[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 237 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89096-89097]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29591]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9956-36-OA]

Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National
Environmental Education Foundation

AGENCY: Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation
(doing business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or
NEEF) was created by Section 10 of Public Law #101-619, the National
Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501(c)(3) non-
profit organization established to promote and support education and
training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and
sustainable, environmentally sound development. It provides the common
ground upon which leaders from business and industry, all levels of
government, public interest groups, and others can work cooperatively
to expand the reach of environmental education and training programs
beyond the traditional classroom. The Foundation promotes innovative
environmental education and training programs such as environmental
education for medical healthcare providers and broadcast
meteorologists; it also develops partnerships with government and other
organizations to administer projects that promote the development of an
environmentally literal public. The Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as required by the terms of the
Act, announces the following appointment to the National Environmental
Education Foundation Board of Directors. The appointee is Mr. Kevin M.
Butt, the Regional Environmental Director of Toyota's North American
Environmental Sustainability Programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice
of Appointment, please contact Mr. Micah Ragland, Associate
Administrator for Office of Public Engagement and Environmental
Education, U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
General information concerning NEEF can be found on their Web site at:
http://www.neefusa.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that
this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and
commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view
relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year
term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending
successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.
    This appointee will join the current Board members which include:

 Decker Anstrom (NEEF Chairman), Former U.S. Ambassador,
Retired Chairman, The Weather Channel Companies
 Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary) President, National Environmental
Education Foundation
 Carlos Alcazar, Founder and Chairman, Culture ONE World
 Megan Reilly Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer,
Catrinka, LLC
 David M. Kiser (NEEF Treasurer), Vice President, Environment,
Health, Safety and Sustainability, International Paper
 Wonya Lucas, President and CEO, Public Broadcasting Atlanta
 Shannon Schuyler, Principal, Corporate Responsibility Leader,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
 George Basile, Ph.D., Professor, School of Sustainability,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
 Jennifer Harper-Taylor, Siemens Foundation
 Robert Garcia, Founding Director and Counsel, The City
Project, Los Angeles, CA
 Martin Philbert, Ph.D., Dean, School of Public Health,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

    Background: Section 10 (a) of the National Environmental Education
Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The
Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of
environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental
protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to
facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public
and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational
system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal,
State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions,
community based environmental groups, and international organizations.
    The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose
income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to
the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an
agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the
Foundation are--
    (A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of
subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer
private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
environmental education and training activities and services of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency;
    (B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as
will further the development of an environmentally conscious and
responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate
workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;
    (C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the
conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities
for environmental education and training to address environmental
issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.
    The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and
projects to educate and train educational and environmental
professionals, and to assist them in the development and

delivery of environmental education and training programs and studies.
    The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter
referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13
directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the
environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the
activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the
Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the
intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the
extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to
environmental education and training. Members of the Board are
appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National
Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the
Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of
appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final
and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The
directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The Administrator shall
appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy
on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the
original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2
consecutive terms as a director.

    Dated: November 30, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

Mr. Kevin M. Butt

    Mr. Kevin Butt is the Regional Environmental Director of Toyota's
North American Environmental Sustainability Programs. He is responsible
for the development of Environmental Sustainability Programs and
Regulatory/Legislative development for all of Toyota's North American
operations.
    Prior to Mr. Butt's current assignment he was the General Manager/
Chief Environmental and Safety Officer for Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing for all of Toyota's Manufacturing operations. Prior to
that assignment Mr. Butt was the Assistant General Manager of Body
Production Engineering for Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America,
Inc., (TMMNA). He was responsible for Body Engineering for all Toyota's
North American manufacturing operations. Body Engineering consists of
Welding, Stamping, and Painting Operations.
    Mr. Butt serves on several boards including the National Wildlife
Habitat Council, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Foundation, World Wildlife
Fund National Council, North American Great Plains Advisory Board and
the Yellowstone Park Foundation Board.
    Mr. Butt is a member of the U.S. EPA Common Sense Initiative (CSI)
Automobile Sector. He served on the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining
America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources. He was also given the
Toyota Community Star Award for volunteering and giving back to the
community in a very high standard.
    Mr. Butt has a Bachelors of Science degree in Environmental Science
from Georgetown College. He has also completed the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14000 Environmental Management
Auditor course, and the American National Standards Institute-Registrar
Accreditation Board (ANSI-RAB) accredited Environmental Management
Systems Auditor course.

[FR Doc. 2016-29591 Filed 12-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Page 1 of 30 July 29, 2004 Impact of Heat Aging on Sediment Toxicity of Ester/ Olefin Based Drilling Muds to Leptocheirus plumulosus M. L. Cano 1, S. Rabke 2, J. Candler 2, P. B. Dorn 3, J. T. Louallen 3, and P. Scott 4 1 Shell Chemical LP, 2 M I SWACO, 3 Shell Global Solutions, 4 Marathon Oil Corporation Page 2 of 30 July 29, 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded through the Synthetic Based Mud ( SBM) Research Group ( a consortium of oil and gas companies, drilling mud suppliers, and drilling mud chemical manufacturers). We greatly appreciate the efforts of the members of the Sediment Toxicity Work Group, which oversaw and reviewed this study.

Sediment Toxicity Work Group Members:

Andrew Glickman, ChevronTexaco  CoChair Cheryl Hood, Baker Hughes Inteq   CoChair Rene Bernier, ChevronTexaco John Candler, M I SWACO Manuel Cano, Shell Chemical LP James Clark, ExxonMobil Philip Dorn, Shell Global Solutions Jan Farmer, BP Michael Fefer, PetroCanada Carole Fleming, ChevronTexaco Stefano Garavini, Sasol North America Jeffry Gee, Chevron Phillips John Hall, Baroid/ Halliburton Larry Henry, ChevronTexaco Gail Korenaga, ChevronTexaco Burney Lee, BP Jeff Louallen, Shell Global Solutions Peter Loggenburg, Alochem Bob MacGregor, Baroid Allen Neilsen, Sasol North America Khai Nguyen, M I SWACO James O'Reilly, ExxonMobil Mike Parker, ExxonMobil Stephen Rabke, M I SWACO James Ray, Shell Global Solutions Larry Reitsema, Marathon Jesse Roberts, BHP Billiton James Robinson, BP Paul Scott, Marathon Maryam Shekarchian, Shrieve Tom Shumate, Halliburton Don Van Slyke, Unocal Jennifer Walden, Marathon Diana Wong, Shell Global Solutions Thomas Purcell   API Staff Page 3 of 30 July 29, 2004 SUMMARY Olefins, esters and more recently olefin/ ester blends are synthetic based drilling fluids ( SBF) that have been used to meet regulatory requirements. This study provides information on the toxicity performance of ester/ olefin blends under high temperature well conditions. An inter industry group designed the study to examine the effects of temperature and time on the sediment toxicity of ester/ olefin muds. Commercial testing laboratories familiar with the fluids and testing protocols conducted the tests. The first phase of the study indicated that the temperature ( 275   300 ° F) and time ( 16   160 hr) scales of the tests bracketed the region where ester/ olefin muds transitioned from passing to failing the sediment toxicity limitation. The second phase of the study used a statistical experimental design to identify statistically significant factors impacting sediment toxicity. Four factors were examined: ( 1) time, ( 2) temperature, ( 3) alkalinity via the absence or presence of green cement, and ( 4) ester content. The base stock blends included a 100 % internal olefin ( IO1618), a blend of 90% IO1618 and 10% traditional ester and a blend of 70% IO1618 and 30% traditional ester. The base fluids were formulated into drilling muds and tested in a temperature range from 275 to 350 ° F and time exposure range to temperature from 16 to 160 hours.

A statistical model was developed to predict sediment toxicity ratios ( STR) as a function of time, temperature, ester content, and alkalinity via the presence or absence of green cement. The model was developed using the data from the Phase 2 toxicity tests. Data from the Phase 1 toxicity tests were used to independently test and validate the model.

The sediment toxicity tests, analytical measurements conducted on the muds used for Phases 1 and 2 of this study along with the statistical STR model supported the hypothesis that toxicity was negatively affected by ester/ olefin blends and downhole conditions ( time, temperature) and formulation ( alkalinity via the presence/ absence of green cement). The data suggest that under some conditions, for the types of muds used in this study, sediment toxicity will increase when the mud is exposed to elevated temperatures for extended periods of time. Ester/ olefin muds with > 10% ester are likely to break down and produce breakdown products that will result in sediment toxicity and failure of the STR < 1.0 criteria required for cuttings discharge.

2 Ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) as an indicator of ester hydrolysis was correlated with increased STR and can be used as a surrogate to screen for potential sediment toxicity. On average, when 2 EH concentrations exceed 2.0 wt%, it is likely that muds will fail sediment toxicity compliance tests. At 2 EH concentration of > 4 wt%, it is 95% certain that the muds will fail.

The data from this study support a temperature threshold of ~ 300 ° F for which operators should be cautious with the use of drilling fluids containing the type of esters ( traditional esters) used in this study. Above 300 ° F these materials may break down and result in increased sediment toxicity for the drilling muds. Other types of esters were not examined in this study.

INTRODUCTION Synthetic based drilling fluids ( SBF) and other non aqueous fluids ( NAF) have been accepted for use in the US Gulf of Mexico ( USEPA, 2001a). As part of the technology based limits that were promulgated by USEPA, any synthetic based mud ( SBM) must meet environmental requirements for base fluids as well as the discharged SBM cuttings offshore. Base fluids must meet stock limitations for anaerobic degradation, PAH measurement and sediment toxicity by performing as good as or better than a corresponding C1618 internal olefin or ester reference fluid.

During the data collection efforts for the effluent limitation guidelines ( USEPA, 2001b), industry provided to USEPA information indicating that the technical temperature limitations for ester Page 4 of 30 July 29, 2004 based fluids was 300 ° F and that the presence of cement contamination further decreased the functional temperature range of ester based fluids ( USEPA, Docket W 98 26).

Reports from the literature suggest that esters are thermally stable to only moderately high temperatures, in the region of 300 ° F, and that these temperatures may be reduced considerably when the esters are exposed to high pH.

Young ( Attachment Ester 52) found in laboratory experiments that sharp changes in viscosity of esters were observed at a temperature of about 310 ° F. He concluded that the esters were unstable above that temperature. Patel et al. ( Attachment Ester 53) in laboratory experiments of muds made with a group of esters of different lengths of acid and alcohol chains found that the temperatures of decomposition ranged from 225 to above 275 ° F. These experiments establish a thermal limit for the use of esters at no higher than about 300 ° F.

Both Patel et al. ( Attachment Ester 53) and Friedheim ( Attachment Ester 54) have studied the hydrolysis of esters and have concluded that this mechanism may be a major factor in the apparent thermal decomposition of these compounds. Field evidence is provided by Shell's experience at its Spirit well the Gulf of Mexico in 1995, when the conventional ester encountered green cement. The downhole temperature was 255 ° F, and the flowline temperature ( the temperature of the mud as it exited the well to the shakers) was about 200 ° F; the mud quickly gelled, becoming unusable, upon contact with the cement at that elevated temperature. Thus, under the usual conditions in which the mud is run, with a small amount of excess lime in the water phase, the mud is stable to a temperature in excess of 250 ° F, possibly as high as 300 ° F; however, when the mud encounters the much higher pH of green cement, the hydrolysis temperature ( the stability limit) is reduced considerably, in the field case to about 200 ° F. No other field cases of hydrolysis are known at this time. Thus, this type of failure, while it is known, has not proven to be a general problem in the field use of muds made from conventional esters.

No data are available on the new low viscosity esters, and so no evaluations of temperature stability are possible. Experience with other esters suggests, however, that the maximum operational temperature will likely be no higher than about 300 ° F and that this temperature will likely be considerably lowered at high pH, if the mud is run with too much excess lime in the water phase, for example, or if the mud encounters green cement.

USEPA used this and other information to develop a technology limitation for synthetic based muds. After the development of the guidelines and incorporation of the limitations into General Discharge permits the USEPA collected additional information on ester/ olefin blends and indicated that the temperature stability of ester/ olefin blends may be higher than for drilling fluids that were based solely on ester fluids.

I n documentation from 2003 ( USEPA, 2003) the USEPA recognized limitations of using ester or ester/ olefin blends in high temperature wells where SBM may break down. However, the 2003 information indicated the upper temperature range for ester/ olefin blends was in the range of 350   375 ° F ( USEPA, 2003).

However, there may be some very rare occasions where ester/ internal olefin blends cannot be used due to technical drilling limitations. In particular, we are still concerned that the molecular structure of esters presents more potential drilling problems than pure C16 C18 Internal olefins in very high temperature Page 5 of 30 July 29, 2004 environments ( e. g,. greater than 350 ° F). In particular, some exploration of deep gas reserves in shallow waters may involve drilling in very high temperatures environments ( e. g,. greater than 350 ° F) at great depths ( e. g., 18,000 to 20,000 feet vertical). In these very high temperatures environments ( e. g,. greater than 350 ° F) esters can also begin thermal degradation ( i. e., break down to their parent acids and alcohols) which will transform the ester SBFs into a thick mass ( Docket No. W 98 26, Record No. IV. A. a. 3). The 50/ 50 C16 C18 internal olefins/ ester blend reference above is rated up to 350 ° F. Increasing the ratio of C16 C18 internal olefins in C16 C18 internal olefins/ ester blends will increase the upper temperature range available for the blend ( e. g., a 80/ 20 C16 C18 internal olefins/ ester blend may able to perform at 375 ° F). It is important to note that these very high temperature environments are very rarely seen in deep water wells were down hole temperatures are typically below 300 ° F. Therefore, in order to promote SBFs as a pollution prevention technology for the exploration of shallow water deep gas reserves, we would recommend a case by case enforcement discretion for any operators that can demonstrate the need to use pure C16 C18 internal olefins ( see 40 CFR 435.11( rr)) in order to compensate for very high temperature environments ( e. g,. greater than 350 ° F). You may wish to require operators to obtain your written permission on a case by case basis before any discharges of pure C16 C18 internal olefins associated with drill cuttings.

The general mechanism for chemical degradation of esters is known to be via hydrolysis, and typically an increase in 2 ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) is observed when traditional esters hydrolyze. While the general mechanism is understood, the effects of temperature, time and drilling fluid formulation factors have not been documented in a formal inter industry study. Thus, there was a need to develop the data to document the effects of downhole and formulation conditions on sediment toxicity compliance results.

A study commissioned by the inter industry SBM Toxicity Workgroup and SBM Technology Assessment Workgroup set objectives to understand in laboratory controlled conditions the effect upon toxicity of factors involved in high temperature environments upon SBM with respect to formulation, temperature, alkalinity via the presence/ absence of " green cement", and time under temperature. The testable hypothesis for this study was that toxicity was negatively affected by ester/ olefin blends and downhole conditions ( time, temperature) and formulation ( presence/ absence of green cement).

Unlike laboratory conditions, field conditions cannot be prescribed to control time and temperature exposure conditions. Under normal circulating conditions, drilling fluids stay at bottom hole temperatures for only a few minutes. However, when bits are replaced, or casing strings are run, the drilling fluid may be exposed to bottom hole temperatures for many hours. In some cases, hurricane evacuations, well control problems and other non scheduled events can expose the drilling fluid to bottom hole temperatures for many days. In addition, other factors such as removal of contaminants with solids control equipment and volatilization add to the dynamics of wellsite conditions. While the exposure conditions may not match exact well site conditions and dynamics, the statistical relationships between downhole conditions and sediment toxicity identified in the study are expected to be predictive of relationships under field conditions.

Of primary concern to offshore operators is compliance with NPDES permit limitations. A synthetic drilling fluid that meets the technical needs of the wellbore but fails to comply with NPDES limits for cuttings discharge is of no practical use to an operator. Operators need to be confident that a drilling fluid rated to a specific temperature limitation will perform at bottom hole temperatures with routine exposure and contamination conditions. Page 6 of 30 July 29, 2004 EXPERIMENTAL Mud preparation Drilling muds were prepared in 2 phases. All muds were prepared using a C1618 internal olefin. The ester used for the ester/ olefin blend muds was a traditional ester manufactured from a vegetable oil ( palm kernel oil) and 2 ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH). Each mud sample was mixed using a dispersator in a plastic container over a period of 2.5 hours. The products were added in the order as listed in mud formulation tables ( Tables 1 and 2) at around 3000 4000 rpm. The fluids were allowed to mix for an additional 30 minutes after adding all the products. The muds were prepared by a service company's laboratory and a third party contract laboratory added the cement contamination. The contract laboratory also hot rolled the muds for the prescribed time ( 16, 40, 88, or 160 hr) and temperature ( 275, 300, 325, or 350 ° F). The same contract laboratory performed mud analyses to verify mud properties.

I n Phase 1, all muds had mud property analyses and analytical analyses ( see below) performed. Only muds A and D had sediment toxicity tests performed. In Phase 2 all muds has analytical analyses ( see below) and sediment toxicity tests performed.

Two different sources of alkalinity were used. In Phase 1, alkalinity was included in the muds in the form of lime. In Phase 2, alkalinity was included in the muds in the form of green cement.

Table 1: Phase 1 drilling fluid preparation.

Mud Product A B C D E G H C1618 IO, bbl 0.567 0.567 0.567 0.63 0.63 0.441 0.708 Ester, bbl 0.063 0.063 0.063   0.189 0.079 Organophilic clay, ppb 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

Lime, ppb  3.0  3.0 3.0 3.0

1 ° emulsifier, ppb 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0

2 ° emulsifier, ppb 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Water, bbl 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.19 CaCl2 ( 95%), ppb 19.2 19.3 19.2 19.2 19.3 19.3 24.2 Barite, ppb 194 196 194 194 196 196

Fluid loss control, ppb 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

OCMA clay, ppb 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0

Green cement 1, ppb   15.0

1 F or the cement contaminated muds, 19.3 g of Class H cement was added to 10.3 g of water. This mixture was then added to 620 g ( 450 ml) of each mud and stirred for 10 minutes. Page 7 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 2: Phase 2 drilling fluid preparation.

Mud Products B I E J G K C1618 IO, bbl 0.567 0.567 0.63 0.63 0.441 0.441 Ester, bbl 0.063 0.063   0.189 0.189 Organophilic clay, ppb 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 1 ° emulsifier, ppb 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2 ° emulsifier, ppb 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 25% CaCl2, ppb 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 59.5 Barite, g 198 198 198 198 198 198 Fluid loss control, ppb 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 OCMA clay, ppb 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 Green cement1, ppb 15.0 15.0 15.0 1 F or the cement contaminated muds, 19.3 g of Class H cement was added to 10.3 g of water. This mixture was then added to 620 g ( 450 ml) of each mud and stirred for 10 minutes.

Sediment toxicity tests The 96 h sediment toxicity tests followed the method outlined in the EPA Region 6 General Permit ( USEPA, 2001a). A laboratory that routinely conducts industry compliance tests carried out the sediment toxicity tests. For each sediment toxicity test, six treatments were prepared with formulated sediment, five with the test material and a negative control. The sediment toxicity tests were conducted in 2 phases: ( 1) Phase 1 for selected temperature and time conditions for muds A and D, and ( 2) Phase 2 for selected temperature and time conditions for muds B, I, E, J, G, and K. Phase 2 sediment toxicity tests were carried out with a statistical design ( see below). Phase 1 tests were performed on April 8 12, 2004 and Phase 2 tests wee performed on June 17 22, 2004. Table 3 shows the specific time and temperature conditions that were tested for the various muds. The formulated sediment used for these tests was prepared at the test laboratory. The dry components of the formulated sediment were mixed with 20 ppt synthetic seawater the day before the treatments were prepared. Test concentrations ( 3, 10, 34, 115, and 383 ml/ kg) were prepared as ml of drilling fluid per kg of dry formulated sediment. Each treatment was mixed for ten minutes with a hand held mixer. With each batch of toxicity test there was a reference mud ( 11.5 ppg, based on a C1618 internal olefin fluid) toxicity test that was also conducted. This reference test is an industry standard and was used to determine the sediment toxicity compliance ratio ( STR; reference LC50/ test material LC50   1.0).

One hundred Leptocheirus plumulosus ( five replicates of 20) were each exposed to formulated sediment spiked with the test material at five different ml/ kg concentrations and negative control. Each replicate contained approximately 150 ml formulated sediment and 600 ml 20 ppt overlying water. All treatments were prepared and dispensed 18 to 24 hours prior to initiating the test. Treatments were kept in a dedicated environmental chamber with 14 hours light and 10 hours dark at 20 ± 1 ° C and the test was aerated. At 24 hour intervals temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity were measured in each treatment. After 96 hours, all five replicates of each treatment were terminated and the number of surviving organisms recorded. This survival information was used to determine the concentration that caused 50% mortality ( LC50) and the 95% confidence intervals. Quality assurance and quality control parameters were within acceptable ranges ( USEPA, 2001). Page 8 of 30 July 29, 2004 Analytical measurements 2 Ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) and ester in the heat aged muds were measured using gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry ( GC/ MS). Olefin and paraffin content were determined by difference. A sub sample of each test material was placed in a 40 ml vial and centrifuged for approximately 60 minutes or until adequate separation. Then, 0.1 ml of supernatant liquid was taken from the top by pipette. This sample was decanted into a 2 ml vial and diluted 10 times with 0.9 ml of methylene chloride. The combined sample was homogenized by gentle shaking and inversion.

From the diluted sample portion, a 1 µ l sample was obtained using a 10 µ l autosampler syringe. The sample was then directly injected into an Agilent model 6890 gas chromatograph with an Agilent model 5973N mass selective detector. The column used was an HP 19091S 433 ( HP 5MS 5% Phenyl Methyl Siloxane, 30 m length, 250 µ m diameter, 0.25 µ m film thickness). A temperature program was used ( initial temperature 50 ° C, ramp at 10 ° C/ min up to 325 ° C). Total run time per sample was 29.5 min. The injector temperature was 260 ° C and the detector temperature was 280 ° C.

Each component of the base fluid blend ( C1618 internal olefin, ester) and 2 EH was analyzed to determine its chromatographic retention time. The 2 ethyl hexanol was determined to be present in the 3.8 to 4.2 minute interval, ester was determined to be present in the 18 to 20 minute range, the olefin was determined to be in the 10 to 13.8 minute range, and another insignificant quantity of material was present in the 2.5 to 8 minute range ( this material was reported as paraffin). The ester material was observed as five peaks on the chromatograms. These peaks corresponded to the C8, C10, C12, C14, and C16 fatty acid based esters. Two ( C8 and C10 fatty acid based esters) of these five peaks were small and co eluted with the olefin material. As a result, the three largest ester peaks ( C12, C14, and C16 fatty acid based esters), which accounted for ~ 86% of the ester material were used to quantify the amount of ester present in each sample.

Results were calculated based on the area under the peaks in relation to the total area corrected for baseline. All compounds were assumed to have equal response factors. For the heat aged samples, quantitative analysis was performed only on the ester and 2 ethyl hexanol components. The paraffin and/ or olefin content were determined by subtracting the ester and 2 EH values from 100%. Percent ester was determined as follows:

100 13755 . 1 area corrected of sum peaks ester 3 of sum ester % × × =

Detection limits for 2 EH and ester were 0.01 wt%. Trace paraffin concentrations were < 2 wt%. Spike recovery experiments for 2 EH ( 1 wt%) added to Mud D ( IO mud with lime) showed recoveries of 72 %. The reported results were not corrected for recovery.

I n Phase 1, measurements were made for muds A, B, C, D, E, G, and H. In Phase 2, measurements were made for muds E, B, G, J, K, and I.

Statistical experimental design for Phase 2 Data developed in Phase 1 of the study was used to plan Phase 2, which consisted of a series of sediment toxicity tests for selected time and temperature heat aging conditions for 6 different muds. Due to the large number of possible combinations of parameters, a statistical experimental design was employed. For this study, there were four factors that were studied to determine their effects on the sediment toxicity ratio ( STR): ester content of ester/ olefin muds ( expressed as % ester), absence or presence of green cement ( alkalinity effects; yes/ no), exposure temperature ( ° F), and exposure time ( hr). For each factor, the design was selected to Page 9 of 30 July 29, 2004 determine the primary or main effect independently of all the other factors. Additionally, the design was set up to allow for estimation of two way interaction effects ( e. g. when the impact of one factor depends on the setting of another factor) as well as potential non linear effects for all factors except green cement content.

Experimental logistical constraints necessitated performing the experiments in two " blocks". The assignment of each experiment to Block 1 or Block 2 was done in a manner that did not compromise the ability to estimate the effect of the factors under study.

I n order to estimate all these effects, it was necessary to study percent ester ( 0, 10, 30), temperature ( 275, 300, 350 ° F) and time ( 16, 40, 160 hr) at three levels and green cement ( 0, 15 ppb) at two levels. Performing all possible combinations would have required 54 experiments in total. To minimize the number of experiments, a statistical experimental design was used to allow for the estimation of all the desired effects in less than half the number of runs. The trade off in doing fewer runs was the inability to estimate higher ordered interactions ( three way and above). However, experience has shown that such effects are rarely significant either statistically or practically.

When doing fewer than the full number of experiments, the primary goals in selecting the subset were allocation and balance. Allocation means that the total number of runs is relatively evenly spread among the levels being studied for each factor ( e. g., similar number of runs with high temperature as low temperature). Balance means that for a given level of say temperature, there are a similar if not equal number of runs at high time and low time, high percent ester and low, etc.

Table 3 below demonstrates the final design chosen. This table also visually demonstrates the allocation and balance referred above. Page 10 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 3: Sediment toxicity testing experimental design matrix. In Phase 1, two muds ( A and D) were tested on April 8 12, 2004. These Phase 1 tests are designated with a

. In Phase 2, which employed a statistical design, six muds were tested and are designated as Muds E, B, G, J, K, and I. Two separate groups ( blocks) of experiments were conducted ( Block # 1, June 17 21, 2004; Block # 2, June 18 22, 2004). An IO1618 reference mud test was conducted with each block. Each time and temperature condition tested is denoted by

for Block # 1 and  for Block # 2 ( 2

or 2  indicates a duplicate experiment was conducted). Alkalinity sources are either lime ( L) or green cement ( GC).

Sediment Toxicity Test Matrix IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Brine Time ( hr) T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None no 275

None no 300    None no 325 None no 350

J I K GC no 275

GC no 300    GC no 325 GC no 350

2  2

, 2

D A L no 275

L no 300

L no 325 L no 350

C L, GC no 275 L, GC no 300 L, GC no 325 L, GC no 350 H None yes 275 None yes 300 None yes 325 None yes 350 Page 11 of 30 July 29, 2004 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Phase 1   screening experiments During Phase 1 of the study, seven muds were prepared and subjected to elevated temperatures for different periods of time ( 0   160 hr). Prior work in industry laboratories suggested that the sediment toxicity of ester containing muds could increase under certain conditions of time and temperature. In addition, the sediment toxicity has been observed to increase concomitantly with the level of 2 ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) in the mud. 2 Ethyl hexanol can be produced via the hydrolysis of ester products that are based on 2 EH. Thus, for the muds prepared for Phase 1, the 2 EH concentration was measured at each time and temperature condition. In addition, a few selected muds were used to carry out sediment toxicity tests with L. plumulosus ( see Table 3).

Analytical measurements of Phase 1 muds Each of the prepared muds was analyzed for 2 EH, ester content, olefin content, and paraffin content. The data for Phase 1 are shown in the Appendix. In addition, the 2 EH values are shown as a function of temperature and time in Table 4.

I n general, longer times and higher temperatures resulted in the formation of higher levels of 2 EH. The removal of all mud constituents except brine ( Mud H) reduced but did not eliminate the amount of 2 EH formed. For the longest time and temperature conditions studied, the 2 EH concentration was 2   2.6 wt%. For these muds, a corresponding decrease in ester content was observed ( see Appendix). No 2 EH was detected in muds that did not include ester as part of the formulation.

Sediment toxicity of Phase 1 muds Eight of the prepared mud samples were tested for sediment toxicity to L. plumulosus. Two mud types were assessed: ( 1) an internal olefin ( IO) mud prepared with lime ( Mud D) and ( 2) a 90/ 10 olefin/ ester blend mud prepared with lime ( Mud A). The sediment toxicity results are shown in Table 5.

Each result is reported as an LC50 ( ml/ kg) along with its corresponding 95% confidence interval. A corresponding C1618 IO reference mud ( 11.5 ppg) was also tested for sediment toxicity. This reference mud had an LC50 of 79 ml/ kg. The reference LC50 was used to calculate a sediment toxicity ratio ( STR, LC50 reference mud/ LC50 test mud) according to USEPA procedures ( USEPA, 2001). The calculated STRs are shown in Table 6. In order for a mud to be in compliance, the STR must be   1.0.

The ester containing mud was more toxic ( lower LC50, higher STR) than the IO mud. One of the ester mud samples ( time of 40 hr and temperature of 350 ° F) had an STR > 1.0 ( 1.6) which would have resulted in a failure for a field compliance test.

These Phase 1 results support the hypothesis that toxicity was negatively affected by the presence of ester in the ester/ olefin blends and downhole conditions ( time, temperature). These results were used as a basis to design the experiments for Phase 2. Page 12 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 4: Phase 1 concentrations of 2 ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) in drilling muds as a function of time, temperature, and presence or absence of an alkalinity source ( L = lime, GC = green cement). Areas highlighted indicate concentrations of 2 EH > 0.5 wt%.

2 ethyl hexanol ( wt %)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Brine Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None no 275 0.05 0.09 0.3 0.14 0.4 1.37 None no 300 ND 0.05 0.41 0.1 0.35 1.86 None no 325 0.06 0.16 0.89 0.38 0.92 2.55 None no 350 0.15 0.42 0.9 0.78 2.18 2.52 J I K GC no 275 GC no 300 GC no 325 GC no 350 D A L no 275 ND ND ND 0.05 0.1 0.85 0.55 L no 300 ND ND ND 0.1 0.15 0.54 0.6 L no 325 ND ND ND 0.2 0.45 1.19 1.74 L no 350 ND ND ND 0.3 0.7 1.89 2.06 C L, GC no 275 0.08 0.2 0.39 1.29 L, GC no 300 0.06 0.3 0.93 1.87 L, GC no 325 0.27 0.84 2.36 L, GC no 350 0.62 1.59 2.61 H None yes 275 ND ND 0.06 None yes 300 ND 0.02 0.10 None yes 325 ND ND 0.44 None yes 350 ND 0.06 0.77 Page 13 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 5: Phase 1 sediment toxicity ( LC50) to L. plumulosus. The reference mud ( 11.5 ppg) had an LC50 of 79 ml/ kg ( 68   94). Areas highlighted indicate 2 EH concentrations > 0.5 wt%. Alkalinity sources were either L = lime or GC = green cement.

LC50 ( ml/ kg)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None 275 None 300 None 325 None 350 J I K GC 275 GC 300 GC 325 GC 350 D A L 275 > 240 > 240 L 300 151 ( 121   189) 109 ( 9   133)

L 325 L 350 > 240 183 ( 135   248) 226 ( 206   247) 50 ( 43   58)

C L, GC 275 L, GC 300 L, GC 325 L, GC 350 Page 14 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 6: Phase 1 sediment toxicity ratios ( STR) based on data in Table 5. Areas highlighted indicate 2 EH concentrations > 0.5 wt%.

Alkalinity sources were either L = lime or GC = green cement. Sediment Toxicity Ratio ( STR)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None 275 None 300 None 325 None 350 J I K GC 275 GC 300 GC 325 GC 350 D A L 275 < 0.3 < 0.3 L 300 0.5 0.7 L 325 L 350 < 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.6 C L, GC 275 L, GC 300 L, GC 325 L, GC 350 Page 15 of 30 July 29, 2004 Phase 2   detailed experiments During Phase 2 of the study, six new muds were prepared and subjected to elevated temperatures for different periods of time ( 0   160 hr). Five of these muds were equivalent to muds used in Phase 1with green cement used as an alkalinity source in place of lime. The additional mud was a 70/ 30 internal olefin/ ester blend contaminated with green cement. For the muds prepared for Phase 2, the 2 EH concentration was measured at each time and temperature condition. In addition, all of the muds were used to carry out sediment toxicity tests with L. plumulosus.

Analytical measurements of Phase 2 muds Each of the prepared muds was analyzed for 2 EH, ester content, olefin content, and paraffin content. The data for Phase 2 are shown in the Appendix. In addition, the 2 EH values are shown as a function of temperature and time in Table 7.

I n general, longer times and higher temperatures resulted in the formation of higher levels of 2 EH. For the longest time and temperature conditions studied, the 2 EH concentration was 5   10 wt%. For these muds, a corresponding decrease in ester content was observed ( see Appendix). No 2 EH was detected in muds that did not include ester as part of the formulation.

Sediment toxicity of Phase 2 muds A selection of the prepared muds ( 22 muds, plus 3 replicates were tested for sediment toxicity to L. plumulosus. The sediment toxicity tests were carried out in two blocks ( see Experimental) due to logistical constraints for the experiments. The two blocks of experiments were performed on consecutive days. The sediment toxicity results are shown in Table 8.

Each result is reported as an LC50 ( ml/ kg) along with its corresponding 95% confidence interval. A corresponding C1618 IO reference mud ( 11.5 ppg) was also tested for sediment toxicity with each block. This reference mud had an LC50 of 100 and 66 ml/ kg, respectively for Blocks # 1 and # 2. The reference LC50 was used to calculate a sediment toxicity ratio ( STR, LC50 reference mud/ LC50 test mud) according to USEPA procedures ( USEPA, 2001). The calculated STRs are shown in Table 9.

The ester containing muds were more toxic ( lower LC50, higher STR) than the IO muds. In general, higher times and temperatures resulted in higher STRs. Five of the ester/ olefin mud samples had a STRs > 1.0 ( 1.4   2.9) which would have resulted in failures for field compliance tests.

These Phase 2 results support the hypothesis that toxicity was negatively affected by esterester olefin blends, downhole conditions ( time, temperature) and formulation ( alkalinity via the presence/ absence of green cement). Page 16 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 7: Phase 2 concentrations of 2 ethyl hexanol ( 2 EH) in drilling muds as a function of time, temperature, and presence or absence of an alkalinity source. Areas highlighted indicate 2 EH concentrations > 0.5 wt%. Alkalinity sources were either L = lime or GC = green cement. 2 ethyl hexanol (%)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None 275 ND 0.15 0.15 1.22 None 300 ND 0.22 1.06 None 350 ND 1.27 1.5 0.58 J I K GC 275 ND 0.64 0.4 GC 300 ND 1.53 2.22 GC 350 ND 1.31 2.42, 2.40, 2.46, 2.72 4.99 9.75 D A L 275 L 300 L 350 C L, GC 275 L, GC 300 L, GC 350 Page 17 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 8: Phase 2  Sediment toxicity of heat aged muds to L. plumulosus. Data reported as LC50 in ml/ kg ( 95% confidence interval).

Areas highlighted indicate 2 EH concentrations > 0.5 wt%. Alkalinity sources were either L = lime or GC = green cement.

LC50 ( ml/ kg)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None 275 189 ( 152   235) 82 ( 68   99) > 383 161 ( 145   178)

None 300 > 383 121 ( 98   155) 145 ( 116   179)

None 350 256 ( 209   315) 68 ( 56   81) 84 ( 72   98) > 383 J I K GC 275 122 ( 102   147) 108 ( 94   125) 171 ( 130   224)

GC 300 153 ( 125   187) 74 ( 63   86) 39 ( 34   44)

GC 350 > 383 73 ( 62   83)

129 ( 109   153) 116 ( 98   138)

74 ( 62   88)

63 ( 53   75)

46 ( 39   55) 31 ( 27   36) 34 ( 29   40)

D A L 275 L 300 L 350 F C L, GC 275 L, GC 300 L, GC 350 Page 18 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 9: Phase 1  Sediment toxicity ratios ( STR) of heat aged muds. Comparisons were made to a 11.5 ppg reference mud prepared with a 1618 internal olefin base fluid. The reference mud toxicities were 100 ml/ kg and 66 ml/ kg for the sediment toxicity experiments conducted on 6/ 17 6/ 21/ 04 and 6/ 18 6/ 22/ 04, respectively. Areas highlighted indicate 2 EH concentrations > 0.5 wt%. Alkalinity sources were either L = lime or GC = green cement. Sediment Toxicity Ratio ( STR)

IO 90/ 10 IO/ ester 70/ 30 IO/ ester Alkalinity Source Time ( hr)

T ( F) 16 40 160 16 40 88 160 16 40 160 E B G None 275 0.5 0.8 < 0.3 0.6 None 300 < 0.2 0.5 0.5 None 350 0.4 1.0 0.8 < 0.3 J I K GC 275 0.8 0.6 0.6 GC 300 0.4 0.9 1.7 GC 350 < 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.4 2.1 2.9 D A L 275 L 300 L 350 C L, GC 275 L, GC 300 L, GC 350 Page 19 of 30 July 29, 2004 Sediment toxicity ratio ( STR) statistical model The experimental results of Phase 2 were used to develop a statistical model to analyze the toxicity and 2 EH data sets. A series of statistical models were constructed. With the available data it was possible to build models for both test LC50 and the resulting STR. Models for both could be used to generate similar predicted STRs for a given combination of factors/ inputs. However, since STR is the most relevant parameter from the perspective of passing or failing a compliance test, one specific STR model was selected for data analysis and is summarized below. For the specific model selected, the STR data were not log transformed. This model was developed via standard analysis of variance ( ANOVA) and regression methods ( Iman and Conover, 1983). Table 10 provides a summary of the significant effects for the final STR model.

Table 10: Parameter estimates for STR model.

Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob > | t|

Intercept  0.904246 0.062217 15.85 <. 0001 Ester wt%, E  0.014261 0.078952 4.40 0.0003 Green cement, G  0.032288 0.062221 6.75 <. 0001 Time ( hr), t  0.003024 0.072279 4.56 0.0002 Temperature ( ° F), T 0.0053333 0.065185 3.07 0.0066 Ester wt%* Green Cement, E x G 0.0024638 0.074656 3.71 0.0016 Ester wt%* Time, E x t 0.000215 0.086763 2.68 0.0154 Green Cement* Time, G x t 0.0005831 0.072197 4.36 0.0004 Note that all p values ( Prob>| t|) are less than the 0.05 threshold, corresponding to the 95% confidence level. Equation 1 gives the resulting prediction formula for STR:

Gt Et EG T t G E STR 000583 . 0 0002 . 0 000246 . 0 005 . 0 003 . 0 0323 . 0 014 . 0 904 . 0 + + + +         = ( 1)

where E = percent ester in the base fluid used for the drilling mud G = alkalinity present in green cement ( ppb) used in the drilling mud t = time ( hr) mud was heated at temperature T T = temperature ( ° F) at which the mud was held for time t This model accounted for approximately 80% of the variability in STR. Figures 1 and 2 represent the model in a more visual way. Figure 1 is a plot of the predicted versus the actual STR for each experiment. Page 20 of 30 July 29, 2004 Figure 1: Comparison of model predicted versus actual for STR model. Dashed lines represent expected variability about the fitted model.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 S T R A c t u a l .0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 STR Predicted P<. 0001 RSq= 0.86 RMSE= 0.2755 Figure 2: Effect profiles for STR model. Vertical dashed red lines correspond to the current setting for each variable, yielding the current predicted STR that is noted with the horizontal dashed line.

S T R 2.941 0.1551 0.952235 Ester %( 0,30) 0 3 0 15 GC( 0,15) 0 1 5 9 Time( 16,160) 1 6 1 6 0 61 Temp( 275,350) 2 7 5 3 5 0 318 The overall effect of each factor is generally to increase the STR by decreasing the LC50 of the test mud. Page 21 of 30 July 29, 2004 There were three significant interaction effects: ( 1) Ester x Lime, ( 2) Ester x time, and ( 3) Lime x time. The significance of these interaction effects indicates that these parameters work together in addition to their individual effect to determine the STR. For example, if the Ester x Lime interaction is considered, the effect of percent ester on STR depends on whether lime is present as well.

There were four experiments in which the test LC50 was greater than the maximum concentration studied (> 383 ml/ kg). Several approaches for handling these " detection limited" experiments via both substitution and exclusion were considered. The resulting " best model" in each case gave effects and predictions that did not differ significantly either from a practical or statistical perspective. As a result, a substitution method was used for the model summarized here. This method used the relationship between survival percent and LC50 to estimate the LC50s that were > 383 ml/ kg.

Application of the sediment toxicity ratio ( STR) statistical model The section above gave a brief summary of the final model in terms of quality and estimated effects. However, the model can be used to address research questions of interest. The experimental results shown above support the hypothesis that toxicity was negatively affected by ester/ olefin blends, downhole conditions ( time, temperature), and formulation ( presence/ absence of green cement). However, due to large variability in the sediment toxicity results, it is difficult to quantify these effects. As a result, the model was used to develop quantitative boundaries for some of these negative effects.

An example of the use of the model is shown below in Figure 3.

The 95% prediction limits are quite broad ( ± 0.6 STR units) due to the large observed variability in the sediment toxicity results and corresponding ratios. Nevertheless, the model suggests that on average at temperatures > 285   290 ° F, the STR for this scenario ( 10% ester, presence of 15 ppb green cement, and time = 80 hr) will be > 1.0.

Figure 4 shows a contour plot of STR = 1 as a function of temperature, % ester, time, and absence or presence of 15 ppb green cement. Each line represents a constant STR of 1.0 at a specific point in time. Areas above each line at a fixed time indicate combinations of temperature and % ester where on average the STR will be > 1.0. Areas below each line at a fixed time indicate combinations of temperature and % ester where on average the STR will be < 1.0. Up to 160 hr, for range of muds tested ( ester content up to 30%), in the absence of green cement, the average STR does not go above 1 for temperatures > 325   350 ° F. However, in the presence of green cement ( 15 ppb), the average STR begins to go above 1 in the ester range of 10   30% at temperatures > 300 ° F.

The statistical model ( Equation 1) was used to estimate temperature thresholds that would result in statistically significant effects on the STR. These results are shown in Table 11. At temperatures above 295 ° F and less than 275 ° F, the model predicts that the STR will be > 1.0 with 95% confidence, when the ester content and times are 10% and 160 hr and 30% and 160 hr, respectively ( in the presence of green cement). Thus, based on the predictive statistical model, at a temperature of 300 ° F, ester containing muds with > 10% ester in the presence of 15 ppb green cement will likely fail the mud sediment toxicity test as they will have STR > 1.0 with a certainty of 95% confidence. Page 22 of 30 July 29, 2004 Figure 3: Predicted STR ( with 95% prediction limits) as a function of temperature for the scenario 10% ester content, presence of 15 ppb green cement, and time of 80 hr.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Temperature ( F) Sediment Toxicity Ratio Model Prediction 95% Prediction Limit Page 23 of 30 July 29, 2004 Figure 4: Contour plot of STR = 1 as a function of temperature, % ester, time, and absence or presence of 15 ppb green cement. Each line represents a constant STR of 1.0 at a specific point in time. Areas above each line at a fixed time indicate combinations of temperature and % ester where on average the STR will be > 1.0. Areas below each line at a fixed time indicate combinations of temperature and % ester where on average the STR will be < 1.0.

t = 40 h t = 80 h t = 120 h t = 160 h t = 40 h t = 80 h t = 120 h t = 160 h  100 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % Ester Temperature ( F) for STR = 1  Green Cement + Green Cement STR > 1 STR < 1 The statistical model ( Equation 1) was also used to estimate ester content thresholds that would result in statistically significant effects on the STR. These results are shown in Table 12. At ester contents above > 10%, the model predicts that the STR will be > 1.0 with 95% confidence, when the time approaches 160 hr ( in the presence of green cement). Thus, based on the predictive statistical model, ester containing muds with > 10% ester in the presence of green cement will likely fail the mud sediment toxicity test as they will have STR > 1.0 with a certainty of 95% confidence.

Finally, the STR statistical model developed with the data from Phase 2 was validated with the data from Phase 1. Thus, the independent data from Phase 1 were used to " test" the STR model. This analysis assumed that the alkalinity from the lime and the alkalinity of the green cement added to the muds had equivalent effects. In the comparison, one unit of lime ( 3 ppb) was assumed to equal one unit of green cement ( 15 ppb). These results are shown in Table 13. For 6 of the 7 sediment toxicity tests in Phase 1, the STR model was able to predict the measured STR within the 95% prediction limits. Page 24 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 11: Estimated temperature thresholds ( ° F) for having 95% confidence that a specific mud ( time, ester content, alkalinity via presence or absence of green cement) will pass ( STR < 1) or fail ( STR > 1).

Threshold Temp ( F)

STR < 1 STR > 1 Ester (%) Green Cement ( ppb) Time ( hr) 95% Confidence Pass 95% Confidence Fail 0 0 16 < 275 > 350 0 0 160 < 312 > 350 5 0 16 < 275 > 350 5 0 160 < 300 > 350 10 0 16 < 275 > 350 10 0 160 < 285 > 350 30 0 16 < 303 > 350 30 0 160 < 275 > 350 0 15 16 < 310 > 350 0 15 160 < 275 > 350 5 15 16 < 285 > 350 5 15 160 < 275 > 350 10 15 16 < 275 > 350 10 15 160 < 275 > 295 30 15 16 < 275 > 350 30 15 160 < 275 < 275 Page 25 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table 12: Estimated ester percentage thresholds (%) for having 95% confidence that a specific mud ( time, alkalinity via presence or absence of green cement) will pass ( STR < 1) or fail ( STR > 1) at a temperature of 300 ° F.

Ester Threshold (%)

STR < 1 STR > 1 Temperature ( ° F) Green Cement ( ppb) Time ( hr) 95% Confidence Pass 95% Confidence Fail 300 0 16 < 30

300 0 160 < 5

300 15 16 < 3 >> 30 300 15 160  > 10 Table 13: Comparison of predicted and measured STRs from the preliminary ( Phase 1) data set.

Ester (%) Lime ( ppb) Time ( hr) Temperature ( ° F) Lower 95% Pred Limit Predicted STR Upper 95% Pred Limit Measured STR 0 3 1 16 275  0.506 0.170 0.845 < 0.3 0 3 16 350  0.079 0.570 1.218 < 0.3 0 3 40 350 0.073 0.707 1.341 0.4 0 3 160 300 0.397 1.127 1.857 0.5 10 3 16 275  0.207 0.431 1.069 < 0.3 10 3 160 300 1.023 1.698 2.373 0.7 10 3 40 350 0.413 1.020 1.627 1.6 1 For the model analysis, it was assumed that 3 ppb lime was equivalent to 15 ppb green cement.

2 Ethyl hexanol correlates with increased STR Another hypothesis for the study was that the presence of 2 EH as an indicator of ester hydrolysis in a drilling mud would lead to increased sediment toxicity ( higher STR). This hypothesis was tested in both Phases 1 and 2. The raw data for the 2 EH measurements are shown in the Appendix. Figure 5 is a plot of STR as a function of 2 EH concentration. In general, the STR increases as the concentration of 2 EH increases. The data from Phase 2 were used to develop a linear correlation for STR as a function of 2 EH ( R2 = 0.85). This correlation is shown as the predicted line in Figure 5 along with the 95% prediction limits of the correlation. The data from Phase 1 are consistent with the Phase 2 results. On average, at 2 EH concentrations > 2 wt%, the correlation predicts that STR will be > 1.0. With 95% confidence, the correlation predicts that STR will be > 1.0 when the 2 EH concentration exceeds 4 wt%. These results are consistent with the STR statistical model as they also indicate that at ester levels > 10%, temperatures > ~ 300 Page 26 of 30 July 29, 2004 ° F, and longer times ( 40   160 hr), it is likely that STR will be > 1.0 and the muds will fail the sediment toxicity test.

Figure 5: STR as a function of 2 EH.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 0 2 4 6 8 10 2 Ethyl Hexanol (%) STR Prediction 95% Prediction Limit 95% Confidence Limit Phase 2 Phase 1 CONCLUSIONS I n Phase 1 of this study eight bioassay tests were conducted on laboratory prepared samples tested at temperature ranges from 275 to 350 ° F. Four samples used an internal olefin ( IO1618) base fluid while four samples used ester/ olefin blends. There were no IO1618 drilling fluid sample failures and one ester/ IO sample failure in Phase 1.

I n Phase 2 of the study 26 bioassay tests were conducted on laboratory prepared samples at temperature ranges from 275 to 350 ° F. Six samples used IO 1618 base fluid while 20 samples used ester/ olefin blends. There were no IO 1618 drilling fluid sample failures and there were 5 ester/ IO drilling fluid sample failures.

The toxicity limitation failures of ester/ olefin blends at or below 350 ° F temperature exposures indicate the potential for compliance test failures under field conditions.

I n order to better understand the relationships of time, temperature and other factors on the toxicity performance, a statistical design and analysis of the test results was carried out to assess the probability of passing or failing the toxicity test. The sediment toxicity tests and analytical measurements conducted on the muds used for Phases 1 and 2 of this study support the hypothesis that toxicity was negatively affected by ester/ olefin blends and some high temperature Page 27 of 30 July 29, 2004 well downhole conditions. The data suggest that under some conditions, for the types of muds used in this study, sediment toxicity will increase when the mud is exposed to elevated temperatures for extended periods of time. Ester/ olefin muds with > 10% ester are likely to break down and produce breakdown products that will result in sediment toxicity and failure of the STR < 1.0 criteria required for compliance.

2 Ethyl hexanol was correlated with increased STR and can be used as a surrogate to screen for potential sediment toxicity for ester/ olefin muds that contain traditional esters. On average, when 2 EH concentrations exceed 2.0 wt%, it is likely that muds will fail sediment toxicity compliance tests. At 2 EH concentration of > 4 wt%, it is 95% certain that the muds will fail.

The data from this study support a temperature threshold of ~ 300 ° F for which operators should be cautious with the use of drilling fluids containing the types of esters ( traditional esters) tested in this study. Above 300 ° F these materials may break down and result in increased sediment toxicity for the drilling muds. Other types of esters were not examined in this study.

Consequently, while some individual ester/ olefin drilling muds that have been exposed to certain time and temperature conditions can be identified as passing the toxicity limitations, the statistical analysis of sediment toxicities of heat aged ester/ olefin drilling muds shows that under a broader evaluation of temperature, time and routine wellbore contamination that the functional temperature limitation for ester/ olefin blends is lower than expected by USEPA in development of the effluent limitation guidelines.

REFERENCES Iman, R. L. and W. J. Conover. 1983. A Modern Approach to Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

USEPA: Docket Number W 98 26, VI. A. a. 13, Index to the Rulemaking Record Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Synthetic Based Drilling Fluids and other Non Aqueous Drilling Fluids in the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category ( 40 CFR 435).

USEPA. 2001a. " Final NPDES General Permit for New and Existing Sources and New Dischargers in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category for the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico ( GMG290000)," ( 66 FR 65209) Federal Register v. 66 ( Dec 18, 2001) 65209.

USEPA ( United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil and Gas Point Source Category. 40 CFR Parts 9 and 35. Federal Register U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2003. Memorandum, Linda Y. Boornazian and Mary T. Smith, Clarification of Technology based Sediment Toxicity and Biodegradation Limitations and Standards for Controlling Synthetic based Drilling Fluid Discharges, October 10, 2003. Page 28 of 30 July 29, 2004 APPENDIX Table A 1: Phase 1 measurements for 2 EH, ester, olefin, and paraffin.

Mud Temperature ( ° F) Time ( hr) Lime Brine Green Cement 2 ethyl hexanol ( wt %) Ester ( wt %) Olefin ( wt %) Paraffin ( wt %) A Ambient 0 yes no no ND 11.9 88.1 TRACE A 275 16 yes no no 0.05 11.9 88.05 TRACE A 300 16 yes no no 0.10 11.5 88.4 trace A 275 40 yes no no 0.10 10.9 89 trace A 300 40 yes no no 0.15 11.2 88.65 trace A 325 16 yes no no 0.20 11.0 88.8 trace A 350 16 yes no no 0.30 10.6 89.1 TRACE A 325 40 yes no no 0.45 9.9 89.65 trace A 300 88 yes no no 0.54 8.85 90.61 trace A 275 160 yes no no 0.55 8.45 91 trace A 300 160 yes no no 0.60 9.3 90.1 trace A 350 40 yes no no 0.70 8.8 90.5 TRACE A 275 88 yes no no 0.85 9.0 90.15 trace A 325 88 yes no no 1.19 7.5 91.31 trace A 325 160 yes no no 1.74 5.69 92.57 trace A 350 88 yes no no 1.89 4.44 93.67 trace A 350 160 yes no no 2.06 3.46 94.54 trace B Ambient 0 no no no ND 10.3 89.7 trace B 300 16 no no no ND 10.6 89.4 trace B 275 16 no no no 0.05 10.5 89.45 trace B 300 40 no no no 0.05 10.3 89.65 trace B 325 16 no no no 0.06 10.4 89.54 trace B 275 40 no no no 0.09 10.0 89.91 trace B 350 16 no no no 0.15 9.36 90.49 trace B 325 40 no no no 0.16 8.8 91.04 trace B 275 160 no no no 0.30 8.84 90.86 trace B 300 160 no no no 0.41 8.41 91.18 trace B 350 40 no no no 0.42 8.53 91.05 trace B 325 160 no no no 0.89 6.71 92.4 trace B 350 160 no no no 0.90 5.68 93.42 trace C Ambient 0 no no yes ND 10.6 89.4 trace C 300 16 no no yes 0.06 10.3 89.64 trace C 275 16 no no yes 0.08 10.0 89.92 trace C 275 40 no no yes 0.20 9.7 90.1 trace C 325 16 no no yes 0.27 8.9 90.83 trace C 300 40 no no yes 0.30 9.0 90.7 trace C 275 88 no no yes 0.39 8.48 91.13 trace C 350 16 no no yes 0.62 8.01 91.37 trace C 325 40 no no yes 0.84 7.3 91.86 trace C 300 88 no no yes 0.93 7.3 91.77 trace C 275 160 no no yes 1.29 5.43 93.28 trace C 350 40 no no yes 1.59 5.45 92.96 trace C 300 160 no no yes 1.87 4.41 93.72 trace C 325 160 no no yes 2.36 3.13 94.51 trace C 350 160 no no yes 2.61 1.31 96.08 trace Page 29 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table A 1 continued: Phase 1 measurements for 2 EH, ester, olefin, and paraffin.

Mud Temperature ( ° F) Time ( hr) Lime Brine Green Cement 2 ethyl hexanol ( wt %) Ester ( wt %) Olefin ( wt %) Paraffin ( wt %) D Ambient 0 no no no ND ND 100 TRACE D 275 16 no no no ND ND 100 TRACE D 350 16 no no no ND ND 100 TRACE D 300 16 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 325 16 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 350 40 no no no ND ND 100 TRACE D 275 40 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 300 40 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 325 40 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 300 160 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 350 160 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 275 160 no no no ND ND 100 trace D 325 160 no no no ND ND 100 trace G Ambient 0 no no no 0.08 31.9 68.02 trace G 300 16 no no no 0.10 33.4 66.5 trace G 275 16 no no no 0.14 33.4 66.46 trace G 300 40 no no no 0.35 32.0 67.65 trace G 325 16 no no no 0.38 32.7 66.92 trace G 275 40 no no no 0.40 31.8 67.8 trace G 350 16 no no no 0.78 29.19 70.03 trace G 325 40 no no no 0.92 28.7 70.38 trace G 275 160 no no no 1.37 28.99 69.64 trace G 300 160 no no no 1.86 26.17 71.97 trace G 350 40 no no no 2.18 24.95 72.87 trace G 350 160 no no no 2.52 24.22 73.26 trace G 325 160 no no no 2.55 23.60 73.85 trace H Ambient 0 no yes no ND 11.8 88.2 ND H 275 16 no yes no ND 11.9 88.1 ND H 300 16 no yes no ND 11.8 88.2 ND H 350 16 no yes no ND 11.8 88.2 ND H 325 16 no yes no ND 11.4 88.6 trace H 275 40 no yes no ND 11.9 88.1 ND H 325 40 no yes no ND 10.5 89.5 trace H 300 40 no yes no 0.02 12 87.98 ND H 350 40 no yes no 0.06 11.9 88.04 ND H 275 160 no yes no 0.06 10.18 89.76 trace H 300 160 no yes no 0.10 11.17 88.73 trace H 325 160 no yes no 0.44 9.64 89.92 trace H 350 160 no yes no 0.77 7.94 91.29 trace ND = non detect. The detection limit was 0.01 wt %. Trace = < 2 wt %. Page 30 of 30 July 29, 2004 Table A 2: Phase 2 measurements for 2 EH, ester, olefin, and paraffin.

Mud Temperature ( ° F) Time ( hr) Green Cement 2 Ethyl Hexanol ( wt %) Ester ( wt %) Olefin ( wt %) Paraffin ( wt %) B 275 40 no 0.15 9.38 90.47 trace B 300 40 no 0.22 9.07 90.71 trace B 350 40 no 1.27 7.42 91.31 trace B 350 160 no 1.50 5.49 93.01 trace B 350 40 no 2.40 5.85 91.75 trace B 350 40 no 2.46 5.61 91.93 trace B 350 40 no 2.72 5.61 91.67 trace B 275 40 yes 0.64 9.08 90.28 trace B 350 16 yes 1.31 7.84 90.85 trace B 300 40 yes 1.53 7.49 90.98 trace B 350 40 yes 2.42 5.87 91.71 trace B 350 160 yes 4.99 4.19 91.82 trace E 275 16 no 0 ND 100 trace E 300 40 no 0 ND 100 trace E 350 160 no 0 ND 100 trace E 275 160 yes 0 ND 100 trace E 300 40 yes 0 ND 100 trace E 350 16 yes 0 ND 100 trace G 275 16 no 0.15 18.54 81.31 trace G 350 16 no 0.58 17.59 81.83 trace G 300 16 no 1.06 16.66 82.28 trace G 275 160 no 1.22 17.50 81.28 trace G 275 16 yes 0.40 17.93 81.67 trace G 300 40 yes 2.22 15.80 81.98 trace G 350 160 yes 9.75 4.19 86.06 trace ND = non detect. The detection limit was 0.01 wt %. Trace = < 2 wt %.


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 67350-67352]
[DOCID:fr07no05-7]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-8633; 34-52708; 35-28053; 39-2440; IC-27139]
RIN 3235-AG96

Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is
adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and
Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual, Volume II: ``EDGAR Filing'' to
reflect updates to the EDGAR system. The revisions are being made
primarily to support the amended rules and forms adopted by the
Commission to address the use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and Form 20-F by

Shell Companies and the changes necessary to support the Securities
Offering Reform, which will modify and advance significantly the
registration, communications, and offering processes under the
Securities Act of 1933. The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect
changes within Filer Manual, Volume II: ``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 2
(November 2005). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference
into the Code of Federal Regulations. EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I:
``General Information,'' Version 1 (September 2005) and Volume III:
``N-SAR Supplement,'' Version 1 (September 2005) have not been changed.

DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 2005. The incorporation by reference
of the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of November 7, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the Office of Information
Technology, Rick Heroux, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for questions concerning
the Division of Corporation Finance filings, in the Division of
Corporation Finance, Herbert Scholl, Office Chief, EDGAR and
Information Analysis, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for questions concerning the
Division of Investment Management filings, in the Division of
Investment Management, Ruth Armfield Sanders, Senior Special Counsel,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>; and, in the Office of Filings and Information
Services, Barbara Stance, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today we are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer
Manual (Filer Manual), Volume II: ``EDGAR Filing.'' The Filer Manual
describes the technical formatting requirements for the preparation and
submission of electronic filings through the EDGAR system.\1\ It also
describes the requirements for filing using EDGARLink \2\ and the
Online Forms/XML Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993,
with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April
1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. The Commission granted the authorization to
publish the release adopting the reorganized EDGAR Filer Manual,
Release No. 33-8612 (September 21, 2005) [70 FR 57130].
    \2\ This is the filer assistance software we provide filers
filing on the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for
filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply
with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure
the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic
format.\3\ Filers should consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with
our rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents
for electronic submission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).
    \4\ See Release Nos. 33-6977 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14628],
IC-19284 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 14848], 35-25746 (February 23,
1993) [58 FR 14999], and 33-6980 (February 23, 1993) [58 FR 15009]
in which we comprehensively discuss the rules we adopted to govern
mandated electronic filing. See also Release No. 33-7122 (December
19, 1994) [59 FR 67752], in which we made the EDGAR rules final and
applicable to all domestic registrants; Release No. 33-7427 (July 1,
1997) [62 FR 36450], in which we adopted minor amendments to the
EDGAR rules; Release No. 33-7472 (October 24, 1997) [62 FR 58647],
in which we announced that, as of January 1, 1998, we would not
accept in paper filings that we require filers to submit
electronically; Release No. 34-40934 (January 12, 1999) [64 FR
2843], in which we made mandatory the electronic filing of Form 13F;
Release No. 33-7684 (May 17, 1999) [64 FR 27888], in which we
adopted amendments to implement the first stage of EDGAR
modernization; Release No. 33-7855 (April 24, 2000) [65 FR 24788],
in which we implemented EDGAR Release 7.0; Release No. 33-7999
(August 7, 2001) [66 FR 42941], in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 7.5; Release No. 33-8007 (September 24, 2001) [66 FR 49829],
in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.0; Release No. 33-8224
(April 30, 2003) [66 FR 24345], in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 8.5; Release Nos. 33-8255 (July 22, 2003) [68 FR 44876] and
33-8255A (September 4, 2003) [68 FR 53289] in which we implemented
EDGAR Release 8.6; Release No. 33-8409 (April 19, 2004) [69 FR
21954] in which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.7; Release No. 33-
8454 (August 6, 2004) [69 FR 49803] in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 8.8; Release No. 33-8528 (February 3, 2005) [70 FR 6573] in
which we implemented EDGAR Release 8.10; and Release No. 33-8573
(May 19, 2005) [70 FR 30899] in which we implemented EDGAR Release
9.0; and Release No. 33-8612 (September 21, 2005) [70 FR 57130] in
which the Commission granted the authorization to publish the
release adopting the reorganized EDGAR Filer Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revisions are being made primarily to support the following
rules adopted by the Commission:
(1) Use of Form S-8, Form 8-K, and Form 20-F by Shell Companies
    Changes to incorporate this rule include:
     Add new 8-K Item 5.06 ``Change in Shell Company Status.''
     Add new submission header field ``Shell Company'' to Forms
10-K, 10-KSB, and 20-F to allow filers to indicate if they meet the
shell company criteria as specified in the rule.
(2) Securities Offering Reform
    Changes to incorporate this rule include:
     Allow eligible well-known seasoned issuers to register
unspecified amounts of different specified types of securities on Form
S-3 or Form F-3 registration statements using new EDGAR submission form
types S-3ASR and F-3ASR, which are immediately effective upon filing
(i.e., automatic shelf registration). Include submission header field
to allow issuers using an automatic shelf registration statement to
indicate whether the filing fees are paid in advance or on a ``pay-as-
you-go'' basis on the shelf registration statement.
     Allow eligible well-known seasoned issuers to add
additional securities or classes of securities and eligible majority-
owned subsidiaries as additional registrants after an automatic shelf
registration statement is effective using new submission form type
POSASR. Include a submission header field to allow issuers using an
automatic shelf registration statement to indicate whether the filing
fees are paid in advance or on a ``pay-as-you-go'' basis on the shelf
registration statement.
     Allow well-known seasoned issuers to file a prospectus
supplement (submission form types 424B1, 424B2, 424B3, 424B4, 424B5,
and 424B7) that includes a calculation of registration fee table. Add
new submission header field to allow a well-known seasoned issuer to
indicate whether the filing fees are paid in advance or on a ``pay-as-
you-go'' basis.
     Allow all issuers to indicate that a prospectus supplement
is being filed late using new submission form type 424(b)(8). Well-
known seasoned issuers can include a calculation of registration fee
table in the filing. Include a submission header field to allow a well-
known seasoned issuer to indicate whether the filing fees are paid in
advance or on a ``pay-as-you-go'' basis.
     Allow an issuer to file a free writing prospectus (FWP)
using new submission form type FWP. Include new submission header
fields to indicate the filing is made pursuant to Rule 163, Rule 433,
or both. Include new submission header ``First Issuing Entity Filing''
checkbox to indicate that the FWP is the first filing for an asset-
backed security issuing entity.
     Allow filers to indicate on submission form type 425
whether the communications also is being filed pursuant to Rule 433,
Rule 163, or both.
     Add new submission header fields to submission form types
10-K, 10-KT, and 20-F for filers to indicate if they are well-known
seasoned issuers.
     Add new submission header fields to submission form types
10-K, 10-KT, and 20-F for filers, other than investment companies, to
indicate that they are not required to file reports pursuant to Section
13 and Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
     Rescind Forms F-2 and S-2 as these forms were eliminated
effective December 1, 2005.
    For EDGAR Release 9.2, the EDGARLink software and submission
templates 1, 2, and 3 will be updated to support the aforementioned
forms and

submission form type changes. It is highly recommended that filers
download, install, and use the new EDGARLink software and submission
templates to ensure that submissions will be processed successfully.
Previous versions of the templates may not work properly. Notice of the
update has previously been provided on the EDGAR Filing Web site and on
the Commission's public Web site. The discrete updates are reflected on
the EDGAR Filing Web site and in the updated Filer Manual Volume II.
    Along with adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301
of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into
the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the
following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. We will
post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address
for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You may

also obtain copies from Thomson Financial, the paper document
contractor for the Commission, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or
practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\5\ It follows that the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act \6\ do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule
amendments is November 7, 2005. In accordance with the APA,\7\ we find
that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30
days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to
Release 9.2 is scheduled to become available on November 7, 2005. The
Commission believes that it is necessary to coordinate the
effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the scheduled system
upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Basis

    We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6,
7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,\8\ Sections 3, 12,
13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\9\
Section 20 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935,\10\
Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,\11\ and Sections 8, 30,
31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 79t.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendment

0
In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 232 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77sss(a),
78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a-8, 80a-
29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  232.301  EDGAR Filer Manual.

    Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by
the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out
the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The
requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are
set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General Information,''
Version 1 (September 2005). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are
set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: ``EDGAR Filing,''
Version 2 (November 2005). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-
SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: ``N-SAR
Supplement,'' Version 1 (September 2005). All of these provisions have
been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations,
which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with
these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and
accepted. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from
the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549
or by calling Thomson Financial at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Electronic copies
are available on the Commission's Web site. The address for the Filer
Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml. You can also photocopy

the document at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html
.

    Dated: November 1, 2005.

    By the Commission.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22085 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P