25176 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Since this action involves, in part, the

designation of navigable airspace

outside the United States, the

Administrator is consulting with the

Secretary of State and the Secretary of

Defense in accordance with the

provisions of Executive Order 10854.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1348(a), 1354(a),

1510; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated July 18, 1994, and effective

September 16, 1994, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 2004—Jet Routes

* * * * *

J–43 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; LaBelle, FL; St.

Petersburg, FL; Tallahassee, FL; Atlanta, GA;

Volunteer, TN; Falmouth, KY; Rosewood,

OH; Carleton, MI; to Sault Ste. Marie, MI.

* * * * *

J–53 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin

354°T(358°M) and Pahokee, FL, 157° radials;

Pahokee; INT Pahokee 342° and Orlando, FL,

162° radials; Orlando; Craig, FL; INT Craig

347° and Colliers, SC, 174° radials; Colliers;

Spartanburg, SC; Pulaski, VA; INT of Pulaski

015° and Ellwood City, PA, 177° radials; to

Ellwood City.

* * * * *

J–55 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin

331°T(335°M) and Gainesville, FL, 157°

radials; INT Gainesville 157° and Craig, FL,

192° radials; Craig; INT Craig 004° and

Savannah, GA, 197° radials; Savannah;

Charleston, SC; Florence, SC; INT Florence

003° and Raleigh-Durham, NC, 224° radials;

Raleigh-Durham; INT Raleigh-Durham 035°

and Hopewell, VA, 234° radials; Hopewell; to

INT Hopewell 030° and Nottingham, MD,

174° radials. From Sea Isle, NJ; INT Sea Isle

050° and Hampton, NY, 223° radials;

Hampton; Providence, RI; Boston, MA;

Kennebunk, ME; Presque Isle, ME; to Mont

Joli, PQ, Canada, excluding the portion

within Canada.

* * * * *

J–58 (Revised)

From Oakland, CA, via Manteca, CA;

Coaldale, NV; Wilson Creek, NV; Milford,

UT; Farmington, NM; Las Vegas, NM;

Amarillo, TX; Wichita Falls, TX; Dallas-Fort

Worth, TX; Alexandria, LA; Harvey, LA; INT

of Grand Isle, LA, 105° and Crestview, FL,

201° radials; INT of Grand Isle 105° and

Sarasota, FL, 286° radials; Sarasota; Lee

County, FL; to the INT Lee County

120°T(122°M) and Dolphin, FL,

293°T(297°M) radials; Dolphin.

* * * * *

J–73 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; LaBelle, FL; Lakeland,

FL; Tallahassee, FL; La Grange, GA;

Nashville, TN; Pocket City, IN; to

Northbrook, IL.

* * * * *

J–75 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin

293°T(297°M) and Lee County, FL,

120°T(122°M) radials; Lee County; INT Lee

County 340° and Taylor, FL, 176° radials;

Taylor; INT Taylor 019° and Columbia, SC,

203° radials; Columbia; Greensboro, NC;

Gordonsville, VA; INT Gordonsville 040° and

Modena, PA, 231° radials; Modena; Solberg,

NJ; Carmel, NY; INT Carmel 045° and Boston,

MA, 252° radials; to Boston.

* * * * *

J–79 (Revised)

From Key West, FL; INT Key West

038°T(037°M) and Dolphin, FL,

244°T(248°M) radials; Dolphin; Palm Beach,

FL; Vero Beach, FL; Ormond Beach, FL; INT

Ormond Beach 356° and Savannah, GA, 184°

radials; INT Savannah 184° and Charleston,

SC, 212° radials; Charleston; Tar River, NC;

Franklin, VA; Salisbury, MD; INT Salisbury

018° and Kennedy, NY, 218° radials;

Kennedy; INT Kennedy 080° and Nantucket,

MA, 254° radials; INT Nantucket 254° and

Marconi, MA, 205° radials; Marconi; INT

Marconi 006° and Bangor, ME, 206° radials;

Bangor.

* * * * *

J–81 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin

354°T(358°M) and Pahokee, FL, 157° radials;

Pahokee; INT Pahokee 342° and Orlando, FL,

162° radials; Orlando; Cecil; INT Cecil 007°

and Craig, FL, 347° radials; INT Craig 347°

and Colliers, SC, 174° radials; Colliers.

* * * * *

J–85 (Revised)

From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin

331°T(335°M) and Gainesville, FL, 157°

radials; Gainesville; Taylor, FL; Alma, GA;

Colliers, SC; Spartanburg, SC; Charleston,

WV; INT of the Charleston 357° and the

Dryer, OH, 172° radials; Dryer. The portion

within Canada is excluded.

J–86 (Revised)

From Boulder City, NV, via Peach Springs,

AZ; Winslow, AZ; El Paso, TX; Fort Stockton,

TX; Junction, TX; Austin, TX; Humble, TX;

Leeville, LA; INT of Leeville 104° and

Sarasota, FL, 286° radials; Sarasota; INT of

Sarasota 103° and La Belle, FL, 313° radials;

La Belle; Dolphin, FL.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 4, 1995.

Harold W. Becker,

Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division.

[FR Doc. 95–11673 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 101

Customs Service Field OrganizationSan Jose, California

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department

of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the Customs Regulations

pertaining to the field organization of

the Customs Service by designating San

Jose as a port of entry in the Customs

District of San Francisco, California, of

the Pacific Region. The change is being

proposed as part of Customs continuing

program to obtain more efficient use of

its personnel, facilities, and resources,

and to provide better service to carriers,

importers and the general public.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

(preferably in triplicate) may be

submitted to the Regulations Branch,

Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S.

Customs Service, 1301 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229.

Comments submitted may be inspected

at the Regulations Branch, Office of

Regulations and Rulings, 1099 14th

Street NW., Suite 4000, Washington,

DC, on regular business days between

the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brad Lund, Office of Inspection and

Control (202–927–0192).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As part of a continuing program to

obtain more efficient use of its

personnel, facilities, and resources, and

to provide better service to carriers,

importers, and the general public,

Customs is proposing to amend §§ 101.3

and 101.4, Customs Regulations (19 CFR

101.3 and 101.4) by designating a four

county area surrounding San Jose,

California, as a port of entry for Customs
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25177

purposes in the Customs District of San

Francisco, California, within the Pacific

Region. Part of this four county area,

Monterey, is presently listed in

§ 101.4(c), Customs Regulations, as a

Customs station within the San

Francisco District. San Jose is presently

part of the port of entry of San

Francisco.

The city of San Jose, California, has

requested designation of the four county

area surrounding San Jose as a port of

entry and has stated that the efficiency

in having a port of entry located in San

Jose would represent a considerable

saving of time and cost for the business

community. The city states that firms in

the South Bay Area will benefit from the

advantages of having their cargo cleared

at the San Jose port of entry. It also

anticipates that more cargo will be

shipped to the area and that the result

will be additional Customs revenue and

increased Federal benefits.

The request for designation has been

concurred with by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service of the

Department of Justice and by the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service of the Department of

Agriculture. Various elected officials,

local corporations and associations also

support the request.

The criteria used by Customs in

determining whether to establish a port

of entry are found in T.D. 82–37 (47 FR

10137), as revised by T. D. 86–14 (51 FR

4559) and T.D. 87–65 (52 FR 16328).

Under these criteria, a community

requesting a port of entry designation

must: (1) Demonstrate that the benefits

to be derived justify the Federal

Government expense involved; (2) be

serviced by at least two major modes of

transportation (rail, air, water, or

highway); (3) have a minimum

population of 300,000 within the

immediate service area (approximately a

70 mile radius); and (4) make a

commitment to make optimal use of

electronic data transfer capabilities to

permit integration with Customs

Automated Commercial System (ACS),

which provides a means for the

electronic processing of entries of

imported merchandise. Further, the

actual or potential Customs workload

(i.e., number of transactions per year) at

the proposed port of entry must meet

one of several alternative minimum

requirements, among which are 15,000

passenger arrivals and 2500

consumption entries per year. Finally,

facilities at the proposed port of entry

must include cargo and passenger

facilities, warehousing space for the

secure storage of imported cargo

pending final Customs inspection and

release, and administrative office space,

inspection areas, storage areas and other

space necessary for regular Customs

operations.

San Jose International Airport is

currently staffed by Customs on a

rotational basis. If the port of entry is

approved, the rotational positions

currently assigned to San Jose will be

converted to permanent positions. Any

relocation costs will be paid out of

COBRA funds.

The request for port of entry status

states that there will be several Federal

Government benefits if the port of entry

is approved. Approval will support the

national goal of United States

competitiveness by strengthening the

economic competitiveness of one of the

nation’s most critical high technology

areas. It will increase the efficiency of

the regional Customs service by

improving the distribution of entries

which must be cleared through the San

Francisco-Oakland port and the San Jose

port. It will decrease congestion on the

Bay Area’s freeways due to shipments

going directly to San Jose International

Airport. Finally, it will further the

Customs goal of increased automation,

since San Jose International Airport has

provided the equipment necessary to

supply a fully automated, highly

efficient Customs port.

The proposed port of entry will be

served by three major modes of

transportation (air, rail and highway).

The proposed port of entry has a

population of 2,167,000.

The City of San Jose has committed to

the optimal use of electronic data input

equipment and software to permit

integration with any Customs system for

electronic processing of commercial

entries. San Jose International Airport

has provided, at no cost to the Federal

Government, computer equipment and

systems which are needed to comply

with the goals of the National Customs

Automation Program.

According to recent statistics, San

Jose International Airport has an annual

workload of 92,246 arriving

international passengers and 4854

formal entry releases, plus 2066

informal entry releases.

Cargo and passenger facilities have

been provided for Customs operations at

San Jose International Airport. The

Customs facility is a 23,000 square foot

modular facility in a secure portion of

the airport. This facility provides the

necessary administrative office space,

inspection rooms and other space

required for performing regular Customs

operations.

Based on the information provided

above, Customs believes that San Jose

meets the current standards for port of

entry designations set forth in T. D. 82–

37, as revised by T. D. 86–14 and T. D.

87–65.

Proposed Limits of Port of Entry

The geographical limits of the

proposed port of entry of San Jose

would be as follows:

All of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey

and San Benito Counties in the State of

California.

If the proposed port of entry

designation is adopted, the lists of

Customs regions, districts, ports of entry

and stations in 19 CFR 101.3(b) and

101.4(c) will be amended accordingly.

Comments

Before adopting this proposal,

consideration will be given to any

written comments timely submitted to

Customs. Comments submitted will be

available for public inspection in

accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), § 1.4,

Treasury Department Regulations (31

CFR 1.4), and § 103.11(b), Customs

Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)), on

regular business days between the hours

of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the

Regulations Branch, Suite 4000, 1099

14th St. NW., Washington, D.C.

Authority

This change is proposed under the

authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C.

2, 66 and 1624.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act and

Executive Order 12866

Customs routinely establishes,

expands, and consolidates Customs

ports of entry throughout the United

States to accommodate the volume of

Customs-related activity in various parts

of the country. Although this document

is being issued for public comment, it is

not subject to the notice and public

procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553

because it relates to agency management

and organization. Accordingly, this

document is not subject to the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Agency

organization matters such as this are

exempt from consideration under

Executive Order 12866.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations

Branch. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.
25178 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Approved: April 10, 1995.

William F. Riley,

Acting Commissioner of Customs.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 95–11669 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mineral Management Service

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010–AB50

Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in

the Outer Continental Shelf

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises

requirements for preventing hydrogen

sulfide (H2S releases and protecting

human safety. Requirements for visual

and audible warning systems, personnel

protection, training, H2S and sulphur

dioxide (SO2) detection and monitoring,

and H2S flaring are proposed.

DATES: Comments must be received or

postmarked no later than July 10, 1995

to be considered in this rulemaking.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed or hand-carried to the

Department of the Interior; Minerals

Management Service; Mail Stop 4700;

381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia

22070–4817; Attention: Chief,

Engineering and Standards Branch.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

E.P. Danenberger, telephone (703) 787–

1598, or John Mirabella, (703) 787–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2332), the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) published a

final rule in the Federal Register to

amend requirements contained in 29

CFR 1910.1000. The requirements

concerned permissible exposure limits

(PEL) for 164 toxic substances that

included H2S and SO2. The Minerals

Management Service (MMS) determined

that its regulations at § 250.67 should be

revised to be consistent with OSHA’s

PEL’s and published proposed revisions

in the Federal Register on August 15,

1990 (55 FR 33326). Requirements for

training, signs, SO2 sensors, mud

sensors, and materials were also revised

or added, and additional information

was requested regarding the calibration

frequency of H2S sensors.

A Circuit Court Appeals Action

invalidated OSHA’s final rule. As a

consequence, OSHA resumed enforcing

contaminant exposure limits that were

in effect prior to the issuance of new

limits on January 19, 1989. Because of

the extensive revisions resulting from

comments to the proposed rule

(published on August 15, 1990), and

because of the court decision on

OSHA’s 1989 final rule, MMS is reproposing the rule and requesting

additional comments.

The MMS proposes to retain the H2S

concentration level thresholds similar to

those in the current rule. Also, new

sections concerning H2S flaring and SO2

concentration levels have been added.

The MMS proposes to incorporate the

latest editions of the American National

Standards Institute’s (ANSI) American

National Standard Practices for

Respiratory Protection (ANSI Z88.2–

1980) and the National Association of

Corrosion Engineers’ (NACE) Standard

(MR–01–75), Recommended Practice

(RP), Sulfide Stress Cracking Resistant

Metallic Materials for Oil Field

Equipment.

Discussion of Specific Comments

The following comments and

responses are grouped by specific

section or paragraph title.

Subpart D—Oil and Gas Drilling

Operations

§ 250.67(b) Definitions.

Comment: The term ‘‘potentially

result in atmospheric concentrations of

15 ppm or more of H2S’’ is vague and

the definition for ‘‘Zones known to

contain H2S’’ should be limited to

facilities known to contain H2S where

atmospheric concentrations of 10 parts

per million (ppm) or more of H2S have

been verified.

Response: Because human safety is

dependent upon advance preparation,

the definition for zones known to

contain H2S must be based on the

potential for a high volume release. Gas

with an H2S concentration of only 20

ppm, if released at a rate of 1,000,000

cubic feet per day (1,000 MCFD),

exposes all personnel within 24 feet to

concentrations of 20 ppm (PasquillGifford dispersion equation using wind

speed of 1 mile per hour). Therefore, the

definition encompasses most H2Sbearing zones which could flow in

volumes of 1,000 MCFD or more.

The 15-ppm concentration mentioned

in the above comment has been changed

to 20 ppm, as currently required in the

regulations.

§ 250.67(c) Request for classification of

probability of encountering H2S during

operations.

Comment: The definition of ‘‘Zones

where the absence of H2S has been

confirmed,’’ should recognize the

possibility of H2S being generated as a

result of water flooding.

Response: The MMS agrees that H2S

could be generated during production

operations in the initial stages of a new

water flood project. Paragraph (c) is

amended to require a reclassification

when new data indicate the presence of

H2S.

§ 250.67(e) Drilling and well-completion

operations in zones where the presence of

H2S is unknown.

Comment: The first sentence of

§ 250.67(e) should be revised to require

compliance with well-control fluid

provisions in zones where the presence

of H2S is unknown.

Response: The MMS agrees with this

suggestion. Compliance with the fluid

program requirements of paragraph (i)

in an unknown area would enable the

operator to safely continue operations if

H2S is encountered. The title and text of

paragraph (e) have been revised

accordingly.

§ 250.67(h)(1) H2S Contingency Plan.

Comment: Two commenters suggested

a requirement for H2S-detection,

monitoring, and alarm systems on

vessels attendant to a facility. Hydrogen

sulfide is heavier than air and tends to

settle and accumulate in lower areas.

The commenters are concerned that

horns and lights from a production

platform may be insufficient to warn a

vessel tied up below the platform or that

gas might accumulate at the vessel

rather than the producing facility.

Response: The MMS agrees that a low

volume, low-concentration release of

H2S might migrate down to a vessel

moored on the leeward side of the

facility and be detected on the vessel

before the platform. The need for H2S

sensors on attendant vessels depends on

the positioning procedures described in

the Contingency Plan. Requirements for

sensors are specified in § 250.67(h)(6)

H2S-detection and H2S-monitoring

equipment (formerly paragraph (h)(5)).

A new paragraph (h)(6)(v) has been

added to require H2S-detection systems

on certain vessels attendant to

facilitates.

During a recent drilling operation, it

was necessary to divert gas containing

H2S. Personnel from platforms as far

away as 12 miles had to be evacuated.

This incident identified the importance

of notifying nearby manned facilities.

The MMS has proposed to require lists