Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25147

in § 341.16(d), (e), and (g) for use in a

hand-held rubber bulb nebulizer.

* * *

Dated: April 11, 1996.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 96–12499 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

30 CFR Part 250

RIN 1010–AB96

Flaring or Venting Gas and Burning

Liquid Hydrocarbons

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends regulations

governing restrictions on flaring or

venting gas to include restrictions on

burning liquid hydrocarbons. MMS

made this amendment to clarify that

burning liquid hydrocarbons is

allowable only under certain

circumstances as approved by the

Regional Supervisor.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on June 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Buffington, Engineering and

Standards Branch, telephone (703) 787–

1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 17, 1995, MMS published a

rule in the Federal Register (60 FR

9312) that proposed to amend the

requirements at 30 CFR 250.175, flaring

and venting of gas, to include burning

liquid hydrocarbons. This rule is

necessary because requests to burn

liquid hydrocarbons are increasing, and

we determined that we needed to

provide regulatory guidance on burning.

Response to Comments

During the 60-day comment period,

MMS received eight comments,

predominately from the oil and gas

industry. MMS appreciates the

suggestions and comments that we

received. We reviewed all of the

comments, and in some instances, we

revised the final language based on

these comments. MMS grouped the

comments by the following major

issues:

1. In § 250.175(c), MMS proposed that

the Regional Supervisor allow a lessee

to burn a ‘‘minimal’’ amount of liquid

hydrocarbons with prior approval.

Several comments suggested that MMS

determine the absolute value of

‘‘minimal.’’ One comment suggested

that we create a table of allowable burn

amounts by using distance from shore as

the determining factor. In general, the

comments said that the term ‘‘minimal’’

is not specific enough.

Response

MMS agrees that, if possible, using an

absolute value for the term ‘‘minimal’’

would be desirable. However, we feel

that it is impractical to determine an

solute value because it depends on

many economic, technical, safety, and

environmental factors. Therefore, an

amount that may be prudent to burn in

one area may not be acceptable to burn

in another correlative area. Conserving

natural resources is a major

consideration in burning liquid

hydrocarbons. However, our

determination of the allowable

‘‘minimal’’ amount that you can burn

will also depend on technical, safety,

and environmental factors.

2. Several comments suggested that

storing and transporting or re-injecting

liquid hydrocarbons poses a greater risk

than burning them.

Response

MMS agrees that in some cases the

alternatives to burning liquid

hydrocarbons may be risky to the

environment or personnel. That is the

reason MMS provided the option of

showing the Regional Supervisor that

the alternatives are infeasible or pose

significant risk. MMS will evaluate the

information that you supply concerning

the risks of the alternatives case by case.

Please be assured that the Regional

Supervisor will evaluate your requests

to burn hydrocarbons fairly and

promptly by using the information that

you supply in your requests.

3. Section 250.175(c)—One comment

suggested that MMS rewrite the first

sentence of paragraph (c) because the

phrase ‘‘lessees must not burn liquid

hydrocarbons’’ may portray a negative

bias against burning liquid

hydrocarbons.

Response

MMS did not intend to portray a

negative bias against burning liquid

hydrocarbons. Our intent was only to

set boundaries on burning liquid

hydrocarbons. However, to avoid any

confusion, MMS will restate the first

sentence of paragraph (c) to say that

‘‘Lessees may burn produced liquid

hydrocarbons only if the Regional

Supervisor approves.’’

4. Section 250.175(a)(3)—Several

comments opposed MMS’s changing the

limit on flaring, without prior approval,

during well evaluations and cleaning, to

48 cumulative hours (from 48

continuous hours). The individuals felt

that 48 cumulative hours are not always

sufficient (especially in deep water).

Similarly, one comment recommended

that MMS state that the Regional

Supervisor has the authority to increase

the flaring limit.

Response

MMS feels that, for environmental

and conservation reasons, it needs to

change the term ‘‘continuous’’ to

‘‘cumulative’’ for flaring during well

evaluations and cleaning operations

(without prior approval). Otherwise, the

term ‘‘continuous’’ would permit

multiple flarings of up to 48 hours each

simply by having a shut-in period

between flarings.

MMS realizes that 48 hours of flaring

will not always meet well testing needs.

For these occasions, the Regional

Supervisor has the authority to increase

the flaring limit. MMS will continue to

evaluate requests for more than 48

cumulative hours of flaring during well

evaluations or cleaning. However,

without prior approval, MMS will only

allow 48 cumulative hours per testing

operation on a single completion. This

limit of 48 hours should be adequate to

accommodate most operations.

MMS amended the final rule to clarify

that the Regional Supervisor has the

authority to specify a shorter or longer

flaring limit. In addition, the MMS

Regions are working on guidelines for

extended testing and flaring for deep

water.

5. Section 250.175(a)(2)—One

comment recommended that MMS

delete or define ‘‘temporary’’ which

modified ‘‘situations’’ because it is too

vague.

Response

MMS agrees that the term

‘‘temporary’’ can be vague, and we

deleted it from the final rule.

6. Section 250.175(c)—One comment

recommended that MMS define

‘‘significant risk’’ because it is vague.

Response

MMS has changed the phrase to

‘‘significant risk that may harm.’’

7. Several comments suggested that

MMS mandate the type of burner that it

will permit a lessee to use.

Response

MMS recognizes that many burners

exist with widely varying specifications.

However, since technology constantly

changes, MMS feels that it is impractical

and too restrictive to mandate an

allowable type of burner. However, the
25148 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Regional Supervisor will take into

account the type of burner industry

proposes to use when evaluating

requests to burn liquids.

8. Several comments said that lessees

can’t predict test volumes or other data

that they will need for requests to flare

or vent gas and burn liquids.

Response

We realize that lessees can’t precisely

predict reservoir data. We only ask that,

as with all other pre-approval

requirements, lessees plan and, to the

best of their ability, estimate well test

results and removal alternatives. The

Regional Supervisor will work with

lessees to fairly evaluate requests.

Authors. Sharon Buffington and Jo Ann

Lauterbach, Engineering and Technology

Division, MMS, prepared this document.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rule is not a significant rule

under E.O. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior (DOI)

determined that this rule will not have

a significant effect on a substantial

number of small entities. In general, we

do not consider the entities that engage

in offshore activities small due to the

technical and financial resources and

experience necessary to safely conduct

such activities.

In addition, the DOI determined that

this rule is not a major rule because it

will not result in an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more. Also,

this rule will not have significant

adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity,

or innovation. The largest cost to

industry is for the cases when the lessee

must transport the liquid hydrocarbons

instead of burning them. Based on the

number of well tests, the number of

times transportation would occur, the

annual gross cost to industry to

transport these liquid hydrocarbons is

$348,000.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed information collection

requirement contained in § 250.175

were approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB

control number is 1010–0041. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

a person is not required to respond to,

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

The MMS estimates the public

reporting burden for this information

will average 1.5 hours per response,

including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

date needed, and completing and

reviewing the information collection.

Takings Implication Assessment

The DOI that this rule does not

represent a governmental action capable

of interference with constitutionally

protected property rights. Thus, a

Takings Implication Assessment does

not need to be prepared pursuant to E.O.

12630, Government Action and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

This rule does not contain any

unfunded mandates to State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector.

E.O. 12988

The DOI certified to OMB that this

rule meets the applicable civil justice

reform standards provided in Section

3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

National Environmental Policy Act

The DOI determined that this action

does not constitute a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment; therefore, an

Environmental Impact Statement is not

required.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250

Continental Shelf, Environmental

impact statements, Environmental

protection, Government contracts,

Incorporation by reference,

Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil

and gas development and production,

Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas

reserves, Penalties, Pipelines, Public

lands—mineral resources, Public

lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur

development and production, Sulphur

exploration, Surety bonds.

Dated: March 13, 1996.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals

Management.

For the reasons set forth above, MMS

is amending 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: 43 U.S.C. 1334.

2. Section 250.175 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 250.175 Flaring or venting gas and

burning liquid hydrocarbons.

(a) Lessees may flare or vent oil-well

gas or gas-well gas without receiving

prior approval from the Regional

Supervisor only in the following

situations:

(1) When gas vapors are flared or

vented in small volumes from storage

vessels or other low-pressure

production vessels and cannot be

economically recovered.

(2) During an equipment failure or to

relieve system pressures. The lessee

must comply with the following

conditions:

(i) Lessees must not flare or vent oilwell gas for more than 48 continuous

hours unless the Regional Supervisor

approves. The Regional Supervisor may

specify a limit of less than 48 hours to

prevent air quality degradation.

(ii) Lessees must not flare or vent gas

from a facility for more than 144

cumulative hours during any calendar

month unless the Regional Supervisor

approves.

(iii) Lessees must not flare or vent gaswell gas beyond the time required to

eliminate an emergency unless the

Regional Supervisor approves.

(3) During the unloading or cleaning

of a well, drill-stem testing, production

testing, or other well-evaluation testing.

Flaring or venting must not exceed 48

cumulative hours per testing operation

on a single completion. The Regional

Supervisor may allow less time to

prevent air quality degradation or more

time if lessees need additional time to

evaluate reservoir parameters.

(b) Lessees may flare or vent oil-well

gas for up to 1 year when the Regional

Supervisor approves the request for one

of the following reasons:

(1) The lessee initiated an action

which, when completed, will eliminate

flaring and venting; or

(2) The lessee submitted an evaluation

supported by engineering, geologic, and

economic data indicating that either:

(i) The oil and gas produced from the

well(s) will not economically support

the facilities necessary to save and/or

sell the gas; or

(ii) There is not enough gas to market.

(c) Lessees may burn produced liquid

hydrocarbons only if the Regional

Supervisor approves. To burn produced

liquid hydrocarbons, the lessee must

demonstrate that the amounts to burn

would be minimal, or that the

alternatives are infeasible or pose a

significant risk that may harm offshore

personnel or the environment.

Alternatives to burning liquid

hydrocarbons include transporting the

liquids or storing and re-injecting them

into a producible zone.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25149

(d) Lessees must prepare records

detailing gas flaring or venting and

liquid hydrocarbon burning for each

facility. The records must include, at a

minimum:

(1) Daily volumes of gas flared or

vented and liquid hydrocarbons burned;

(2) Number of hours of flaring,

venting, or burning on a daily basis;

(3) Reasons for flaring, venting, or

burning; and

(4) A list of the wells contributing to

flaring, venting, or burning, along with

the gas-oil ratio data.

(e) Lessees must keep these records

for at least 2 years. Lessees must allow

Minerals Management Service

representatives to inspect the records at

the lessees’ field office that is nearest

the Outer Continental Shelf facility, or

at another location agreed to by the

Regional Supervisor. If the Regional

Supervisor requests to see the records,

lessees must provide a copy.

[FR Doc. 96–12544 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 110 and 117

[CGD 05–96–021]

Special Local Regulations for Marine

Events; Norfolk Harborfest 1996;

Norfolk Harbor, Elizabeth River,

Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of implementation.

SUMMARY: This document implements

33 CFR 100.501 for Norfolk Harborfest

1996, an annual event to be held in the

Waterside area of the Elizabeth River

between Norfolk and Portsmouth,

Virginia. These special local regulations

are needed to control vessel traffic

within the immediate vicinity of

Waterside due to the confined nature of

the waterway and the expected vessel

congestion during the event. The effect

will be to restrict general navigation in

the regulated area for the safety of

participants and spectators.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The regulations in 33

CFR 100.501, 110.72aa and 117.1007(b)

are effective for the following periods:

11 a.m. to 11 p.m., June 7, 1996; 8:30

a.m. to 11 p.m., June 8, 1996; and 9:30

a.m. to 7 p.m., June 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LTJG R. Christensen, marine events

coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard

Group Hampton Roads, 4000 Coast

Guard Blvd., Portsmouth, VA 23703–

2199, (804) 483–8521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion of Rule

Norfolk Harborfest, Inc. will sponsor

the Norfolk Harborfest 1996 on June 7,

8, and 9, 1996, in the Waterside area of

the Elizabeth River. The event will

consist of aerobatic demonstrations, an

air/sea rescue demonstration, fireworks,

lighted boat parade, and numerous other

water events, to include a parade of

sailboats and several boat and raft races.

A large number of spectator vessels are

expected. Therefore, to ensure safety of

both participants and spectators, 33 CFR

100.501 will be in effect for the event.

Under provisions of 33 CFR 100.501, a

vessel may not enter the regulated area

unless it is registered as a participant

with the event sponsor or it receives

permission from the Coast Guard patrol

commander. These restrictions will be

in effect for a limited period and should

not result in significant disruption of

maritime traffic. The Coast Guard patrol

commander will announce the specific

periods during which the restrictions

will be enforced.

Additionally, 33 CFR 110.72aa and 33

CFR 117.1007(b) will be in effect while

33 CFR 100.501 is in effect. Section

110.72aa establishes special anchorages

which may be used by spectator craft.

Section 117.1007(b) provides that the

draw of the Berkley Bridge shall remain

closed from one hour prior to the

scheduled event until one hour after the

scheduled event unless the Coast Guard

patrol commander allows it to be

opened for passage of commercial

traffic.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

W.J. Ecker,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 96–12645 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–5504–4]

RIN 2060–AG40 and AG39

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations Offset Remand

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is revising the outer

continental shelf (OCS) regulations in

response to a decision by the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit. The OCS regulations establish

air pollution control requirements for

certain sources located on the OCS.

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated the OCS regulations,

which, in part, set up special offset

requirements for OCS sources located

within 25 miles of the States’ seaward

boundaries (the 25-mile limit). The

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District filed a petition for

review of the regulations on several

issues, including the special offset

provisions. Upon review, the court

found that the special offset provisions

departed from the Clean Air Act

directive, vacated the regulation in part,

and remanded it to EPA for further

consideration.

By this action, EPA is revising the

OCS regulations to delete the special

offset provisions and to require that for

sources located within the 25-mile limit,

offset requirements apply as they are

required in the corresponding onshore

area (COA). The EPA is promulgating

these revisions as an interim final

regulation and is requesting comments

on the revisions. The revisions will be

in effect during the interim period while

EPA receives, reviews and responds to

any comments.

DATES: These rules shall be effective as

of May 20, 1996. Written comments on

this action must be received by EPA at

the address below on or before June 19,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this

action is available for public inspection

and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (6101), Attention Docket A–95–

06, South Conference Center, Room 4,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. A reasonable fee for copying may

be charged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

David Stonefield, U.S. EPA, MD–15,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone (919) 541–5350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 (Act) (Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399 (1990)) added section 328 to the

Act and transferred authority to regulate

sources on part of the OCS from the

Department of the Interior (DOI) to EPA.

The DOI retained the authority to

regulate OCS sources in the Gulf of

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.

As to the remaining portions of the

OCS—the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic

coasts and the Gulf of Mexico east of

87.5 degrees—section 328 requires EPA