Standards 

Branch; Mail Stop 4024; 381 Elden 

Street; Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

This final rule does not constitute a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. A detailed statement 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 is not required 

because this rule is covered by a 

categorical exclusion. Specifically, this 

rule qualifies as a regulation of an 

administrative or procedural nature. See 

43 CFR 46.210(i). We have also 

determined that the rule does not 

involve any of the extraordinary 

circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 

that would require further analysis 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969. 

Data Quality Act 

In developing this final 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 § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A– 

153–154). 

Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 

13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in E.O. 

13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is 

not required. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, Oil and 

gas exploration, Public lands—mineral 

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 15, 2009. 

Ned Farquhar, 

Acting Assistant Secretary—Land and 

Minerals Management. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Minerals Management Service 

amends 30 CFR part 250 as follows: 

PART 250—OIL AND GAS AND 

SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE 

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 250 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, 43 U.S.C. 1334. 

■ 2. Amend § 250.1201 by adding the 

definition of Force majeure event in 

alphabetical order as follows: 

§ 250.1201 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Force majeure event—an event 

beyond your control such as war, act of 

terrorism, crime, or act of nature which 

prevents you from operating the wells 

and meters on your OCS facility. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 250.1202 by revising 

paragraphs (d)(3), (k)(3), and (k)(4) as 

follows: 

§ 250.1202 Liquid hydrocarbon 

measurement. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Prove each operating royalty meter 

to determine the meter factor monthly, 

but the time between meter factor 

determinations must not exceed 42 

days. When a force majeure event 

precludes the required monthly meter 

proving, meters must be proved within 

15 days after being returned to service. 

The meters must be proved monthly 

thereafter, but the time between meter 

factor determinations must not exceed 

42 days; 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) Prove operating allocation meters 

monthly if they measure 50 or more 

barrels per day per meter the previous 

month. When a force majeure event 

precludes the required monthly meter 

proving, meters must be proved within 

15 days after being returned to service. 

The meters must be proved monthly 

thereafter; or 

(4) Prove operating allocation meters 

quarterly if they measure less than 50 

barrels per day per meter the previous 

month. When a force majeure event 

precludes the required quarterly meter 

proving, meters must be proved within 

15 days after being returned to service. 

The meters must be proved quarterly 

thereafter; 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 250.1203 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) as follows: 

§ 250.1203 Gas measurement. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Verify/calibrate operating meters 

monthly, but do not exceed 42 days 

between verifications/calibrations. 

When a force majeure event precludes 

the required monthly meter verification/ 

calibration, meters must be verified/ 

calibrated within 15 days after being 

returned to service. The meters must be 

verified/calibrated monthly thereafter, 

but do not exceed 42 days between 

meter verifications/calibrations; 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 250.1204 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) as follows: 

§ 250.1204 Surface commingling. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Conduct a well test at least once 

every 60 days unless the Regional 

Supervisor approves a different 

frequency. When a force majeure event 

precludes the required well test within 

the prescribed 60 day period (or other 

frequency approved by the Regional 

Supervisor), wells must be tested within 

15 days after being returned to 

production. Thereafter, well tests must 

be conducted at least once every 60 days 

(or other frequency approved by the 

Regional Supervisor); 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 250.1500 by adding the 

definitions Contractor and contract 

personnel and Periodic in alphabetical 

order and by revising the definition of 

Production safety as follows: 

§ 250.1500 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Contractor and contract personnel 

mean anyone, other than an employee of 

the lessee, performing well control or 

production safety duties for the lessee. 

* * * * * 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40074 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Periodic means occurring or recurring 

at regular intervals. Each lessee must 

specify the intervals for periodic 

training and periodic assessment of 

training needs in their training 

programs. 

Production safety includes measures, 

practices, procedures, and equipment to 

ensure safe, accident-free, and 

pollution-free production operations, as 

well as installation, repair, testing, 

maintenance, and operation of surface 

and subsurface safety equipment. 

Production operations include, but are 

not limited to, separation, dehydration, 

compression, sweetening, and metering 

operations. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19204 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 50 and 51 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0419, FRL–8943–3] 

RIN 2060–AP96 

Implementation of the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard: Addressing a Portion of the 

Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule 

Concerning Reasonable Further 

Progress Emissions Reductions 

Credits Outside Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

revise a portion of its Phase 2 

implementation rule for the 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard) for 

which the Agency had sought a 

voluntary remand from the U.S. Circuit 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. The Court granted 

EPA’s request by remanding and 

vacating that portion of the rule. 

Specifically, this rule addresses an 

interpretation that allowed certain 

credits toward reasonable further 

progress (RFP) for the 8-hour standard 

from emissions reductions outside the 

nonattainment area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0419. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center in the EPA 

Headquarters Library, Room Number 

3334 in the EPA West Building, located 

at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the this final rule 

contact: Ms. Denise Gerth, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, (C539– 

01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541–5550 or by e-mail at 

gerth.denise@epa.gov, fax number (919) 

541–0824; or Mr. John Silvasi, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

(C539–01), Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone number (919) 541– 

5666, fax number (919) 541–0824 or by 

e-mail at silvasi.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially affected directly 

by this action include state, local, and 

tribal governments. Entities potentially 

affected indirectly by this rule include 

owners and operators of sources of 

emissions [volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)] that 

contribute to ground-level ozone 

concentrations. 

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

A copy of this document and other 

related information is available from the 

docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0419. 

C. How Is This Notice Organized? 

The information presented in this 

notice is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

C. How Is This Notice Organized? 

II. What is the Background for This Rule? 

A. Proposed Regulatory Interpretation of 

the Phase 2 Rule To Address RFP 

Emission Credits Outside Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

III. This Action 

A. Background 

B. Final Rule 

C. Comments and Responses 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

L. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

II. What Is the Background for This 

Rule? 

A. Proposed Regulatory Interpretation of 

the Phase 2 Rule To Address RFP 

Emission Credits Outside Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

On July 21, 2008 (73 FR 42294), EPA 

published a proposed rule to revise its 

regulatory interpretation of the Phase 2 

implementation rule for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to address the U.S. 

Circuit Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit’s vacatur and 

remand of that portion of the 

interpretation of the Phase 2 

implementation rule for which EPA had 

asked for a voluntary remand. The 

proposal addressed a provision that 

allowed credit toward RFP for the 8- 

hour NAAQS from emission reductions 

outside the nonattainment area. Readers 

should refer to the proposed rule for 

additional background on this action, 

including the final Phase 2 ozone 

implementation rule and the Court’s 

vacatur and remand of the provision 

allowing credit for emissions reductions 

outside a nonattainment area for the 

purposes of RFP for the 8-hour NAAQS. 

III. This Action 

A. Background 

In the Phase 2 Rule to implement the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA set forth an 

interpretation that stated that credits 

could be taken for emissions reductions 

from a source outside the nonattainment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES