Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30807

present OMB control numbers in a

consolidated table format to be codified

in 40 CFR part 9 of the Agency’s

regulations. The table lists CFR citations

with reporting, recordkeeping, or other

information collection requirements,

and the current OMB control numbers.

This listing of the OMB control numbers

and their subsequent codification in the

CFR satisfies the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and OMB’s implementing

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

This ICR was previously subject to

public notice and comment prior to

OMB approval. Due to the technical

nature of the table, EPA finds that

further notice and comment is

unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that

there is ‘‘good cause’’ under section

553(b)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), to

amend this table without prior notice

and comment.

I. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty, contain any

unfunded mandate, or impose any

significant or unique impact on small

governments as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). This rule also does

not require prior consultation with

State, local, and tribal government

officials as specified by Executive Order

12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993)

or Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655

(May 10, 1998), or involve special

consideration of environmental justice

related issues as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). Because this action is not subject

to notice-and-comment requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, it is not subject to

the regulatory flexibility provisions of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). This rule also is not subject

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) because EPA interprets

Executive Order 13045 as applying only

to those regulatory actions that are

based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5–

501 of the Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. This rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it does not establish an

environmental standard intended to

mitigate health or safety risks.

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a good cause

finding that notice and public procedure

is impracticable, unnecessary or

contrary to the public interest. This

determination must be supported by a

brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As

stated previously, EPA has made such a

good cause finding, including the

reasons therefor, and established an

effective date of June 8, 2001. EPA will

submit a report containing this rule and

other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 15, 2001.

Oscar Morales,

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR part 9 is amended as

follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318,

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2,

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1,

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq.,

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657,

11023, 11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by

adding new entries in numerical order

in the Standards of Performance for

New Stationary Sources heading to read

as follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control

No.

*****

Standards of Performance for New Stationary

Sources 1

*****

60.165 (a) (d) ........................ 2060–0110

60.175 (b) (c) ........................ 2060–0110

60.185 (b) (c) ........................ 2060–0110

*****

60.264 (b) (c) ........................ 2060–0110

60.265 (a) ............................. 2060–0110

* * * **

1The ICRs referenced in this section of the

Table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14472 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 435

[FRL–6987–5]

RIN 2040–AD14

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and

New Source Performance Standards

for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point

Source Category; OMB Approval

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act:

Technical Amendment; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting minor errors

in the preamble and the effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for

the oil and gas extraction point source

category, which was published as a final

rule in the Federal Register on January

22, 2001 (66 FR 6850).

DATES: These corrections shall become

effective on June 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Carey A. Johnston, Office of Water

Engineering and Analysis Division

(4303), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–

7186, johnston.carey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6850), EPA

published in the Federal Register final

effluent limitations and standards for

30808 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

the oil and gas extraction point source

category. The preamble and the final

rule contained minor errors. These

errors consisted of omission of several

pages of the preamble text in the printed

version of the preamble and minor

typographical errors in the analytical

methods contained in the rule. This

action corrects those errors. The missing

preamble pages were presented in the

Development Document (EPA–821–B–

00–013) or in the response to comments

document supporting the rule but were

inadvertently omitted in the Federal

Register. The minor typographical

errors in the analytical methods consist

of two missing commas and one

reversed inequality sign. The correction

of the two missing commas clarifies two

equations used in an analytical method

for calculating base fluid retained on

cuttings. The correction of the reversed

inequality sign clarifies the quality

control procedures for formulating

positive controls in the crude oil

contamination detection analytical

method. EPA is not substantively

altering the final rule or expanding the

regulatory burden through correction of

these minor errors.

Section 553(b)(B) of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), provides that, when an

agency for good cause finds that notice

and public procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for taking today’s action without prior

proposal and opportunity for comment

because there is no substantive effect on

the rule from this action; this action

merely corrects errors in a portion of the

preamble to the rule and in the

analytical methods to the rule that

already went through public notice and

comment and do not increase the

regulatory burden of the rule. All of the

discussion inadvertently omitted from

the printed preamble were contained in

the record for the final rule as part of the

final development document and

response to comments document for the

rule.

Correction of the reversed inequality

sign makes the quality control criteria of

the analytical method that is specified

in appendix 6 to subpart A of part 435

consistent with the method’s intended

purpose as proposed and promulgated

in the final rule. In the proposed rule

and final rule, section 1.4 of appendix

6 states that the method was, ‘‘designed

to show positive contamination for 5%

of representative crude oils at a

concentration of 0.1% in drilling fluid

(vol/vol), 50% of representative crude

oils at a concentration of 0.5%, and 95%

of representative crude oils at a

concentration of 1%.’’ In addition, in

the proposed rule and final rule section

9.2 of appendix 6 specifies that a

laboratory that properly practices the

method must detect crude oil

contamination in greater than 75% of

control samples containing 1% crude

oil. The proposal Development

Document (EPA–821–B–98–021) also

states, ‘‘For the proposed rule, the

majority of formation oils would cause

failure when present in SBFs at a

concentration of about 0.5%.’’ Despite

the proposal Development Document

and sections 1.4 and 9.2 of the proposed

and final rule, the Agency inadvertently

reversed the inequality sign specifying

the detection criteria for control samples

containing 2% crude oil, which resulted

in a quality control requirement that

does not reflect the intent of sections 1.4

and 9.2 or the proposal Development

Document. The Agency’s intention was

to specify that a laboratory that properly

practices the method must detect crude

oil contamination in greater than 90% of

control samples containing 2% crude

oil. This correction does not expand the

regulatory burden because no change is

made to the analytical procedures that

laboratories must use for compliance

monitoring. The correction changes only

the criterion for interpreting quality

control results for control samples

containing 2% crude oil.

Thus, notice and public procedure are

unnecessary. EPA finds that this

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B). For the same reasons, EPA

believes there is good cause under 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule

immediately effective.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Because, as described above, the agency

has made a ‘‘good cause’’ finding that

this action is not subject to notice-andcomment requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act or any

other statute, it is not subject to the

regulatory flexibility provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). In addition,

this action does not significantly or

uniquely affect small governments or

impose a significant intergovernmental

mandate, as described in sections 203

and 204 of UMRA. This rule also does

not have tribal implications as specified

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,

November 6, 2000). This rule will not

have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

This technical correction action does

not involve technical standards; thus,

the requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. This rule does

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA’s compliance

with the statutes and Executive Orders

that were in effect when the underlying

rule was developed is discussed in the

January 22, 2001 Federal Register

document.

The Congressional Review Act (5

U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the CRA if the agency

makes a good cause finding that notice

and public procedure is impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest. This determination must be

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has

made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefor, and

established an effective date of June 8,

2001. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 435

Environmental protection, Oil and gas

extraction, Waste treatment and

disposal, Water pollution control.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

Diane C. Regas,

Acting Assistant Administrator.

The following corrections are made in

FRL–6929–8, Effluent Limitations

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30809

Guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards for the Oil and

Gas Extraction Point Source Category;

OMB Approval Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act: Technical Amendment

(FR Doc. 01–361), which were

published in the Federal Register on

January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6850).

Preamble Corrections

1. On page 6871, in column 1, line 25,

insert the following text between the

two phrases ‘‘In addition, because of the

uncertainty about ester performance,

operators may not be encouraged to

switch from OBFs or WBFs to SBF’’ and

‘‘when properly installed and

maintained.’’:

If only vegetable ester- or low viscosity

ester-based SBFs could be discharged.

As previously stated, EPA is promoting

the appropriate conversion from OBFand WBF-drilling to SBF-drilling in

order to reduce pollutant loadings and

NWQI. Due to demonstrated or potential

technical limitations of vegetable esters

or low viscosity esters, EPA estimates

that the pollutant loadings and NWQIs

associated with establishing vegetable

esters or low viscosity esters as the basis

for stock limitations are similar to the

pollutant loadings and NWQIs

associated with the zero discharge

option for all SBF-cuttings (see section

V.F). EPA finds these increases in

pollutant loadings and NWQIs as

unacceptable.

d. Biodegradation Rate Technical

Availability

EPA is today promulgating a

biodegradation stock base fluid

limitation that would only allow the

discharge of SBF-cuttings using SBF

base fluids that degrade as fast or greater

than C16-C18 IOs. Alternatively, this

limitation could be expressed in terms

of a ‘‘biodegradation rate ratio’’ which is

defined as the percent degradation of

C16-C18 IOs divided by the percent

degradation of stock base fluid being

tested, both at 275 days. EPA is

promulgating a biodegradation rate ratio

of less than 1.0. As stated in the April

2000 NODA (65 FR 21550), EPA is

promulgating the use of the marine

anaerobic closed bottle biodegradation

test (i.e., ISO 11734:1995) with

modifications for compliance with this

biodegradation BAT limitation. One of

the modifications to this test is that

natural marine or estuarine sediments

be used in place of digested sludge as

an inoculum. The revised method also

requires that the volatile solids of the

sediments must be no less than 2% and

EPA recommends ASTM D2974 or its

equivalent. To meet this limitation

through product substitution, the base

fluids currently available for use

include vegetable esters, low viscosity

esters, linear alpha olefin, and internal

olefins.

EPA finds this limit to be technically

available and economically achievable

through product substitution because

information in the rulemaking record

supports the findings that vegetable

esters, low viscosity esters, and internal

olefins have performance characteristics

enabling them to be used in the wide

variety of drilling situations in offshore

U.S. waters and meet today’s

promulgated limit. Marketing data given

to EPA shows that internal olefin SBFs

are the most popular SBFs used in the

GOM.

The marine anaerobic closed bottle

biodegradation test (i.e., ISO

11734:1995) is incorporated by

reference into the effluent limitations

guidelines and is available from the

American National Standards Institute,

11 West 42nd Street, 13th Floor, New

York, NY 10036. Additionally, EPA

modified the marine anaerobic closed

bottle biodegradation test to make the

test more applicable to a marine

environment. These modifications are

listed in appendix 4 of subpart A of 40

CFR part 435 and include: (1) The

laboratory shall use sea water in place

of freshwater; (2) the laboratory shall

use marine sediment in place of

digested sludge as an inoculum; and (3)

the laboratory shall run the test for 275

days.

EPA selected the closed bottle test

because it models the ability of a

drilling fluid to degrade anaerobically.

Industry comments to the April 2000

NODA report the results of seabed

surveys (Docket No. W–98–26, Record

No. IV.A.a.13, Attachment Ester-52).

These seabed surveys and the scientific

literature indicate that the environments

under cuttings piles are anaerobic and

that the recovery of seabeds did not

occur in acceptable periods of time

when drilling fluids (e.g., diesel oils,

mineral oils) cannot anaerobically

degrade (i.e., the anaerobic

biodegradation rates are zero or very

low). The scientific literature also

indicates that there is no known

mechanism for initiation of anaerobic

alkane biodegradation (Docket No. W–

98–26, Record No.IV.A.a.13, Attachment

BIODEG–62). The general anaerobic

microbiology literature indicates that

metabolic pathways are just beginning

to be determined for anaerobic

biodegradation of linear alkanes (i.e.,

linear paraffins). The anaerobic

biodegradability of the SBF base fluid

represents an essential prerequisite for

the prevention of long-term persistence

of SBFs and deleterious impacts on

marine sediments (Docket No. W–98–

26, Record No.I.D.b.26). Therefore, EPA

considers the control of anaerobic

degradation as the most

environmentally relevant way to ensure

the biodegradation of SBF under

cuttings piles and other anaerobic

environments for the recovery of

benthic organisms and environments in

an acceptable period.

EPA has selected the C16-C18 IO as the

basis for the biodegradation rate ratio

limitation instead of the vegetable ester

or low viscosity ester for several

reasons: (1) EPA does not believe that

vegetable esters can be used in all

drilling situations; and (2) EPA does not

have sufficient field testing information

that low viscosity esters can be used in

all drilling situations (see section

V.F.1.a). Operators may not be

encouraged to switch from OBFs or

WBFs to SBF if only vegetable ester- or

low viscosity ester-based SBFs could be

discharged. As previously stated, EPA is

promoting the appropriate conversion

from OBF- and WBF-drilling to SBFdrilling in order to reduce pollutant

loadings and NWQI. Due to

demonstrated or potential technical

limitations of vegetable esters or low

viscosity esters, EPA estimates that the

pollutant loadings and NWQIs

associated with establishing vegetable

esters or low viscosity esters as the basis

for stock limitation are similar to the

pollutant loadings and NWQIs

associated with the zero discharge

option for all SBF-cuttings (see section

V.F). EPA finds these increases in

pollutant loadings and NWQIs as

unacceptable. Nevertheless, due to

EPA’s information (primarily laboratory

data) that indicates that esters provide

better environmental performance in

terms of sediment toxicity and

biodegradation, EPA is promulgating a

higher ROC limitation and standard

where esters are used to encourage

operators to use esters when possible.

EPA also selected C16-C18 IO as the

basis for the biodegradation rate ratio

limitation instead of other SBFs (e.g.,

paraffins, enhanced mineral oils, PAOs)

as SBFs with biodegradation rate similar

to or better than the C16-C18 IO (e.g., C16-

C18 IO, esters) show acceptable levels of

anaerobic biodegradation. As previously

stated, controlling anaerobic

degradation is the most environmentally

relevant way to ensure the

biodegradation of SBF under cuttings

piles and other anaerobic environments

for the recovery of benthic organisms

and environments in an acceptable

period. Industry marine anaerobic

closed bottle testing data demonstrate

that some SBFs show very little or no

anaerobic biodegradation (e.g., paraffins,

30810 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

enhanced mineral oils, PAOs). EPA

finds that the C16-C18 IO has greater

anaerobic biodegradation than other

SBFs (e.g., paraffins, enhanced mineral

oils, PAOs) and, unlike esters, is

currently the most popular SBF in the

market.

e. Economic Achievability of Stock Base

Fluid Controls

EPA finds that the promulgated stock

base fluid controls are economically

achievable. Industry representatives

have told EPA that while the synthetic

base fluids are more expensive than

diesel and mineral oil base fluids, the

savings in discharging the SBF-cuttings

versus land disposal or re-injection of

OBF-cuttings (as required under current

regulations) more than offsets the

increased cost of SBFs. Moreover, the

reduced time to complete a well with

SBF as compared with OBF- and WBFdrilling can be significant (i.e., days to

weeks). This reduction in time

translates into lower rig rental costs for

operators. Thus, operator costs are lower

even with the more expensive SBF

provided the drill cuttings with

adhering SBF can be discharged. The

stock base fluid limitations outlined

above and promulgated today are

technically achievable through product

substitution with the use of the

currently widely used SBFs based on

internal olefins ($160/bbl), vegetable

esters ($250/bbl), and low viscosity

esters ($300/bbl) (Docket No. W–98–26,

Record No. IV.B.a.13). For comparison,

diesel oil-based drilling fluid costs

about $70/bbl, and mineral oil-based

drilling fluid costs about $90/bbl.

According to industry sources, currently

in the Gulf of Mexico the most widely

used and discharged SBFs are, in order

of use, based on internal olefins, linear

alpha olefins, and vegetable esters.

Since the stock limitations allow the

continued use of the IO- and ester-based

SBFs, EPA attributes no additional cost

due to the stock base fluid requirements

other than monitoring (testing and

certification) costs. EPA estimates that

dischargers will satisfy: (1) The base

fluid stock sediment toxicity and

biodegradation limitations by having

suppliers monitor once annually; and

(2) the PAH and formation oil

limitations by having suppliers monitor

each batch of stock SBF.

EPA also considered NWQIs in

selecting the controlled discharge

option for SBF-cuttings (i.e., BAT/NSPS

Option 2). See section VIII.

2. Discharge Limitations Technical

Availability and Economic

Achievability

a. Formation Oil Contamination of

SBF-Cuttings. EPA is today

promulgating a BAT limitation of zero

discharge to control formation oil

contamination on SBF-cuttings. EPA is

also today promulgating a screening

method (Reverse Phase Extraction (RPE)

method presented in appendix 6 to

subpart A of part 435) and a compliance

assurance method (Gas Chromatograph/

Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) method

presented in appendix 5 to subpart A of

part 435) to demonstrate compliance

with this zero discharge requirement.

Formation oil is an ‘‘indicator’’

pollutant for the many toxic and priority

pollutant pollutants present in

formation (crude) oil (e.g., aromatic and

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons).

The RPE method is a fluorescence test

and is appropriately ‘‘weighted’’ to

better detect crude oils. These crude oils

contain more toxic aromatic and PAH

pollutants and show brighter

fluorescence (i.e., noncompliance) in

the RPE method at lower levels of crude

oil contamination. Under the final rule,

approximately 5% of all (all meaning a

large representative sampling) formation

oils would fail (not comply) at 0.1%

contamination of SBFs and 95% of all

formation oils will fail at 1.0%

contamination of SBFs. The majority of

formation oils will fail at 0.5%

contamination of SBFs. Since the RPE

method is a relative brightness test, GC/

MS is today promulgated as a

confirmatory compliance assurance

method when the results from the RPE

compliance method are in doubt by

either the operator or the enforcement

authority. Results from the GC/MS

method will supersede those of the RPE

method. EPA is also requiring that

dischargers verify and document that a

SBF is free of formation oil

contamination before initial use of the

SBF. The GC/MS method will be used

to verify and document the absence of

formation oil contamination in SBFs.

EPA intends that the BAT limitation

promulgated on formation (crude) oil

contamination in SBF is no less

stringent that the existing BAT

limitation on WBF through the static

sheen test (appendix 1 of subpart A of

40 CFR part 435). In most cases the

static sheen test detects formation oil

contamination in WBF down to 1% and

in some cases down to 0.5%. Based on

the available information, EPA believes

that only a very minimal amount of SBF

will be non-compliant with this

limitation and therefore be required to

be disposed of onshore or by injection.

EPA thus finds that this limitation is

technically available. EPA also finds

this option to be economically

achievable because there is no reason

why formation oil contamination would

occur more frequently under this rule

than under the current rules which

industry can economically afford. EPA

has determined that essentially no costs

are associated with this requirement

other than monitoring and reporting

costs, which are minimal costs for this

industry, but are incorporated into the

cost and economic analyses.

b. Retention of SBF on SBF-Cuttings.

EPA is today promulgating BAT

limitations controlling the amount of

SBF discharged with SBF-cuttings for

the Offshore subcategory where SBFcuttings may be discharged. As

previously stated, limiting the amount

of SBF content in discharged cuttings

controls: (1) The amount of toxic and

non-conventional pollutants in SBF

which are discharged to the ocean; (2)

the biodegradation rate of discharged

SBF; and (3) the potential for SBFcuttings to develop cuttings piles and

mats which are deleterious to the

benthic environment. The BAT

limitations promulgated today for

controlling the amount of SBF

discharged with SBF-cuttings are

averaged by hole volume over the well

sections drilled with SBF. Those

portions of the SBF-cuttings

wastestream that are retained for zero

discharge (e.g., fines) are factored into

the weighted well average with a

retention value of zero.

EPA evaluated the costs, cost savings,

and technical performance of several

technologies to recover SBF from the

SBF-cuttings discharge (see SBF

Development Document and SBF

Statistical Support Document). EPA also

investigated the use of Best Management

Practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount

of SBF discharge on SBF-cuttings.

Typical BMPs for SBF-cuttings include

regulating the flow and dispersion

across solid control equipment screens

and properly maintaining these screens.

EPA also considered NWQIs (e.g., land

disposal requirements, fuel use, air

emissions, safety, and other

considerations) in setting the SBF

retention on SBF-cuttings BAT

limitation.

As previously stated in section II.C,

the drilling fluid and drill cuttings

undergo an extensive separation process

by the solids control system to remove

drilling fluid from the drill cuttings. The

solids control system is necessary to

maintain constant drilling fluid

properties and/or change them as

required by the drilling conditions.

Drilling fluid recovered from the solids

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30811

control equipment is recycled into the

active mud system (e.g., mud pits, mud

pumps) and back downhole. Drill

cuttings discarded from the solids

control equipment are a waste product.

Drill cuttings are also cleaned out of the

mud pits and from the solid separation

equipment during displacement of the

drilling fluid system (i.e., accumulated

solids).

Most drilling operators use, at a

minimum, a solids control system

typically consisting of primary and

secondary shale shakers in series with a

‘‘fines removal unit’’ (e.g., mud cleaner,

decanting centrifuge). The primary and

secondary shale shakers remove the

larger and smaller cuttings respectively.

The fines removal unit removes the

‘‘fines’’ (i.e., low gravity solids) down to

about 5 microns (10–6 meters). Solids

less than 5 microns are labeled as

‘‘entrained’’ and are unable to be

removed by solids control equipment.

Because of their small size and large

surface area per unit volume, the fines

retain more drilling fluid than an equal

amount of larger cuttings coming off the

shale shakers. This solid control

equipment configuration was labeled as

‘‘baseline’’ (i.e., representative of

current industry practice) in the April

2000 NODA (65 FR 21559). EPA

continues to use this solid control

equipment configuration as baseline in

the analyses supporting today’s final

rule.

EPA assessed the baseline

performance using industry submitted

ROC data received before and in

response to the April 2000 NODA. EPA

received sufficient additional cuttings

retention data from GOM sources to reevaluate the discharges of the baseline

solids control equipment (e.g., primary

shale shaker, secondary shale shaker,

fines removal unit) to calculate a revised

baseline long-term average retention

value of 10.2% by weight of SBF on

cuttings. Despite the revision of the

retention data, the revised long-term

average retention value is only slightly

different than the 11% originally

calculated for the February 1999

proposal and the 11.4% calculated for

the April 2000 NODA. This relative

convergence of the various calculated

baseline performance averages provides

further confidence in the accuracy of the

baseline model and associated data.

Operators also recover additional

drilling fluid from drill cuttings

discarded from the shale shakers

through the use of cuttings dryers (e.g.,

vertical or horizontal centrifuges,

squeeze press mud recovery units, HighG linear shakers). Since the February

1999 proposal and April 2000 NODA,

the GOM offshore drilling industry has

increased its use of ‘‘add-on’’ cuttings

drying equipment (i.e., ‘‘cuttings

dryers’’) to reduce the amount of SBF

adhering to the SBF-cuttings prior to

discharge. Specifically, in response to

the April 2000 NODA, EPA received

ROC data from approximately 45 GOM

SBF well projects that used cuttings

dryers (e.g., vertical or horizontal

centrifuges, squeeze press mud recovery

units, High-G linear shakers) to reduce

the amount of SBF discharged (see SBF

Statistical Support Document). These 45

GOM SBF well projects represent a

broad representation of typical factors

affecting solids control equipment

performance which include: (1) GOM

formation types (e.g., shale, sand, salt);

(2) rig types (e.g., drill tension leg

platform, semi-submersible); (3) drilling

operation types (i.e., exploratory or

development); (4) water depth (i.e.,

shallow or deep); and (5) rates of

penetration (ROP). Current data

available to EPA indicates that these

cuttings dryers can operate consistently

and efficiently.

2. On page 6874, in column 3, line 14,

correct the sentence to read ‘‘c.

Sediment Toxicity of SBF Discharged

with Cuttings.’’

PART 435—[CORRECTED]

Appendix 5 to Subpart A—[Corrected]

3. On page 6908, in column 2, in

appendix 5 to subpart A of part 435 in

9.2. in line 15, correct the line to read

‘‘2% oil—Detected in >90% of

samples’’.

Appendix 7 to Subpart A—[Corrected]

4. On page 6912, in appendix 7 to

subpart A of part 435, in 4. calculations,

in the last paragraph of 7., correct

equations 11 and 13 to read as follows:

Appendix 7 to Subpart A of Part 435—

API Recommended Practice 13B–2

* * * * *

4. Calculations

* * * * *

7. * * *

G i n V bbl kg bbl WELL WELL =+ = ( ( ) / )) . / 1 1 396 9 11 [ ] to j = n (%BF ∑ Tj × ( ) × ( ) [ ]

* * * * *

% (( ) % / % BF X i BF n X BF WELL SVD Tj SVD SVD = − ×= 1 1 13 [ ] to j = n∑( ) ] ) + × [ ]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–13413 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[RI–022b; A–1–FRL–6990–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode

Island; Post-1996 Rate of Progress

Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Rhode Island.

This revision establishes a post-1996

rate of progress (ROP) emission

reduction plan for the Providence

serious ozone nonattainment area in

Rhode Island. The intended effect of

this action is to approve this SIP

revision as meeting the requirements of

the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2001 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by July 9, 2001. If adverse