[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30807-30811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13413]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96fcf9fef8e5e2f9f8b8f5f7e4f3efd6f3e6f7b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="73191c1b1d00071c1d5d101201160a331603125d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6850), EPA 
published in the Federal Register final effluent limitations and 
standards for

[[Page 30808]]

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-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.), 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

[[Page 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 OBF-and 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 C<INF>16</INF>-
C<INF>18</INF> IOs. Alternatively, this limitation could be expressed 
in terms of a ``biodegradation rate ratio'' which is defined as the 
percent degradation of C<INF>16</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> 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 C<INF>16</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> 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 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 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 C<INF>16</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> 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 C<INF>16</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> IO 
(e.g., C<INF>16</INF>-C<INF>18</INF> 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,

[[Page 30810]]

enhanced mineral oils, PAOs). EPA finds that the C<INF>16</INF>-
C<INF>18</INF> 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 WBF-drilling 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 SBF-cuttings 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 SBF-
cuttings 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

[[Page 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<SUP>-6</SUP> 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 re-evaluate 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, High-G 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. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JN01.001
    
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JN01.002

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-13413 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>