Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance, 19717-19816 [2016-06310]
Download as PDF
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 65
April 5, 2016
Part II
Department of the Interior
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 550
Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance; Proposed Rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19718
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 550
[Docket ID: BOEM–2013–0081]
RIN 1010–AD82
Air Quality Control, Reporting, and
Compliance
Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This proposed rule would
amend existing BOEM regulations
related to air quality measurement,
evaluation, and control with respect to
oil, gas, and sulphur operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the
United States (U.S.), in the Central and
Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the
area offshore the North Slope Borough
of the State of Alaska, as part of the
BOEM approval process for offshore oil
and gas exploration and development
plans, right-of-use and easement (RUE),
pipeline rights-of-way (ROW), and lease
term pipeline applications. The
proposed rule would: (1) Fulfill BOEM’s
statutory responsibility under section
5(a)(8) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA) by addressing all relevant
criteria and major precursor air
pollutants and by cross-referencing
BOEM standards and benchmarks for
those pollutants to those of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA); (2) change the manner in
which lessees would evaluate and
model vessel emissions attributed to
OCS facilities; (3) change the methods
for measuring and evaluating air
emissions including measuring their
impacts over State submerged lands; (4)
provide a process by which exemption
thresholds are established and updated;
(5) change the circumstances when
emission reduction measure(s) (ERM),
including Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), are required, and
establish new criteria for the application
of ERM; (6) formalize requirements for
the consolidation of emissions from
multiple facilities; (7) consistent with
BOEM’s existing regulatory authority,
articulate a schedule and requirements
for ensuring that all plans, including
those previously approved, will remain
compliant on an ongoing basis with
these updated regulations; and (8)
include an air quality component in the
submission of RUE, ROW, and lease
term pipeline applications.
Key policy changes include the
following: (1) Aligning the list of
pollutants that are subject to an air
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
quality review with the current National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and cross-referencing the
ambient air quality standards and
benchmarks (AAQSB) for those
pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2)
formalizing the concept and application
of the term ‘‘attributed emissions;’’ (3)
changing the locations where air
emissions will be measured and
evaluated; and (4) modifying the process
by which exemption thresholds are
established and updated. This
rulemaking would be the first major rewrite of the OCS air quality regulations
in 35 years.
DATES: Submit comments on the
substance of this rulemaking by June 6,
2016. Send your comments on the
substance of the proposed rule to the
Department as directed in the
ADDRESSES section below. Submit
comments on the information collection
(IC) burden in this rulemaking to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) by May 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the number 1010–AD82,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instruction for submitting comments.
• Mail: Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Office of Policy, Regulation, and
Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert,
45600 Woodland Road, Sterling,
Virginia 20166.
• Hand delivery: Front Desk,
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Office of
Policy, Regulation, and Analysis,
Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia
20166.
Please include your name, return
address and phone number and/or email
address, so we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your
submission.
Send comments on the IC of this rule
to: Interior Desk Officer 1010–AD82,
Office of Management and Budget; 202–
395–5806 (fax); email OIRA_
Submission@eop.gov. Please also send a
copy to BOEM at 45600 Woodland
Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
Public Availability of Comments:
BOEM does not consider anonymous
comments; please include your name
and address as part of your submittal.
Before including your name, address,
phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware your
entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee we will be able to do
so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Office of Policy,
Regulation, and Analysis, at
Peter.Meffert@boem.gov or mail to
45600 Woodland Road, Sterling,
Virginia 20166; or call (703) 787–1610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for BOEM?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI)
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
B. Availability of Related Information
C. Abbreviations of Terms and Acronyms
II. Executive Summary
III. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Current Air Quality Framework—Air
Quality Regulatory Program
C. Air Quality Regulatory Program Data
Requirements
1. Projected Emissions
2. Maximum Potential Emissions
3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and
Combustibles
4. Distance to Shore
5. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM)
6. Non-Exempt Drilling Units
7. Documentation
D. Proposed Analytical Approach
1. Flowchart
2. Exemption Threshold Analysis
3. Modeling Analysis
4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities
5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities
6. Protection of Exceptional Natural
Resources
7. Primary and Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Evaluation
8. Intersection With the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
9. Additional Environmental Review
E. Conclusion
IV. Summary of Key Changes
A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards
B. Attributed Emissions
1. Emissions From Stationary Sources
2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft
3. Determination of Attributed Emissions
4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore
Emissions Sources
C. Points of Measurement
1. Point-of-Origin Measurement
2. State Seaward Boundary (SSB)
3. Point-of-Impact Measurement
4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
D. Emission Exemption Threshold(s)
(EETs)
E. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM)
1. Emissions Credits and Offsets
2. Applicability of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) Upon an Exceedance
of the Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
3. ERM Evaluation Criteria
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
4. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Waiver and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Waiver
F. Consolidation of Emissions From
Multiple Facilities
G. Ongoing Monitoring and Review of
Projected Emissions
1. Recordkeeping and Measurement
Criteria
H. Structure of the Proposed Rule
1. Potential Monitoring Alternative
2. Plan Resubmittals
I. Gulf-Wide Offshore Activities Data
System (GOADS)
J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the
Proposed Rule
A. 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 550, Subpart A
B. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart B
C. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart C
D. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart J
VI. Interagency, Tribal, and Public Outreach
VII. Legal and Regulatory Analyses
A. Statutes
1. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969
2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
4. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Executive Orders (E.O.) and Presidential
Memorandum
1. Governmental Actions and Interference
With Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights (E.O. 12630) March 15, 1988
2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
12866) October 4, 1993
3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
February 7, 1996
4. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
(E.O. 13045) April 21, 1997
5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) August 10, 1999
6. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)
November 6, 2000
7. Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) May 18,
2001
8. Enhancing Coordination of National
Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 13689) January
21, 2015
9. Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review (E.O. 13563) January 18, 2011
10. Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998 on Plain Language in Government
Writing
I. General Information
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for BOEM?
1. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI)
Do not submit CBI or proprietary
information to BOEM through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM you
mail to BOEM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI,
submit a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as
CBI for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed.
Any CD or data submitted to BOEM
must be virus-free and usable, as
submitted. BOEM will not attempt to
correct, fix or amend any CD or other
electronic media that is not readily
accessible.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register (FR) date and page number).
• Organize Comments—When your
comments respond to specific
provisions, organize your comments by
referencing the relevant CFR part or
section number in the proposed rule.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
and suggest alternatives, and/or
substitute language for your requested
changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data you used.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
B. Availability of Related Information
A number of documents relevant to
this air quality rulemaking, including
past and planned environmental studies
and analysis, are available on the BOEM
Web site at www.BOEM.gov. In addition,
the economic and environmental
analyses associated with this
rulemaking are available for inspection
and copying in the BOEM docket for
this rulemaking, as identified above and
are also available at www.BOEM.gov.
C. Abbreviations of Terms and
Acronyms
The following are abbreviations of
terms used in the preamble.
AAI Ambient Air Increment
AAQSB Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Benchmarks
AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool
(Federal Aviation Administration)
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
AQRP Air Quality Regulatory Program
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19719
AQRV Air Quality Related Value
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (USEPA)
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BC Black Carbon (component of PM2.5)
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
Btu IT British Thermal Unit International
Tables
CAA Clean Air Act, as amended
CAMX Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEO Chief Environmental Officer (BOEM)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality
Model (USEPA)
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CP Criteria Pollutant
CSU Column-Stabilized Units
DOCD Development Operations
Coordination Document
DOI Department of the Interior
DPP Development and Production Plan
EC Elemental Carbon
ECE Emission Control Efficiency
EET Emission Exemption Threshold(s)
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
EP Exploration Plan
ERM Emission Reduction Measure(s)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FIRE Factor Information Retrieval System
FLM Federal Land Manager (Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Park Service (NPS), and United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service
(USFS))
FPS Floating Production System
FPSO Floating Production, Storage, and
Offloading vessel
FR Federal Register
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
GAO Government Accountability Office
G&G Geological and Geophysical
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GOADS Gulf-wide Offshore Activities Data
System
GOM Gulf of Mexico
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
hp Horsepower
hpm Mechanical Horsepower
IC Information Collection
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
kW kilowatt
MACI Maximum Allowable Concentration
Increase
MARPOL International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MSC Mobile Support Craft
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NEI National Emissions Inventory (USEPA)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
NH3 Ammonia
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19720
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NPS National Park Service (DOI)
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review (USEPA)
NTC NOX Technical Code
NTL Notice to Lessees
O3 Ozone
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
of 1953, as amended
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (Office of Management and Budget)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
(Executive Office of the President)
ONRR Office of Natural Resources Revenue
(DOI)
OSV Offshore Supply Vessel
Pb Lead
PEMS Parametric Emissions Monitoring
Systems
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, 2.5
micrometers in diameter or less
PM10 Particulate Matter, 10 micrometers in
diameter or less
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE Potential to Emit
Pub. L. Public Law
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
ROW Right-of-Way
rpm Revolutions per minute
RUE Right of-Use and Easement
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SIL Significant Impact Level
SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SOB Statement of Basis
SOX Sulphur Oxides
SIP State Implementation Plan
SSB State seaward boundary
TAS Treatment as State
TIMS-Web Technical Information
Management System Web-based
Application
TIP Tribal Implementation Plan
TLP Tension-Leg Platforms
tpy Tons per year
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
U.S. United States
USCG United States Coast Guard
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental
Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
mg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
II. Executive Summary
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA) requires the Department of
the Interior (DOI) to promulgate
regulations for compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the
extent that activities approved under
OCSLA significantly affect the air
quality of any State (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). The U.S. Geological Survey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(USGS), a BOEM predecessor agency,
prepared the first air quality regulations
under OCSLA, which were promulgated
by the Secretary of the Interior in 1980
(45 FR 15128, March 7, 1980). The
current version of these regulations is
contained in 30 CFR part 550 (‘‘Oil, Gas
and Sulphur Operations in the Outer
Continental Shelf’’) subparts A
(‘‘General’’), B (‘‘Plans and
Information’’), and C (‘‘Pollution
Prevention and Control’’). These
regulations require: (1) The submission
of information on projected air
emissions from offshore oil and gas
exploration or development activities
with a proposed plan for exploration
(i.e., an exploration plan (EP)) or
development (i.e., a Development and
Production Plan (DPP) or a
Development Operations Coordination
Document (DOCD); (2) the application
of various emission exemption
thresholds to determine whether air
quality impacts would be presumed de
minimis and, therefore, not require
further BOEM review under subpart C
or whether the impacts would exceed
the threshold and require further review
under subpart C; (3) the modeling of
projected emissions when a facility’s
projected emissions exceed the
exemption thresholds and would
therefore potentially cause air quality
impacts to a State; 1 and, (4) the control
1 In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
Congress added two provisions authorizing
Federally-recognized Indian tribes to be treated like
States under the CAA. Congress added section
301(d) that authorizes the Administrator of the
USEPA ‘‘to treat Indian tribes as States.’’ In
implementing this provision, the USEPA published
proposed rule entitled ‘‘the Tribal Clean Air Act
Authority’’ to implement this provision of the Act.
In its proposed rule (63 FR 7271, Feb. 12, 1998), the
USEPA stated ‘‘[The] Regulations in this part
identify those provisions of the Clean Air Act for
which Indian tribes are or may be treated in the
same manner as States. In general, these regulations
authorize eligible tribes to have the same rights and
responsibilities as States under the Clean Air Act
and authorize EPA approval of tribal air quality
programs meeting the applicable minimum
requirements under the Act.’’ Furthermore, in its
‘‘EPA Statement of Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes,’’ dated May 4,
2011, on p. 3 in the section entitled Guiding
Principles, the USEPA states: ‘‘EPA recognizes and
works directly with Federally-recognized tribes as
sovereign entities with primary authority and
responsibility for each tribe’s land and membership,
and not as political subdivisions of states or other
governmental units.’’ Just as States establish State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with CAA/
USEPA requirements, the tribes can establish Tribal
Implementation Plans (TIPs) to regulate the air
quality over tribal lands (which are then outside the
general jurisdiction of the State SIP). In addition,
for those tribes that have been granted ‘‘treatment
as State’’ (TAS) status (i.e., providing for Indian
tribes to play essentially the same role in Indian
country that states do within State lands for
purposes of air quality management), BOEM will
allow such a tribe to appeal the approval of a plan,
in a manner similar to that accorded to States. For
this reason, BOEM has proposed to expand the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of an emissions source proposed for any
facility that would cause or contribute
to an exceedance of the AAQSB.
BOEM is proposing to revise and
replace its air quality regulations with a
new set of regulations that reflect a
number of policy changes with respect
to the existing air quality regulatory
program (AQRP (30 CFR 550 subpart
C)). While the existing underlying
framework would remain the same in a
number of key aspects, the proposed
rule would change in significant ways
the manner in which BOEM regulates
emissions from certain sources on the
OCS. The most significant changes in
the proposed rule relate to: (1) Fulfilling
BOEM’s statutory responsibility under
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA by addressing
all relevant criteria and major precursor
air pollutants and by cross-referencing
the AAQSB for those pollutants to those
of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the
concept and application of the term
‘‘attributed emissions;’’ (3) changing the
methods for determining the locations
from which air emissions will be
measured and evaluated; (4) modifying
the process by which emission
exemption thresholds (EETs) are
established and updated; (5) changing
the circumstances when ERM, including
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), are required, and establishing
new criteria for the application of ERM;
(6) revising the boundary at which
BOEM determines air quality
compliance to the State seaward
boundary (SSB), rather than the
coastline; (7) formalizing requirements
for the consolidation of emissions from
multiple facilities; (8) consistent with
BOEM’s existing regulatory authority,
articulating a schedule for ensuring that
plans, including previously approved
plans, will be compliant with these
updated regulations; (9) adding an air
quality component to the submission of
RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline
applications; (10) an expanded use of
offsets as an alternative in
circumstances where BACT was
previously required; and (11) the
addition of a new requirement for all
plans to be reviewed at least every 10
years, to ensure ongoing compliance
with the NAAQS, as amended from time
to time.
BOEM is proposing to amend the
current regulations to provide a
mechanism by which the regulations
remain up-to-date in the future,
particularly when the USEPA changes
an applicable AAQSB; to reflect the
analysis of impacts under its air quality rules to
include potential impacts to Federally-recognized
Indian tribes having either TAS status or an
approved TIP.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
recent statutory expansion of BOEM’s
air quality jurisdiction (42 U.S.C. 7627,
as amended by Pub. L. 112–74); to
improve the clarity of existing
regulatory provisions; to account for
technological advances in air quality
measurement, evaluation, and reporting
that have occurred since the current
regulations were promulgated; and to
reflect industry practices and
procedures that have evolved since
1980.
BOEM is proposing to define a
number of additional key terms, to
clarify the objectives and procedures
associated with the AQRP, and to
reorganize a number of existing
provisions in its regulations. The
proposed rule would consolidate all the
existing data collection and information
requirements in a single section
dedicated to air quality. The pertinent
provisions of BOEM’s regulations
related to air quality would be either
substantially updated or entirely
replaced.
The proposed rule would make a
number of changes to the existing
requirements associated with reporting,
tracking, modeling, and monitoring the
air emissions from stationary facilities
operating on the OCS and emissions
from associated non-stationary sources,
including vessels and vehicles, and
aircraft traversing above the OCS or over
State submerged lands 2 that operate in
support of such facilities.
Since BOEM’s current air quality
regulations were published in 1980, the
USEPA has revised the NAAQS to
include additional criteria pollutants
(i.e., to include Fine Particulate Matter,
2.5 micrometers in diameter or less
(PM2.5)), standards with a wider range of
averaging times and statistical forms.3
There are two types of NAAQS: Primary
NAAQS, which are intended to protect
public health with an adequate margin
of safety; and secondary NAAQS, which
are focused on protecting public
welfare.
This proposed rule would enhance
the process by which operators of OCS
facilities determine whether their
proposed exploratory or developmental
activities could cause or contribute to a
significant adverse impact to the air
2 State submerged lands are the part of each
State’s territory that extends from the shoreline up
to the point of federal jurisdiction (typically three
miles from shore, but in some cases extending up
to nine miles from shore). In contrast, the offshore
lands under federal jurisdiction are referred to as
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
3 In general, air quality standards are based on the
concentration of a given pollutant at a given
location averaged over a particular length of time,
called the averaging time, evaluated in combination
with some statistical parameter, which is referred
to as the statistical form of the standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
quality of any State. It would define the
circumstances under which BOEM
would require lessees and operators 4 to
control their air emissions in order to
meet the USEPA’s air pollution controlrelated standards for criteria air
pollutants (i.e., pollutants for which
there are NAAQS) and major precursor
air pollutants. The proposed rule would
incorporate by reference USEPA’s
Significant Impact Levels (SILs),
Ambient Air Increments (AAIs), and the
primary and secondary NAAQS. It
would also make a number of changes
to ensure that certain provisions within
BOEM’s rules are automatically updated
whenever the USEPA updates its
NAAQS, SILs and AAIs.
Because the USEPA’s current NAAQS
include standards for both annual and
short-term averaging times, the
proposed rule would also provide for
the collection, evaluation, and
consideration of data with respect to the
long-term and short-term exposure to air
pollution originating from the OCS.
Under current BOEM regulations, most
of the effects that are evaluated relate to
an annual exposure to a certain level of
pollution. Short-term averaging times
measure something different, namely
the potential impact of a short-term
exposure to the same pollutant, where
the level of pollution is much greater. In
some cases, the long-term exposure to
low levels of pollution may be harmful;
in other cases, the short-term exposure
to high levels of pollution may also be
harmful. Because the proposed rule
would evaluate different levels of
exposure over different time periods,
the proposed rule would more
accurately determine whether any OCS
operations would have the potential to
cause an adverse effect to a State’s air
quality. The proposed rule would
require the modeling of emissions over
any averaging time that the USEPA has
determined would be relevant whenever
the projected annual emissions of a
given pollutant exceed the EETs. This
change would, therefore, enable BOEM
to better ensure compliance with all the
NAAQS. This change is of particular
relevance in the case of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) because that air pollutant is the
one for which the annual exemption
threshold is most often exceeded.
In order to ensure ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS referenced
in OCSLA, the proposed rule would also
provide for the collection of additional
information on approved activities
4 Although the rule refers to lessees or operators,
the provisions of the proposed rule would also
apply to right-of-way holders, right-of-use and
easement holders, lease-term pipeline applicants
and any other party or parties that may be required
to submit a plan to BOEM for review and approval.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19721
described in any initial, revised,
modified, resubmitted, or supplemental
EP, DPP, or DOCD, or application for a
RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term
pipeline (hereinafter referred to by the
general term ‘‘plan’’), in order to verify
the information reported in the plan. As
is the case with the current BOEM
regulations, the proposed rule would
establish emissions exemptions
thresholds. The proposed rule would
continue to require facilities whose
projected emissions of criteria and
major precursor pollutants would
exceed the thresholds to model those
emissions in order to determine whether
such emissions could potentially cause
the air quality of any State to exceed the
NAAQS.
To ensure that OCS operations do not
cause any such impact to the air quality
of a State, the proposed rule would
require large emitters of air pollutants,
namely, those whose facilities exceed
BOEM’s EETs—not only to project their
emissions in their plan, but also to
demonstrate that their actual emissions
do not exceed their projected emissions
(as contained in their original plan). To
ensure ongoing compliance, three major
new procedures have been proposed.
First, under the proposed rule, if the
USEPA revises any AAQSB that applies
(NAAQS, or any applicable SIL, or AAI),
BOEM would examine the
appropriateness of its EETs, and, BOEM,
at its discretion, would periodically
revise its EETs for the air pollutant(s)
corresponding to USEPA’s revision(s).
Second, certain large emitters would be
required to develop a method for
measuring and reporting their emissions
to demonstrate their actual emissions do
not exceed the original projections upon
which approval was granted. Third,
starting in 2020,5 all lessees and
operators with previously approved
plans would be required to update their
plans with then current emissions data,
and BOEM would re-evaluate all of
these updated plans against the current
EETs and for compliance with current
AAQSB, according to a schedule
proposed in 550.310(c)(2). All lessees
and operators that submit plans would
be required to include up-to-date
emissions data in their plans to ensure
they comply with then current AAQSB.
Although BOEM does not issue air
quality permits and instead reviews air
emissions in the context of its AQRP,
BOEM recognizes that a one-time review
of a particular facility’s compliance with
AAQSB may not be adequate to ensure
that the facility does not cause or
5 BOEM is proposing this date because BOEM
expects that it will have completed the studies to
set new EETs by that time.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19722
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS
within a State. USEPA periodically
updates the NAAQS and adds new
averaging times and statistical forms for
the various indicator pollutants.
Measurement and evaluation techniques
and methods are expected to improve
over time. Equipment ages and becomes
less efficient as it does so. The types and
characteristics of support vessels,
vehicles and aircraft may change. For
these and various other reasons, BOEM
has proposed that evaluating a plan’s
effectiveness more than once may aid
BOEM in ensuring ‘‘compliance with
the national ambient air quality
standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the extent
that activities authorized under
[OCSLA] significantly affect the air
quality of any State’’ (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). Consistent with the
requirement in every offshore lease that
lessees and operators are required to
comply with changes to the regulations,
as they are refined, BOEM is proposing
plans be reevaluated periodically for air
quality purposes.6
Finally, this rule proposes to codify
the existing mechanism BOEM uses in
the GOM OCS Region to report ongoing
emissions information (i.e., the Gulfwide Offshore Activities Data System or
GOADS, as described in Notice to
Lessees and Operators ([NTL], BOEM
NTL No. 2014–G01) and apply it to all
OCS regions under BOEM air quality
jurisdiction. This information is
important to ensure that OCS activities
authorized by BOEM do not cause any
State to exceed the NAAQS. BOEM also
uses this information in its National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documents at several stages of the OCS
leasing and plan review and approval
process. In addition, BOEM shares this
data with the USEPA to enhance its
national emissions inventory (NEI), and
with States and local air quality
management agencies for the
development of State Implementation
Plans (SIPs). In-addition, BOEM collects
emissions information related to
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) on a regular
basis as part of the GOADS program and
provides this information to lessees and
operators to facilitate their reporting to
the USEPA.
three to nine nautical miles (nm)
offshore (this varies by State) to the
extent of U.S. claimed jurisdiction and
control, which is 200 nm or more from
the coastal States’ baseline.7 BOEM
makes OCS resources available for
expeditious and orderly development
through leasing, subject to
environmental safeguards, in a manner
that is consistent with the maintenance
of competition and other national needs
(43 U.S.C. 1332(3)). In 1978, OCSLA
was amended to include a requirement
for DOI to promulgate regulations for
‘‘compliance with the national ambient
air quality standards pursuant to the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the
extent that activities authorized under
[OCSLA] significantly affect the air
quality of any State’’ (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). In 1980, the USGS, a BOEM
predecessor agency responsible for
overseeing OCS energy and mineral
activity, promulgated air quality
regulations for activities authorized on
the entire OCS, which are now BOEM’s
air quality regulations.
In 1990, Congress amended section
328 of the CAA and transferred
authority to regulate air emissions on
the OCS, other than in the Central and
Western GOM, from DOI to the USEPA.
In 2011, Congress again amended
section 328 to transfer the authority for
regulating air emissions from the
USEPA back to DOI for those parts of
the OCS adjacent to the North Slope
Borough of the State of Alaska. As of the
publication of this proposed rule, DOI’s
jurisdiction for ensuring compliance
with the NAAQS pursuant to the CAA
includes OCS areas adjacent to Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
the North Slope Borough of the State of
Alaska.
III. Background
7 The official U.S. coastal baseline is recognized
as the low-water line along the coast in accordance
with the articles of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea, art. 76, Dec.10, 1982, 1833
U.N.T.S. 3, 428. The territorial sea extends seaward
12 nautical miles (nm) from the baseline. The
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends from the
outer boundary of territorial sea seaward to 200 nm.
The continental shelf begins at 12 nm, includes the
EEZ and may extend further. The U.S. OCS extends
from the SSB to the extent of the continental shelf.
See 43 U.S.C. 1331(a); see also 43 U.S.C. 1301.
A. Statutory Authority
OCSLA grants DOI authority to issue
leases for the development of the
nation’s energy and mineral resources
on the OCS. The U.S. OCS extends from
6 See § 550.310(c)(2), below, of the proposed rule
text.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
B. Current Air Quality Framework—Air
Quality Regulatory Program
Congress has geographically divided
air quality regulatory authority for
authorized OCS activities between the
USEPA and BOEM, based upon where
those activities occur on the OCS. While
the overall objectives of BOEM’s and the
USEPA’s air quality regulations are
similar, there are differences in each
agency’s statutory authority and
differences in the way each agency
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
implements its statutory charge. The
USEPA implements its charge through
permitting (CAA Sections 165 and 173).
The CAA directs the USEPA to establish
requirements to control air pollution
from sources on the OCS to attain and
maintain federal and State ambient air
quality standards and to comply with
the provisions of part C of subchapter I
of the CAA (CAA Section 328(a)).
USEPA regulations for permitting OCS
sources ‘‘ensure that there is a rational
relationship to the attainment and
maintenance of federal and State
ambient air quality standards and the
requirements of part C of title I, and that
the rule is not used for the purpose of
preventing exploration and
development of the OCS’’ (40 CFR 55.1).
The USEPA’s OCS air quality
regulations incorporate requirements
derived from other areas of the CAA and
USEPA regulations and for sources
within 25 miles of the State boundary
require compliance with local rules as if
the source were located onshore, the
result of which is that operators must
demonstrate compliance with several
different types of requirements.
BOEM’s jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to promulgate
regulations ‘‘for compliance with the
national ambient air quality standards
pursuant to the [CAA] . . . to the extent
that activities under OCSLA
significantly affect the air quality of any
State.’’ Thus, regulations implementing
this section regulate offshore emissions
specifically to protect State air quality
rather than protecting air quality above
the OCS generally. Upon submission by
a lessee or operator of a plan, BOEM
will determine whether the plan is
consistent with the OCSLA and BOEM’s
regulations. If BOEM determines that a
plan is inconsistent with OCSLA or
BOEM’s regulations, BOEM will require
modifications of the plan as necessary to
achieve consistency. BOEM may
approve, require modification of, or
disapprove an EP. BOEM can
disapprove an EP only if there are no
possible modifications that would avoid
‘‘serious harm or damage to life
(including fish and other aquatic life), to
property, to any mineral (in areas leased
or not leased), to the national security
or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or
human environment,’’ as described in
43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(2)(A)(i). With respect
to a DPP or a DOCD, BOEM must
approve, disapprove, or require
modification of the plan after
conducting a compliance review, which
includes compliance with the
regulations implementing section
1334(a)(8). In addition, the timing of
BOEM’s decisions is also circumscribed
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
by the provisions of OCSLA. Under
OCSLA, BOEM is required to approve a
plan within 30 days for an EP or within
60 days for a DPP or DOCD, if BOEM
finds that the plan is consistent with
OCSLA and its implementing
regulations, including those ensuring air
quality compliance under section 5(a)(8)
of OCSLA. (See 43 U.S.C. 1340(c) and
1351(h)).
BOEM’s predecessor, USGS,
developed the current air quality
regulatory framework in 1980 to address
potential onshore air quality impacts of
OCS operations on adjacent States.
These regulations require lessees or
operators to submit information on
projected air emissions in their
proposed EPs, DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM
considers air emissions information
submitted by lessees and operators as
one component of its review of the
overall exploration or development
plan. The regulatory process by which
BOEM evaluates the submitted
emissions information is referred to in
this document as BOEM’s AQRP. The
1980 regulations first established a
process for determining whether the
potential air quality impacts from any
given plan are low enough that they
should be exempt from further air
quality regulatory analysis. Plans that
do not exceed these EETs are generally
exempt from further analysis. For plans
that exceed these exemption thresholds,
BOEM regulations require lessees and
operators to conduct modeling intended
to help BOEM determine whether
emissions from any facility could cause
an exceedance of the AAIs or NAAQS
onshore, and if so, what mitigation (i.e.,
emissions reduction) measures, if any,
BOEM should impose on those
proposed exploration and development
activities to reduce the potential
impacts to affected States.
BOEM conducts its AQRP analysis
whenever a lessee or operator proposes
new exploration, development, or
production operations on the OCS or
submits a revised or supplemental plan,
which would modify operations in a
manner that could cause an increase in
the release of regulated pollutants above
the amounts described in a previously
approved plan. The AQRP focuses on
the impact of emissions from a specific
exploration or development and
production project and its potential
onshore impacts on air quality. The
AQRP does not directly regulate OCS air
quality, since 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)
requires BOEM to focus its plan review
on the potential impacts to the air
quality of the States. The AQRP consists
of a quantitative review of specific air
quality data that informs a decision to
approve, require modification of, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
disapprove a specific plan. Any
modifications BOEM requires as a result
of the AQRP review become an
enforceable provision of the approved
plan. As BOEM fulfills its statutory
obligation, its AQRP also achieves other
objectives: (1) To protect public health
from adverse air quality effects; (2) to
protect public welfare by preventing a
deterioration in the air quality of the
environment (e.g., to protect crops,
forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the
formation of new designated nonattainment areas; and, (4) to preserve
and prevent degradation of the air
quality in national parks and other areas
of special natural, recreational, scenic,
or historic value. In practical terms, this
is accomplished by assessing whether
OCS operations and activities will
advance these objectives. The AQRP is
one factor that BOEM considers in
making a determination on the overall
plan.
The AQRP analysis is intended to
account for emissions of pollutants
considered harmful to public health and
the environment from facility and
associated support craft. The plan must
include descriptions of all relevant
emissions sources—offshore, stationary
and nonstationary, and certain onshore
ones—regardless of whether they are
intended to be used on a short-term or
long-term basis, and regardless of
attainment status. As part of the AQRP
analysis, BOEM currently evaluates the
emissions of most pollutants that the
USEPA has designated as NAAQS
‘‘criteria pollutants’’ (CPs) in the
USEPA’s air quality regulatory scheme.
The USEPA currently defines the
following six pollutants as CPs: Carbon
monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2);
sulphur dioxide (SO2); ozone (O3);
particulate matter (PM); and lead (Pb).
BOEM evaluates air emissions using the
NAAQS as a standard because OCSLA
provides that BOEM must ensure
compliance with the NAAQS (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). At the time the current
regulations were promulgated, BOEM’s
predecessor, USGS, determined that Pb
was generally not released in sufficient
quantities from offshore oil and gas
operations to warrant a separate
analysis, and so BOEM does not
currently review Pb data as part of the
AQRP. Also, as of 1980, the USGS had
determined that there was no way to
review O3 formation directly, but it
instead decided to regulate O3 formation
indirectly, through the tracking of O3
precursor pollutants, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and NOX.
In addition to regulating CPs, BOEM
currently regulates most of the major
precursor pollutants that lead to the
formation of the CPs. Some CPs are also
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19723
precursors for other CPs. For example,
USEPA has identified SO2 as a
precursor to the formation of PM2.5,
which is PM that is 2.5 micrometers in
diameter or less, and both are CPs.
BOEM’s current regulations address two
precursor pollutants of ozone, NOX and
VOCs. Ammonia (NH3) is not currently
covered by BOEM’s regulations but is
proposed to be regulated in this
proposed rule, because it may be
regulated under the Clean Air Act as a
precursor pollutant to the formation of
PM2.5.
The USEPA has found that GHG 8
emissions endanger the public health
and welfare (74 Federal Register (FR)
66496, Dec. 15, 2009). BOEM recognizes
that the continued and prospective
emissions of GHGs from offshore oil and
gas operations will contribute to global
GHG concentrations.9 The goal of this
rule, however, is to implement Section
5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM
to regulate air quality so as not to allow
exceedances of the NAAQS in any State.
While GHGs are not regulated under the
NAAQS and are currently being
addressed by the USEPA through other
sections of the CAA, climate change
itself impacts air quality, particularly
ground-level ozone, and has
consequential health impacts associated
with poor air quality.10 However,
because GHGs are not regulated under
the NAAQS, Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA
specifically is not the appropriate
statutory vehicle to address the harm
that GHGs cause and BOEM is not
proposing to address the issue of GHG
emissions in this proposed rule.
The Bureau, however, is still
interested in addressing GHGs
8 GHGs are defined by the USEPA as the aggregate
group of the following six greenhouse gases: Carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). See, e.g., 40
CFR 52.21(b)(49)(i).
9 More recently, in the preamble to its proposed
new source performance standards for the oil and
gas industry, the USEPA provided an update
regarding the climate change impacts that result
from GHG emissions (80 FR 56593, 56602, Sept. 18,
2015). Many of the numerous impacts identified by
the USEPA, such as increased severity of storms,
increased water pollution (including ocean
acidification), rising sea levels, loss of sea ice, and
habitat loss, relate to coastal areas and the natural
resources of the OCS. Both the 2009 endangerment
finding and the recent proposed new source
performance standards underscore that these
impacts will exacerbate ongoing environmental
pressures in Alaska, and will particularly impact
Alaska native communities.
10 See 74 FR 66496 (No. 239, December 15, 2009),
‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the
Clean Air Act,’’ or the United States Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) National Climate
Assessment, available at https://
nca2014.globalchange.gov/report or the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
reports available at https://www.ipcc.ch/.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19724
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
consistent with its legal authorities.
Lessees and operators currently submit
to the NEI the results of BOEM’s
calculation of GHG information as part
of GOADS, and GHG emissions are
considered as part of the NEPA review
of lease sales and post-lease approvals.
In the coming months, BOEM will
engage stakeholders regarding potential
avenues to address GHG emissions, as
appropriate, either through a separate
rulemaking or some other action.
Separate but related to the GHG issue
is the matter of black carbon (BC)
dispersion and deposition in Alaska and
other parts of the Arctic, which is an
environmental concern. BC is a
component of PM2.5, and as such would
be a component of a CP that will be
regulated under the proposed rule.11
The ambient concentrations of PM2.5,
including BC, would be considered in
any analysis of the pre-existing
background pollution levels before any
plan could be approved for
development on the OCS. Recent
scientific studies 12 have indicated that
BC can be a source of negative health
effects.13
BOEM is actively investigating this
issue and our evaluation of the potential
impacts of BC and a determination of
appropriate controls is continuing to
evolve. BOEM and the USEPA are
coordinating their efforts on this matter.
In addition to the health effects
associated with the PM2.5 emissions that
include BC, there are also potentially
significant implications to climate
change and global warming from BC.
These relate primarily to three factors:
(1) BC particles directly absorb sunlight
and reduce the planetary albedo 14 when
11 Black carbon is not classified as a unique CP
and the USEPA does not directly regulate its
emissions other than as a component of PM2.5.
12 For example, ‘‘Black Carbon Exposures, Blood
Pressure, and Interactions with Single Nucleotide
Polymorphisms in MicroRNA Processing Genes,’’ in
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118:943–948
(2010), and ‘‘Long-Term Exposure to Black Carbon
and Carotid Intima-Media Thickness: The
Normative Aging Study’’ in Environmental Health
Perspectives, 121:1061–1067 (2013). Web addresses
for these studies described are at: https://
www.jstor.org/stable/27822949?seq=1#page_scan_
tab_contents and https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/
1/11877015.
13 Based on an assessment of the scientific
evidence for health effects associated with
exposures to ambient PM, in the most recent review
of the NAAQS for PM, the USEPA concluded that
‘‘many constituents of PM can be linked with
differing health effects and the evidence is not yet
sufficient to allow differentiation of those
constituents or sources that are more closely related
to specific health outcomes’’ (PM Integrated Science
Assessment (ISA), section 2.4.4).
14 Albedo is the fraction of solar energy
(shortwave radiation) reflected from the Earth back
into space. It is a measure of the reflectivity of the
earth’s surface. Ice, especially with snow on top of
it, has a high albedo: Most sunlight hitting the
surface bounces back towards space.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
suspended in the atmosphere; (2) BC
absorbs incoming solar radiation,
disturbs the temperature structure of the
atmosphere, and influences cloud cover;
and (3) when deposited on high albedo
surfaces like ice and snow, BC particles
reduce the total surface albedo 15
available to reflect solar energy back
into space. Small initial snow albedo
reduction may have a large radiative
forcing effect 16 because of a positive
feedback: Reduced snow albedo
increases surface temperatures and the
increased surface temperature decreases
the snow cover and further decreases
surface albedo.17
While BOEM does not currently have
sufficient data to support a specific limit
on BC, the exemption thresholds
research study currently underway for
the Gulf of Mexico (which is described
in detail in section III.D.1, under the
heading of ‘‘Exemption Threshold
Analysis’’) will analyze BC as part of the
overall review. The study will apply the
Community Multi-scale and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Model and the Comprehensive
Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMX) photochemical grid models, as
part of the analysis. PM emissions
specified in the emissions inventory
will be allocated to individual PM
species 18 as part of the Sparse Matrix
15 Total surface albedo is the diffuse reflectivity
or reflecting power of a surface. It is the ratio of
reflected radiation from the surface to incident
radiation upon it. In this case, the reduction in total
surface albedo would represent the reduction in
albedo that is caused by the relevant OCS
operations in the vicinity of the project or
development that is generating BC emissions.
16 Radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined
as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed
by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.
17 Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato (January 17, 2013).
‘‘A Smut Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could
Also Promote Global Warming: Atmospheric black
carbon is not only bad for the lungs, but can also
act as greenhouse particles under certain
circumstances.’’ Scientific American. January 22,
2013.
IPCC, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and
in Radiative Forcing, in Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution Of Working
Group I To The Fourth Assessment Report Of The
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 129,
132 (2007), available at https://www.ipcc.ch/
ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. (Magnitudes and
uncertainties added together, as per standard
uncertainty rules).
V. Ramathan and G. Carmichael, Global and
regional climate changes due to black carbon, 1
NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221–22 (23 March 2008)
(‘‘The BC forcing of 0.9 W m–2 (with a range of 0.4
to 1.2 W m–2) . . . is as much as 55% of the CO2
forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the
other GHGs such as CH4, CFCs, N2O or tropospheric
ozone.’’).
18 There are many forms of PM. The U.S. National
Research Council has emphasized the importance of
examining the risk of PM species (‘‘Research
Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: IV:
Continuing Research Progress.’’ Washington, DC,
National Research Council, 2004). Determining the
differential toxicity of PM2.5 species and identifying
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE)
emissions processing and modeling
system 19 using PM speciation factors
obtained from USEPA’s SPECIATE
database 20 for each source category (as
defined by the Source Classification
Code (SCC)). This evaluation will result
in PM mass being broken into the mass
associated with elemental carbon (EC),
organic carbon, and other elements, as
well as particle bound VOCs, such as
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. BC is
essentially equivalent to the EC portion
of PM. CMAQ 21 and CAMX 22 model
projections of EC will be calculated and
modeled for further analysis. This will
be done both for the domain defined for
the study (see section III.D.1), and for
specific sources. Two other models
commonly used by the industry and
BOEM to evaluate air quality,
AERMOD 23 and CALPUFF,24 are being
considered for use and will apply a
similar technique to apportion PM2.5
mass for a BC analysis.
BOEM requests comments and data
on the extent of BC emissions from
OCS-related operations and potential
means of reducing such emissions and
their negative effects. BOEM also
requests comment on other factors,
information, or data that BOEM should
consider in its analysis of BC, either in
connection with or in addition to its air
quality regulatory analysis.
species with greatest toxicity is of great importance
to emission-control strategies and regulations.
These investigations have reported numerous
components that may be responsible for particle
toxicity, such as elemental and organic carbon,
sulfate, nitrate, and metals including zinc, nickel,
iron, potassium, and chromium.
19 See the following site for additional
information on the SMOKE modeling system:
https://cmascenter.org/smoke/.
20 SPECIATE is the USEPA’s repository of volatile
organic gas and PM speciation profiles of air
pollution sources. For additional information, see:
https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/speciate/.
21 Further information on CMAQ is available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/
cmaq/.
22 Further information on CAMX is available at:
https://www.camx.com/.
23 AERMOD is described in detail in the
publication, ‘‘AERMOD: DESCRIPTION OF MODEL
FORMULATION,’’ U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA–454/R–03–004, September 2004,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/
aermod/aermod_mfd.pdf.
24 CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state
meteorological and air quality modeling system
adopted by the USEPA in its Guideline on Air
Quality Models as the preferred model for assessing
long range transport of pollutants and their impacts
on federal Class I areas and on a case-by-case basis
for certain near-field applications involving
complex meteorological conditions. Further
information on this model is available at: https://
www.src.com/.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
C. Current Air Quality Regulatory
Program Data Requirements
As explained above, BOEM’s AQRP
review, conducted under existing
regulations at 30 CFR part 550 subparts
B and C, is triggered when a lessee or
operator submits or resubmits an
exploration or development plan. With
respect to air quality, BOEM currently
requires the submitter to provide the
following information:
1. Projected Emissions
Under existing BOEM regulations, the
lessee or operator must provide tables
showing the projected air emissions of
all regulated criteria and major
precursor pollutants, except PM2.5, Pb,
and O3,25 generated by the submitted
plans. In addition, for each source for
each pollutant, lessees must identify:
The projected hourly emissions rate in
peak pounds per hour; the total
projected annual emissions in tons per
year (tpy); the frequency and duration of
projected emissions; and all projected
emissions over the duration of the plan
(i.e., for as many years as the operations
will continue).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25 Existing BOEM air pollution prevention and
control regulations (30 CFR part 550 subpart C)
apply air quality standards and screening methods
current as of 1980. At that time PM2.5 was not
regulated and all PM was considered as total
suspended particulates (TSP). Neither Pb nor O3
were included in the USEPA’s screening methods
under 40 CFR 52.21(c) or 40 CFR 165(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
2. Maximum Potential Emissions
The lessee or operator must base all
of its projected air emissions identified
in (1) above on the maximum rated
capacity of the equipment on the plan’s
drilling unit or facility.
3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and
Combustibles
The lessee or operator must provide a
description of processes, processing
equipment, combustion equipment,
fuels, and storage units, including the
characteristics and the frequency,
duration, and maximum burn rate of
any well test fluids to be burned.
4. Distance to Shore
The lessee or operator must provide
the distance between any given facility
and the closest shoreline of an adjacent
State.
5. Emission Reduction Measures (ERM)
Each lessee or operator must describe
any proposed air emission reduction
measures (ERM), including a
description of the relevant source(s), the
emission reduction control technologies
or procedures, the quantity of
reductions to be achieved, and any
monitoring system proposed to measure
emissions.
6. Reductions in Emissions From NonExempt Drilling Units
The lessee or operator must provide a
description of how the lessee or
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19725
operator intends to address the
emissions generated, if emissions from
the plan are greater than the lessee’s or
operator’s respective emissionexemption amounts and if modeling
indicates that some form of emissions
reductions will be necessary.
7. Documentation
The lessee or operator must document
the basis for all of its calculations,
including engine size, rating, and
applicable operational information. In
the GOM region, BOEM and industry
have historically used worksheets
contained in forms BOEM–0138 (Gulf of
Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for
EPs) and BOEM–0139 (Gulf of Mexico
Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs)
for air quality information.
D. Proposed Analytical Approach
1. Flowchart
The following flow chart illustrates
the analytical approach that a lessee or
operator would use to evaluate its
projected emissions under this proposed
rule. The flow chart is intended for
informational purposes only. In any
circumstances where the flow chart may
be interpreted to conflict with the
regulatory text, the regulatory text is
controlling.
[See attached flowchart]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–C
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
VOC emissions so
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
EP05AP16.000
19726
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EET is notftKceeded.
c
550
CFR
P):_
Program
Iat()
BOEMAir
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19727
EP05AP16.001
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19728
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 238001
Modeling under Step 5
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
EP05AP16.002
c
While many significant changes
would be made to BOEM’s AQRP under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
the proposed rule, the analytical
framework remains fundamentally the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19729
same. Under both the current
regulations and the proposed rule, the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP16.003
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
19730
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
lessee or operator must perform the
following fundamental steps: (1)
Identify and describe the characteristics
of all the relevant emissions sources; (2)
calculate the emissions associated with
these sources; (3) determine which
emissions should properly be allocated
to the lessee’s or operator’s plan; (4)
compare the emissions totals, on a perpollutant basis, to a series of exemption
formulas; (5) apply ERMs to sources of
VOC emissions that exceed the VOC
exemption threshold; (6) conduct
modeling of the potential impacts for
any criteria pollutant that exceeds an
exemption threshold and compare
against various AAQSB; and (7) propose
emission reduction measure(s) as
necessary to ensure compliance with
those standards and benchmarks. The
‘‘Summary of Key Changes’’ section of
this preamble outlines the major
changes included in this proposed rule.
While the basic steps of the AQRP
process would remain similar, the
proposed rule would alter how the data
are gathered, the standards and
benchmarks against which the data are
evaluated, and the process by which the
air quality information is reviewed.
BOEM’s current air quality evaluation
methodology is based in large part on
the USEPA’s New Source Review (NSR)
pre-construction permitting program.26
Under one part of that program, USEPA
uses pollutant-specific emission rates
(called Significant Emissions Rates) to
determine whether a permit applicant is
required to conduct an ambient air
quality analysis for each pollutant.27 If
so, USEPA then uses concentration
levels known as SILs to help determine
whether an individual source will cause
or contribute to an exceedance of the
NAAQS and the level of analysis
necessary to make that determination.
BOEM uses emission exemption
thresholds to determine whether the
26 The NSR pre-construction permitting program
is mainly composed of two parts: The Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in
attainment areas and the New Source Review
Program for non-attainment areas. The PSD program
applies to any ‘‘major emitting facility,’’ including
any OCS source, that commences construction or
undertakes a major ‘‘modification’’ in an attainment
area (CAA sections 165(a) and 169(2)(C)). A ‘‘major
emitting facility’’ or ‘‘major source’’ is a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit (PTE)
any air pollutant in the amount of at least 100 or
250 tpy, depending on the source category and
irrespective of the facility’s location. A major
‘‘modification’’ is any physical or operational
change to a stationary source that would result in
both a significant emissions increase and a
significant net emissions increase of one or more
regulated NSR pollutants. A new major source or
major modification must apply BACT, which is
determined on a case-by-case basis taking into
account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness
of the control and energy and environmental
impacts (40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) and (j)).
27 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23); 40 CFR 52.21(m)(1)(i).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
lessee’s plan emissions would
potentially impact the air quality of the
State. When the thresholds are not
exceeded, those emissions are presumed
to not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the NAAQS. The USEPA
uses applicability thresholds to
determine if a source is subject to the
requirements of the respective parts of
the NSR permitting program and then
applies screening criteria like the SILs 28
to determine whether emissions per
pollutant require further regulatory
review.
Given BOEM’s distinct mandate to
focus on State impacts from OCS
activities, BOEM currently uses a
formula that accounts for the distance of
the facility from the shoreline.
Specifically, the determination as to
whether a facility could significantly
affect onshore air quality under BOEM’s
AQRP is based on a formula that
considers both the amount of air
pollutant emitted and the distance of
the proposed facility from the
shoreline.29 Because BOEM’s
determination of what constitutes
potentially significant emissions varies
depending on a proposed facility’s
distance from shore, BOEM uses
distance as a variable in its formula to
determine the relevant EET. If a
proposed plan would cause emissions of
criteria or precursor air pollutants in
excess of the EET, the proposed plan is
required to include a detailed air quality
analysis. If a proposed plan would not
cause emissions of criteria or precursor
air pollutants in excess of the EET, the
plan is not required to include a
detailed air quality analysis. BOEM
refers to plans that are not required to
include a detailed air quality analysis as
‘‘exempt.’’
2. Exemption Threshold Analysis
The first step in the approach of both
the current regulations and the
proposed rule is the exemption
threshold analysis discussed above.
BOEM determines, based on the
28 The SILs are benchmarks used by the USEPA
to determine whether some area may potentially be
significantly affected by the emissions generated
from a proposed new stationary source of
emissions. The SILs are used as a screening tool to
determine what additional steps, if any, may be
required before a stationary source can be approved.
29 This differs from the way in which the USEPA
determines which facilities are subject to the NSR
preconstruction permitting program. As explained
in the previous footnote, the USEPA makes this
determination based on whether the emissions of a
new source or modification to an existing source are
higher than a certain amount of tons of air pollution
per year or whether the modification would result
in both a significant emissions increase and a
significant net emissions increase of one or more
regulated NSR pollutants irrespective of the
facility’s or facilities’ location.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
information provided by the lessee or
operator, whether or not any given plan
(EP, DPP or DOCD) will generate
emissions above a defined exemption
threshold. If so, further analysis is
required. If not, the impact to the air
quality of the State is presumed to be de
minimis and no further action is
required.
BOEM currently has only one set of
exemption thresholds, which are, under
the existing regulations, applied
identically in the Central and Western
GOM OCS Regions and offshore of the
North Slope Borough of the State of
Alaska. BOEM is now in the process of
conducting scientific studies to reevaluate the exemption thresholds
formulas, for both the GOM and Alaska
OCS Regions to tailor those thresholds
to the relevant environmental
characteristics of each region and to take
into consideration USEPA standards
applied to various time periods,
whether annual or shorter intervals.
These BOEM studies will evaluate and,
if necessary, provide the basis for
updating the current exemption
threshold equations and consider
whether recent advances in the field of
computer simulation modeling and the
availability of comprehensive
meteorological datasets unique to each
region may be applied to improve the
exemption threshold equations by
applying the updated underlying data.
The studies will use computersimulated air quality dispersion and
photochemical modeling to provide the
information necessary to evaluate the
current threshold equations (i.e., for the
EETs) and, if necessary, establish a basis
for developing a new method. All
modeling conducted for the studies will
be consistent with the USEPA’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models (40
CFR part 51 appendix W).
The GOM and Alaska OCS studies are
designed to fulfill the following
objectives:
• Prepare onshore and offshore emissions
inventories for use in computer simulation
air quality dispersion and photochemical
modeling, based on the multi-sale 2017–2022
scenario emissions for both OCS Regions;
• Evaluate current meteorological data and
develop new data, as necessary, for input
into air quality models;
• Conduct air quality dispersion and
photochemical modeling to discern the
collective effect of onshore and offshore
emissions on the onshore area of adjacent
States;
• Investigate the current exemption
threshold formulas for evidence the rates are
protective of the annual and short-term (24hours or less) AAQSB using dispersion and
photochemical air quality modeling and, if
necessary, develop a new method;
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• Conduct visibility analyses for the GOM
Region Class I areas: Breton Wilderness;
Saint Marks Wilderness; Chassahowitzka
Wilderness; and Bradwell Bay; and,
• Perform a 40 CFR part 51 appendix W
section 3.2.2 ‘‘Equivalency Demonstration’’
for modeling purposes in the GOM region.
Such an ‘‘Equivalency Demonstration’’
would involve determining the most
appropriate model for the exemption
thresholds, taking into account the USEPA
list of preferred models and the relevant
criteria for evaluating alternatives.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
As discussed above, BOEM is
considering establishing two or more
sets of EETs (i.e., per pollutant,
averaging time, and location), at least
one for the GOM OCS Region and at
least one for the area offshore of the
North Slope Borough of the State of
Alaska. For this reason, BOEM would
like comments on the appropriateness of
potentially distinct emissions
thresholds or threshold formulas for
these two areas, and/or how these
thresholds should be structured.
The USEPA recently established new
one-hour NAAQS for NO2, and SO2, as
well as changes to the 8-hour O3 and
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and also given
that the USEPA has recommended an
interim SIL for one-hour NO2 at 8mg/
m3 30 and an interim SIL for one-hour
SO2 at 3 parts per billion,31 but has not
proposed to add these SILs (or any SILs
for PM2.5 or ozone) to 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2), comments are solicited on
how these new ambient standards and
SILs that have the status of only being
USEPA recommendations should be
implemented in the context of the new
studies, for the purpose of updating the
new EETs that result.
Until such time as new EETs are
established, the existing exemption
thresholds will continue to apply
identically in both regions.
3. Modeling Analysis
In the event the exemption threshold
analysis indicates that one or more
criteria or major precursor pollutants
would exceed an applicable threshold,
the plan submitter must proceed to the
second step in the BOEM AQRP, which
is the modeling analysis. The purpose of
the modeling analysis is to help BOEM
determine, based on the information
provided by the lessee or operator,
whether or not the proposed operations
that generate emissions above an
exemption threshold would cause or
contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS.32 BOEM’s AQRP currently
30 Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/nsr/
documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf.
31 Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-07/documents/appwso2.pdf.
32 Under this proposed rule, the modeling
analysis would also be used in certain cases to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
models the onshore concentrations
created by the relevant criteria or
precursor pollutants emitted offshore.
Under existing regulations, plans that
would result in operations or uses that
generate ambient concentrations above
these Significance Levels as modeled
onshore are subject to further review
and analysis. BOEM’s Significance
Levels are listed in its regulations at 30
CFR 550.303(e).
These Significance Levels in BOEM’s
existing regulations are based on
USEPA’s SILs (as they existed
approximately 35 years ago), which are
ambient concentration levels used by
the USEPA to determine whether the
ambient air concentration of any given
air pollutant could cause or contribute
to a violation of the NAAQS at a given
location. Under USEPA’s historical
practice in the PSD program, if the
ambient air impacts of each criteria air
pollutant are below the applicable SILs
for all relevant averaging times, then the
incremental emissions are considered to
have an impact that is de minimis and,
therefore, not significant. BOEM’s
regulations utilize the USEPA’s SILs to
determine whether emissions of any
given pollutant that originates offshore
could have a potentially significant
effect onshore. The USEPA SILs are
expressed in terms of pollutant
concentrations averaged over a specific
period of time (i.e., averaging time), for
example on an annual basis. There are
also SILs designed to evaluate peak
emissions of air pollutants over shorter
time intervals, which include the 1hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour
averaging times. By incorporating the
relevant USEPA values listed in a table
in an USEPA regulation, BOEM would
automatically apply these timing
intervals or averaging times, as well for
those pollutants and averaging times
that are reflected in USEPA regulations.
Under BOEM’s existing regulations, in
order to evaluate the potential onshore
effects of offshore emissions, the models
project the ambient concentration of any
given air pollutant at various
measurement points onshore, which are
referred to as receptor locations. If any
projected concentration of a given air
pollutant does not exceed BOEM’s
applicable Significance Level(s) at all
receptor locations onshore for all
relevant averaging times, then the
incremental emissions are presumed de
minimis, and no further analysis is
required of emissions of that pollutant
under the BOEM AQRP. In other cases,
determine whether an exceedance of the AAIs has
occurred; this is not listed separately, since the
purpose of the AAI analysis is to protect an
attainment area from potentially exceeding the
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19731
additional modeling and/or the
application of relevant emissions
reductions measures will generally be
required.
At the time the current BOEM
regulations were promulgated, there
were no USEPA-approved modeling
approaches to quantify the impacts of
single sources of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions on ambient
O3 levels. For this reason, the current
rule does not require modeling of VOCs
and there is nothing analogous to a SIL
to indicate ambient impact of VOCs.
Instead of evaluating VOC emissions
against a SIL, VOCs are evaluated only
against an exemption threshold. CPs
and the reductions in their emissions
that may be required under the current
regulations are determined based on
several different levels that can vary
with the location of the facility, the
attainment status of the areas it affects,
and whether the facility is long- or
short-term. In contrast, in those
situations where the emissions of VOCs
exceed the relevant emission exemption
threshold, BOEM’s regulations instead
require a reduction in the emissions of
VOCs 33 Based on the analysis done at
the time, BOEM concluded that this
reduction should have been sufficient to
address the potential impact of VOCs on
the formation of O3.34
4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities
If it is determined through modeling
that the planned operations will
generate an onshore concentration of
one or more air pollutants in excess of
the SILs, various further analyses must
be done in order to determine what
controls must be applied. Under the
current AQRP, if a facility is projected
to cause ambient concentrations of air
pollution above acceptable levels (i.e.,
the SILs), the lessee or operator of that
facility must propose the application of
BACT 35 in connection with post-control
modeling, to demonstrate the AAQSB
will likely be met. The requirements
applicable to making this determination
33 When VOC emissions exceed the EET for a
short-term facility or a long-term facility affecting
only an attainment area, the lessee or operator must
apply ERM to reduce VOC emissions to the greatest
extent possible. For a long-term facility affecting a
non-attainment area, the lessee or operator must
apply ERM to reduce VOC emissions so that the
EET is not exceeded.
34 Results of the ongoing studies in the GOM and
Alaska will provide an updated method for
evaluating VOC contributions to ambient ozone
concentrations in the future.
35 In this proposed rule, references to BACT are
intended to refer to BOEM’s current or proposed
requirements, unless the USEPA’s definition is
specifically referenced. Under the USEPA
regulations, most types of ERM could qualify as
BACT, whereas BOEM’s definition is substantially
limited to physical or mechanical controls.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19732
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
sufficient for BOEM to conclude,
without further analysis, that the facility
does not cause a significant effect on the
air quality of a State. As explained in
the next Section, this presumption
would not apply in the case of a longterm facility. Although BOEM would set
the air emissions limits in connection
with its approval of the plan, BSEE
would be responsible for ensuring that
any required ERM, including BACT, are
actually applied in compliance with the
plan requirements.
vary depending on the amount of time
that the facility described in the
proposed plan is anticipated to be
present at any given location. The
current regulations make a distinction
between temporary and permanent
facilities. Under the proposed rule, the
phrase ‘‘short-term facility’’ is used
instead of the phrase ‘‘temporary
facility.’’ In both cases, these terms refer
to a facility that is located in one place
for less than three years.
Under the proposed rule, if the
projected concentration increase due to
emissions from the proposed short-term
facility exceeds the SILs but such
exceedance only affects attainment
areas, the lessee or operator would be
required to determine the maximum
amount of emissions reductions that it
can achieve with operational controls
and/or equipment replacements that are
technically and economically feasible.
This would represent a level of
emissions reductions that achieves the
maximum efficiency of their operations
with respect to emissions reduction. At
that point, the lessee or operator could
decide whether to apply those
operational controls and/or equipment
replacements, or to instead obtain
emissions credits. If it is determined
that there are no operational controls
and/or equipment replacements that are
technically and economically feasible,
and the emissions from the proposed
facility would affect only attainment
areas, then no ERM would be required.
In BOEM’s proposed rule, a
maintenance area is treated as an
attainment area; thus, the same
requirements would apply.
If the projected emissions for the
proposed short-term facility exceed the
SILs and such exceedance would affect
a designated non-attainment area, the
lessee or operator would not only be
required to conduct an ERM analysis,
but might also be required by the
Regional Supervisor to apply additional
types of ERM (beyond that which was
proposed in the original plan).
Under the proposed rule, described in
more detail in the section-by-section
analysis for section 550.306, a process
has been outlined to facilitate the
determination of the most appropriate
ERM, of which BACT is one option. If
the lessee or operator proposes to use
BACT, the lessee or operator would be
required to provide a description of the
associated energy, environmental and
economic impacts,36 and other costs.
In the case of a short-term facility, the
application of ERM would generally be
5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities
If emissions from a long-term facility
generate onshore concentrations of air
pollutants in excess of the SILs, under
the current regulations, the lessee or
operator must apply BACT. If only an
attainment area is affected, the proposed
BACT must result in the plan or facility
meeting the Maximum Allowable
Concentration Increases (MACIs), which
are set out in a table in BOEM’s
regulations. The MACIs are based on the
USEPA’s AAIs, and are designed to
prevent the air quality in clean areas
from deteriorating to an unacceptable
level as set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS
represent a maximum allowable
concentration ‘‘ceiling’’ for each air
pollutant and averaging time that does
not vary geographically. A MACI, on the
other hand, represents the maximum
increase in concentration that is allowed
to occur above a baseline concentration
for any given pollutant. Baseline
concentrations vary geographically.
When the MACI 37 is added to the
baseline concentration, the result is a
new ‘‘ceiling’’ specific to that area. A
significant deterioration in the air
quality is said to occur when the
concentration of a pollutant would
exceed the applicable MACI added to
the baseline concentration in that area.
BOEM and its predecessors have taken
the position that the exceedance of a
MACI constitutes a significant
deterioration in air quality that
‘‘significantly affect[s] the air quality of
any State.’’ Moreover, the MACIs are
designed to ensure that attainment areas
do not fall out of attainment, and so
they are appropriate increments to
‘‘ensure compliance with the
[NAAQS].’’ Thus an activity that has the
potential to cause an exceedance of the
MACIs should not be approved under
BOEM’s current regulations.
These MACIs, and the AAIs on which
they were based, vary depending on
whether any given location is defined as
a Class I, a Class II or Class III location
36 The description of the associated energy,
environmental and economic impacts is not
required in the case of non-BACT ERM.
37 Under BOEM’s current regulations, the term
MACI is used. This proposed rule would eliminate
that term and use the term AAI exclusively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(described below in the discussion of
the definitions of those terms) and the
relevant timeframes of exposure (i.e.,
averaging times).
Under the proposed rule, with respect
to impacts in an attainment area, if
emissions from a long-term facility were
to generate concentrations of air
pollutants landward of the SSB in
excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator
would be required to undertake an ERM
analysis, excluding BACT, to determine
the most effective and technically and
economically feasible approach for
reducing the projected emissions from
its facility. If the projected
concentration increase due to emissions
from the proposed facility exceed the
SILs but do not exceed the AAIs, the
proposed plan could be approved
without the lessee or operator having to
bring the concentration increase due to
the emissions from its operations below
the SILs. If the projected emissions
exceed the AAIs after the application of
ERM, the lessee or operator would be
required to use additional ERM until it
could demonstrate its emissions no
longer resulted in such an exceedance.
Under the proposed rule, with respect
to impacts in a non-attainment area, if
emissions from a long-term facility were
to generate concentrations of air
pollutants landward of the SSB in
excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator
would be required to undertake an ERM
analysis, including BACT, to determine
the most environmentally effective of
the technically and economically
feasible approaches for reducing the
projected emissions from its facility. If
the projected concentration increase—
due to emissions from the proposed
facility—continue to exceed the SILs
after the application of ERM, the
proposed plan could not be approved
without the lessee or operator having to
bring the concentration increase due to
emissions from its operations below the
SILs. Regardless of whether the
projected emissions would affect a
designated non-attainment or
attainment area, the lessee or operator
would be free to propose emissions
credits in lieu of any other ERM to
accomplish this objective.
The proposed rule retains a
requirement in the current regulations
(in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B)) that no
plan can be approved if that plan would
result in the generation of emissions
sufficient to cause an area of a State to
switch from attainment to a nonattainment status. For that reason, any
long-term facility that demonstrates
projected emissions in excess of the
SILs would be required to demonstrate
that those emissions do not cause the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
exceedance of any NAAQS in an
attainment area.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Protection of Exceptional Natural
Resources
As part of the 1977 amendments to
the CAA (Pub. L. 95–95; 91 Stat. 685),
Congress mandated that the country be
divided into various areas based on
their sensitivity to potential problems
associated with poor air quality. These
amendments establish Class I, II, and III
areas. The restriction on emissions are
most strict in Class I areas and are
progressively more lenient in Class II
and III areas. In addition to the three
classifications mentioned in the statute,
the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 38
have established a fourth classification
which they title ‘‘sensitive Class II
areas.’’ Sensitive Class II areas represent
an intermediate classification intended
to designate special areas, such as
national monuments and national
refuges that, while not subject to the
same level of controls as Class I areas,
require special protections above those
normally afforded to typical Class II
areas.
Thus, parts of the country are
designated as Class I or sensitive Class
II areas to indicate that they have been
identified for special protections.
National parks, national wilderness
areas, national monuments, national
seashores, and other areas of special
national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value are
generally designated as Class I 39 or as
sensitive Class II areas. FLMs, including
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s
Forest Service, and DOI’s Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), National Park
Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) manage these
areas. Together, these FLMs have the
affirmative responsibility to protect the
unique attributes and air quality of Class
I and sensitive Class II areas. BOEM has
not proposed and does not intend to
38 The Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality
Related Values Work Group (FLAG) was formed to
develop a more consistent approach for the Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) to evaluate air pollution
effects on their resources. Of particular importance
is the New Source Review (NSR) program,
especially in the review of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of air quality permit
applications. For a facility located in or near a Class
I area, the PSD permitting program uses AQRVs
when evaluating the potential impact of a proposed
source or modification on resources which are
sensitive to air quality.
39 Several tribes have also requested USEPA to
redesignate their lands from Class II to Class I to
provide additional air quality protection. These are
the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, the Flathead
Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, the Spokane Indian Reservation and
the Forest County Potawatomi Community
Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.1382(c), 52.2497(c) and
52.2581(f).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
evaluate air quality impacts in nonsensitive Class II or Class III areas other
than by applying the typical AQRP
requirements.
Under the CAA, FLMs are charged
with reviewing available information
about proposed facilities in order to
determine their potential air quality
impacts on Class I areas. FLMs have
established Air Quality Related Values
(AQRV), which represent resources
which are sensitive to air quality and
include a wide array of vegetation, soils,
water, fish and wildlife, and visibility.
The goal of the FLMs is to ensure that
pollution levels stay below the critical
loads (i.e., below which they have
determined there would be no adverse
impact to a Class I area). These AQRVs
include values designed to protect
visibility, odor, flora, fauna, and
geological, archeological, historical, and
cultural resources, as well as soil and
water resources. The AQRVs for various
Class I areas differ depending on the
purpose and characteristics of a
particular area and the assessment by an
area’s FLM. The FLMs determine the
requirements for compliance with each
AQRV.40
FLMs evaluate plans submitted to
BOEM to determine whether there
would be any potential adverse impact
to a Class I or sensitive Class II area and
to recommend controls, as appropriate,
if there are potentially adverse impacts.
In order to complement this process,
BOEM’s AQRP requires any proposed
long-term facility whose emissions
cause an exceedance of the SILs to meet
the standards for the MACIs that
correspond to the Class designation of
the areas onshore of the proposed
operations.
7. Primary and Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Evaluation
Once BOEM determines the MACIs or
the SILs would not be exceeded, BOEM
must make a further determination that
the NAAQS would also not be exceeded
in any attainment area.
There are two types of NAAQS,
primary and secondary. Primary
NAAQS are intended to protect public
health, including the health of sensitive
subpopulations with a requisite margin
of safety, whereas secondary standards
are intended to protect public welfare
(e.g., effects on crop yields) from any
known or anticipated adverse effects
associated with the presence of the
specified pollutants in ambient air.
These standards are composed of four
elements: Indicator; averaging time;
40 See https://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/
flag/FLAG_2010.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19733
statistical form; and level. Under both
BOEM’s current regulations and its
proposed rule, for any pollutant for
which there is more than one standard,
plans must comply with whichever
NAAQS standard is strictest in terms of
the ERMs needed for the facility.
Generally, according to both BOEM and
USEPA regulations, no project can be
approved if it would result in design
concentrations for any given air
pollutant in excess of the level for either
the primary or secondary NAAQS for
that pollutant in an attainment area.
The NAAQS, codified at 40 CFR part
50, identify the maximum allowable
concentrations, or ‘‘ceilings,’’ and forms,
for each of the various CPs at any given
location. Under its current regulations,
BOEM will not approve a plan that it
determines would cause the ambient air
quality either at the shoreline or farther
onshore to deteriorate significantly
beyond the air quality specified by the
applicable NAAQS for any given air
pollutant, regardless of whether the
change would comply with the other
relevant SIL(s) or AAI(s) for that same
pollutant.41 Because the NAAQS
represent the amount of an air pollutant
that is allowable at any given location,
evaluating the emissions of the
pollutant to determine the potential for
an exceedance requires information on
existing concentrations of the pollutant
at the location, i.e., the background
concentration. The sum of the
background concentration of the
pollutant plus the incremental
concentration of that same pollutant
caused by the projected emissions for
the relevant averaging time and
statistical form is referred to as the
design concentration of that pollutant.
BOEM compares the design
concentration with the NAAQS to
determine if there is likely to be an
exceedance.
8. Intersection With the National
Environmental Policy Act
Under current BOEM regulations,
while the AQRP is focused on the extent
41 There could be an exception in a case where
offsets are used in lieu of another ERM. In the
proposed rule, the emissions credits must affect the
same Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as the
facility’s projected emissions. Because the
boundaries of the AQCR may not be the same as the
boundaries of the non-attainment areas (because
non-attainment areas are typically much smaller),
and because the proposed rule would commit
BOEM to always allowing offsets provided they are
in the same AQCR, the effects of the facility’s
pollution and the offsets may occur in different
areas. Thus, it is possible that the non-attainment
area may remain unaffected even after the relevant
ERM have been applied. Since the offset is the same
magnitude as the required reduction, the statement
would be accurate on an aggregate basis, regardless
of the attainment/non-attainment areas to which the
offset would apply.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19734
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
E. Conclusion
BOEM’s AQRP is intended to protect
the air quality of the States and to
achieve the following objectives with
regard to OCS exploration and
development: (1) To protect public
health from adverse effects; (2) to
protect public welfare, including the
economies of the States, by preventing
a deterioration in the air quality of the
environment (e.g., to protect crops,
forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the
formation of new designated nonattainment areas; and (4) to preserve and
enhance the air quality in national parks
and other areas of special natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value.
BOEM continues to maintain these same
goals and objectives as it proposes to
amend the regulations to more
effectively meet these goals and
objectives. In most cases, these
objectives are similar to those of
corresponding analysis and permit
review processes of the States, working
in conjunction with the USEPA.
In addition to BOEM’s AQRP, the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) has an enforcement
program designed to ensure lessees and
operators comply with BOEM’s air
quality regulations and that such lessees
and operators do not emit air pollutants
that exceed the terms of their approved
plans or RUE or pipeline ROW
applications. BOEM provides plan
information to BSEE on a regular basis,
and BSEE uses this information to
evaluate applications for permits to
drill. BSEE also monitors lessee or
operator operations on an ongoing basis,
as one component of its inspections
process.
9. Additional Environmental Review
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
to which projected air emissions
generated offshore could significantly
impact the air quality onshore, BOEM
also considers air quality impacts
related to lease and plan approval as
part of its analyses conducted pursuant
to NEPA. BOEM considers potential
impacts from air emissions individually
and collectively, including potential air
quality impacts offshore and onshore
that would be caused by proposed oil
and gas exploration and development
activities. Because of BOEM’s staged
decision-making with respect to
activities conducted under an OCS
lease, NEPA reviews involve multiple
analyses and occur at several time
points in the OCS lease and
development process.
In order to comply with the
applicable requirements of NEPA,
BOEM evaluates the likely cumulative
impacts of OCS development during its
Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program
and the associated Five-Year
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement. BOEM conducts an
additional analysis of such prospective
impacts at the time it prepares a multisale Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) or a NEPA analysis on an
individual lease sale. BOEM conducts
an even more detailed air quality
analysis at the time the lessee or
operator submits the EP, or RUE or
ROW application, lease-term pipeline
application, and again when the lessee
or operator submits a DPP or DOCD. At
these two later stages, BOEM conducts
the AQRP in order to ensure the lessee’s
or operator’s implementation proposals
comply with the applicable
requirements of OCSLA and the
corresponding BOEM regulations.
A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards
The current rule has AAQSB relevant
to CO, SO2, NOX, total suspended
particulates (TSPs) and VOCs. The
proposed rule would broaden the scope
of BOEM’s AQRP to cover all the
NAAQS criteria pollutants and the
major precursor pollutants, as required
by OCSLA. Under the proposed rule,
carbon monoxide and VOCs would be
subject to substantially the same
requirements as under the current
regulations. The review of SO2 would be
expanded to also include an evaluation
of other sulphur oxides (SOX). Total
suspended particulates would be
replaced as an indicator pollutant with
a new indicator pollutant titled PM10.
New regulatory requirements would be
added for O3, Pb, PM2.5, and NH3, none
of which have specific emissions limits
in the current regulations. In addition,
the requirements for hydrogen sulfide
BOEM conducts analyses of the
potential impact of OCS development
on the conservation of the natural
resources of the OCS and overlying
waters (including the fish, marine
mammals, plants, corals, etc.) to ensure
the prevention of waste; to evaluate
those circumstances that could result in
environmental and other hazards; and to
conserve and protect the associated
mineral, economic, and environmental
resources in and over the OCS, in
accordance with OCSLA at 43 U.S.C.
1334(a), 1340(c), and 1351. Current
BOEM regulations also specify each
Regional Supervisor should evaluate
every plan and make a determination
that the proposed activities will not
cause serious harm or damage to the
marine, coastal, or human environment
(e.g., 30 CFR 550.202).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
IV. Summary of Key Changes
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(H2S), a minor precursor to SO2, would
be refined. The proposed rule defines
BOEM’s list of criteria and precursor
pollutants by reference to the relevant
tables in the USEPA’s regulations,
thereby ensuring that any changes or
additions promulgated by the USEPA
would be automatically accounted for in
the BOEM regulations.
In addition to accounting for all of the
criteria and major precursor pollutants,
as required by OCSLA, the proposed
rule would result in enhanced
collection, evaluation, and
consideration of data on such pollutants
over a greater variety of time intervals
(i.e., averaging times), because BOEM
would evaluate air pollutant emissions
in terms of the effects, not only on
annual pollution levels, but also on
pollution levels for the other averaging
times the USEPA uses in evaluating
SILs, AAIs (MACIs) and NAAQS for
CPs, including 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour,
and 24-hour averaging times. The
differing averaging times were
established in recognition that higher
short-term concentrations of a pollutant
can have adverse effects even when the
long-term average concentration of the
same pollutant falls within relevant
annual standards. The proposed rule
would better align and coordinate the
information gathering and data analysis
requirements in BOEM’s regulations
with similar requirements used by the
USEPA and reflected in USEPA
requirements and tables. Specifically,
under the proposed rule, BOEM would
require the use of the USEPA’s tables for
SILs, AAIs and NAAQS in any
circumstance where modeling is
required. Thus, any changes to any
applicable USEPA AAQSB would
automatically be cross-referenced by
BOEM regulations and would not
require that BOEM amend or update its
regulations.
Under the proposed regulations,
certain provisions within BOEM’s rules
would be updated automatically
whenever the USEPA makes
corresponding changes in:
• The SILs, also known as significant
impact levels or significance levels, with the
associated averaging times, as defined in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2);
• The AAIs (i.e., concentration levels of
ambient pollutants and associated statistical
form), as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(c);
• The primary or secondary NAAQS, as
defined in 40 CFR part 50;
• The identification of criteria and major
precursor air pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR
51.15(a);
• The list of approved air quality models,
as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
• USEPA air quality modeling
requirements and methodologies, as defined
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• Emissions factors, based on models
defined by the USEPA or the FAA, to
determine emissions levels for tier- and nontier-compliant marine and non-road engines
and aircraft;
• Reporting timeframes associated with the
NEI; and
• Significant emissions rates (SERs) for
criteria and major precursor pollutants, as
defined in 40 CFR 51.21(b)(23)(i).
Under the proposed rule, certain
provisions in BOEM’s rule would also
be updated automatically whenever the
USEPA changes 40 CFR 1043.100 to
reflect emissions standards and other
requirements applicable to marine
engines under Annex VI to the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as
the protocol is defined in 33 U.S.C.
1901), as implemented in the U.S.
through the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901–1915). This
protocol is commonly referred to as
‘‘MARPOL.’’ The MARPOL standards
are part of the federal coordinated
strategy to address emissions from
vessels adopted by the USEPA which
consists of (1) the CAA engine standards
and fuel limits for U.S. vessels
contained in 40 CFR 80 and 40 CFR
1042; (2) the North American and U.S.
Caribbean Sea Emission Control Areas
designed by amendment to the
MARPOL protocol; and (3) the MARPOL
engine emission and fuel sulphur limits
that apply to all vessels regardless of
flag (see 75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010).
BOEM proposes that foreign vessels be
allowed to use the MARPOL standards
as emission factors for the purposes of
the program, if there are no preferred,
more accurate alternatives, with certain
adjustments.42 In addition, as the
following are modified by the USEPA,
BOEM’s standards for review of plans
and requirements would change
correspondingly:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• The attainment or designated nonattainment status of State lands potentially
impacted by emissions from OCS activities,
as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C; and
• The Class designation of federal, State or
tribal lands or waters on or potentially
impacted by emissions from OCS activities,
as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
B. Attributed Emissions
Historically, BOEM has considered
two primary sources of emissions in
connection with its regulation of OCS
air emissions—stationary sources, and
42 Such adjustment would be done in order to
take appropriate account the deterioration in
performance, based on the age of the equipment and
the potential variation of the actual emissions from
the standard to account for the maximum potential
emissions that the emissions source may emit (as
described in section 550.205(b)(2)(vii) of the
proposed rule text).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
non-stationary sources, such as support
vessels, over-the-ice vehicles and
aircraft. The proposed rule would
change the manner in which lessees and
operators must consider and model
emissions from support vessels and
other non-stationary sources. The
changes would mean that plans will
more accurately reflect how emissions
may affect the air quality of States, given
improvements in modeling capabilities.
1. Emissions From Stationary Sources
BOEM proposes relatively few
changes to what constitutes the kinds of
stationary sources of air emissions
subject to review and/or regulation. In
accordance with OCSLA, all offshore
facilities constructed or operating on the
OCS must be covered by an approved
plan that BOEM has evaluated for
compliance with relevant emissions
standards. While the proposed rule
would retain this basic principle, the
proposed rule would expand the
definition of facility to address the
greater variety of facilities now being
constructed. Accordingly, the proposed
rule would replace any existing
reference to a ‘‘drilling unit’’ with a
reference to the broader term ‘‘facility’’
and would clarify that air quality and
air emissions information and analysis
must be provided with respect to any
facility that is proposed to be located on
the OCS. Further details concerning the
definition of the term facility are
provided in the section-by-section
analysis of the new or updated
definitions listed in section 550.302.
The proposed rule would make clear
that emissions from decommissioning
activities would be included in a
facility’s projected emissions.
This proposed rule does not specify
air quality review requirements
associated with the decommissioning or
removal of structures on the OCS.
BOEM is soliciting information on the
most appropriate method for
establishing and reporting air quality
requirements associated with
decommissioning and structure removal
activities in the context of the AQRP.
This includes a request for information
and comment on when and how BOEM
should receive air quality emission data
and information associated with
decommissioning and structure removal
and how an assessment of feasible ERM
should be applied. One approach on
which BOEM solicits comment would
be whether it should provide for only
the collection of emissions data
associated with decommissioning
activities for some period of time,
followed by a second phase in which
BOEM could utilize the data that was
previously collected to craft an
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19735
approach tailored to this unique type of
activity.
2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft
(MSC)
In the proposed rule, BOEM would
continue to require the collection and
evaluation of emissions data related to
offshore supply vessels (OSVs) and
other support vessels and vehicles
(collectively, mobile support craft
(MSCs)) for two primary reasons. First,
the data remain necessary to accurately
model the impact of any given
exploration or development project to
determine whether the air emissions are
likely to exceed the emissions
thresholds, and, therefore, to determine
whether the air emissions are
potentially significant. Second, this
proposed rule would allow BOEM to
use the data to determine whether
emissions associated with a project
covered by a plan are at a level such that
the planned operations could cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS
in a State.
BOEM’s statutory responsibility to
regulate ‘‘for compliance with the
[NAAQS], to the extent that activities
authorized under this subchapter
significantly affect the air quality of any
State,’’ authorizes BOEM to take into
account sources of emissions directly
related to OCS operations that have the
potential to significantly affect a State’s
air quality.43 A portion of the emissions
associated with exploration and
development of OCS oil and gas come
from the MSCs providing support to
OCS operations. While MSC operations
do not require direct BOEM
authorization, their activities and the
associated emissions are undertaken
pursuant to contracts and orders from
lessees and operators engaging in oil
and gas exploration and development,
which require BOEM’s approval of a
plan. Without an accounting of these
emissions in the plan, BOEM would not
know whether emissions that will stem
43 The conference report accompanying the
enactment of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA explained:
The standards of applicability the conferees
intended the Secretary to incorporate in such
regulations is that when a determination is made
that offshore operations may have or are having a
significant effect on the air quality of an adjacent
onshore area, and may prevent or are preventing the
attainment or maintenance of the AAQSs of such
area, regulations are to be promulgated to assure
that offshore operations conducted pursuant to this
act do not prevent the attainment or maintenance
of those standards. The terms ‘‘may have’’ and
‘‘may prevent’’ refer to the Secretarial judgment
regarding future consideration of exploration plans,
or development and production plans, in which the
potential for ‘‘significant effect’’ is analyzed prior to
approval and thus commencement of the proposed
activities.
See, H.R. Rep. No. 95–1474, at 85–86 (1978)
(Conf. Rep.).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19736
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
from its approval would have the
potential to significantly affect the air
quality of any State. Accordingly, BOEM
is not proposing to regulate MSC
sources directly, but it would continue
its current practice of attributing MSC
emissions to the approved facilities that
the MSCs support. The most feasible,
and perhaps only means, of preventing
significant effects on State air quality is
to require operators to manage the
emissions that are closely associated
with its operations. In this rule BOEM
is proposing to refine the method for
attributing these mobile source
emissions to facilities.
Historically, and with cooperation
from industry, BOEM followed an
approach similar to the USEPA’s to
account for vessel emissions in the
GOM. BOEM’s current regulations
require that operators report in their
plans those emissions from MSCs that
occur within 25 miles of a OCS facility.
Although the current regulations are not
explicit on this point, BOEM’s GOM
practice has been to add these emissions
to the emissions of the facility and
compare the total against the exemption
thresholds to determine whether
modeling and controls are required.44
BOEM’s predecessor agencies chose this
approach to be consistent with the
approach used by the USEPA.45
However there are a number of
reasons that attributing all MSC
emissions within a 25-mile radius of the
facility may not be the best approach.
This method of attributing emissions
does not provide the most accurate
picture of the effects of BOEM’s plan
approval on the State’s air quality.
Historically, the vast majority of new
OCS operations were located within 50
miles of the shoreline. Thus, the 25-mile
facility radius adequately addressed the
impact of vessel air emissions on the air
quality of States. For facilities located
within 25 miles of the shoreline, 100%
of all MSC emissions would have been
accounted for by this formula. For
facilities located 50 miles from the
shoreline, roughly 50% of the total MSC
emissions would have been accounted
for. For facilities located 100 miles from
44 The practice has differed in BOEM’s Alaska
region during those periods in which the Secretary
had air quality jurisdiction over the Arctic OCS. For
the Arctic, BOEM’s practice has been to require
reporting of MSC emissions in the plan, but the
Alaska region has not made it a practice to combine
those emissions with the facility’s emissions to
compare against the exemption thresholds.
45 See sec. 328 of the CAA, 43 U.S.C. 7627,
specifies that ‘‘emissions from any vessel servicing
or associated with an OCS source, including
emissions while at the OCS source or en route to
or from the OCS source within 25 miles of the OCS
source, shall be considered direct emissions from
the OCS source.’’ OCLSA does not mention
emissions from such vessels.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
the shoreline, only 25% of the total
MSC emissions would be accounted for
and at 200 miles distance, only 12.5%
of the emissions would be considered.
Also, in terms of the potential impact to
a State, the most important MSC
emissions generally would be those
occurring closest to the State. Therefore,
although 25% of MSC emissions for a
facility located 100 miles from shore
may be accounted for under the 25-mile
rule, the 75% of emissions that are not
considered would likely have a greater
impact. According to the formula used
in BOEM’s current exemption
thresholds, 3,300 tons of emissions 100
miles from shore would have an
equivalent effect to 100 tons of
emissions of the same pollutant 3 miles
from shore. Applying this formula, the
25% of emissions within 25 miles of a
facility would account for less than 2%
of the impact on State air quality, and
the portion of emissions from MSCs that
occur while the MSC is closer to the
State’s boundary would have a
proportionally larger effect on the
State’s air.
Historically, facilities in the GOM
accounted for the vast majority of the
total emissions, with MSC emissions
representing only a small share of total
emissions. However, in the most recent
inventory, BOEM determined that
facilities only account for 45% of all
OCS emissions associated with oil and
gas exploration and production. Also,
today, more facilities are being
constructed at increasing distances from
the shoreline. Today, some are located
as far as 200 miles away from shore.
Given these shifts, BOEM believes it
is no longer appropriate to utilize a
blanket 25-mile radius, because that
radius does not capture most of the
attributed emissions that occur between
a port and the facility. Thus, the
importance of accurately taking MSC
emissions into consideration has grown
substantially. BOEM could not ensure
that it has avoided permitting uses of
the OCS that would adversely affect the
State if its evaluation of OCS projects
did not take into account the majority of
the relevant emissions.
Additionally, current BOEM analysis
treats all emissions from MSCs as if they
originate at the facility itself.
Improvements in dispersion modeling
technology have made it easier to more
accurately project impacts of emissions
based on where these emissions actually
occur. For this reason, it is no longer
necessary or appropriate to aggregate
emissions from non-stationary sources
at one location for purposes of air
quality analysis.
Increasingly, lessees and operators are
using new types of support vessels,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
including vessels that operate
continuously offshore without having to
return to port. When considered along
with those support vessels that are
unique to the Arctic, either due to its
extreme environmental conditions or to
the need to make up for the lack of
onshore support facilities, it is
increasingly evident that the use and
types of vessels are substantially
different than in the past.
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112–74), Congress
mandated that BOEM regulate air
quality impacts from activities on the
OCS adjacent to the North Slope
Borough of the State of Alaska along
with activities on the OCS in the Central
and Western GOM. BOEM must now
also consider the potential effects
caused by air pollution generated by
operations unique to the Arctic region,
such as ice breakers and other vessels or
vehicles that would not normally be
necessary or present in the GOM. The
relative proportion of attributed
emissions to total emissions (i.e.,
support vessel emissions relative to
facility emissions) is substantially
higher in Alaska than in the GOM. This
is due to, among several things, the
substantial differences in the existing oil
and gas infrastructure, the significant
variations in climate between the GOM
region and Alaska, and the relatively
greater need for MSCs (and their higher
emissions) to support OCS facilities
offshore Alaska. In the Alaska region, a
typical ratio of MSC emissions to
facility emissions would be in the range
of 80% to 20%. Thus, the emissions of
ice breakers, oil spill support vessels,
trucks that operate over ice and other
vessels unique to the Arctic make the
need to account for MSC emissions even
greater than is the case in the GOM.
Furthermore, those MSCs used in
Alaska are of a type whereby they can
more readily operate outside of a 25mile radius of the facility. While supply
vessels, crew boats and tug boats cannot
easily avoid coming into close contact
with the facility they support, this is not
true of ice breakers or oil spill support
vessels. Such vessels can be and often
are located just beyond the 25-mile
boundary, sometimes closer to shore
than the facility itself. Because, in an
Arctic context, the MSCs generate far
more emissions than the facilities they
support, not accounting for their
emissions makes it impossible to
appropriately avoid authorizing activity
causing or contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS.
BOEM is proposing a more accurate
standard, namely that the emissions of
MSCs should be accounted for while
they are actually operating in support of
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the facility. As long as an ice breaker is
engaged in active operations on behalf
of a facility (and, in whose absence, the
ice breaker would not be used), its
emissions should count towards the
total emissions resulting from plan
approval. Once the MSC is no longer
providing support to a facility, its
emissions should not be considered as
part of the projected emissions in the
plan.
In addition to these differences,
technological advances with respect to
non-stationary source modeling allow
more accurate modeling of emissions
from non-stationary sources. Unlike the
situation in the past, when there was no
accurate means to evaluate the
emissions of mobile sources in terms of
the impact to stationary sources, such
modeling can be readily and accurately
done today. BOEM believes that it is
important to employ the most advanced
and scientifically accurate
measurements and evaluation
techniques of air pollution, in order to
most effectively implement its mandate.
For all these reasons, BOEM has
reevaluated its historical method of
accounting for non-stationary source
emissions (i.e., emissions generated
from support vessels, vehicles, and
aircraft operating on the OCS, or in State
waters, that are associated with OCS
facilities) and proposes to revise the
current practice in both Alaska and the
GOM to better address BOEM’s
mandate. Instead of automatically
applying a 25-mile radius, BOEM is
proposing to require lessees and
operators to report and attribute the
MSCs to facilities to which the vessel is
actually providing operational support,
regardless of its distance from that
facility. In the proposed rule, the key is
whether an MSC is operating in support
of a facility authorized under OCSLA,
not how close the MSC it is to that
facility. The proposed rule would
require all MSCs operating in support of
a facility to attribute their emissions to
that facility while they provide such
support (except in those rare cases
where such attribution would be
impractical). MSCs that do not provide
support to a facility would not be
reported, regardless of how close or
distant they are. The discussion of
proposed § 550.205(d), in the sectionby-section description below, sets forth
the details of how the proposed rule
would require lessees and operators to
attribute MSC emissions to a facility,
including the allocation of emissions
from MSCs servicing multiple facilities
(see discussion below).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
3. Determination of Attributed
Emissions
BOEM is proposing to define the term
‘‘attributed emissions’’ to cover nonstationary source emissions associated
with a plan, including, ‘‘for any given
criteria or precursor air pollutant, the
emissions from MSCs and aircraft,
operating above the OCS or State
submerged lands, that are attributed to
a facility.’’
As described in the discussion of
proposed § 550.205(d), in section V
below, where an MSC described in a
plan also supports one or more facilities
not described in a plan, the proposed
rule would provide several alternatives
for determining the emissions from a
vessel or vehicle that should be
attributed to the particular facility in the
plan. A lessee or operator could always
choose to attribute all of an MSC’s
emissions to a facility regardless of how
many facilities it supports. The rule,
however, would allow a lessee or
operator to attribute only that relevant
portion of a vessel’s emissions to its
facility or facilities. The proposed rule
would provide a lessee or operator with
a process to attribute only a portion of
an MSC’s emissions to its facility. This
procedure is designed to provide the
most detailed, accurate information
available about the MSC’s emissions.
BOEM recognizes that any given lessee
or operator may not know at the time of
plan submittal, or RUE or pipeline ROW
application, the extent to which it will
rely on MSCs that also support facilities
unrelated to those covered by the
lessee’s or operator’s plan. For this
reason, the procedure would allow
lessees and operators alternative ways of
making conservative estimates of the
portion of an MSC’s emissions that
should be attributed to a facility. The
intent of these alternatives is to simplify
the process for determining the
allocation of support vessel emissions in
situations where it would otherwise be
impracticable to do so.
BOEM’s proposed approach would
reduce the potential for over-counting
emissions resulting from plan approval
compared with BOEM’s current
practice. Under BOEM’s current
practice, one hundred percent of the
emissions of an MSC are counted when
located within 25 miles of a plan
facility, regardless of whether that MSC
also supports five, ten, or even 20
unrelated facilities within a 25-mile
radius of the facility. Under the
proposed rule, emissions would be
allocated to the appropriate facility in
all cases where it would be practicable
to do so, in accordance with proposed
§ 550.205(d). Only in the rare situation
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19737
where there would be no reasonable
basis to make any more accurate
allocation would the 25-mile radius
analysis remain as a last resort option.
Ultimately, BOEM believes there is no
reason to hold an operator responsible
for emissions based on an emitting
MSC’s proximity to a facility, but rather
it should be required to manage its
operations to prevent exceedances of the
NAAQS which result from only those
MSCs which actually support its
operations. Air emissions of an MSC
may often occur close to shore, and
therefore would cause a greater impact
onshore and/or at the SSB, than a
similar amount of emissions from that
same MSC which occur in the vicinity
of the facility. BOEM is seeking
comments on this proposed approach
and will consider alternative methods
that more accurately attribute emissions
from mobile sources to the appropriate
facility.
4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore
Emissions Sources
BOEM also proposes to change its
approach to accounting for air pollutant
emissions associated with other nonstationary sources. The proposed rule
would continue to require lessees or
operators to identify all vessels and
vehicles supporting a facility and to
report their relevant air emissions as
part of each plan, as is the case with the
current policy. However, BOEM is
proposing to change how aircraft and
onshore emissions would be addressed.
Although lessees or operators would
continue to be required to identify the
likely types and number of support
aircraft they propose to use, no
collection of emissions data for those
aircraft would generally be required
under the proposed rule, except in
exceptional circumstances. BOEM is
proposing this change because
collecting information on emissions
from aircraft that support OCS
operations in all plans would be unduly
burdensome since aircraft emissions are
a small fraction of emissions in most
plans and their inclusion would likely
not cause a facility’s projected
emissions to exceed the EETs or any
AAQSB in a State where it would
otherwise not do so. Available data from
plans submitted to BOEM and its
predecessors indicate that the level of
relevant emissions from aircraft is
generally an extremely small percentage
of the total emissions reported in each
plan. Furthermore, there are a large
number of aircraft supporting OCS
facilities and these aircraft service more
facilities and are used for a wider
variety of purposes than MSCs,
including for purposes other than
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19738
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
supporting oil and gas facilities on the
OCS. This makes it cumbersome to
accurately quantify and attribute (with
respect to OCS support functions) their
emissions to individual facilities in a
plan in many cases. Accordingly, BOEM
believes it is not prudent to require all
lessees and operators to report aircraft
emissions.
The proposed rule, however, would
require a lessee or operator to submit
aircraft emissions information to
account for the situation in which a
plan proposes exceptional or unusual
aircraft operations. This provision
would cover situations in which a lessee
or operator plans abnormally high use of
aircraft to support its operations, or the
lessee or operator plans to use aircraft
that emit exceptionally high amounts of
pollutants. In those situations, the
proposed rule would require the lessee
or operator to determine whether
aircraft emissions would cause its
projected emissions to exceed an
emission exemption threshold or
AAQSB. If a plan which is already
required to conduct modeling results in
incremental increases in concentration
of a pollutant that are greater than 95
percent of the value of a SIL, the
proposed rule would require the lessee
or operator to also model its aircraft
emissions.46
Likewise, under the proposed rule,
lessees and operators would not
normally be required to report
information on emissions from onshore
support facilities. Emissions from large
sources onshore are in many cases
already identified and regulated by the
USEPA, or by the States in the context
of their respective SIPs.47 In addition,
under the CAA the USEPA has
established standards for several types
of mobile sources, no matter where they
are operated through requirements that
engines, vehicles, and equipment be
certified to exhaust emission limits, and
through the regulation of certain
characteristics of the fuels used in these
engines. The proposed rule would not
require a lessee or operator to gather or
46 BOEM expects that aircraft emissions typically
represent less than two percent of all plan
emissions, and that any plan with emissions below
95 percent of the value of every SIL, excluding
aircraft emissions, would be extremely unlikely to
generate total emissions, even if including those
from aircraft, in excess of any SIL; therefore,
modeling of aircraft emissions would normally not
be required.
47 USEPA regulates these sources to the extent
they are in source categories subject to New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) or National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) coverage. States regulate them to the
extent they are covered in their State NSPS plans,
have taken delegation of NESHAPs, or have chosen
to regulate them in order to meet criterial pollutant
NAAQS or under NSR.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
report the emissions generated onshore
in support of an OCSLA-authorized
activity on the OCS. BOEM has
determined in the past and continues to
hold that, for purposes of this separate
program, such emissions are de minimis
and that further regulation of them,
beyond what already applies or that
may be established by USEPA and
States under applicable federal and
State law, is not warranted. As would be
the case with aircraft, however, if a plan
describes the use of onshore sources
that generate unusually high levels of
emissions, such that these emissions
could cause the project’s total projected
emissions to exceed an EET or AAQSB,
then the lessee or operator would be
required to provide information on its
onshore emissions.
While this proposal takes the
approach described here for aircraft and
onshore emissions, BOEM is
considering whether it should instead
establish a requirement whereby plans
that propose aircraft and onshore
emissions above a certain threshold,
expressed as either a percent of the total
plan emissions or an absolute amount of
emissions, would have to include
emissions from aircraft and onshore
support facilities. BOEM would
welcome comments on this approach,
and also any data or analysis relevant to
the issue of whether, and to what extent,
aircraft and onshore emissions should
be considered in evaluating a facility’s
emissions profile.
Please provide comments on this
approach and what threshold might be
most appropriate.
C. Points of Measurement
1. Point-of-Origin Measurement
Historically, BOEM applied ‘‘point
source’’ modeling to plans for facilities
and their MSCs. Point source modeling
evaluates all emissions associated with
any source as if they originated from a
single location, regardless of whether
that source is stationary (e.g., a drilling
unit or platform) or non-stationary (e.g.,
a supply vessel). The term ‘‘point
source’’ refers to the location from
which the pollutants are discharged, not
the location at which the impacts from
the emissions are measured or evaluated
(referred to as receptor locations). In the
case of a stationary facility, point source
modeling is appropriate because it
accurately reflects where the emissions
are occurring.
With respect to non-stationary
sources, however, point source
modeling is much less accurate because
the actual emissions generated by such
a source are discharged over a broad
area. BOEM’s regulations currently do
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
not address the appropriate types of
models to use to account for emissions
from non-stationary sources, although
some operators already model nonstationary emissions sources as (1) area
or line sources; (2) volume sources; or
(3) so-called pseudo-points (i.e., some
mobile sources are modeled as if their
emissions originated at one or more
stationary points).48
MSCs operating in support of
facilities on the OCS typically discharge
emissions continuously between the
port and the facility. BOEM believes
line and volume source modeling for
non-stationary sources would accurately
project the impact of emissions from
such MSC on onshore air pollution
levels at the SSB. The improved
accuracy and information value from
line and/or volume source modeling of
pollutant dispersions would provide
BOEM a more realistic projection of
actual impacts on the air quality of a
State.
With volume source modeling, it is
also possible to more accurately model
the effect of emissions discharged by
non-stationary sources on fixed
landscapes (i.e., land, mountains, lakes,
etc.), taking into account relevant
factors, such as air pressure, currents,
winds, and temperatures in relation to
the discharge of pollutants and their
ambient distribution at distant
locations. With improved ambient air
quality dispersion data, air quality
impacts can be evaluated more
effectively. BOEM requests comments
on the various types of modeling that
could or should be used to more
accurately reflect the origin and
dispersion of emissions that are
generated by mobile sources, such as
MSCs, and under what circumstance
volume source modeling would be
appropriate or inappropriate.
2. State Seaward Boundary (SSB)
In developing this proposed air
quality rule, BOEM revisited an issue it
encountered while drafting its 1980 air
quality regulations: Whether air quality
impacts should be evaluated starting at
the shoreline or at the SSB, which is
typically three nautical miles offshore,
but which may be as much as nine
nautical miles offshore depending on
the particular State. On the basis of
BOEM’s interpretation of its statutory
authority, BOEM has concluded that it
is more appropriate to measure at the
SSB than at the shoreline.
48 In line-, area-, and volume-source models, the
emissions are modeled as if they are emitted evenly
and continuously across a line, area, or volume. In
point source models, some emissions may be
modeled as if they are emitted from many discrete
points along a path or over an area.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA requires DOI
to regulate ‘‘for compliance with the
national ambient air quality standards
pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.), to the extent that activities
authorized under [OCSLA] significantly
affect the air quality of any State’’ (43
U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). BOEM historically
interpreted the phrase ‘‘significantly
affect the air quality of any State’’ to
limit it to considering those effects that
would occur landward of the shoreline.
BOEM thus historically has evaluated
any OCS activity in terms of the effects
of that activity on the concentration of
pollutants landward of the shoreline.
BOEM has re-evaluated this position.
BOEM believes the term ‘‘State’’ in
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA should be
interpreted to include the entire area of
a State’s jurisdiction extending to its
seaward boundary (either three or nine
nautical miles seaward of its shoreline).
(See 43 U.S.C. 1312.) Moreover, the
States are responsible for attainment of
the NAAQS over the entirety of the
State including their submerged lands.
The USEPA interprets the CAA
consistently with BOEM’s interpretation
under this proposed rule. Generally, the
USEPA requires States to regulate their
air quality up to their seaward
boundary. For instance, the USEPA does
not allow States to permit an onshore or
offshore source that would cause the air
quality above State submerged lands to
exceed an applicable AAI. In addition,
the secondary NAAQS are specifically
intended to protect public welfare.
Impacts to the air quality above State
submerged lands have the potential to
adversely affect a range of natural
resources, such as marine mammals,
coral, fish, etc. that are included in the
category of resources protected under
the secondary NAAQS. For these
reasons, BOEM believes that its
regulations should ensure that OCS
facilities not cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS in any area of
a State up to the State’s seaward
boundary.
The USEPA has advised BOEM that a
variety of environmental and scientific
studies have shown that changes in air
quality have also caused impacts to
human health off the coast in near-shore
areas. For example, these include
specific health impact studies for the
NAAQS, as well as port air quality
analyses that show the impacts of
emissions from ships and diesel
engines, diesel emissions studies (health
effects and ports)),49 information
49 ‘‘USEPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control
of Emissions of Air Pollution from Category 3
Marine Diesel Engines, EPA–420–R–09–019,
December 2009.’’ Available at: https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
regarding environmental justice
populations in coastal areas,50 impacts
to subsistence fishing on fishing piers
that extend into the near-shore areas,51
and the sensitivity of native Alaskan
populations.52 There also are studies
that trace the emissions from offshore
and onshore sources to near-shore and
onshore areas. Although the available
data are not yet conclusive, BOEM
proposes to consider and evaluate the
impacts of air pollution over State
submerged lands,53 including Alaska.54
Though the proposed rule would
impose stricter requirements than exist
under the current BOEM regulations,
BOEM’s requirements would still differ
from those of the USEPA. In accordance
with section 328 of the CAA, the USEPA
requires, in areas where it has
jurisdiction, that any facility located on
the OCS within 25 miles of the State
50 See
Shell permits for:
(1) Kulluk: https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/
permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_Draft_072211_
Public_Comment.pdf, and https://www.epa.gov/
region10/pdf/permits/shell/kulluk/SoB_
Environmental_Justice_Analysis_Kulluk_072211_
Public_Comment_07-19-2011.pd\.
(2) Discoverer: https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/
permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_statement_
of_basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_
070111.pdf and https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_
web_docket.nsf/
Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/
4BB1D10E49B2C0F585257934006FEFB8/$File/
Final%20Attachment%204...11.pdf.
51 Wolfe, R.J. 2004. Local traditions and
subsistence: A synopsis of twenty-five years of
research in Alaska. Technical Paper No. 284. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
52 See Wernham, Inupiat Health and Proposed
Alaskan Oil Development: Results of the First
Integrated Health Impact Assessment/
Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Oil
Development on Alaska’s North Slope, 2007; and
Alaska Native Health Status Report 2009 https://
www.anthc.org/chs/epicenter/upload/ANHSR.pdf.
53 Although there are likely no particular studies
that deal with air pollution impacts specifically on
the area over State submerged land, the Statement
of Basis (SOB) for the Shell permits discusses these
concepts as part of the air quality impacts analysis
for these permits. These SOBs also have appendices
that go into more detail about the air quality impact
analysis.
54 Specifically with respect to the Alaskan OCS,
the USEPA prepared the following document on the
OCS air quality impacts: ‘‘Technical support
document review of Shell’s supplemental ambient
air quality impact analysis for the Discoverer OCS
permit applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi
seas,’’ United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington, June 24,
2011.
See also, https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/
permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_AppA_AQIA_
072211_Public_Comment.pdf.
See also, https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/
permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_AppA_AQIA_
072211_Public_Comment.pdf. In addition, similar
analyses have been done by the USEPA’s Region 4
in connection with the issuance of OCS permits
there. The SOB’s in Region 4 are known more
generally as preliminary determinations and all can
be found at: https://www.epa.gov/region4/air/
permits/ocspermits/ocspermits.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19739
seaward boundary is subject to all the
requirements of 40 CFR part 55. These
include, but are not limited to, the
federal requirements as set forth in 40
CFR part 55.13 (e.g., NSPS, NESHAPs
and permitting requirements) and the
federal, State and local requirements of
the corresponding onshore area, and the
area that is geographically closest to the
source or another onshore area that the
USEPA Administrator designates (40
CFR 55.14).
BOEM welcomes comments and
analysis on the potential impacts of
emissions generated from OCS sources
on the air quality over State submerged
lands and/or the potential impact of
such emissions on the environment
above such lands, as well as any
scientific, technical, or other
information that can be provided to
measure or evaluate the impact of OCSoriginated air pollutants on the area
over State submerged lands.
3. Point-of-Impact Measurement
Although current BOEM regulations
provide that measurements of any
potential impacts of OCS emissions take
place along the shoreline, they do not
specify from which point along the
shore the emissions should be evaluated
when modeling is required. Because of
this, it has generally been assumed the
ambient concentrations should be
evaluated at the point on the shoreline
closest to the facility. This
interpretation of the proper approach is
reinforced by the formula used for the
exemption threshold analysis, which
requires operators to calculate the
closest distance between the facility and
the shoreline. BOEM has published
instructions and a guidance document
for BOEM forms BOEM–1038 (Gulf of
Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for
EPs) and BOEM–1039 (Gulf of Mexico
Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs),
stating the measurement point (for the
purposes of calculating the distance
parameter in the emission exemption
threshold formulas) should generally be
the closest point of land. See BOEM
Web site, ‘‘Reporting Instructions,’’
available at https://www.boem.gov/
BOEM-0138-instructions/, and ‘‘Tips to
Avoid Common Emissions Spreadsheet
Errors,’’ available at https://
www.boem.gov/Form-0138-and-0139Tips/. This approach works well in the
GOM, considering wind patterns and
other relevant meteorological
conditions.
In evaluating meteorological data
within the parts of the Chukchi Sea OCS
bordering Alaska, however, BOEM
recognizes prevailing wind patterns are
often not from sea to shore (i.e., from
north to south) but rather move at an
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19740
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
angle, either from the northwest to
southeast or from the northeast to the
southwest. Because of this, the point at
which the air emissions released from a
facility would have the greatest effect
(i.e., yield the highest pollutant
concentration) may be much farther
along the State’s boundary than the
closest point on that boundary. In order
to accurately model the potential effects
of any given air pollutant on a State,
therefore, it is important that the effects
of such air emissions be evaluated not
at the closest point of the State but
rather where the concentrations of
emissions would be the highest (i.e.,
where the potential impacts would be
the greatest).
Because of this, the proposed
regulations specify the effects of
emissions, for modeling purposes,
would be evaluated at those locations in
the State(s) where the concentration of
any given pollutant is expected to be the
highest. Additionally, the effects of
emissions would be evaluated in the
non-attainment area where the
concentration of any given pollutant is
expected to be the highest among nonattainment areas for that pollutant (if
different from the most affected area).
This location might be on land or over
State submerged lands. That location in
the model would likely be the same for
many, but not necessarily all,
pollutants. Those air pollutants, such as
O3, that are not directly emitted by a
facility, but are instead created in the
atmosphere, are often more heavily
affected by climatological or
meteorological conditions, which often
cause them to concentrate at a location
different than other air pollutants. Given
technological advances, BOEM does not
anticipate that adding additional
hypothetical receptor locations to the
modeling should present any technical
difficulty but welcomes comments on
how this requirement could be
implemented most effectively.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Monitoring is a general term for ongoing collection and use of
measurement data or other information
for assessing performance against a
standard or status with respect to a
specific requirement. In general, there
are two basic types of monitoring:
• Ambient air quality monitoring, which
collects and uses measurement data (or other
information) from onshore monitoring
stations or remote sensing); and
• Emissions source monitoring, which
involves collecting and using measurement
data (or other information) at individual
stationary sources of emissions (i.e.,
facilities, RUEs, pipeline ROWs, etc.) to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
verify actual emissions of such sources, and
validate the effectiveness of ERM.
Thus, ambient air quality monitoring
is the systematic, long-term assessment
of pollutant levels by measuring the
quantity and types of certain pollutants
in the surrounding, outdoor air, whereas
emissions source monitoring is the
process of monitoring particulate and
gaseous emissions from a specific
source.
Air quality monitoring is carried out
to assess the extent of pollution, ensure
compliance with national legislation,
evaluate control options, and provide
data for air quality modeling. There are
a number of different methods to
measure any given pollutant, varying in
complexity, reliability, and detail of
data. These range from simple passive
sampling techniques to highly
sophisticated remote sensing devices. In
general, monitoring strategies should
carefully examine the options to
determine which methodology is most
appropriate, taking into account the
initial investment costs, operating costs,
reliability of systems, and ease of
operation.
Air quality monitoring stations are the
most typical means for obtaining
ambient air quality information. The
locations for monitoring stations may
depend on the purpose of the
monitoring. Most monitoring networks
are designed with human health
objectives in mind, and monitoring
stations are therefore established in
population centers. Many governments
(local, regional or national) give specific
guidelines on where to monitor within
these areas—next to busy roads, in city
center locations, or at a location of
particular concern (e.g., a school,
hospital). Background monitoring
stations are also established, to act as a
‘‘control’’ when determining source
apportionment.
Once data are collected from a
monitoring system, they are then stored
in data management systems and
databases. Subsequently, the data must
be retrieved and analyzed to see what
they reveal about the effectiveness of
regulatory standards, the accuracy of
modeling, impacts on health endpoints,
and as an overall way of assessing
potential impacts. In the U.S. these
ambient air quality monitoring data are
collected and housed in the Air Quality
System (AQS). The AQS contains
ambient air pollution data collected by
the USEPA, State, local, and tribal air
pollution control agencies from
thousands of monitoring stations. AQS
also contains meteorological data,
descriptive information about each
monitoring station (including its
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
geographic location and its operator),
and data quality assurance/quality
control information.
BOEM has relied on the USEPA’s
AQS data to determine the relevant
ambient air quality on which lessees
and operators perform their analysis of
the AAI’s and the NAAQS in connection
with their submission of plans and to
comply with BOEM’s air quality
requirements in areas under BOEM’s air
quality jurisdiction. BOEM has
proposed that it should evaluate the air
quality of States to the State seaward
boundary. There are, however, few
monitoring stations in relevant locations
on the coast and no monitoring stations
in the ocean along the SSB. To improve
the accuracy of the estimates of the
background concentrations of the
relevant pollutants, BOEM is
investigating various alternatives for
collecting, utilizing and disseminating
this information, including technologies
such as remote sensing and spectral
analysis, and is proposing flexibility to
adopt such approaches in the future.
The proposed rule would allow BOEM
the flexibility to consider adopting such
approaches that meet the proposed
standard for effectiveness. Otherwise,
the relevant background concentrations
would be obtained from the relevant
USEPA regional office, as is the case
today.
D. Emission Exemption Thresholds
(EETs)
Consistent with the current rule, the
proposed rule would define EETs as the
maximum allowable rate of projected
emissions, calculated for each air
pollutant, above which facilities would
be subject to the requirement to perform
modeling. Functionally, these EETs
would establish those levels of projected
emissions below which BOEM has
determined they would not cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS
or the AAIs. Under the proposed rule,
if the USEPA revises a NAAQS, or any
applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM would
examine the appropriateness of its
EETs,55 and, BOEM, at its discretion,
would periodically revise its exemption
formula(s) or its exemption threshold
amount(s) for the corresponding air
pollutant(s). Because USEPA has
recently revised many NAAQS, the
proposed rule would allow revision of
55 The purpose of the EETs is to establish
thresholds below which BOEM believes there is no
reasonable possibility that BOEM’s approval of a
plan would cause a violation of any AAQSB in any
State. The EETs are intended to avoid forcing
lessees and operators to perform unnecessary air
quality modeling in situations where no benefit
from such modeling could reasonably be
anticipated.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the exemption formula(s) to reflect these
revisions, without waiting for further
revisions to trigger a review under this
update scheme.
The current EETs would continue in
place under the proposed rule until the
relevant air quality studies have been
completed and new EETs, if necessary,
are developed and implemented. At a
future point in time, but no later than
2020, BOEM will propose new
exemption thresholds for the GOM and
Alaska OCS Regions by publishing a FR
notice. Subsequently after reviewing
comments on the notice, BOEM could
finalize new exemption thresholds with
another FR notice.
Consistent with the current rule, the
proposed rule provides that, if the
projected emissions associated with a
proposed facility are exempt, then the
lessee or operator would not be required
to perform air quality modeling
described in proposed § 550.304, or to
apply any emission reduction
measure(s) (ERM), as described in
proposed §§ 550.305 through 550.307.
New EETs are not being proposed in
this proposed rule because the scientific
basis for determining the potential
impacts on the States of OCS emissions
have not yet been established. The
proposed rule, however, would set a
new policy governing how BOEM
establishes emission exemption
thresholds in the future. Specifically,
the proposed rule would provide that
BOEM would, sometime after the rule
becomes effective, publish new
proposed EETs in the FR and provide
the opportunity for public comment. In
the proposed rule, BOEM has included
a range of EETs within which BOEM
may establish updated EETs for each
pollutant.
As long as the new thresholds fall
within the exemption threshold ranges
proposed in this rule, BOEM would not
implement them through a separate
rulemaking, though the new thresholds
would not become final until after
BOEM received public comment. If,
however, the proposed thresholds were
to fall outside these ranges, BOEM
would implement them through a
separate rulemaking. A range would be
established for each criteria or precursor
pollutant. The proposed rule would
establish both maximum and minimum
emissions formulas for each pollutant,
above and below which, respectively,
BOEM would not set new emissions
thresholds without conducting a new
rulemaking process. As a result of the
new environmental exemption studies,
which have previously been described,
a new set of formulas will be developed
to update the EET formulas currently in
place. On an ongoing basis thereafter,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
BOEM would update the EETs to reflect
changes in the NAAQS, SILs, and AAIs;
advances in measurement and modeling
technology; changes in pre-existing
pollution levels in the potentially
affected States; and various other
factors. The current exemption
threshold formulas take the distance of
the facility from the State into account
because dispersion modeling would
indicate the impacts are likely to be
lower as the distance involved becomes
greater. The proposed formulas for these
minimums represent emissions levels
below which the ambient air impact at
the nearest point in a State would not
exceed any SIL, taking distances into
account. However, there may be a more
appropriate manner in which to
establish the minimums. For that
reason, BOEM requests comments on
the EET formulas and the underlying
analysis used in this rulemaking or
whether absolute values may be more
appropriate. Until such time as BOEM
has determined new EETs and has
published them in the FR (‘‘the date of
the Notice’’), the distance component of
the emissions exemption calculation
would continue to be the distance of the
facility from shore. After the date of the
Notice, each distance formula would
instead utilize the distance of the
facility from the SSB.
After the date of the Notice, the lessee
or operator would be required to apply
the new set of formulas for the EETs in
effect at that time (i.e., to determine
whether projected emissions would be
exempt from further analysis). BOEM
would use the following criteria to
determine the EET formulas: The
absolute level of projected emissions;
the distance of the proposed facility or
facilities from any State or from critical
natural resources, animals, fish and
habitats; the relative need to protect
public health and welfare and the
existing amounts of air pollution in
potentially affected States; the types,
frequency and duration of any air
pollutant emissions and their formation
and/or dispersion characteristics;
prevailing meteorological
characteristics; any USEPA AAQSB
applied in this proposed rule; other
facilities and vessels located in the
vicinity of the proposed facility; and
other necessary and appropriate
considerations. Until BOEM has
established new formulas based on
these criteria, the proposed rule would
provide that projected emissions are
exempt if they are below the current
exemption formulas.
The intent of those provisions that
would allow BOEM to modify the EETs
is to ensure that the exemption
thresholds accurately reflect the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19741
amounts of potential emissions that
could adversely affect a State. Because
the NAAQS are subject to change as
scientific knowledge improves and
because modeling techniques and
methods may improve over time, the
emission exemption threshold formulas
should also be subject to change. Under
the proposed rule, BOEM would revise
the EETs on an ongoing basis either as
a result of a change in an applicable
standard or because BOEM’s ability to
measure and evaluate the impact of
existing EETs has improved.
E. Emissions Reductions Measures
(ERM)
1. Emissions Credits and Offsets
Current regulations specify that BACT
should be implemented as the first and
primary emissions control mechanism
any time that a proposed facility is
estimated to exceeded a SIL. This BACT
requirement was meant to ensure
consistency with the USEPA regulations
as they existed when the regulations
were issued in 1980.
BOEM’s rationale regarding this point
has evolved to allow for greater
flexibility, while still protecting the air
quality of neighboring States. Under the
proposed rule, if the projected
emissions associated with a proposed
OCS facility exceed an AAQSB,
operational controls would be the first
option to be considered. Operational
controls, such as limiting the hours of
operation or operating at a higher level
of engine efficiency could be both more
cost effective and more successful in
reducing incremental emissions,
particularly in those situations where
the proposed exceedances are small. As
an alternative, lessees and operators
would have the option of replacing old
or inefficient equipment with newer and
less polluting equipment. This could
involve, for example, replacing a diesel
engine with a natural gas powered
engine. If these options were not
sufficient, other ERM, including BACT
and emissions credits, would then be
considered.56
One change in this regard relates to
emissions credits. Under the current
rule, offsets can only be used once the
relevant BACT has been deemed
inadequate. Even then, the current rule
provides no guidelines as to how offsets
might apply in situations other than to
offshore facilities. Other forms of
emissions credits, such as emissions
trading, acquiring of trading program
56 The BOEM provision allowing for equipment
replacements is contingent on the lessee or operator
complying with all other applicable federal
regulations, as noted in the proposed regulation in
section 550.309(f).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19742
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
allowances and so forth, are not
addressed by the current regulation.
Under the proposed rule, emissions
credits, which would include offsets,
are defined as: ‘‘Emissions reductions
from an emissions source(s) not
associated with the plan that are
intended to compensate for the
excessive emissions of criteria or
precursor air pollutants, regardless of
whether these emissions credits are
acquired from an emissions source(s)
located either offshore or onshore,
including: (1) Emissions offsets
generated by the lessee or operator
directly; or (2) emissions offsets
acquired from a third party; or (3)
trading allowances or other alternative
emission reduction method(s) or
system(s) associated with a marketbased trading mechanism, such as a
mitigation bank, or through other
competitive markets where these assets
are exchanged.’’ Essentially this means
that emissions credits consist of any
form of emissions reduction, regardless
of whether such reductions consist of
physical or operational controls on nonplan facilities (i.e., facilities other than
those covered by the proposed plan), or
whether they consist of the use of
market-based mechanisms that involve
reductions achieved through third
parties. Under the proposed rule,
emissions offsets could consist of BACT
applied by a lessee or operator to
another one of its own, previously
approved, facilities on the OCS.
The proposed rule would therefore
considerably increase the mechanism by
which emissions reduction could be
achieved. Under the proposed rule, in
cases where operational controls would
not be sufficient to achieve the required
emissions reductions lessees and
operators would be able to utilize
emissions credits, as opposed to
applying BACT to a facility in the
proposed plan. The proposed rule
would also provide that lessees or
operators who submit plans that include
emissions credits demonstrate that the
operator has notified the relevant State
and that emissions credits be verifiable.
The selection of emissions credits in
lieu of BACT would often result in both
a net cost savings and a net
environmental benefit. The savings
would result from the greater flexibility
afforded lessees and operators to make
the reductions either on their facility, on
another facility (either on the OCS or in
waters above State submerged lands), on
some unrelated stationary emissions
source onshore, or through acquiring the
emissions credits from a third party.
Because older, higher polluting facilities
whose emissions would be easiest to
reduce are most frequently located on or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
near the shoreline, in most cases the use
of emissions credits would involve a
reduction in the emissions from an
onshore stationary source or from an
older oil and gas facility located
offshore in waters above State
submerged lands.
Under the current regulations, offsets
are only permitted if they would cause
a reduction of emissions on the OCS
with respect to the facilities covered by
the proposed plan. Under the proposed
rule, any reduction in emissions that is
accomplished within the same USEPA
air quality control region (AQCR) 57
would be an acceptable emissions
credit. Thus, if a facility associated with
a proposed plan were required to reduce
its emissions by 100 tons of NOX per
year, such a reduction could be
generated from any other source within
the relevant AQCR, whether the source
of that reduction is located on the OCS,
over State submerged lands, or onshore,
and regardless of whether the source of
the reduction is stationary, such as a
facility, or mobile, such as an MSC.
As currently defined, the AQCR
boundaries do not extend to include the
OCS and, for this reason, it may
sometimes be difficult to determine
which AQCR would be most applicable.
BOEM also recognizes that some AQCRs
are very large, so it may not be certain
that offsets in one part of the AQCR
have a benefit to the area affected by
offshore emissions. BOEM requests
comments on how to best to define the
relevant AQCR(s) and on whether there
may be more appropriate alternative to
defining the offset-generating areas or
how to best refine the approach of
applying AQCRs in this context.
The use of emissions credits in lieu of
BACT would provide a net
environmental benefit because the use
of emissions credits would typically
involve a reduction in emissions
onshore or over State submerged lands,
at that point where the impact to State
air quality is greatest, rather than on the
OCS, which might be far away from the
point at which any impact might be felt.
For example, if an OCS facility located
30 miles offshore were to be required to
reduce its emissions of NOX by 200 tpy,
under the current regulations that
reduction would have to be achieved
primarily by reducing the emissions
from the facility itself. As a result, the
200 TPY reduction in NOX emissions
57 An air quality control region (AQCR) is an area,
designated by the USEPA, that has common air
pollution issues and which is likely to be affected
by the same sources of air pollutant emissions. See
42 U.S.C. 7407. The term AQCR is defined at 40
CFR 51.100(m) and in 40 CFR 60.21(i). The current
AQCRs are defined in the USEPA regulations at 40
CFR part 81 subpart B.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
from an OCS source might avoid the
same amount of ambient NOX at the
shoreline that would be avoided by only
20 TPY reduction in emissions at the
shoreline. Given the greater flexibility
provided by the proposed rule, if a
lessee or operator instead decided to
instead pay an onshore power plant to
reduce its emissions by the same 200
TPY of NOX, the net impact to the State
would be a reduction in onshore
emissions of 200 TPY. Thus, the same
reduction in NOX emissions could have
a much greater positive environmental
impact. For more details on the offset
requirements, see the section-by-section
analysis for section 550.309(e).
Furthermore, because the proposed
rule does not prohibit the joint
acquisition of emissions credits, the
proposed rule would allow emissions
credits to be obtained and divided
among multiple lessees or operators
(presumably located near to one another
in the vicinity of a State) in order to
potentially spread the costs of
complying with air quality
requirements.
2. Applicability of Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) Upon an
Exceedance of the Significant Impact
Levels (SILs)
BOEM’s current regulations require
that any proposed plan that identifies
projected emissions of air pollutants
that would result in an exceedance of
the SILs onshore is required to
implement BACT (30 CFR 550.303(g)
and 303(h)). Under existing BOEM
regulations, ‘‘Best available control
technology’’ or BACT means an
emission limitation based on the
maximum degree of reduction for each
air pollutant subject to regulation,
taking into account energy,
environmental and economic impacts,
and other costs. The BACT is required
to be verified on a case-by-case basis by
the Regional Supervisor and may
include reductions achieved through the
application of processes, systems, and
techniques for the control of each air
pollutant.
Under the proposed rule, the
evaluation of the SILs would not
automatically trigger the requirement for
BACT. In fact, BACT would never be the
only possible ERM. Under the proposed
rule, emissions credits including offsets
would always be available as an
alternative. The proposed rule would
generally limit the requirement to apply
BACT and/or offsets (or, more generally,
emissions credits) to situations where
the SILs exceedance relates to a nonattainment area. For a long-term facility
whose emissions affect only attainment
areas, BACT and/or offsets would be
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
required only if a further analysis
indicates that the SIL exceedance, taken
in combination with all other facilities
located in the same general vicinity,
would potentially cause an increase in
the concentrations of a relevant air
pollutant that would endanger the
attainment status of some area in any
State by exceeding the AAIs. In all other
cases, when the AAIs are not exceeded,
the proposed rule would not generally
require further ERM.
For long-term facilities whose
emissions affect a non-attainment area,
where an exceedance of the relevant
SILs would trigger the requirement for
more extensive controls, BOEM expects
that lessees and operators would likely
choose emissions credits in all but a few
cases (likely limited to those rare
situations where localized control
equipment would be the only effective
way to prevent the facility from
adversely affecting the attainment status
of an onshore area).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. ERM Evaluation Criteria
If the modeling results show impacts
that are higher than the SILs, ERM
would be required as specified in
§ 550.306, for a short-term facility, or as
specified in § 550.307, for a long-term
facility. Current BOEM regulations
require that any operator subject to
controls (because its emissions are
projected to exceed the SILs as defined
in BOEM’s regulations) must conduct a
BACT analysis, and that BOEM must
evaluate the amount of emissions
reductions that each available
emissions-reducing technology or
technique would achieve, as well as the
energy, environmental, economic and
other costs associated with each
technology or technique. The current
regulations do not, however, specify
explicitly that each lessee or operator
evaluate all the potentially effective
forms of BACT and do not therefore
require a consideration of all the
feasible alternatives. This section
describes the methodology in this
proposed rule for determining what
forms of ERM would be required for any
given plan.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or
operator would be required to identify
all of the potentially feasible forms of
ERM and rank them according to their
potential effectiveness. Only those
situations where a potentially more
effective ERM is infeasible 58 would
58 In the case of BACT, the cost effectiveness of
every option must be considered and any
alternative that is not cost effective (in terms of the
emissions reductions achieved) may be excluded as
non-viable.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
such an operator be allowed to propose
less potentially effective forms of ERM.
The proposed rule would provide a
two-stage procedure for analyzing and
selecting ERM, when required, based on
modeling results. First, the lessee or
operator would identify all the
alternative control technologies
available and determine their technical
feasibility. Second, the lessee or
operator would rank and choose specific
control technologies. Although these
two stages are implicit in BOEM’s
current regulations, they are stated
explicitly for the first time in this
proposed rule.
The purpose of this approach would
be to ensure that the types of ERM
considered would be those that would
have the greatest potential to reduce the
amount of emissions. The first stage in
the process would require lessees and
operators to consider all technically
feasible control technologies (and not
submit a plan that fails to mention
feasible options). No lessee or operator
could propose only control technologies
that would either be largely ineffective
(but inexpensive to implement) or cost
prohibitive (so they could be discarded)
to avoid selecting a cost effective and
technologically effective form of ERM.
The second stage would require
operators to demonstrate the selected
ERM is the most effective control
technology that could be implemented
cost effectively. Under the proposed
rule, the most effective technology
would always be considered, so it
would be implemented unless it was
found not to be cost effective.
The effectiveness of any given form of
ERM would be measured in terms of the
total number of tons of a pollutant that
would be reduced on an annual basis.
The cost effectiveness would be the
annual tonnage reduction estimate
divided by the cost. Thus, cost
effectiveness would represent the cost
per ton of pollutant emissions averted
through the application of ERM. Both
the amount of emissions reduced and
the cost effectiveness of any proposed or
potential ERM can be evaluated for any
given pollutant or based on the total
reduction in all relevant pollutants,
depending on which pollutants need to
be reduced.
Determining cost effectiveness would
require considering the benefits to be
achieved from emissions reductions
against the costs that would be incurred
to achieve those benefits. Accordingly,
cost effectiveness means the absolute
effectiveness of the technology (in terms
of tons of emissions avoided), and its
emission control efficiency (ECE)
(percentage reduction) compared to the
total potential cost of the technology.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19743
All of the costs and benefits of any
potential control would be considered
in determining what constitutes a cost
effective emission reduction measure
and what would, therefore, constitute
viable ERM.
Although not stated explicitly, the
current regulations allow a lessee or
operator to apply no controls
whatsoever when its ‘‘proposed’’ BACT
is claimed to be unfeasible. The
proposed rule would make explicit that
technically feasible controls would
always be required but would allow
much greater flexibility in how the
relevant ERM are determined and
evaluated. Once the required emission
reduction measure(s) (ERM) are
identified, a lessee or operator would be
required to thoroughly describe the
emissions reduction controls it proposes
to apply. The rule would also provide
specific provisions governing the
sufficiency and effectiveness of these
measures and require a lessee or
operator to monitor its continual
effectiveness over the duration of the
plan under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances.
The proposed rule would also
explicitly articulate requirements for
ERM that are implicit in the current
regulations. The proposed rule would
retain the term BACT, though the
definition would be rewritten for clarity.
In maintaining a ‘‘performance-based’’
approach to the proposed rule, BOEM is
not proposing specific types of BACT,
technical standards, or ERM. BOEM is
seeking comment on whether it should
identify various forms of ERM that have
been approved in other situations,
whether by BOEM, the USEPA or
another regulator, and whether BOEM
should provide additional specificity on
how to determine the most appropriate
form of ERM and/or what cost
effectiveness would be considered
presumptively reasonable in making
such a determination. All of these issues
could be addressed in the context of
establishing criteria for what may
constitute ‘‘presumptive BACT’’ or
presumptive ERM. BOEM invites
comment on whether BOEM should
adopt presumptive ERM and, if so, what
processes it should use for adopting and
updating the various forms of
presumptive ERM that are suggested or
approved.
Section III of USEPA publication
entitled ‘‘PSD 59 and Title V Permitting
Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,’’
[Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Air Quality Policy Division,
Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA–457/
59 PSD stands for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19744
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
B–11–001, March 2011] describes the
USEPA’s process for determining the
appropriate use of BACT.60 BOEM has
examined the USEPA approach and
intends to take these guidelines into
consideration in developing its own
guidelines for ERM, as well as for
making a determination as to the
viability and cost-effectiveness of
alternative forms of ERM ‘‘taking into
account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs.’’
Because BOEM intends to publish its
own ERM guidelines, it solicits
comments on the USEPA’s approach
and the underlying methodology for
making the determination as to what
forms of ERM may be most appropriate
under various circumstances, as well as
comments on why or under what
circumstances the USEPA approach
may or may not be appropriate to the
OCS environment and how the ERM
requirements could be best tailored to
the unique conditions of the offshore oil
and gas industry.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Waiver and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Waiver
There are situations where the
increase in a given precursor pollutant
will not contribute to an increase in the
ambient air concentration of the CP for
which it is a precursor. That situation is
particularly important in the case of
NOX and VOCs, which are both
precursors for O3. The USEPA has
recognized that, under certain
circumstances an increase in NOX or
VOC may have no effect on the
formation of O3 in the tropospheric
atmosphere and may, in fact, actually
cause a decrease in O3 formation. The
degree to which a change in the
emissions of NOX or VOCs would
contribute to O3 formation in the
atmosphere is referred to as the O3
efficiency. Because there are situations
where an increase in NOX or VOCs
would have no negative or even a
positive effect, BOEM is proposing to
exempt a facility from reducing its
60 BOEM and the USEPA differ in their
requirements for BACT, primarily due to the
difference in their respective regulatory
frameworks. BOEM reviews the BACT alternatives
as part of its AQRP, under both the current
regulation and the proposed rule prospectively,
determining in advance of the facility installation
what form of BACT is appropriate. The USEPA also
evaluates BACT prospectively, but the CAA also
specifies, among other requirements, that BACT
cannot be less stringent than any applicable
standard of performance under the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (42 U.S.C. 7479(3)).
Therefore, although BOEM looks to USEPA
practices when evaluating control technologies, due
to the unique nature of the OCS, BOEM also
exercises independent judgment on what
constitutes BACT and how it should be applied.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
emissions of these precursor air
pollutants in such situations. Generally,
VOC emissions must be greater than
NOX emissions to trigger O3 formation.
A ratio of VOCs to NOX of 4:1 to 16:1
is within the range where O3 forms.61
The USEPA allows the issuance of a
‘‘NOX Waiver’’ for areas where limiting
NOX emissions does nothing to decrease
O3, and in some cases, can actually
increase O3. A ‘‘VOCs Waiver’’ could
similarly be issued in the reverse case
(i.e., where there is already too much
VOC in the atmosphere to further
contribute to the production of O3). The
proposed rule would adopt a similar
approach and limit the mandate to
reduce NOX and VOC emissions, for the
purpose of limiting O3 formation, to
those situations where the limits would
be effective. Because atmospheric
conditions change over time, the rule
would also propose that, in the event
that a facility is waived from controlling
NOX as a precursor to O3, or from
controlling VOCs for controlling O3,
BOEM could re-impose the requirement
to set up ERM at some future date, if
BOEM determined that the waiver was
not having the intended effect.
F. Consolidation of Emissions From
Multiple Facilities
The proposed rule would require a
lessee or operator to combine projected
emissions from its multiple facilities
under certain circumstances in order to
evaluate whether the close placement of
multiple facilities operating at the same
time could jointly cause or contribute to
a violation of the NAAQS. This
proposed requirement would only apply
to facilities that are wholly or partially
owned, controlled or operated by the
same entity, and is designed to prevent
a single entity from segmenting its
operations into multiple plans to avoid
exceeding EETs. Emissions from nearby
facilities that are not wholly or partially
owned, controlled or operated by the
same entity would be reviewed in the
context of the relevant NEPA analyses.
BOEM’s current practice is to require,
in specific circumstances, the
consolidated analysis of facilities
covered by multiple plans in accordance
with the following provision of
§ 550.303(j): ‘‘If, during the review of a
new, modified, or revised Exploration
Plan or Development and Production
Plan, the Regional Supervisor
determines or an affected State submits
information to the Regional Supervisor
61 This topic is addressed in more detail in the
book ‘‘Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry,’’ by
Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999,
available at the following location: https://
acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/
bookchap12.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
which demonstrates, in the judgment of
the Regional Supervisor, that projected
emissions from an otherwise exempt
facility will, either individually or in
combination with other facilities in the
area, significantly affect the air quality
of an onshore area, then the Regional
Supervisor shall require the lessee to
submit additional information to
determine whether emission control
measures are necessary.’’ The current
regulations do not specify under what
circumstances the Regional Supervisor
would make such a determination.
This proposed rule recognizes the fact
that the emissions from two or more
OCS facilities located in close proximity
to one another may have an adverse
impact on the air quality of a State even
if the individual EETs, considered
separately, would indicate that that
facility should not cause an adverse
impact to the air quality of a State. This
would generally only be true in the
situation where two or more facilities
were operated contemporaneously,
however. Closely-grouped facilities that
emit pollutants at the same time can
affect the air quality of a State
differently than facilities that are spread
across a larger area because the
emissions would be more concentrated
and would, correspondingly, cause a
greater concentration of air pollution
within a neighboring State. Accordingly,
the proposed rule would require
consolidation to prevent a lessee or
operator from ‘‘segmenting’’ his
operations by describing proximate
activities in separate plans or RUE or
pipeline ROW applications in order
avoid modeling or applying controls.
The proposed rule would specify that
a lessee or operator would be required
to consolidate projected emissions from
multiple facilities if: (1) The emissions
from multiple facilities are generated by
proximate activities (i.e., the same
well(s); a common oil, gas, or sulphur
reservoir; the same or adjacent lease
block(s); or, by facilities located within
one nautical mile of one another); (2)
the lessee or operator wholly or partially
owns, controls or operates those
facilities; (3) the construction,
installation, drilling, operation, or
decommissioning of any of the lessee or
operator’s facilities occurs within the
same 12-month period as the
construction, installation, operation, or
decommissioning of another facility that
meets conditions 1 and 2; and, (4) such
a consolidation of emissions from
multiple facilities would generate
emissions sufficient to exceed an
applicable emission exemption
threshold. If two or more facilities meet
all of these conditions, under the
proposed rule, the lessee or operator
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
would be required to calculate the sum
of the projected emissions from those
facilities (including its respective
attributed emissions).
The proposed rule would specify that,
if all of the emissions to be combined
relate to the lessee’s or operator’s
wholly-owned facilities, the lessee or
operator would be required to provide
the data and analysis regarding the
complex total emissions. However,
where the lessee or operator only
partially owns the facilities whose
projected emissions are to be
consolidated, the lessee or operator
would need to gather data from the
operator of any facility that it does not
wholly own 62 or which it does not
operate and would need to provide to
BOEM all the data and analysis it
gathered. BOEM would make a
determination that the lessee or operator
has appropriately considered the
relevant data in its analysis of the
complex total emissions.
Under the proposed rule, if any lessee
or operator is required to consolidate
projected emissions data from multiple
facilities, then anywhere a requirement
applies to projected emissions, the
lessee or operator would instead be
required to use complex total emissions
(except with respect to the process by
which projected emissions are
determined for any given facility, as
specified in § 550.205(d)).
G. Ongoing Monitoring and Review of
Projected Emissions
BOEM is proposing mandatory record
keeping of fuel usage and activity data
for all emissions sources, and we are
proposing that non-exempt facilities
subject to emissions reductions controls
or mitigation and facilities that are
exceptionally large be required to
monitor their actual emissions. BOEM
expects that most of the monitoring that
would be required to be implemented in
connection with the proposed rule
would be of the type known as a
Predictive Emissions Monitoring System
(PEMS).63
PEMS is an air quality monitoring that
provides continuous data recording and
generates reports according to the
applicable regulatory requirements.
PEMS is used to meet 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B, requirements for audit and
performance standards on new
stationary sources. It is also applied in
62 All BOEM plan approvals and data are
publically available and can be obtained from the
BOEM Web site.
63 For an overview of PEMS as well a general
background discussion of other monitoring systems
that may also be appropriate in certain contexts on
the OCS, see citation to this Web site: https://
cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/mkb/Basic_Information.cfm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
many other contexts, including the PSD
program (40 CFR 51.166 through
51.166), and the approval and
promulgation of implementation plans
(under 40 CFR 52.21). The USEPA
generally regards PEMS as a secure and
reliable means of collecting, storing, and
reporting compliance data.
PEMS can be used on most
combustion sources that fire gaseous or
liquid fuels and for most compliance
parameters such as NOX, SO2, CO, CO2,
O2, hydrocarbons, NH3, hydrogen
sulfide, and formaldehyde. BOEM
welcomes comments on the potential
application of PEMS and/or the best
approaches for selecting and evaluating
monitoring systems.
1. Recordkeeping and Measurement
Criteria
In order to ensure ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS, the
proposed regulations would authorize
BOEM to collect additional information
on activities or plans after they have
been approved.
Under the current structure, BOEM
approves all plans for facilities in
advance of the construction and
installation of such facilities on the
OCS. With respect to air quality, the
plans contain estimates of prospective
pollutant emissions based on the
information that is available about the
most likely emissions for every
emissions source that is proposed to be
used. This process necessarily involves
estimates because it utilizes emissions
projections for equipment, much of
which is not yet in use at the particular
site. The same principle applies to
proposed ERM. The ERM that are put
into the plan are also prospective; the
ERM would not be applied to the
facilities, equipment or MSCs until after
a plan has been approved. The
effectiveness of any physical controls
that have not yet been installed cannot
be measured but only projected. Based
on this approach, it would be difficult
to determine what the actual emissions
would be for one facility, on a standalone basis, let alone a range of support
vessels, vehicles, aircraft and ancillary
equipment. For this reason, namely, in
order to provide greater confidence that
the actual emissions levels are not
exceeding the projected levels, BOEM
has proposed a more reasonable
approach to establish basic recordkeeping and measurement criteria that
could be applied after a plan has been
implemented and the associated
facilities are fully operational.
The proposed rule adds a requirement
that all operators (1) keep fuel logs for
all the relevant equipment and (2)
maintain operating records (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19745
operating times by level of capacity) for
all key facilities, MSCs, and equipment
described in the proposed plan. The
information would need to be
maintained on a month-by-month basis
and would need to be provided to
BOEM according a schedule determined
by the respective BOEM region.
In addition to requiring all facilities to
keep records as described above, certain
facilities would also be required to
measure actual emissions at specified
intervals. The proposed rule outlines
four criteria that would be used to
determine which facilities would be
subject to this requirement. First, the
proposed rule would require the
measurement of air pollutant emissions
for plans which are approved subject to
BACT. Such plans would have to
demonstrate their actual emissions were
not significantly above the projected
emissions. Second, the proposed rule
would require that any facility or
emissions source that is not certified or
compliant with USEPA emissions
requirements applicable to engines or
equipment intended or certified for use
in the U.S. should also be required to
demonstrate that its levels of actual
emissions nevertheless are consistent
with the estimates provided in the plan.
Because the equipment is not certified,
it is impossible to know without actual
measurement the extent to which
emissions are similar to emissions from
certified equipment. Accordingly,
BOEM believes that a demonstration
should be made that the actual
emissions of such equipment complies
with the emissions levels which BOEM
approved as part of the plan review.
Third, there are some situations
where the accuracy and reliability of
estimates of projected emissions, based
on emissions factors, are unreliable or
would be subject to a great range of
variation. BOEM proposes to require
measurement and reporting of actual
emissions for plans in which the
projected emissions cannot be reliably
determined or in situations where the
potential error in the emissions factors
could result in a significant
underestimate of the projected
emissions (particularly in situations
where the underestimate is of such a
magnitude that not addressing the error
could have a significant impact upon a
State’s air quality). This requirement is
intended to allow BOEM to require
monitoring on facilities with high
emissions or a high level of variability
in the accuracy of emissions factors or
estimates. Because projected emissions
are based on an activity rate and an
emissions factor and because emissions
factors are somewhat uncertain, the
difference between the projected
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19746
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
emissions and actual emissions will
increase with higher activity rates. So,
the range of potential projected
emissions for larger facilities is much
greater than those for smaller facilities,
and the potential ramifications for errors
are larger than for small facilities.
Although this provision would likely be
rarely invoked, it is important that
BOEM can verify the actual emissions of
large facilities in situations where it has
evidence to believe that the actual
emissions are under-reported.
Finally, in some areas, particularly
those where the background
concentrations of a pollutant are high or
where the USEPA has recently changed
a standard, and where there is a greater
likelihood of a nearby facility causing or
contributing to a violation of the
NAAQS, monitoring of actual emissions
may also be required. The modeling that
was used to demonstrate that there is,
presumptively, no such impact could
only be valid if the assumptions
regarding the actual background
concentrations of pollutants are
accurate. If a model of potential
emissions were to rely on inaccurate
background concentration estimates, its
conclusions would also be suspect. For
that reason, BOEM has proposed that
these facilities in these areas may also
be required to verify that their emissions
correspond to those estimated in the
plan.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Structure of the Proposed Rule
In contrast with the current BOEM
regulations, where air quality data
provisions are set forth in many
sections, including §§ 550.215, 550.218,
550.224, 550.225, 550.245, 550.249,
550.257, 550.258, and 550.284, the
proposed rule would establish one set of
data requirements related to air quality
in a new § 550.205. In the current
regulations, plan requirements
applicable to EPs are dealt with in one
part of the regulations, and plan
requirements applicable to DPPs and
DOCDs are dealt with in another part of
the regulations. Because the air quality
requirements applicable to EPs, DPPs,
and DOCDs are largely the same, BOEM
proposes to place all the plan
requirements relevant to air quality in
one consolidated section.
The majority of the proposed rule
consists of two major parts: A new
section on data requirements and
collection, § 550.205; and an air quality
analysis control and compliance
subpart, 30 CFR part 550 subpart C. The
content of the two primary air quality
data sections from the current
regulations, § 550.218 and 550.249,
would be covered by proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
§ 550.205, and those existing sections
would be eliminated.
The proposed rule would replace the
current subpart C, which includes air
quality evaluation and analysis and
requirements for the application of
emissions reductions measures. This
new proposed subpart would describe
the process for post-approval review of
plans and for addressing compliance
with future changes to the AAQSB on
the part of the USEPA. BOEM is
proposing to change the title of subpart
C from ‘‘Pollution Prevention and
Control’’ to ‘‘Air Quality Analysis,
Control, and Compliance,’’ to better
reflect the scope and intent of this
subpart.
To make the regulations more precise
and to ensure they remain up-to-date,
BOEM is proposing to add a number of
new definitions and to clarify a number
of existing definitions. The proposed
rule would consolidate all the
definitions and acronyms specific to air
quality in a single section, replace or
update various provisions, and clarify
the regulations in those circumstances
where the existing text could be
considered unclear or potentially
subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation.
1. Potential Monitoring Alternatives
BOEM solicits comments on various
alternatives that could be used to
achieve the Bureau’s objective of
monitoring large emitters. The following
are examples of alternatives that have
been identified. In addition, there may
also be other alternatives that should be
considered.
One alternative would be for BOEM to
require measurement of actual
emissions on facilities with emissions
above a specific threshold to be
determined in the final rule. BOEM
would like comments on what an
appropriate threshold might be.
A second alternative would be for
BOEM to establish general criteria that
could be used to determine the potential
error in the emissions estimates. Among
the criteria being considered are:
Production volume of the facility, size,
type, and efficiency of engines proposed
to be used, the age of equipment, the
attainment or designated nonattainment status of the nearby areas
within any State, the length of time the
equipment will be operated, the
proximity to other facilities, and/or the
historic reliability and variability of
emissions factors for the equipment
being used. Under this alternative,
BOEM would make a determination on
a case-by-case basis whether any given
facility would be required to report its
actual emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A third alternative would be to
require actual emissions measures for
any plan that proposes to use equipment
with emissions factors that BOEM has
determined to be particularly unreliable.
Under this alternative BOEM would
provide information to lessees and
operations as to what specific types of
equipment would be subject to this
reporting requirement.
The fourth alternative would be to
establish a monitoring and reporting
formula whereby facilities whose
projected emissions exceed a fixed
percentage of the emission exemptions
thresholds would be required to monitor
and record their actual emissions. For
example, BOEM could require that any
facility with projected emissions for any
CP that exceeds 85 percent of the
threshold would have to report its
actual emissions for all criteria and
major precursor pollutants. This is due
to the potential margin of error in the
emissions factors. BOEM solicits
comments on the appropriate
percentage of the emissions exemptions
thresholds for this reporting threshold.
A fifth alternative would be any
combination of the previous
alternatives.
BOEM is also considering whether it
should require measurement of actual
emissions from activities in all plans,
but limit the kinds of sources for which
measurement is required, based on the
uncertainty in the emissions factors
estimates for specific pieces of
equipment and the potential costs of
measuring emissions from the
associated equipment. The section-bysection description of proposed
§ 550.311 sets forth text for this
proposal.
In addition to monitoring
requirements, BOEM is also proposing
provisions that clarify the way in which
BOEM will ensure that previously
approved plans comply with the
statutory requirements. As noted
previously, OCSLA requires
‘‘compliance with the national ambient
air quality standards pursuant to the
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the
extent that activities authorized under
[OCSLA] significantly affect the air
quality of any State’’ (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). BOEM believes this
provision should properly be
interpreted to mean that BOEM has a
continuing obligation to ensure the
protection of State air quality and that
such obligation extends to ensuring
compliance with the NAAQS, as they
are amended to incorporate new and
more accurate scientific information
regarding the potential adverse public
health and welfare impacts of air
pollution.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Because the NAAQS are updated
periodically to reflect improved
information, BOEM believes that it
would be appropriate to re-evaluate
plans or RUE applications approved
many years ago for compliance with
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, even though
the facility has not been modified in
such a manner as to require the
submission of a revised plan. For this
reason, in addition to the new recordkeeping and emissions measurement
requirements, BOEM is also proposing
that lessees and operators be subject to
a requirement to resubmit their plans on
a periodic basis for re-evaluation. The
current practice, and one that would be
continued under the proposed rule, is to
project air emissions for ten years from
the date of plan submission. Under the
proposed rule, if a lessee or operator is
operating under an approved plan, it
would be required to resubmit a plan for
a periodic air quality review ten years
after BOEM’s previous approval of the
operator’s last plan. This provision
would be added in furtherance of the
objective of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA,
which requires BOEM to ensure
compliance with the NAAQS, and
which makes no provision for any
exceptions with respect to previously
approved plans. All of the applicable
requirements of this subpart in effect on
the date of resubmission would apply
on the same basis to a resubmitted plan
as for an initial plan or RUE application.
BOEM requests comments on this
provision, particularly with respect to
the potential impact on lessees and
operators.
2. Plan Resubmittals
Once the new EETs have been
established, BOEM would conduct
periodic reviews of plans that were
approved prior to that time. This is to
ensure the lessee or operator’s emissions
remain compliant with OCLSA and are
in accordance with the provisions of the
OCS leases that require compliance with
subsequent revisions to the regulations.
Plans would be resubmitted according
to the schedule in proposed
§ 550.310(c), no more frequently than
ten years after they were approved.
Plans that were revised or modified
would also be due for resubmittal ten
years after their most recent revision or
modification was approved.
A plan resubmitted pursuant to this
proposed provision would be required
to be updated to comply with the
requirements of § 550.205 as they exist
at the time of the plan resubmission and
to include the most current data on
emissions factors. It would be
reevaluated against the EETs and
formulas as they exist at the time of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
plan resubmission. The resubmitted
plan must be modified to include any
data collected on actual emissions since
the last time the plan was submitted or
resubmitted. Under the proposal, if a
plan would indicate an exceedance of
any applicable emission exemption
threshold, all of the other applicable
requirements of this subpart would
apply as for an initial plan.
For plans that were approved prior to
the effective date of this rule, the lessee
or operator would be required to
resubmit the air quality component of
its previously approved plan after the
date in which BOEM has determined
new EETs and published them in the
FR. The resubmission would be
conducted on a phased basis, beginning
in 2020. For further details, see the
section-by-section analysis description
of proposed § 550.310(c)(2).
I. Gulf-Wide Offshore Activities Data
System (GOADS)
The proposed rule would include a
new provision to support BOEM’s effort
to inventory emissions on the OCS.
Currently, BOEM maintains this type of
emissions inventory information on air
pollutants in the GOM Region. BOEM
collects the information through
GOADS, as described most recently in
BOEM NTL No. 2014–G01, and previous
NTLs. The major pollutants for which
BOEM has collected data in the GOADS
include the following: CO, sulphur
oxides (SOx), NOX, PM (including both
PM10, and PM2.5), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), including
exempted compounds (40 CFR 51.100).
BOEM also has collected information on
GHGs, including CO2, methane (CH4),
and N2O through the GOADS.
The proposed rule would codify this
current GOM practice, provide for the
expansion of this activity to the North
Slope Borough of the State of Alaska,
and facilitate the gathering of
information in other OCS areas to the
extent necessary to augment the NEI or
for another purpose such as to obtain
relevant NEPA data. The proposed
provision would require all lessees,
operators, and holders of rights-of-use
and easements (RUEs) to collect,
maintain, and submit information on an
ongoing basis regarding air pollutant
emissions from all relevant emissions
sources. BOEM would use this
information to maintain a
comprehensive OCS emissions
inventory of air pollutants.
The information would assist BOEM
in meeting its requirements under
OCSLA to ensure the offshore activities
it authorizes do not significantly affect
the air quality of a State. Also, the
information submitted under this
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19747
provision would allow BOEM to
determine OCS-wide emissions for
leased areas and use that data to inform
NEPA analysis and coordinate with the
USEPA and coastal States to determine
ambient air quality levels and
mitigations of adverse impacts. The
inventory will continue to augment
BOEM’s NEPA review by providing an
accurate inventory to determine ambient
concentrations of air pollutants and by
serving as a basis to compute emission
trends and to perform necessary air
quality impact assessments. Separately,
the data provided by lessees, operators,
and RUE holders are analyzed and
supplemented by BOEM, and the results
are provided to the submitters in order
to assist them in complying with their
reporting obligations to the USEPA.
Under the proposed rule, BOEM would
continue to make this information
available to OCS lessees, lease
operators, and RUE holders to assist
with their mandatory reporting of
certain GHGs to the USEPA. See 40 CFR
98.233.
OCSLA requires DOI to make a
decision on whether to approve an EP
within 30 days and a DPP within 60
days. Consequently, the air quality
review process for the plan is limited in
its ability to provide extensive analysis
of complex plans. Although not
mentioned explicitly in OCSLA,
BOEM’s regulations require a similar
review timeframe for DOCDs. While
there is an opportunity for public
comment on plans, there is limited
opportunity for public review of air
pollution measures in EPs, DPPs, or
DOCDs. BOEM requests comments on
how more opportunity for public input
could be provided, while observing
legal constraints on plan review
timeframes.
J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The AAIs established by the USEPA
represent ambient concentrations of CPs
in attainment areas that have been
established to prevent the significant
deterioration of air quality. Increases in
ambient concentrations of CPs that
exceed the AAIs present a risk of
causing an attainment area to become a
non-attainment area. BOEM proposes to
evaluate increases in ambient air
concentrations to ensure compliance
with the AAIs.
The preamble to the current
regulation 64 stated that the maximum
allowable increases (when added to the
baseline concentration) ‘‘are ceilings
which cannot be exceeded within an
applicable area. To calculate the
acceptable emission level, a lessee must
64 45
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
Federal Register (FR) 15133 (Mar. 7, 1980).
05APP2
19748
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
combine the ambient air concentrations
resulting from the projected emissions
of total suspended particulates and SO2
from the proposed OCS facility with
those emissions of TSP and SO2 from
other onshore and offshore sources
which contribute to the consumption of
the maximum allowable increases.’’
There is, however, no provision in the
current BOEM regulations that
explicitly requires accounting for ‘‘other
onshore and offshore sources which
contribute to the consumption of the
maximum allowable increases.’’
Accordingly, the proposed rule would
contain an explicit requirement that
facilities for which BACT is
implemented consider other sources of
emissions that contribute to
consumption of the AAI when they
compare the impacts of their controlled
emissions against the AAIs.
Through this notice, BOEM is
soliciting comments on alternative ways
for how it might effectively ensure that
the increments are not ‘‘consumed’’ in
the relevant attainment areas or what
steps it might take to protect the
increments in an operational context
without creating an undue burden on
lessees or operators. One alternative for
determining the extent to which the
increments have been ‘‘consumed’’
would be to separately evaluate the
cumulative effects of offshore
development in the context of the NEPA
analysis conducted for the Five-Year Oil
and Gas Leasing Program or in
connection with the lease sales. Another
alternative might be to conduct periodic
cumulative impact assessments of the
air quality in relevant attainment areas.
Based on either the NEPA analysis or a
separate cumulative impact assessment,
BOEM might maintain a database of
relevant AAIs that have previously been
‘‘consumed.’’ These data could be
evaluated in the context of the plan
review process, or separately in some
other context.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the
Proposed Rule
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The following are the changes
proposed by this rulemaking in part
550:
A. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart A
Section 550.101—Applicability
The heading of § 550.101 would be
revised from ‘‘Authority and
Applicability’’ to read ‘‘Applicability.’’
This change would make the section
title better reflect the current content of
the section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Section 550.102—What does this part
do?
The proposed rule would modify
paragraph (a) of this section to make
clarifying amendments. In addition,
paragraph (b), which contains the table
entitled ‘‘Where To Find Information
For Conducting Operations,’’ would be
updated as follows with the following
additions: The acronym for application
of permit to drill (APD); a reference to
the subsection on Development and
Production Plans (DPP) to include
Development Operations Coordination
Documents (DOCD); the acronym for
geological and geophysical (G&G)
permits; the acronym from oil spill
financial responsibility, (OSFR); a
subsection to cover Rights-of-Use and
Easement; acronyms for Rights-of-Use
and Easement (RUE) and pipeline
Rights-of-Way (ROW); and a new
subsection referencing the Air Quality
proposed regulations in subpart C.
Section 550.105—Revised Definitions
Note on Definitions
The definitions in § 550.105 are
intended to apply to all of part 550. The
definitions proposed to be added or
revised in proposed § 550.302 are meant
to apply only to § 550.205 of subpart B
and all of subpart C.
In many cases, the definitions as used
in part 550 differ from the meaning of
the same term found in other agencies’
regulations, in other contexts, or as used
in common usage. Any word, phrase, or
term that is not defined should be
understood in the common and ordinary
meaning of that word, phrase, or term.
For example, the term nitrogen oxides is
not defined, and it is not used in a
manner that would require the term to
be defined uniquely in this proposed
rule, because BOEM uses it in its
common and ordinary meaning. In
contrast, the phrase ‘‘Best Available
Control Technology,’’ and its
corresponding acronym BACT, is used
as defined in proposed § 550.302, and it
would not have the same meaning as
used in the USEPA regulation.
Definitions related to air quality terms
are currently located in three places in
part 550: §§ 550.105, 550.200, and
550.302. Under the proposed rule,
definitions of terms that are related
solely to air quality would be located in
§ 550.302 as part of subpart C. Other
definitions related to both air quality
and other parts of the regulations are left
in § 550.105. Subparts A and B contain
some requirements related to air quality,
and proposed sections within these
subparts would use terms that would be
defined in subpart C. Under this
organizational framework, the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
rule would move some of the definitions
from one section to another and some
terms would also be updated.
The proposed rule would revise or
add definitions of the following terms:
Air Pollutant
This definition would be revised to
include the following: (1) Any criteria
air pollutant for which the USEPA has
established numerical criteria, referred
to as the primary or secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), in 40 CFR part 50 and as may
be amended pursuant to section 109 of
the CAA; (2) any major precursor air
pollutant identified by the USEPA that
contributes to the formation of a criteria
air pollutant through an atmospheric or
photochemical reaction, including, but
not limited to, VOCs, NH3, and those
CPs that are also precursors for other
CPs (such as SO2); and (3) any USEPAdefined GHG, as defined at 40 CFR 98.6
and as may be amended pursuant to
section 111 of the CAA; and, (4) any
USEPA-defined Hazardous Air
Pollutant, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2 and
as may be amended pursuant to section
112 of the CAA. The purpose of this
change is to clarify that, while there are
many types of air pollutants, the focus
of BOEM’s regulatory efforts in this
rulemaking is on the criteria and major
precursor pollutants.
Emissions Source
The current regulations define the
term ‘‘source’’ in section 550.302 as, ‘‘an
emission point. Several sources may be
included within a single facility.’’ The
proposed rule would replace the term
‘‘source’’ with ‘‘emissions source’’ and
locate the newly defined term in section
550.105. The proposed rule would
define ‘‘emissions source’’ as ‘‘a device
or substance that emits air pollutant(s)
in connection with any authorized
activity described in your plan.’’ The
proposed definition would also clarify
that several emissions sources may exist
on a single facility, aircraft, vessel, or
vehicle. The proposed rule would
further make clear anything that: (1)
Produces or results in the release of one
or more air pollutant(s), including the
flashing, flaring, or venting of natural
gas; (2) involves burning any oil or well
test fluids; or (3) generates fugitive
emissions, is an emissions source.
BOEM is proposing to use the term
‘‘emissions source’’ in place of the
current term, ‘‘source,’’ since the term is
used only in the air quality context
(although referred to throughout part
550 of the regulations). The proposed
definition of ‘‘emissions source’’ would
be broader than the existing definition
of ‘‘source.’’ It would also clarify that an
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
emissions source need not be part of a
single facility. Examples of equipment
that would fall under this proposed
definition include, but not be limited to:
Boilers/heaters/burners, diesel engines,
drilling rigs, combustion flares, cold
vents, glycol dehydrators, natural gas
engines, natural gas turbines, pneumatic
pumps, pressure/level controllers,
amine units, tanks, dual fuel turbines,
sources involved in mud degassing,
storage tanks, well testing equipment,
vessels (including support vessels,
pipeline lay barges, pipeline bury
barges, derrick barges), and any other
equipment that could cause fugitive
emissions, venting, losses from flashing,
or loading losses.
Federal Land Manager (FLM)
The proposed rule would add this
term to mean the Secretary of the
Department with authority over any
federal Class I area or sensitive Class II
area (or the Secretary’s designee). This
definition is adapted from USEPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P,
implementing the CAA provisions on
protecting visibility in Class I areas.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federally-Recognized Indian Tribe
For the purpose of this proposed rule,
a Federally-recognized Indian tribe
refers to a Federally-recognized Indian
tribe that has either a Treatment as State
(TAS) status recognized by the USEPA
or an approved Tribal Implementation
Plan (TIP).
Flaring
Under the current § 550.105, ‘‘flaring’’
is defined as ‘‘the burning of natural gas
as it is released into the atmosphere.’’
The proposed rule would revise this
definition to read, ‘‘. . . the burning of
natural gas or other hydrocarbons and
the release of the associated emissions
into the atmosphere.’’ The proposed
definition would also provide that,
because lessees and operators can use
flaring to reduce the emissions of
hydrocarbon vapors, it could potentially
also be considered as an air pollutant
emission reduction measure. The
proposed definition would further make
clear flares can be a mechanism used to
control emissions from storage tanks,
loading operations, glycol dehydration
units, vent collection systems, and
amine units. In addition, the proposed
definition would note flares usually
operate continuously but some are used
only for process upsets, which occur
during the exploration or development
process when large amounts of
flammable gases are released suddenly
and unexpectedly. Finally, the proposed
definition would provide the term
‘‘flaring’’ is equivalent to combustion
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
flaring (i.e., burning of the gases), but it
is distinct from cold venting, which
involves the discharge of raw pollutants
into the air without burning.
BOEM is proposing to revise the
definition of flaring and distinguish it
from venting as a result of a response to
Report 11–34 by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in
‘‘FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASES:
Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented
and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would
Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce
Greenhouse Gases.’’
Minerals
The proposed rule would revise the
definition of the term ‘‘minerals’’
slightly to align with OCSLA section
2(q), 43 U.S.C. 1331(q). There would be
no substantive changes to the definition
for minerals, which continues to
include oil, gas, sulphur, geopressuredgeothermal and associated resources,
and all other minerals that are
authorized to be produced from public
lands.
Mobile Support Craft (MSC)
The proposed rule would add this
term to the definitions section to mean
‘‘any offshore supply vessel (OSV) as
defined by the USCG in accordance
with 46 U.S.C. 2101, and any ship,
tanker, tug or tow boat, pipeline barge,
anchor handling vessel, facility
installation vessel, refueling or ice
management vessel, oil-spill response
vessel, or any other offshore vessel,
remotely operated vehicle (ROV), or any
offshore vehicle used by, or in the
support of, the offshore operations
described in a plan.’’
Consistent with the approach
currently used by BOEM, for the
purpose of evaluating air emissions, an
MSC is considered a facility while
temporarily attached to the seabed or
connected to another facility.
Offshore Supply Vessel
The term ‘‘offshore supply vessel’’ is
defined in the USCG regulations. The
term ‘‘support vessel’’ is used but not
defined in the current BOEM
regulations.65 BOEM’s regulations do
specify, however, that the meaning of
the term support vessel includes crew
boats, supply boats, anchor handling
vessels, tug boats, barges, ice
management vessels, and other vessels,
some of which do not qualify as offshore
supply vessels under the USCG
definition. Because of the potential
confusion that could be caused by
utilizing a term similar to that used by
the USCG, BOEM proposes to revise its
65 See
PO 00000
30 CFR 550.224 and 550.257.
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19749
existing regulations and replace the
term ‘‘support vessel’’ with a new term,
‘‘Mobile support craft,’’ which would
include offshore supply vessels as
defined by the USCG, as well as any
other vessel or vehicle used to support
OCS exploration, development,
production or transportation operations.
Offshore Vehicle
Current § 550.200 defines ‘‘offshore
vehicle’’ as ‘‘a vehicle that is capable of
being driven on ice.’’ The proposed
definition would clarify that an offshore
vehicle is a type of MSC that is capable
of being driven on ice and would add
the phrase ‘‘and which provides support
services or personnel to your facility or
facilities.’’
Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE)
RUE is not currently defined in 30
CFR part 550. The proposed rule would
define RUE to mean seabed use
authorizations that BOEM may grant at
an OCS site, other than an OCS lease,
pursuant to sections §§ 550.160 through
550.166 of this part.
State
State is not currently defined in the
regulations. The proposed rule would
add this definition in order to clarify
that the word ‘‘State’’ includes its
submerged lands and extends to the
federal/State boundary. Any reference to
the word ‘‘State’’ in this proposed rule,
unless otherwise specified, is intended
to include the area offshore a State up
to the federal/State boundary.
Venting
Venting is currently defined in 30
CFR 250.105. The proposed rule would
modify that definition to read ‘‘the
release of gas into the atmosphere,
including though a stack without
igniting it, whereby relief flows of
natural gas or other hydrocarbons are
directed to an unignited flare or which
is otherwise discharged directly to the
atmosphere. This includes gas that is
released underwater and bubbles to the
atmosphere.’’
Section 550.141—May I use or be
required to use alternate documentation,
procedures or equipment?
The proposed rule changes the title
from ‘‘May I ever use alternate
procedures or equipment?’’ and would
add new paragraph (d) to existing
§ 550.141, stating, ‘‘In order to protect
public health, you may be required or
allowed to temporarily suspend the use
of equipment that emits air pollutants,
or to implement operational control(s)
on the use of such equipment by the
Regional Supervisor, when an adjacent
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19750
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
State or locality declares an air quality
episode or emergency, provided that
any such suspension or operational
control(s) would not cause an
immediate threat to safety or the
environment.’’ The purpose of this
provision is to ensure any BOEMauthorized equipment, which might
contribute to air emissions episodes or
air quality emergencies, could be turned
off, or operated in a limited capacity, for
the duration of such a declared
emergency, as long as it can be done
safely.
Local air quality authorities in States
adjacent to the OCS periodically declare
air emissions episodes or air quality
emergencies when the concentration of
a pollutant is especially high. BSEE and
its predecessors have historically either
required or allowed the suspension of
use and testing of standby equipment
during emergency health episodes
declared by local authorities adjacent to
the Pacific OCS (NTL 2000 P–01). Such
suspensions have, for example, allowed
Pacific OCS operators the ability to
curtail stationary source emissions
according to the measures contained in
Episode Avoidance Plans or Emergency
Action Plans, which the operators
typically prepare at the request of either
the USEPA or the State. The proposed
provision would apply more generally
to any equipment authorized under part
550 and that emits air pollutants. It
would also apply anywhere on the OCS
where operations could contribute to an
air quality emergency.
A new provision has been added to
accommodate situations in which
published documents that are referred
to in the regulations of this part have
been updated by the original publisher.
This provision would allow the use of
the updated publications under certain
circumstances, as specified in the
proposed rule text.
Section 550.160—When will BOEM
grant me a right-of-use and easement,
and what requirements must I meet?
The proposed rule would redesignate
current paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) as
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) and add
a new paragraph (f). The new paragraph
would specify that facilities constructed
or maintained on RUEs must meet the
air quality requirements of § 550.205 of
subpart B of this part and that subpart
C would also apply to that RUE
application. The rule clarifies that any
reference to a lessee or operator in those
sections would apply equally to any
applicant for a right-of-use and
easement.
The new provision of this section is
intended to apply to those situations
where an organization is proposing to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
install a new facility on a RUE and that
facility is not included in an exploration
or development plan. In the event that
an existing RUE was approved as part of
an exploration or production plan, no
new requirements would be imposed.
Similarly, any application for a new
RUE that is included within the scope
of a proposed exploration or
development plan would not be affected
by the requirements of this paragraph.
BOEM requests comments on the
most appropriate method for
establishing and reporting air quality
requirements associated with the
removal of any facility installed
pursuant to a RUE in the context of the
AQRP.
Section 550.187—What region-wide
offshore air emissions data must I
provide?
The proposed rule would add new
§ 550.187. The new section would
require a lessee, an operator, or a holder
of a RUE to collect, maintain, retain for
a period of no less than 10 years, and
submit to the appropriate regional office
on an ongoing basis according to a
schedule established by BOEM,
information regarding all air pollutant
emissions from all emissions sources
associated with its operations. The
primary means by which this
requirement would be implemented is
by requiring the lessees and operators to
maintain records of the type and
amount of fuel consumed (i.e., fuel logs)
by all relevant sources. BOEM would
use this information to maintain a
comprehensive OCS emissions
inventory of air pollutants. Currently,
BOEM maintains this type of emissions
inventory information on air pollutants
in the GOM Region with the GOADS.
The proposed rule would replace the
name ‘‘GOADS’’ with the name ‘‘OCS
emissions inventory’’ because the
proposed rule anticipates the data
collection would not be limited to the
GOM in the future.
The current BOEM practice is to
require the submission of this
information every three years, and
BOEM intends to maintain this practice
for the foreseeable future. The three-year
timeframe is consistent with USEPA
regulations regarding the timeframes for
submitting this information. However,
given that the USEPA may change its
regulations and given that, in some
cases, current USEPA regulations
require more frequent reporting from
some sources, the proposed regulations
cross-reference USEPA regulations with
respect to the timing of the information
submittal. That way, the rule would
propose to automatically reflect any
changes made by the USEPA with
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
respect to the NEI timing requirements.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would
specify that the reporting timeframes
will be determined by the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.30(a), as it may be
amended.
The proposed rule would require that
the submitted information include air
emissions or the activity data necessary
to calculate the emissions of stationary
emissions sources, including all
facilities, and all non-stationary sources,
including MSC(s) and any other nonstationary emissions source(s) of air
pollutants above the OCS or above State
submerged lands that operate in support
of an OCS facility, as determined by the
Regional Supervisor. GOM has
historically obtained the MSC data from
independent sources and intends to
continue this process for the foreseeable
future. BOEM would likely only change
this practice if the data collection
became impractical.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or
operator may request that the owner of
such non-stationary emissions source(s)
provide the information to BOEM or a
BOEM-designated agent, but the lessee
or operator would still be responsible
for submitting the required information
if the owner does not submit it.
Currently, the GOM Region prepares
its emissions inventory by allowing
lessees and operators to directly input
data either on fuel use or on equipment
usage and operating time. BOEM then
uses this data to calculate the resulting
emissions. This proposed rule would
allow for the continuation of that
practice in the GOM Region, and the
expansion of that practice to other OCS
regions. Accordingly, the proposed rule
requires the submission of (1) facility
and equipment usage, including hours
of operation at each percent of capacity
for each emissions source; and/or (2)
fuel logs containing monthly and annual
fuel consumption data showing the
quantity, type, and sulphur content of
fuel used for each emissions source. The
proposed rule would require the
information provided under this
proposed section should be at a
sufficient level of detail so as to
facilitate BOEM’s compilation of a
comprehensive OCS emissions
inventory of air pollutants. BOEM
solicits comments on various alternative
methods for ensuring the accurate
reporting of emissions and the
appropriate methods that might be used
to ensure the accuracy of the data and
information it collects.
Consistent with the approach taken by
the USEPA in the development of the
NEI, the proposed rule specifies that
lessees and operators would be required
to classify the emissions according to
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the appropriate SCCs as defined by the
USEPA in their Source Classification
Codes listing, incorporated by reference
in section 198(b)(1)(iv) of this chapter.
The purpose of this requirement is to
distinguish the various emissions
processes including mobile source
processes. The USEPA also estimates
mobile source emissions of commercial
marine vessels and without this
distinction there would be a risk that
either BOEM or the USEPA could
double count the emissions that are
reported.
Finally, the proposed rule would
allow the Regional Director to waive or
allow a delay in compliance with the
requirements of this section on a regionwide basis. The reason for this waiver
provision is to allow regions to avoid
duplicating the effort already
undertaken by the USEPA in this regard,
particularly in areas where BOEM does
not have air quality jurisdiction and
does not, therefore, have any unique or
separate data or IC requirements.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee, an
operator, or a holder of a RUE would be
required to submit the required
information upon request or on an
ongoing basis as determined by BOEM
starting in 2017 or in the next reporting
period if the rule is not effective by 2017
and continuing according to the
timeframe established by the USEPA in
its regulations governing the NEI to the
appropriate regional OCS office. Leases
and RUEs acquired after 2017 would be
subject to the reporting requirement at
the end of the next reporting period.
The proposed rule would also require
submission of this information more
frequently if the lessee, operator, or
holder of a RUE has an emissions source
that generates facility emissions that
have a PTE 66 such that it would qualify
as a Type A source according to the
USEPA’s regulations in table 1 of
appendix A of subpart A.—Emission
Thresholds by Pollutant for Treatment
as Point Source of 40 CFR 51.50. These
regulations contain thresholds set by the
USEPA to determine which emissions
sources within States require annual
reporting to States for the NEI that the
66 The USEPA concept of PTE, which it defines
at 40 CFR 51.301, is similar to the BOEM concept
of facility emissions, in that both PTE and facility
emissions refer to the maximum aggregate capacity
of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its
physical and operational design. This concept
includes all emissions sources attached to a facility
but excludes the attributed emissions of nonstationary sources, such as MSCs. For further
details on the concept and use of PTE in the USEPA
context, see ‘‘Potential to Emit: A Guide for Small
Business,’’ USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA–
456/B–98–003, October 1998, available at: https://
www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/1998sbapptebroc.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
USEPA conducts for other sources every
three years.
As with the current GOADS in the
GOM OCS region, the information
obtained under this proposed provision
is necessary to allow BOEM to
determine more accurately air emissions
from the activities it has authorized on
the OCS and fulfill its statutory
obligations under OCSLA section
5(a)(8). BOEM also uses that data to
inform NEPA reviews and analysis and
coordinate with the USEPA and coastal
States. The inventory would provide
data to augment BOEM’s NEPA review
by providing an accurate basis from
which to compute emission trends and
to perform necessary air quality impact
assessments. In addition, the emissions
data derived from information provided
under this program would continue to
be made available from BOEM to OCS
lessees, operators, and RUE holders to
assist with their mandatory reporting of
GHGs to the USEPA. BOEM would also
continue to use the inventory to meet
information requests from the general
public.
BOEM currently collects emissions
data related to GHGs on a regular basis
in the GOM OCS Region as part of the
GOADS program. BOEM recognizes the
impacts of GHG emissions on the air
and water overlying the OCS, primarily
associated with ocean acidification, and
the States, in connection with climate
change, and the importance and
sensitivity of this issue. For this reason,
BOEM is researching the implications of
GHG emissions generated by OCS
facilities and MSCs and evaluating
various alternatives for potentially
limiting these GHG emissions.
Section 550.198—Documents
Incorporated by Reference
The proposed rule would incorporate
by reference certain material into part
550 with the approval of the Director of
the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The proposed
rule would provide for the process
BOEM may use to amend its regulations
to incorporate different versions of these
documents.
For all material incorporated by
reference, the applicable document
would be the specific edition or specific
edition and supplement or addendum
cited in this section. Lessees and
operators would be allowed to comply
with a later edition of a specific
document incorporated by reference,
provided they show that complying
with the later edition provides a degree
of scientific or technical accuracy,
environmental protection, or
performance equal to or better than
would be achieved by compliance with
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19751
the listed edition; and they obtain the
prior written approval for alternative
compliance from the authorized BOEM
official.
The proposed rule would explain that
the effect of incorporation by reference
of a document into the regulations in
this part is that the incorporated
document is a requirement. The
proposed rule states that when a section
in this part incorporates all of a
document, the lessee or operator would
be responsible for complying with the
provisions of that entire document,
except to the extent that the section
which incorporates the document by
reference provides otherwise. Further it
states that when a section in this part
incorporates part of a document, the
lessee or operator would be responsible
for complying with that part of the
document as specified in that section.
BOEM may issue the a future rule(s)
amending the documents incorporated
by reference effective without
opportunity for public comment when
BOEM determines the revisions to a
document represent new industry
standard technology and do not impose
undue costs on the affected parties; and
BOEM meets the requirements for
making a rule immediately effective
under 5 U.S.C. 553.
The specific documents proposed to
be incorporated by reference include:
From the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s Office of Air and Radiation,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
MS6101A, Washington, DC 20460.
(1) AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, January 1995, incorporated by
reference at proposed § 550.205(b)(2).
AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, has been published
since 1972 as the primary compilation
of the USEPA’s emission factor
information. It contains emission factors
and process information for more than
200 air pollution source categories. A
source category is a specific industry
sector or group of similar emitting
sources. The emission factors have been
developed and compiled from source
test data, material balance studies, and
engineering estimates. The Fifth Edition
of AP–42 was published in January
1995. Since then the USEPA has
published supplements and updates to
the fifteen chapters available in Volume
I, Stationary Point and Area Sources.
The latest emissions factors are
available on their Web site at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
(2) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES), User Guide, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA–
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19752
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
420–B–14–055, July 2014, incorporated
by reference at proposed
§ 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(B). The USEPA’s
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) is a state-of-the-science
emission modeling system that
estimates emissions for mobile sources
at the national, county, and project level
for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse
gases, and air toxics. MOVES2014 is the
latest version of MOVES. It incorporates
significant improvements in calculating
onroad and nonroad equipment
emissions. MOVES201a does not
significantly change the criteria
pollutant emissions results of
MOVES2014 and therefore is not
considered a new model for SIP and
transportation conformity purposes. The
User Guide is available from the USEPA
at: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/
moves/documents/420b12001b.pdf.
(3) User’s Guide for the Final
NONROAD2005, EPA420–R–05–013,
December 2005. This publication is
applicable to the NONROAD2008
model, incorporated by reference at
proposed § 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(B). The
NONROAD model is intended for
estimation of air pollution inventories
by professional mobile source modelers,
such as state air quality officials and
consultants. The User Guide is available
from the USEPA at: https://
www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/
nonrdmdl2005/420r05013.pdf.
(4) FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval
System) Version 5.0: Source
Classification Codes and Emission
Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Office of Air and Radiation,
EPA 454/R–95–012, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, August 1995,
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.187(c)(4). This document provides
emissions factors and Source
Classification Codes (SCCs) from the
USEPA’s Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE) system, version 5.0, for use in the
estimation, storage and retrieval of point
source air pollutant emissions.
Calculation of emission estimates is
discussed as well as the SCC system of
associating air pollution estimates with
identifiable emitting process types or
unit applications. This document is
available from the USEPA at: https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/efdocs/
454r95012.pdf.
From the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE–100),
800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591:
(1) Aviation Environmental Design
Tool (AEDT) User’s Guide, Version 2B,
prepared for the FAA Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE–100),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Washington, DC prepared by U.S.
Department of Transportation and Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center,
Cambridge, MA, July 2015 (as amended)
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). AEDT is a
software system that models aircraft
performance in space and time to
estimate fuel consumption, emissions,
noise, and air quality consequences.
AEDT is a comprehensive tool that
provides information to FAA
stakeholders on each of these specific
environmental impacts. AEDT facilitates
environmental review activities, such as
those required under NEPA, by
consolidating the modeling of these
environmental impacts in a single tool.
AEDT is designed to model individual
studies ranging in scope from a single
flight at an airport to scenarios at the
regional, national, and global levels.
AEDT leverages geographic information
system (GIS) and relational database
technology to achieve this scalability
and offers rich opportunities for
exploring and presenting results.
Versions of AEDT are actively used by
the U.S. government for domestic
aviation system planning as well as
domestic and international aviation
environmental policy analysis. The User
Guide is available from the FAA at:
https://aedt.faa.gov/Documents/
UserGuide.pdf.
(2) Aviation Environmental Design
Tool (AEDT), Version 2B, AEDT
Standard Input File (ASIF) Reference
Guide, prepared for the FAA of
Environment and Energy (AEE–100),
Washington, DC prepared by U.S.
Department of Transportation and Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center,
Cambridge, MA, May 2015 (as amended)
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). This Reference
Guide provides a description of the
AEDT Standard Input File (ASIF) file
format. It is intended for analysts and
programmers who wish to create or
modify an ASIF to import data into an
AEDT study. The Reference Guide is
available from the FAA at: https://
aedt.faa.gov/Documents/
ASIFReferenceGuide.pdf.
From the International Maritime
Organization, 4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
https://www.imo.org, or 44–(0)20–7735–
7611:
(1) Revised MARPOL Annex VI,
Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships, and NOX
Technical Code [NTC] 2008, 2009
edition, incorporated by reference at
proposed section 550.205(b)(2)(v). This
publication presents the revised
MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the
prevention of air pollution from ships,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and the updated NOX Technical Code
2008, including amendments adopted
by resolutions MEPC.202(62),
MEPC.203(62) and MEPC.217(63), as
well as Guidelines and other
information relevant to improved energy
efficiency for ships and the prevention
of air pollution. MARPOL Annex VI
includes requirements for control of
emissions from ships (chapter 3) and
new regulations on energy efficiency for
ships (chapter 4) that entered into force
on 1 January 2013. These make
mandatory the Energy Efficiency Design
Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship
Energy Efficiency Management Plan
(SEEMP) for all ships. The publication
is available from the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) at: https://
www.imo.org/en/Publications/
Documents/Newsletters%20and
%20Mailers/Mailers/IB664E.pdf.
This, and the other IMO publications,
may also be ordered directly from the
IMO at: https://www.imo.org/en/
Publications/Documents/Catalogue%20
and%20Book%20Code%20Lists/
English/Catalogue.pdf.
(2) Revised MARPOL Annex VI,
Regulations for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (‘‘2008 Annex
VI’’), incorporated by reference at
proposed § 550.205(b)(2)(v). This adds
various amendments to the annex of the
protocol of 1997 to amend the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It is
available from a USEPA Web site at:
https://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/
ci/mepc58-23-annexes13-14.pdf.
(3) NOX Technical Code 2008,
incorporated by reference at proposed
§ 550.205(b)(2)(v). This document
amends the technical code on the
control of emissions of nitrogen oxides
from marine diesel engines. It is
available from the IMO Web site at:
https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/
Environment/PollutionPrevention/
AirPollution/Documents/Air%20
pollution/Resolution%20
MEPC.177(58)%20NOx%20
Technical%20Code%202008.pdf.
B. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart B
The following are the changes
proposed by this rulemaking in part
550:
Section 550.200—Definitions
Offshore Vehicle
The proposed rule would move the
definition of this term into § 550.105
because it is used more often outside the
air quality context and is referred to
throughout the regulations in part 550.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 550.205—What air emissions
information must be submitted with my
plan (EP, DPP, DOCD, or application for
a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term
pipeline)?
In the current regulations, plan
requirements related to air quality are
widely dispersed. Air quality
requirements are discussed throughout
part 550, particularly in §§ 550.207,
550.212, 550.218, 550.224, 550.225,
550.227, 550.242, 550.249, 550.257,
550.258 and 550.261. In order to
provide a consistent, comprehensive
listing of all of the data requirements
related to air quality, these existing air
quality regulations would be
consolidated in one new section,
‘‘§ 550.205 What air emissions
information must be submitted with my
plan (EP, DPP, DOCD, or an application
for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term
pipeline)?’’ Most references to air
quality requirements in the other
sections of part 550 would be deleted
and replaced with a cross-reference to
the single new § 550.205. In addition,
the proposed rule would specify that
this section would apply to RUE,
pipeline ROW, and lease term pipeline
applications.
Paragraph 550.205(a)—Emissions
Sources
The proposed rule would make clear
that all lessees or operators must list
and describe every emissions source on
or associated with any facility or
facilities and MSC(s) described in a
plan. In contrast to the current
regulations, the proposed rule describes
in detail what should be considered an
emissions source and what should or
should not be included in that category.
The proposed rule adds specificity to
the requirements to ensure plans and
RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease term
pipeline applications are prepared
consistently and evaluated according to
a standard set of criteria. This would
include each emissions source used
during the construction, installation
(including well protection structure
installation), and operation of any
exploration, testing, drilling (including
well test flaring), development, or
production equipment or facility or
facilities (including every platform or
manmade island included in their plan).
The proposed rule would specify lessees
or operators must account for the air
pollutant emissions sources associated
with all drilling operations, including
workovers and recompletions,
sidetracking, and pipeline construction,
and reported emissions sources must
include those associated with any oil or
gas produced on a lease that is used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
during the course of lease operations
(i.e., any beneficial use of produced oil
or gas). The proposed rule would
require the list of emissions sources to
cover the duration of the proposed
plan’s activities.
The proposed rule would require
lessees or operators to specify the
equipment type and number,
manufacturer, make and model,
location, purpose (i.e., the intended
function of the equipment and how it
would be used in connection with the
proposed activities covered by the plan)
and physical characteristics of each
emissions source. It would also require
reporting of the type and sulphur
content of fuel stored and/or used to
power each emissions source and the
frequency and duration of the proposed
use.
The proposed rule would contain
additional provisions for engines on
facilities and MSCs. For all engines on
each facility, including non-road
engines, marine propulsion engines (in
the case of MODUs when attached to the
seabed), or marine auxiliary engines
(i.e., a nonroad or highway engine on a
vessel that is used to power a crane, a
drill, or an auxiliary power unit, but it
is not installed on a marine vessel, as
defined at 40 CFR 1042.901), the lessee
or operator would be required to
identify and provide the engine
manufacturer, engine type, fuel type,
engine identification, and maximum
rated capacity of the engine, to be
expressed in kilowatts (kW), if available.
If a lessee or operator has not yet
determined what specific engine would
be used, it would be allowed to provide
analogous data for a comparable engine
with the greatest maximum rated
capacity for the type of engine that it
will use. For this purpose, BOEM would
consider a comparable engine to be one
having similar operational and
emissions characteristics and similar
operational and physical limitations.
Under the proposal, if the engine for
which the lessee or operator provides
documentation has physical design and
operational limitations and these
limitations are the basis of its emissions
calculations, then the lessee or operator
must provide documentation of such
limitations.
For engines on MSCs, including
marine propulsion and marine auxiliary
engines, the proposed rule would
require lessees or operators provide
information regarding the engine
displacement in liters/cylinder, and
maximum speed in revolutions per
minute (rpm). If the specific rpm
information is not available, the
proposed rule would require the lessee
or operator to indicate whether the rpm
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19753
would be less than 130 rpm, equal to or
greater than 130 rpm but less than 2,000
rpm, or equal to or greater than 2,000
rpm, based on best available
information.
For offshore vehicles and MSCs, the
proposed section would provide that
when a lessee or operator does not know
which specific engines will be used or
the information about them cannot be
verified, it may estimate maximum
potential emissions based on the
maximum potential emissions of the
type of MSC typically used in the
planned operations.
Finally, for any emissions source that
does not fall into one of these categories,
the proposed rule would require lessees
or operators to provide all information
needed to calculate and verify the
associated emissions, such as volumes
vented, volumes flared, size of tank,
number of components, etc.
Paragraph 550.205(b)—Emissions
Factors
The purpose of this section is to
provide information regarding how a
lessee or operator would determine the
level of air emissions for each emissions
source described in its plan. The
proposed rule would provide a
considerable amount of detail regarding
what emissions factors should be used.
Emissions factors are the values that
allow lessees or operators to calculate
how much of a pollutant will be emitted
based on the operation of the source.
The proposed rule would retain the
current requirement that, for each
emissions source, for every criteria and
major precursor air pollutant, the lessee
or operator must identify the most
appropriate emissions factor(s) for
calculating its projected emissions. The
proposed rule would specify the
acceptable methods to be used for
determining the appropriate emissions
factors. In general, a lessee or operator
would be allowed to use actual
emissions amounts derived from
emission testing done for a specific
emissions source in lieu of one of the
approaches to estimate emission factors
set out below. When determining the
emissions factors through testing, the
lessee or operator must consider test
points and fuel. In general, unless the
unique circumstances of the proposed
plan make it clearly impractical to do
so, test points should be devised based
on actual operations as opposed to using
the test points and engine loads
contained in one of the various marine
or non-road duty cycles. It cannot be
assumed that emissions per hour or
emissions per kW or per hp hour from
large main engines on drill ships and
platforms are highest during full load or
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19754
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
near-full load operation. Large main
engines on drill ships and platforms
typically operate at less than half full
power, and emissions factors for some
pollutants during this operation may be
significantly higher than at full load or
near-full load. Specifically, actual
maximum emissions per hour or
emissions per kW or horse-power hour
may not be properly estimated by
assuming 90% load, since emissions
factors for different pollutants can have
different variation with load. Under the
proposed rule, the emissions factor and
emission per hour or emissions per kW
or per horse-power hour for the
operation that is actually expected
should be determined, and the
emissions under 90% load should be
used only if emissions at this load are
the highest and thus conservative.
The proposed rule would further
specify that the lessee or operator must
ensure that the fuel used in the testing
to generate the emission factors reflect
the type of fuel that will be used by the
engine in actual operation. The sulphur
content is especially important with
respect to measuring PM and SOX
emissions.
The proposed rule would specify that
in the event that the lessee or operator
were to elect not to measure the actual
emissions for any given emissions
source, it would need to select an
emissions factor from the list of sources
provided in the proposed rule. These
are described below, in the order of
preference.
First, the proposed rule would
provide that the lessee or operator use
the emissions factor(s) that are vendorguaranteed or provided by the
manufacturer of the specific emissions
source, if available. If the lessee or
operator were to use vendor-guaranteed
or manufacturer data, it would need to
demonstrate (1) that the fuel used by the
manufacturer to generate the emission
factors reflects the type of fuel that will
be used by the engine in actual
operation and (2) that the actual engine
has not been modified outside the
configuration used to generate the
emission factors; thus, the emission
factors used in the plan must represent
the actual pattern of use for that
equipment in operations. The proposed
rule would specify that where a
manufacturer has not provided an
emissions factor for the emissions
source the lessee or operator proposes to
use, the lessee or operator may use a
manufacturer’s emissions factor for a
similar source only if the lessee or
operator could demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor
that the emissions generated by the
lessee or operator’s emissions source are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
the same as or lower than that for which
a manufacturer’s emissions factor is
available.
Second, the proposed rule would state
that emissions factors generated from
source tests required by USEPA Outer
Continental Shelf permits would be
allowed as BOEM emission estimates for
a specific rig since these emissions
factors are based on prior emissions
tests. These emissions tests are required
across the range of actual load
operations for engines on Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units (MODU). The
proposed rule would further specify that
if emissions factors were not generated
through testing for a particular engine,
emissions factors generated from a
recent and similar permitted engine may
be used.67 Data from a rig from the same
manufacturer, having an engine of the
same model and year would generally
be allowed, unless the Regional
Supervisor has a reason to believe that
such data may not be accurate or
reliable.
Third, if emission factors, based on
models or an emission model guidance
document developed by the USEPA or
FAA is available and appropriate to the
emissions source, the lessee or operator
may use the relevant emission factors
from that model or guidance document.
The proposed rule would provide a list
of emission models that may be used to
obtain emission factors for certain types
of emissions sources. In particular, two
referenced documents from the USEPA
provide in-use emission factors for a
variety of engines including ‘‘Category
3’’ main propulsion engines on vessels
and engines used in equipment on
vessels, covering both engines certified
to USEPA emission standards and
engines certified by other nations and
international organizations.
Fourth, the lessee or operator would
use emission factors from published
studies conducted by a reputable
source, such as the South Coast Air
Quality Management District, California
Air Resources Board, a university, or
research agency, to the extent they may
yield reliable emission factors or
formula to calculate emissions factors
for certain types of engines and
equipment other than for the large main
engines on drilling ships and drill
platforms and for locomotive-sized
engines powering cranes. These studies
may be helpful to generate emission
factors for marine coating operations,
flares, emissions from drilling muds,
etc. If an emission study is used, the
study must cover representative
engines, fuels, and duty cycles.
67 I.e., the same make, model and year engine
would be required.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Fifth, in certain situations, the
MARPOL Annex VI engine emission
standards may be used as proxies for
emission factors. This option would be
available only for an engine installed on
a non-U.S. flagged vessel that is not part
of an engine family that is covered by
a USEPA certificate of conformity but
that is MARPOL certified. In this case,
the lessee or operator must indicate the
vessel flag as well as engine size used
to determine the standards to use as the
proxy emission factor for that engine. If
this approach is used, the plan would
also be required to account for any
differences in fuel sulphur limits.68 If all
fuel used by the subject drilling ships
and offshore platforms is purchased in
the U.S., the CAA fuel requirements
would apply.
BOEM seeks comment on: (1)
Whether this fifth alternative would be
appropriate or is needed, particularly
given that the emission factors used in
USEPA’s marine and nonroad emission
models apply regardless of flag (i.e.,
emissions from similar engines in
similar use regardless of whether the
engine is on a US or a foreign-flag
vessel); (2) how such an approach
would be applied to engines that use
Heavy Fuel Oil, since the NOX
Technical Code (NTC) allows engines to
be certified on diesel fuel (which can
have relatively high sulfur content);
and, (3) what approach could be taken
to estimate pollutants other than NOX
(since there are no MARPOL standards
for the majority of criteria and precursor
pollutants) and, if using one of the other
approaches is preferred, whether the
NOX emission factors from those other
approaches should be used and this fifth
alternative be not adopted.
Sixth, under the proposed rule, if
none of the methods provided in the
first five options above are applicable,
for a natural gas-powered engine of any
68 Under Annex VI, the NO engine type
X
certification is separate and not related to the fuel
sulphur limits. The technical code for certifying
Annex VI Regulation 13 engines requires ‘‘suitable’’
testing fuel be used and that the characteristics of
the testing fuel be noted for the certification.
Vessels operating in North American/Caribbean
Emissions Control Area (ECA) are all required to
use 0.1% sulfur fuel, regardless of the flag of the
vessel and regardless of where the fuel was
purchased. Vessels may also achieve compliance
within the ECA by receiving an Annex VI
Regulation 3 trial permit or Regulation 4
equivalency determination, in lieu of using the
0.1% sulphur fuel. If the MSC operations associated
with the facility are all within the ECA and the
Annex VI Reg13 engine was tested using 0.1%
sulfur fuel, there would be no differences in fuel
sulphur limits to account for. However, it is
recognized that the ECA is smaller than the OCS
area impacted by this regulation so vessels may not
be using 0.1% sulfur fuel, and that the Annex
Regulation 13 engine may have been certified using
a fuel different from the fuel used during
operations.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rated capacity, or for a non-road dieselpowered engine with a maximum rated
capacity less than 900 kW, or for a nonengine emissions source, the lessee or
operator could use the appropriate
emissions factor from the USEPA AP 42,
Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1:
Stationary Point and Area Emissions
sources, or any update thereto, as
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.198(b)(1)(i).
Seventh, if none of the above options
are applicable,69 the lessee or operator
would be required to conduct stack
testing on the emissions source to
determine the appropriate emissions
factor. The data from stack testing could
be used only for the engine for which
the stack testing was conducted.
If a lessee or operator elects to apply
an emissions factor based on a standard,
as allowed under the 5th and 6th
alternatives, it must take appropriate
account of the deterioration in
performance based on the age of the
equipment and the potential variation of
the actual emissions from the standard
to account for the maximum potential
emissions that the emissions source may
emit. Given that equipment tends to
operate less efficiently over time, the
lessee or operator should make an
appropriate upward adjustment in the
emissions estimates for older equipment
(e.g., to reflect emission deterioration
over time). BOEM solicits comments
and suggestions on how this might most
appropriately be conducted and the
extent to which there are appropriate,
documented, methodologies for making
these kinds of adjustments.
The proposed rule would also require
that any time a lessee or operator revises
a plan, including as a part of its
resubmissions every ten years, it must
consider the age of the equipment,
adjust for any change in operating
efficiency, and provide the associated
emissions factors in its revised or
resubmitted plan, as applicable. Also,
under the proposed rule the Regional
Supervisor may require a lessee or
operator to use a different emissions
factor for any emissions source or air
pollutant if the Regional Supervisor has
reason to believe the selected emissions
factor is inaccurate to a material degree
or new information on emissions factors
becomes available. The proposed rule
would also provide the Regional
Supervisor may require stack testing or
another form of validation to verify the
accuracy of an emissions factor.
69 This option is not required as the first
alternative because stack testing is generally very
expensive and limits the flexibility of operators in
preparing their plan(s) (because stack testing is
engine-specific).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
19755
Various U.S. manufacturers of nonroad and marine diesel engines produce
both domestic and export-only versions
of each piece of equipment. The
domestic version is manufactured to
comply with USEPA emissions
requirements whereas the export-only
version may or may not comply with
USEPA requirements. Domestic versions
may, in some cases, be exported.
Manufacturers in other countries also
produce, or may in the future produce,
both engines that are certified by the
USEPA as legal for sale in the U.S. and
engines that are not. The USEPA
provides emissions factors for such
equipment that is certified to be legal for
use in the U.S., and these emission
factors apply to an originally-configured
U.S.-certified engine regardless of its
marketing path. It does not test or
evaluate the emissions of U.S.manufactured equipment intended only
for export or foreign-manufactured
equipment not intended for sale in the
U.S. For this reason, under the proposed
rule, if a lessee or operator proposes to
utilize an engine or equipment that is
manufactured in the U.S. or any other
country, but which is not certified by
the USEPA for use in the U.S., the lessee
or operator may not use a USEPA
emissions factor intended to apply to
the domestic version of such engine or
equipment of the same vintage. Under
the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator
proposes to utilize an engine or
equipment on a U.S.-flagged vessel that
is not USEPA-certified for use in the
U.S., then that lessee or operator must
test the actual emissions of the proposed
engine or equipment and submit data on
its actual emissions. If the lessee or
operator claims to use a USEPA certified
engine or equipment, it must submit
documentation of that engine or
equipment’s certification.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or
operator’s projected emissions include
emissions for a U.S. flagged vessel, then
it must submit documentation of the
USEPA-issued Certificate of Conformity
for each mobile source engine.70 For
MARPOL-compliant foreign-flag
equipment for which no other emissions
factor data are available, MARPOL
emissions standards may be used to
determine proxy emission factors where
such emissions standards are available
(see 5th option, above).71 However, if
this source is used, the plan must
account for any differences in the fuel
Paragraph 550.205(c)—Facility
Emissions
This paragraph is intended to provide
a consistent set of criteria to determine
what should be included in each plan
with respect to facilities and their
corresponding emissions.
This paragraph would require facility
emissions to be reported for each
criteria and major precursor air
pollutant in three separate ways. First,
paragraph (c)(1) would require the
lessee or operator to calculate and report
the projected annual emissions for each
facility in its plan, itemized by all of the
emissions of each emissions source on
or physically connected to each facility.
Such calculations should be done for
each year that the plan is proposed to
engage in operating activities, for a
period of ten years. Emissions reported
under this subparagraph would include
those associated with any emissions
source involved in the construction,
installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility, based
on the maximum rated capacity of each
emission source associated with the
facility and using the methods and
procedures specified under paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section. Second,
paragraph (c)(2), would require the
lessee or operator to calculate and report
the maximum 12-month rolling sum 72
of emissions from each emissions source
on or connected to each facility and the
maximum 12-month rolling sum of the
emissions from each facility. The
purpose of this latter requirement is to
70 The USEPA requires that all U.S.-flagged
vessels must have engines certified by the USEPA.
71 MARPOL emission standards and certification
requirements for Category 3 propulsion engines are
similar to those of the USEPA, and USEPA emission
factors appropriately matched to the vintage and
type of engine may be used for such engines.
72 The plan must include the emissions for the 12
consecutive month period in which the emissions
are projected to be the greatest, regardless of the
calendar year in which those months occur. All
references to 12-month rolling sum are intended to
refer to 12 consecutive month intervals without any
overlap.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sulphur limits applicable to the fuel
being used for operations and the
sulphur limit of the fuel used for
emission testing. All fuel used by the
subject drilling ships and offshore
platforms would be required to either be
purchased in the U.S. or comply with
applicable CAA fuel emissions
requirements, unless the lessee or
operator could demonstrate that it has
properly accounted for any differences
in emissions that may result from the
use of non-U.S. fuel. If a lessee or
operator proposes to use any engine or
equipment that is neither USEPAcertified nor MARPOL-compliant, then
it may not use an emissions factor
intended to apply to a MARPOL
compliant engine or equipment. In that
case, the lessee or operator would be
generally required to provide actual
emissions test results for the engine.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19756
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
identify the peak emissions that would
be expected to occur during any 12month period within the duration of the
plan. Third, in paragraph (c)(3), the
proposed rule would require lessees or
operators calculate the maximum
projected peak hourly emissions from
each emissions source on or physically
connected to each facility and the
maximum projected peak hourly
emissions from each facility that would
result from the construction,
installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility.
The proposed rule would specify the
lessee or operator must calculate its
projected emissions from each emission
source, based on the maximum rated
capacity of each engine it proposes to
use, or the capacity that generates the
highest rate of emissions. Emissions
information would be required for
emissions sources individually and for
the entire facility or facilities. BOEM
expects it would implement this
proposed requirement by continuing its
current practice whereby lessees and
operators provide information on their
emissions in a table that they submit
with their plan.
BOEM intends this requirement to be
broad, and accordingly, the proposed
rule also defines ‘‘emissions sources’’
and ‘‘facilities’’ broadly. (See discussion
of definitions of those terms at
§§ 550.105 and 550.302). The
requirement to report facility emissions
exists in the current regulations, but the
proposed rule would refine the
requirement. The result of these broad
definitions in the context of this
proposed section would be that all
sources of emissions connected to a
facility should be accounted for in a
plan. Examples of emissions sources on
platforms that a lessee or operator
would be required to report under this
proposed section include, but are not
limited to, boilers/heaters/burners,
diesel engines, drilling rigs attached to
the seabed, combustion flares, cold
vents, fugitives, glycol dehydrators,
losses from flashing, natural gas
engines, natural gas turbines, pneumatic
pumps, pressure/level controllers,
amine units, loading losses, tanks, dual
fuel turbines, and sources involved in
mud degassing or storage tanks.
Examples of sources that would also be
accounted for under this proposed
section that normally are not on a
platform include, but are not limited to,
drilling rigs, and any other equipment
that is temporarily or permanently
connected to any planned facility. This
would include any support vessel (crew,
supply, tugs), pipeline lay barges,
pipeline bury barges, derrick barges
(installation of structure), and well
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
testing equipment, while connected or
moored to the facility.
The USEPA concept of PTE, which it
defines at 40 CFR 51.301, is similar to
the BOEM concept of facility emissions,
in that both PTE and facility emissions
refer to the maximum aggregate capacity
of a stationary source to emit a pollutant
under its physical and operational
design. In both cases, this concept
includes all emissions sources attached
to a facility but excludes the attributed
emissions of unattached non-stationary
sources.73 For further details on the
concept and use of PTE in the USEPA
context, see ‘‘Potential to Emit: A Guide
for Small Business,’’ USEPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA–456/
B–98–003, October 1998, available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/
1998sbapptebroc.pdf.
BOEM is considering whether to use
the term PTE instead of facility
emissions, and BOEM invites comment
on this question.
Paragraph 550.205(d)—Attributed
Emissions (i.e., Non-Facility Emissions)
Proposed § 550.205(d) specifies how
emissions from MSCs described in a
plan would be attributed to a facility
described in that plan. The proposed
section provides the procedures by
which operators would account for
emissions from these MSCs while they
are supporting the operations in the
plan. Under the proposed rule, lessees
and operators would be required to
calculate both the total emissions that
every MSC in its plan generates and
then to calculate the portion of that total
that should be attributed to their
facility.
First, for each facility described in a
plan, a lessee or operator would be
required to identify the MSCs that
would be used to support that facility.
The lessee or operator, to the extent
practicable, would also be required to
identify the other facilities each MSC
would support.
Second, for each such MSC, the lessee
or operator would calculate its
emissions per trip, from when the MSC
leaves its home port until it returns (i.e.,
support emissions per trip), irrespective
of what other facilities the MSC may
also service. The lessee or operator
would be required to base such
calculations on the maximum rated
capacity or the capacity that generates
the highest rate of emissions for each
emissions source on the MSC. Having
done this, the lessee or operator would
73 However, as defined by BOEM, a nonstationary source, such as a vessel, vehicle or
aircraft could also have a potential to emit.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
multiply this result by the number of
trips the MSC would take in support of
the facility during the 12 consecutivemonth rolling maximum period over
which the corresponding facility
emissions would be measured. In
addition, each lessee or operator would
also have to determine and report the
maximum projected peak hourly
emission for each MSC. If an MSC does
not support any other facilities, the
proposed rule would require the lessee
or operator to attribute all of these
emissions to the facility the MSC
supports. However, if an MSC supports
multiple facilities, the proposed rule
would then provide three alternative
methods for calculating the portion of
total MSC emissions that lessees and
operators would be required to attribute
to their facility. First, a lessee or
operator could, to the extent practicable,
calculate and report the difference
between the total support emissions and
the emissions it can document should
be reasonably allocated to another
facility. This option would be available
to lessees or operators who know
detailed information about the routes of
the MSCs in their plans and what other
facilities each MSC would support.
Second, if the first method is
impracticable but the lessee or operator
knows the number of facilities
supported by any given MSC (but not
their locations or the routes of the MSC),
the operator could divide the total
support emissions by the lowest number
of the facilities the operator reasonably
determines the MSC will serve on a
typical trip, including the facilities
described in its plan. If neither of these
two methods is practicable, the rule
would allow operators to calculate and
report the greater of either (1) the
emissions that would be generated by
the MSC traveling round trip between
its port or home base and the facility, or
(2) the emissions from the MSC
operating within 25 statute miles of the
facility. Finally, the proposed rule
would allow lessees or operators the
ability to elect to attribute the total
support emissions of any vessel or
vehicle to their facility if they decide
not to allocate the emissions among
facilities.
The proposed rule includes the
options described above because a
lessee or operator may not know, at the
time of plan submittal, which facilities
an MSC will support. The intent is to
provide these alternatives for allocating
support vessel emissions in situations
where it would otherwise be
impracticable to do so. The options in
the proposed rule are intended to
account for the variety of practices that
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
could occur on the OCS and the ability
to know the particular operation of an
MSC at the time of plan submittal.
With respect to proposed
§ 550.205(d)(7), although that
requirement is only one of the
assumptions that are to be used in
calculating the MSC emissions, the
provision is intended to clarify it would
not be appropriate to calculate the
emissions only for one source, in the
event an MSC had multiple sources of
relevant emissions. The rule is intended
to clarify the maximum rated capacity
requirement applies to each source on
every MSC, in any situation where an
MSC has multiple emissions sources.
Further, the proposed rule would
provide that if BOEM questions the
lessee or operator’s determination of the
attributed emissions, the Regional
Supervisor may require additional
documentation to support their findings
and may direct them to make changes,
as appropriate.
Finally, just as BOEM is considering
using the term PTE in place of the term
facility emissions, BOEM is also
considering using USEPA’s term
secondary emissions (as defined in 40
CFR 51.301) in place of attributed
emissions. BOEM welcomes comment
on this question.
Paragraph 550.205(e)—Projected
Emissions (i.e., Combined Facility and
Attributed Emissions)
This paragraph is intended to provide
a detailed, consistent set of criteria to
determine what should be included in
each plan with respect to projected
emissions of facilities and MSCs.
Proposed § 550.205(e) would require a
lessee or operator to calculate the
maximum 12 month rolling sum of
projected emissions of each criteria and
major precursor air pollutant for each of
its facilities. This would represent the
sum of the facility emissions for the 12month rolling maximum period
reported under (c)(2) of this section and
attributed emissions reported under
(d)(6) of this section for the same period.
Pursuant to the criteria set forth in
proposed § 550.303(d), the lessee or
operator would also be required to
determine whether the projected air
emissions from each facility would need
to be consolidated with those of other
facilities.
If any of a lessee’s or operator’s
proposed facilities would be located in
such a manner (as defined in § 505.303)
as to potentially constitute proximate
activities with a pre-existing facility, or
a facility that was previously approved
but not yet constructed, the proposed
rule would require any such facility to
be identified in the plan. If the lessee or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
operator would be required to
consolidate emissions from multiple
facilities, then it would need to provide
projected emissions information for
each facility as well as the complex total
emissions for all of consolidated
activities.
In addition, the proposed rule would
also require every lessee or operator to
calculate and report the projected
annual emissions for its facilities for
each year in which it intends to operate,
as well as the maximum peak hourly
emissions for each facility and the
corresponding attributed emissions.
Paragraph 550.205(f)—Emission
Reduction Measures (ERM)
The purpose of this paragraph is to
describe in general terms the
information that must be included in a
plan regarding the types and purpose of
various emission reduction measures
that are proposed in a plan and what
reductions the lessee or operator expects
to achieve from these proposed
measures.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or
operator may elect to propose ERM in
its plan to ensure that its projected
emissions are under the EETs described
in proposed § 550.303. Whether an
operator elects to propose ERM or
whether the proposed rule would
require it, this section would require
that such proposed measures be
reported in the plan. This element of the
proposed rule is consistent with current
GOM Region practice. It would specify
that the lessee or operator must provide
a description of all proposed ERM,
including the affected emissions
source(s); the emissions reduction
control technologies, procedures, and/or
operational limits; the emission control
efficiencies; the projected quantity of
reductions to be achieved; and, any
monitoring or monitoring system the
submitter proposes to use to measure or
evaluate the associated emissions. The
rule would further clarify the lessee or
operator must be able to demonstrate
that all of the ERM described in the plan
meet the applicable substantive
requirements in proposed § 550.309.
BOEM expects lessees or operators are
likely to consider operational controls to
reduce emissions for many sources, for
example limiting the hours of operation,
reducing engine power, etc., in order to
bring their projected emissions within
the EETs. This proposed section would
require the application of such
operational controls to be documented
in the plan, which would require review
by the Regional Supervisor, and
approval only when the ERMs are
demonstrated to maintain and not
compromise the safety of operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19757
Other sections of the proposed rule,
such as proposed §§ 550.309 and
550.311, would subject each proposed
emission reduction measure to
monitoring, reporting, and verification.
Geological sequestration of pollutants
under the seabed is another potential
emission reduction measure that has not
yet been considered. BOEM would
welcome feedback on the extent to
which stakeholders consider this to be
a potentially viable and effective control
mechanism, either in conjunction with
or as an alternative to other measures.
Paragraph 550.205(g)—Modeling
Information
This paragraph is intended to provide
a detailed, consistent set of information
and criteria to determine what should
be included in each plan submitted to
BOEM with respect to the proposed
modeling of air emissions associated
with a plan’s projected operations.
If a lessee or operator conducts
modeling in support of its plan, then the
proposed rule would require the lessee
or operator to provide: A table(s) of the
appropriate and relevant maximum
projected air pollutant concentrations
over any area(s) of any State(s) and Class
I area(s) including the most affected
attainment area(s) and the most affected
non-attainment area(s), as applicable;
the maximum projected concentrations
resulting from the projected emissions
for each of the facilities, by criteria air
pollutant and major precursor air
pollutant, for the corresponding
averaging time(s) (e.g., 1-hour, 3-hour, 8hour, 24-hour, annual, etc.) specified in
the tables in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), 40
CFR 52.21(c), and 40 CFR part 50; a list
of the inputs, assumptions and default
values used for modeling, including the
source and justification for
meteorological information; the name
and version of the model(s) used; a
modeling report, including the
modeling results (unless already
provided and the projected emissions
are the same or lower); and, for each
MSC, the distance from the facility or
facilities in the plan to the relevant
home port or base. All of this
information is necessary so BOEM can
properly evaluate and validate the
results of the modeling.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or
operator would be required to model
projected emissions, and the lessee or
operator has previously submitted a
modeling report and/or modeling results
to the Regional Supervisor, then the
lessee or operator may provide a
reference to such report and/or results,
rather than resubmit a modeling report
and/or modeling results, provided the
projected emissions are the same or
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19758
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
lower than in the previously submitted
report(s) or results.
Paragraph 550.205(h)—Requirements
Applicable to Specific Air Pollutants
550.205(h)(1)—Nitrogen and Sulphur
Oxides (NOX and SOX)
Because the intent of the proposed
rule is to evaluate the maximum
potential effect that could occur with
respect to the implementation of any
given plan, the proposed rule would
clarify a lessee or operator must utilize
data for NOX and SOX whenever
possible or reasonable estimates thereof.
Projected emissions of NOX would need
to include emissions of nitrogen oxide
and NO2, as well as any other oxides of
nitrogen for which data are available.
Similarly, any projected emissions of
SOX would need to be reported,
including but not limited to the
emissions of SO2. Only in the event that
data on the broader emissions of NOX or
SOX are not available, would the
proposed rule specify a lessee or
operator could utilize data on the sum
of nitrogen oxide and NO2 emissions as
a substitute for NOX and data on SO2
emissions as a substitute for SOX.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
550.205(h)(2)—PM10 and PM2.5
Because the USEPA has replaced
‘‘total suspended particulates’’ with two
separate kinds of pollutants, a lessee or
operator would be required to provide
data and information on both PM10 and
PM2.5, whenever such information is
available for any given emissions
source, and to evaluate each separately
under every applicable standard in all
cases where it is possible to do so. This
should not present an issue, since the
split in the PM classification has existed
for quite a few years. Only in the rare
event that available data for PM are not
separately reported for both PM10 and
PM2.5 for any given emissions source,
would the proposed rule require lessees
and operators to perform their analysis
of PM2.5 emissions utilizing PM10 data
for the emissions threshold analysis and
for modeling purposes.
However, the proposed rule specifies
a lessee or operator must separately
identify all PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in
its plan and a plan that fails to contain
separate emission exemption threshold
and modeling data for each pollutant
will not be considered complete.
Because there are separate SILs, AAIs
and NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5, and
also because the PM2.5 evaluations
require an evaluation of the ambient
impacts of both direct and secondary
PM2.5, a plan may not be submitted that
includes and addresses only PM10
emissions. If the separate data are not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
available, the lessee or operator must
utilize the data for PM10 for its analysis
of PM2.5, (assuming the PM2.5 is as high
as the PM10).
Finally, the proposed rule clarifies
that all reporting of PM2.5 must include
the sum of filterable and condensable
PM, if such information is available, in
order to be complete.
550.205(h)(3)—Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
To properly estimate the potential
emissions of SOX under this proposed
paragraph, all emissions of SOX that
result from the flaring of H2S would
need to be included in the projected
emissions of SOX reported and analyzed
as part of each plan. Under the proposed
rule, if projected emissions of H2S will
potentially exceed the USEPA’s
Significant Emissions Rate for H2S, as
defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i), the
lessee or operator must report the nature
and extent of these emissions and their
likely impact as part of its plan.
The proposed rule would specify that
reporting of H2S would be required to
follow the USEPA’s Oil and Natural Gas
Sector New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Reviews. These are described more
specifically in ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas
Sector: New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Reviews,’’ 77 FR 49489, RIN 2060–
AP76, October 2012.
Aside from the proposed § 550.205,
BOEM is also proposing to modify
§§ 550.215 and 550.245 regarding H2S
such that if a lessee or operator proposes
to flare gasses containing a potentially
significant amount of H2S, it must
separately identify this activity in the
plan and separately identify the
resulting emissions of SOX.
550.205(h)(4)—Methane (CH4)
This rule implements BOEM’s
statutory authority under OCSLA
section 5(a)(8) to regulate OCS air
pollutant emissions from oil and gas
operations in order to prevent adverse,
localized air quality effects to adjacent
States; since there are no significant
localized air quality effects on the States
associated with the emissions of
methane from OCS facilities, BOEM is
not proposing to regulate methane
emissions in this context.
Under the proposed rule, the analysis
or reporting of methane emissions
would not be required unless
specifically directed to the contrary.
Consistent with current BOEM policy,
any reference in these proposed
regulations to major precursor air
pollutants would exclude methane,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
because the USEPA does not include
methane in the definition of VOCs and
does not require a methane analysis of
ground level ozone formation for
offshore facilities; both because methane
has not historically been considered a
significant precursor air pollutant with
respect to distances and transport times
relevant to BOEM regulation of offshore
activities; and because the USEPA has
not elected to formally classify methane
as a precursor pollutant for O3. BOEM
solicits comments on this proposed
exclusion and on how BOEM should
address the effects of methane emissions
on secondary O3 formation and under
what circumstances it would be
appropriate, in the event it decides to do
so.
550.205(h)(5)—Ozone (O3)
Over the past 35 years, extensive
scientific evidence has increasingly
demonstrated the importance of
controlling O3, and the significant
potential harm this pollutant can cause.
Additionally, as a result of
improvements to single source
photochemical modeling capabilities, it
is now possible to evaluate much more
accurately how the emissions of O3
precursors may contribute to O3
formation and how this may affect the
air quality of the States. Reflecting the
changes in the NAAQS and the
improvement in modeling capabilities
that have occurred over the past 35
years, BOEM is now proposing to
evaluate O3 directly for compliance with
the NAAQS.
The proposed rule would not
immediately require analysis or
reporting of O3. Rather, once the new
emissions exemption studies have been
completed, new EETs would likely be
established to address O3 impacts to the
State. Proposed paragraph 550.304(b)
details the circumstances when O3
modeling would be required. Comments
may be submitted as to how this would
best be accomplished and at what point
in time the implementation of these new
standards would be most appropriate.
550.205(h)(6)—Lead (Pb) and Ammonia
(NH3)
Ammonia (NH3) has been identified
as a potentially significant precursor air
pollutant for PM2.5. The proposed rule
would require reporting of NH3
emissions, for any given source, if that
information is available. Such a
determination would be based on
whether there are published
manufacturer specifications of
emissions factors for NH3, whether such
information could be obtained from the
USEPA, or whether it could be obtained
or could be derived from another
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
recognized source, such as utilizing a
mass balance approach.
Lead (Pb) is a CP for which NAAQS
have been established. For this reason,
consistent with the OCSLA mandate,
like NH3, reporting of Pb emissions
would be required to the extent relevant
information is available or could be
derived from another recognized source,
such as utilizing a mass balance
approach.
Because of BOEM’s obligation under
OCSLA to ensure compliance with the
NAAQS, BOEM is proposing that all
emissions of NAAQS pollutants should
normally be reported. If the lessee or
operator intends to use a source known
to emit a potentially significant amount
of Pb or NH3, then it must obtain a
reasonable estimate of the associated Pb
or NH3 emissions. For that reason, the
proposed rule specifies that zero
emissions for Pb and NH3 may be
assumed only in the situation where
relevant data are not available and
neither the lessee or operator nor BOEM
have a reason to anticipate that the
emissions could be potentially
significant.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.205(i)—Distance
Calculations
To determine the appropriate EET for
each facility in a plan, the proposed rule
would retain the requirement that the
lessee or operator provide the distance
in statute miles, from the shoreline,
until such time as the new thresholds
are established in 2020. Because the
proposed rule intends to retain the
current exemption methodology for a
period of time and then replace that
methodology,74 two distance measures
would be proposed in this rule. As is
currently required by BOEM
regulations, the first would be the
distance from shore, as measured in a
straight line from the site of each facility
to the closer of the mean high water
mark of a State or, on the Pacific coast,
the mean higher high water mark, or the
nearest Class I area of any State. The
second would be the distance from a
State’s seaward boundary. For each
facility described in the plan, the lessee
or operator would be required to
calculate and provide the distance in
74 As discussed in the context of proposed
§ 550.303(c), the proposed rule would continue to
retain the shoreline as the point at which emissions
are evaluated until such time as the new scientific
studies have been completed and new exemption
thresholds have been defined. At that time, BOEM
would evaluate all emissions at the SSB and any
facility that generates emissions in excess of a SIL
at the SSB would have to apply ERM. For this
reason, the distance calculation used by the
exemption formulas would be the distance to shore,
in the first instance, and the distance would be the
distance to the SSB, in the second instance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
statute miles, as measured in a straight
line from the site of the facility to the
closest point at which the OCS borders
any State, at the seaward boundary.
Paragraph 550.205(j)—Documentation
Unlike the current regulations, which
do not specify any documentation or
data retention requirements, the
proposed rule outlines the data and
recordkeeping requirements BOEM
proposes to require to facilitate BOEM’s
evaluation and review of each plan and
the corresponding operational activities
that result from each plan. This
information would be used to verify
compliance with BOEM regulatory
requirements and to ensure that
compliance with such requirements
continues on an ongoing basis.
The proposed rule would require
lessees or operators to collect, create,
and maintain records or any data or
information establishing, substantiating,
and verifying the basis for all
information, data, and resources used to
calculate their projected emissions
under proposed section 550.205. The
proposed rule would require
documentation of the emissions factors
used and retention of any appropriate
certifications, citations, methods, and
procedures used to obtain or develop
emission factors. The proposed rule
would require collection and
maintenance of all documentation
pertaining to the modeling analysis, if
applicable, including all references and
copies of any referenced materials, as
well as any data or information related
to any ERM lessees or operators propose
or implement. Under the proposed rule,
all such information would need to be
provided to BOEM, though the Regional
Supervisor would be able to waive this
requirement for good cause or if BOEM
is able to obtain the necessary
information from an independent
source.
Paragraph 550.205(k)—Compliance
With Subpart C
The proposed rule would require
lessees and operators to provide a
description of how they will comply
with proposed section 550.303 when the
projected emissions generated by the
proposed plan activities exceed the
respective EETs. The proposed rule
would require lessees and operators to
make this determination using the
formulas in proposed paragraph
550.303(c). If the lessee or operator
would be subject to the requirement to
monitor and report its actual emissions
in accordance with section 550.311,
then the description must address how
it proposes to monitor its emissions.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19759
Paragraph 550.205(l)—Reporting
The proposed rule would require
lessees and operators to submit data and
information in a format and using the
forms specified by BOEM. They would
be required to submit information in an
electronically-readable spreadsheet,
such as a Microsoft Excel file on a
compact disc, unless otherwise directed
by the Regional Supervisor. The
purpose of this requirement is to
facilitate the evaluation of data by
automated processes and systems.
Under the current arrangement, data are
submitted to BOEM in approved Excel
spreadsheets. Although the proposed
rule does not specify a specific format
for electronic forms, it is likely the
current spreadsheets will continue to be
used for the foreseeable future.75
The USEPA is currently working on
an E-Enterprise solution for emissions
data collection, whereby facilities (or
companies) would report emissions data
through a central place for distribution
to USEPA, the States, and others. Since
BOEM is proposing direct facility
reporting as well, BOEM may elect to
partner on this E-Enterprise solution for
supporting BOEM’s needs alongside
those of the USEPA. This approach may
be more efficient both for the regulated
entities as well as for USEPA and BOEM
to use and share the data. BOEM
welcomes comment on this alternative
and whether there may be any
impediments or complications should
BOEM wish to move in this direction.
If lessees and operators elect to
transmit the information to BOEM
electronically, such as by email, then
they would be required to use a delivery
medium or transmission method
authorized by BOEM. The purpose of
this requirement is to ensure any data or
information provided to BOEM is
provided in a secure and safe manner
and such information is not submitted
in a way (e.g., email) that could be
intercepted or manipulated by third
parties. DOI has established standards
and requirements for the secure
transmission of data on an approved
technology platform and BOEM intends
to adhere to DOI requirements (although
it may do so using a BOEM-specific
transmission mechanism, such as the
Technical Information Management
System Web-based application,
abbreviated TIMS-Web).
75 Currently, BOEM utilizes OMB-approved forms
BOEM–0134 and BOEM–0135 for this purpose. The
forms are being revised in connection with this
rulemaking. BOEM also solicits comments on the
proposed new forms, in terms of their usefulness,
readability, complexity and completeness.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19760
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 550.205(m)—Additional
Information
Section 550.211—What must the EP
include?
landward of the SSB, not only onshore,
as is currently the case.
Proposed § 550.205(m) would set out
the circumstances under which a lessee
or operator would be required to
include information about emissions
from aircraft and from those onshore
support facilities for which the lessee or
operator does not have an USEPA or
State agency air quality permit (i.e., ‘‘a
non-permitted onshore facility’’). The
proposed requirement would be
triggered when the modeling of air
emissions indicates that a plan’s
proposed emissions would cause an
increase in the ambient air quality at
any receptor location that exceeds 95%
of a SIL. If an operator or lessee would
be required to report emissions from any
aircraft or non-permitted onshore
support facilities and they support
multiple OCS facilities, the lessee or
operator would be required to allocate
their emissions in an appropriate
manner similar to that described for
MSCs. Under such circumstances, a
lessee or operator would be required to
include such emissions in the
information required under proposed
section 550.205 and proposed subpart C.
The proposed rule would also permit
the Regional Supervisor to require such
additional data or information related to
these sources as is necessary to
demonstrate the plan’s compliance with
subpart C of this part, and/or applicable
federal laws related to the protection of
air quality within BOEM jurisdiction.
Paragraph 550.211(c)—Drilling Unit
Paragraph 550.215(e)—Hydrogen
Sulfide
As explained above in the discussion
of § 550.205, the proposed rule would
amend this section and section 245 by
adding a paragraph in each to specify
flaring of any gasses containing a
potentially significant amount of H2S
would be required to be separately
identified in the plan, along with the
resulting emissions of SOX.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.205(n)—Requirements for
Plans To Be Deemed Submitted
In order for a plan to be deemed
submitted, all of the required air quality
data and information would be required
to be submitted to BOEM in accordance
with the requirements of this part.
BOEM would not initiate its review of
the air quality component of any plan
until all of the necessary information
and documentation is complete. To
facilitate this, the proposed rule would
specify that a plan would not be deemed
submitted in accordance with the
requirements of § 550.231 or 550.266 of
this part until:
(1) All of the requirements of this
section have been completed;
(2) The lessee, or operator, has
completed the AAI analysis as specified
in § 550.307(b) of this part, if it is
required; and
(3) The lessee, or operator, has
completed any other analysis required
by subpart C of this part.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
The current regulation at § 550.211(c)
includes a provision that requires a
description of the ‘‘fuels, oil and
lubricants that will be stored on the
facility.’’ The regulations state the word
‘‘facility’’ is defined in § 550.105.
However, the section to which the
current regulations refer no longer exists
in BOEM’s regulations. That provision
was originally in the regulations
administered by BOEM’s predecessor
before it was divided into BOEM and
BSEE, and was subsequently moved into
the BSEE regulations at § 250.105.
The original definition of the term
‘‘facility,’’ to which the references in
§§ 550.211 and 550.241 refer, was: ‘‘a
vessel, a structure, or an artificial island
used for drilling, well completion, wellworkover, or production operations.’’
Because this definition of facility no
longer exists, BOEM is proposing to add
this definition back into §§ 550.211 and
550.241 where its use remains
applicable, with minor modifications for
clarity. No substantive change to
§ 550.211 or 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the
term facility would mean any
installation, structure, vessel, vehicle,
equipment or device that is temporarily
or permanently attached to the seabed of
the OCS, including an artificial island
used for drilling, well completion, wellworkover, or other operations.
Section 550.212—What information
must accompany the EP?
This section describes the information
that must be included in an EP. The
change to the proposed rule for this
section would update the crossreference in § 550.212(f) from §§ 550.218
to 550.205, since the air quality
requirements of § 550.218 are proposed
to be relocated there.
Section 550.215—What hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) information must
accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.215(d)(2)—Hydrogen
Sulfide
Under the proposed rule, if the H2S
emissions are projected to affect any
location within a State in a
concentration greater than 10 parts per
million, the modeling analysis would
need to be consistent with the USEPA
risk management plan methodologies
outlined in 40 CFR part 68. The only
change made with this revision would
be that the concentration of 10 parts per
million would be measured at any point
within the State including any point
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Section 550.218—What air emissions
reporting must accompany the plan?—
Removed and Reserved
Sections 550.218 and 550.249 in the
current regulations set forth the air
quality reporting requirements of
subpart B for exploration plans and
development plans, respectively. All of
the substantive requirements from these
two sections would be consolidated into
the new proposed section 550.205 and
modified as discussed above.
Accordingly, §§ 550.218 and 550.249
would become reserved.
Section 550.224—What information on
support vessels, offshore vehicles, and
aircraft must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.224(a)—General
Current regulations require plans to
include a description of the vessels,
offshore vehicles, and aircraft lessees
and operators would use to support
their exploration activities (§ 550.224(a))
or their development and production
activities (§ 550.257(a)). The proposed
rule would reword paragraph (a) of the
proposed sections for clarity and to
incorporate the term MSC, proposed for
definition in this rule, but the meaning
and intent of these paragraphs would
not be changed. The proposed rule
would retain the current requirement to
include in the description an estimate of
the storage capacity of the fuel tanks
and the frequency of visits to the
facilities in connection with any
proposed activities.
Paragraph 550.224(b)—Air Emissions
Paragraph (b) of both the current
paragraphs (§§ 550.224(b) and
550.257(b)) requires plans to include
information regarding air emissions
from vessels, vehicles, and aircraft
described in the plan. The proposed
rule would replace this paragraph with
a cross-reference to proposed § 550.205.
That proposed section, described above,
would provide details about what
emissions information for MSCs must be
included in a plan. However, that
proposed section would not generally
require information on aircraft
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
emissions. As explained above, aircraft
emissions contribute only a small
fraction of emissions, and aircraft
emissions information is especially
burdensome to collect. Accordingly,
BOEM believes it is not prudent to
require lessees and operators report
aircraft emissions in most cases. The
proposed rule would normally only
require general information about
aircraft used in a plan under proposed
paragraph (a), since it is necessary for
the Regional Supervisor to verify
whether emissions from these sources
may contribute to exceeding an
emission exemption threshold or an
AAQBS. In some limited circumstances,
where the emissions of aircraft may be
determinative of whether the plan does
or does not cause a significant impact to
any State or tribe, the reporting of
aircraft emissions may be required, as
described in proposed § 550.205(m).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 550.225—What information on
the onshore support facilities must
accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.225(b)—Air Emissions
The current paragraph (b) of both
§§ 550.225 and 550.258 requires lessees
and operators to provide in their plans
a description of the source,
composition, frequency, and duration of
the air emissions likely to be generated
by the relevant onshore support
facilities. The proposed rule would not
substantively change this requirement,
but the proposed rule would revise it for
clarity. The proposed rule would delete
the parenthetical text in the current
paragraphs—‘‘attributable to your
proposed exploration activities’’ and
‘‘attributable to your proposed
development and production
activities’’—in order to avoid confusion
with the use of the term ‘‘attributed
emissions’’ in proposed § 550.205.
The proposed rule would limit the
current requirement for onshore
emissions sources in order to reduce
unnecessary reporting and focus
reporting requirements on areas with
the greatest potential impact. BOEM
currently requires reporting of onshore
support facility emissions as may be
necessary for the Regional Supervisor to
determine whether emissions from these
sources may contribute to exceeding an
EET or an AAQSB, as described in the
preamble section on proposed
§ 550.205(m). This requirement in the
current regulations is based on the
premise that there may be some
circumstances where the amount of air
pollution generated by onshore support
facilities, taken in conjunction with the
offshore emissions associated with OCS
operations, could have a potentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
significant impact to the air quality of
the States. However, BOEM believes
that the requirement can be made more
appropriately tailored to limit
unnecessary reporting, while still
incorporating select onshore emissions
information in appropriate
circumstances. As described more fully
in the preamble discussion of proposed
§ 550.205(m), the proposed rule would
collect information on onshore support
emissions if two specific criteria are
both met: (1) If a plan which is already
required to conduct modeling results in
incremental increases in concentration
of a pollutant that are greater than 95
percent of the value of a SIL (this is the
same criteria that applies to the
inclusion of aircraft); and (2) if the
relevant onshore support facilities are
not already permitted by the USEPA or
a relevant State authority. The goal of
this proposed provision is to
incorporate significant data that may
contribute to OCS permitted activity
affecting the air quality of the states but
to avoid collecting unnecessary
information. BOEM solicits comments
on this proposal, both with respect to
whether gathering data on onshore
support facilities is necessary and/or
appropriate and what criteria should be
used to determine the circumstances
under which data about onshore
support facility emissions should be
collected.
BOEM uses the information that
would be required in this paragraph for
the analysis of cumulative impacts it
performs under NEPA. The proposed
rule would also provide that the
information regarding onshore support
facilities would only be required by
BOEM if it is not available from another
agency. BOEM can obtain some of the
information for proposed and existing
onshore support facilities for use in its
NEPA or other environmental analyses
through the USEPA or other air quality
agencies.
BOEM solicits comments on what
types of onshore facilities should be
identified and reported with respect to
their air emissions and how best to
evaluate their emissions in the context
of the AQRP.
Section 550.241—What must the DPP or
DOCD include?
Paragraph 550.241(c)—Drilling Unit and
Paragraph 550.241(d)—Production
Facilities
The change proposed here is
analogous to the change proposed at
§ 550.211. The current regulations at
§ 550.241(c) and (d) include provisions
that require a description of drilling
units and production facilities in a DPP
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19761
or DOCD. This description includes
‘‘fuels, oil and lubricants that will be
stored on the facility’’ or ‘‘the estimated
maximum quantity of fuels and oil that
will be stored on the facility,’’
respectively. The current regulations
state the word ‘‘facility’’ is defined in
§ 550.105(3). However, the section to
which the current regulation refers no
longer exists in BOEM’s regulations.
That provision was originally in
BOEM’s predecessor’s regulations before
it was divided into BOEM and BSEE
and was subsequently moved into the
BSEE regulations at § 250.105.
The original definition of the term
facility, to which the reference in
§ 550.241 refers, was: ‘‘a vessel, a
structure, or an artificial island used for
drilling, well completion, wellworkover, or production operations.’’
Because this definition of facility no
longer exists, BOEM is proposing to add
this definition back into § 550.211(c)
and in § 550.241, with minor
modifications for clarity. No substantive
change to § 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the
term facility would mean any
installation, structure, vessel, vehicle,
equipment or device that is temporarily
or permanently attached to the seabed of
the OCS, including an artificial island
used for drilling, well completion, wellworkover, or other operations.
Section 550.242—What information
must accompany the DPP or DOCD?
This section describes the information
that would be required to be included
in a DPP or DOCD. The change to the
proposed rule for this section would
update the cross-reference in
§ 550.212(g) from §§ 550.249 to 550.205,
since the air quality requirements of
§ 550.249 are proposed to be relocated
there.
Section 550.245—What hydrogen
sulfide (H2S) information must
accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.245(d)(3)—Hydrogen
Sulfide Emissions
See the discussion for § 550.215(d)(2).
Paragraph 550.245(e)—Hydrogen
Sulfide
See the discussion for § 550.215(e).
Section 550.249—What air emissions
reporting must accompany the plan?
See the discussion for § 550.218.
Section 550.257—What information on
support vessels, offshore vehicles, and
aircraft must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.257(a)—General and
Paragraph 550.257(b)—Air Emissions
See the discussion for § 550.224.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19762
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Section 550.258—What information on
the onshore support facilities must
accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.258(b)—Air Emissions
See the discussion for § 550.225.
Section 550.280—How must I conduct
activities under the approved EP, DPP,
DOCD, RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease
term pipeline application?
The proposed rule would modify the
title of this proposed section from ‘‘How
must I conduct activities under the
approved EP, DPP, or DOCD?’’ to ‘‘How
must I conduct activities under the
approved EP, DPP, DOCD or RUE,
pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline
application?’’ In addition, the proposed
rule would modify paragraph (a) of the
current regulations, which specifies that
a lessee or operator must conduct all of
its activities in accordance with an
approved EP, DPP, or DOCD and any
approval conditions. This provision
would be modified to clarify that a
lessee or operator may not install or use
any facility, equipment, vessel, vehicle,
or other emissions source not described
in the approved EP, DPP, DOCD, or
application for RUE, pipeline ROW, or
lease term pipeline and that a lessee or
operator may not install or use a
substitute for any emissions source
described in an EP, DPP, DOCD, or
application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or
lease term pipeline without prior BOEM
approval.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 550.284—How will BOEM
require revisions to the approved EP,
DPP, DOCD, or application for a RUE?
Paragraph 550.284(a)—Periodic Review
The proposed rule would modify the
title of the section from ‘‘How will
BOEM require revisions to the approved
EP, DPP, or DOCD’’ to ‘‘How will BOEM
require revisions to the approved EP,
DPP, DOCD or application for a RUE?’’
Paragraph (a) of the current section
specifies the Regional Supervisor will
periodically review the activities
conducted under an approved EP, DPP,
or DOCD and the frequency and extent
of this review is based upon changes to
‘‘available information and onshore or
offshore conditions.’’ The proposal
would modify this paragraph to clarify
that the frequency and extent of the
review may be based on any changes in
applicable law or regulation as well.
Existing § 550.284(b) allows the
Regional Supervisor to require
modifications to plans based on such a
review. The proposed rule would not
change this paragraph. As discussed
below, proposed § 550.310(c) would
complement the proposed change to
§ 550.284(a) by making explicit that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Regional Supervisor may require a
lessee or operator to submit a revised
plan when an applicable AAQSB
changes. BOEM does not anticipate that
it would invoke this provision except in
extraordinary circumstances and, even
under those extraordinary
circumstances, it would rarely, if ever,
require the resubmission of a plan under
this provision more frequently than
every ten years.
other CPs and precursor pollutants
would also not be defined in the
regulations and because BOEM applies
the common meaning of this term, as
used by the USEPA and other federal
agencies.
C. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart C
Subpart C is being replaced in its
entirety with a new subpart C dedicated
to air pollution prevention and control.
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
AQCR would be newly defined to
mean ‘‘an interstate area or major
intrastate area, which the USEPA deems
appropriate for assessing the regional
attainment and maintenance of the
primary or secondary national ambient
air quality standards described in 42
U.S.C. 7409, as identified under 40 CFR
part 81, subparts A and B, Designation
of Air Quality Control Regions.’’
Section 550.301—Under what
circumstances does this subpart apply
to operations in my plan?
This section would specify that the
proposed subpart applies to those areas
of the OCS where DOI has authority to
regulate air emissions pursuant to
section 5(a)(8) of the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8), as amended, and jurisdiction
pursuant to section 328(b) of the CAA,
42 U.S.C. 7627(b), as amended. This
section explains the proposed subpart
would apply to all plans related to
facilities on the relevant areas of the
OCS, regardless of the type of plan (EP,
DPP, or DOCD or application for a RUE,
pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline).
The section would also state that the
subpart covers existing facilities in the
relevant areas.
Section 550.302—Acronyms and
Definitions Concerning Air Quality
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule
would update the acronym list used to
identify those acronyms that are
relevant to the proposed rule. In
addition, the proposed rule would
clarify that the definitions proposed to
be added or revised in proposed
§ 550.302 are meant to apply only to
§ 550.205 of subpart B and all of subpart
C.
Deleted Definitions
The following three terms in the
current definitions § 550.302 would be
removed from the list of definitions in
proposed § 550.302: ‘‘source,’’
‘‘temporary facility,’’ and ‘‘volatile
organic compound.’’ The proposed rule
would move the term ‘‘source,’’
renamed ‘‘emissions source,’’ from
§ 550.302 into proposed § 550.105,
because it would be used in portions of
part 550 outside of subpart C. The term
‘‘temporary facility’’ would be replaced
with a new term ‘‘short-term facility’’
(although the meaning and purpose of
the term would be similar). The
proposed rule would not define the term
‘‘volatile organic compound,’’ since
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
New or Revised Definitions
Paragraph (b) would list the
definitions used in subpart C, as
follows.
Ambient Air Increments (AAIs)
AAIs would be newly defined to
mean ‘‘the national standards for
Ambient Air Increments set out in the
table in 40 CFR 52.21(c), as amended.’’
These are national ambient air
benchmarks that represent the
maximum increase in pollutant
concentrations allowed for an onshore
area of a State designated by the USEPA
as a Class I, Class II, or Class III area.
Depending on the level of the AAIs,
various ERM may be required by BOEM
under subpart C. In the current BOEM
regulations, the AAIs are referred to as
the MACIs, as set out in the table in the
current regulation at 30 CFR 550.302.
Ambient Air Standards and Benchmarks
(AAQSB)
AAQSB would be newly defined to
refer collectively to all of the standards
and benchmarks referenced in this
proposed subpart. These would include
the SILs, in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)
(pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.); the
AAIs, as set out in the table in 40 CFR
52.21(c) (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7473);
and the primary and secondary NAAQS
defined in 40 CFR part 50 (pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 7409).
Attainment Area
The current regulations define this
term in § 550.302, and the proposed rule
would revise the definition. The
proposed rule would modify the
definition of attainment area to mean
‘‘for any given criteria air pollutant, a
geographic area, which is not designated
by the USEPA as being a designated
non-attainment area, as codified at 40
CFR part 81 subpart C.’’ Thus, any area
not specifically listed by the USEPA as
a designated non-attainment area would
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
be classified as an attainment area under
this proposed rule, including areas that
the USEPA’s regulations refer to as
attainment, maintenance, unclassifiable,
or unclassifiable/attainment as well as
areas that have not yet been designated
because the two-year period to complete
such designations after revision of a
NAAQS has not yet passed. The
proposed definition would also clarify
that the same area may constitute an
attainment area for one criteria air
pollutant and a designated nonattainment area for another criteria air
pollutant (see definition of nonattainment area). Second, because there
may be multiple NAAQS averaging
times for each CP, any given area may
be attainment for one pollutant for one
averaging time and non-attainment for
the same pollutant over a different
averaging time. Third, this definition
would clarify that the term attainment
area, as used by BOEM, is intended to
include onshore unclassifiable areas
(i.e., areas that cannot be classified as
attainment or designated nonattainment areas) or any other areas that
the USEPA has not explicitly classified
as designated non-attainment.
Attributed Emissions
This new term would be defined to
mean ‘‘for any given criteria or
precursor air pollutant the emissions
from MSCs, operating above the OCS or
State submerged lands, that are
attributed to a facility pursuant to the
methodology set forth in § 550.205(d),
for the period over which the
corresponding facility emissions are
measured.’’ BOEM intends for this
proposed definition to encompass the
emissions that are generated from nonstationary sources that support a planrelated facility and must be evaluated in
connection with the air quality
component of the plan review. The
specific requirements for calculating
attributed emissions are set out in
proposed § 550.205(d).
Given that BOEM is proposing to
provide various alternative methods to
calculate attributed emissions, it may be
possible these alternatives could yield
slightly different overall results and the
option chosen may not result in the
highest potential calculation of
attributed emissions that might be
derived. Providing for these alternative
methods reflects the reality that all
relevant or necessary data may not be
available to a lessee or operator at the
time its plan is prepared and submitted
to BOEM. Regardless of the ultimate
method used to allocate MSC emissions
and derive attributed emissions,
however, no lessee or operator will be
allowed to emit air pollutants in an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
amount that exceeds what was approved
in its plan and a lessee or operator
generating emissions in excess of its
plan approval could be subject to
sanctions, including potential shut-in
for a violation. In addition, under this
proposed rule, there are specific
monitoring and record-keeping
provisions that would be added to
ensure ongoing compliance with the
proposed regulations. For this reason,
BOEM anticipates that lessees or
operators will be conservative in
emissions allocations.
Background Concentration
This new term would be defined to
mean ‘‘the ambient air concentration of
any given criteria air pollutant that
arises both from local natural processes
and from the transport into the airshed
of natural or anthropogenic pollutants
originating locally or from another
location, either as measured from an
USEPA-approved air monitoring system
or as determined on some other
appropriate scientifically justified basis,
as approved by BOEM.’’ The
background concentration of a pollutant
represents the concentration of any
given pollutant that is present prior to
the establishment of operations related
to a proposed facility.
Evaluating compliance with the
NAAQS requires the consideration of
two factors, (1) the background
concentration of any given pollutant at
the point of measurement, and (2) the
contribution to the concentration that
would be generated as a result of the
facility being proposed. The incremental
amount of the pollutant that is
contributed by the operations associated
with a plan is added to the background
concentration of that pollutant in order
to determine the amount of pollution
that would exist as a result of the
implementation of the proposed plan.
The sum of the background
concentration for any given pollutant
and the incremental amount of the
pollutant resulting from the
implementation of the proposed plan is
referred to as the design concentration
of that pollutant. That design
concentration represents the value that
is compared to the NAAQS in order to
determine whether or not the plan, if
implemented as proposed, would cause
an exceedance.
Baseline Concentration
The term baseline concentration
would be defined as the ambient
background concentration of any given
air pollutant which exists or existed at
the time of the first application for a
USEPA PSD permit in an area subject to
sec. 169 of the CAA, based on air quality
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19763
data available to the USEPA or a State
air pollution control agency and on the
monitoring data provided in the permit
application. The proposed definition
would also state that the baseline
concentration is distinguished from the
background concentration in that the
background concentration changes
continually over time to reflect the
current ambient air concentration for
any given air pollutant, whereas the
baseline concentration remains fixed
until such time as a new AAI is
established for an attainment area. The
difference between the current
background concentration and the
baseline concentration represents the
change in actual concentration of a
given pollutant in a relevant area caused
by natural and/or anthropogenic (i.e.,
other stationary and non-stationary)
sources that began operations after the
date the baseline concentration was
established.
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)
This term would be revised from the
definition that exists in the current
regulation. The proposed rule would
define BACT to mean ‘‘a physical or
mechanical system or device that
reduces emissions of air pollutants
subject to regulation to the maximum
extent practicable, taking into account
(1) the amount of emissions reductions
necessary to meet specific regulatory
provisions; (2) energy, environmental,
and economic impacts; and (3) costs.’’
This proposed definition and usage of
the term would differ from that of the
USEPA, because the USEPA’s use of
BACT refers to changes made in
connection with the USEPA’s permit
process under the CAA, and BOEM does
not issue air quality permits, nor does
it make determinations of BACT
pursuant to the CAA. Rather, BOEM
requires (and is proposing to continue
requiring) BACT in its review and
approval of plans for which modeling
has demonstrated that projected
emissions may cause or contribute to an
exceedance of an applicable AAQSB or
a violation of the NAAQS.
In addition, BOEM and the USEPA
differ in their requirements for BACT,
primarily due to the difference in their
respective regulatory frameworks.
BOEM reviews the BACT alternatives as
part of its AQRP, under both the current
regulation and the proposed rule
prospectively, determining in advance
of the facility installation what form of
BACT is appropriate. The USEPA also
evaluates BACT prospectively, but the
CAA also specifies, among other
requirements, that BACT cannot be less
stringent than any applicable standard
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19764
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
of performance under the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) (42
U.S.C. 7479(3)). Therefore, although
BOEM looks to USEPA practices when
evaluating control technologies, due to
the unique nature of the OCS, BOEM
also exercises independent judgment on
what constitutes BACT and how it
should be applied. This definition also
clarifies that BACT, as used in this rule,
is intended to refer to physical or
mechanical controls (i.e., changes to the
equipment and technology), in contrast
to operational controls that would
primarily involve changes in the ways
that equipment is operated (rather than
changes to the equipment itself).
With reference to ‘‘the maximum
extent practicable,’’ under certain
circumstances, VOCs must be fully
reduced to a rate at or below the EETs
(including through the use of BACT)
whether or not such a reduction would
be considered practicable, unless
emissions credits can be applied (see
§ 550.303(f)). In other words, under
some circumstances a plan could not be
approved because the level of VOC
emissions would be too high, regardless
of whether some ‘‘practical’’ method
were available and if available was
proposed to be applied to mitigate or
reduce the emissions. In that rare
instance, the only acceptable means to
obtain approval of the plan would be for
the lessee or operator to obtain
emissions credits to offset the effects of
the excessive VOC emissions.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I Area
The current regulations use this term
but do not define it. Because it is used
more broadly in the proposed rule,
BOEM proposes to define it in the
regulations. The proposed rule would
define this term to mean ‘‘an area
designated by the USEPA, a State, or a
Federally-recognized Indian tribe,
where visibility and air emissions are
protected by a Federal Land Manager,
and protected to standards more
stringent than the NAAQS pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 7472(a) or 7474, as
amended; 76 Class I areas include
international parks and certain national
parks, wilderness areas, national
monuments, and areas of special
national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value.’’
Congress has established a program to
designate specific areas of the country
as Class I areas, and the USEPA defines
these areas in its regulations at 40 CFR
part 81 subpart D. Several tribes have
76 The USEPA’s guidance to tribes on Class I redesignations is available here: https://www3.epa.gov/
air/tribal/pdfs/
GuidanceTribesClassIRedesignationCAA.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
also requested USEPA to redesignate
their lands from Class II to Class I to
provide additional air quality
protection.77
Class II Area
Like the term ‘‘Class I area,’’ the
current regulations use ‘‘Class II areas’’
but do not define the term. The
proposed rule would define Class II area
to mean ‘‘an attainment area designated
by the USEPA, a State, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe, that is protected
less stringently than a Class I area.’’ A
Sensitive Class II area classification
indicates a place the Clean Air Act
would allow a moderate change in the
air quality, but where stringent air
quality constraints are nevertheless
desired. This classification is less
stringent than for a Class I area, which
describes a place where minimal air
quality degradation would be allowed,
and more stringent than that of a Class
III area, which indicates a place where
substantial industrial or other growth
would be allowed. Sensitive Class II
areas (see definition of this term, below)
represent a subset or sub-classification
of Class II areas that are defined by
federal land management agencies as
federal lands where the protection of air
resources has been prioritized, as
specified in acts, regulations, planning
documents, or by policy.
Complex Total Emissions
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘the sum of the
facility emissions that would result from
all of the facilities that have been
aggregated for the purposes of
evaluating their potential consolidated
impact on air quality, pursuant to the
methodology set forth in § 550.303(d),
and the sum of all corresponding
attributed emissions for those facilities.’’
For the purposes of calculating complex
total emissions, such emissions could
include the emissions from pipeline
vessels, bury barges, and lay barges
during those periods of time while they
are temporarily connected to the seabed
on the OCS as long as these vessels meet
the other requirements for complex total
emissions consolidation. The proposed
requirement to consolidate air emissions
from multiple facilities in certain
circumstances is described in more
detail at the discussion of proposed
§ 550.303(d).
77 For example, the Northern Cheyenne
Reservation, the Flathead Indian Reservation, the
Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Spokane Indian
Reservation and the Forest County Potawatomi
Community Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.1382(c),
52.2497(c) and 52.2581(f).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Criteria Air Pollutant or Criteria
Pollutant
Criteria air pollutants are those
pollutants for which the USEPA sets
NAAQS. The proposed rule would add
this new term (also referred to as criteria
pollutant) (CP) to the proposed
definitions section and would be
defined to mean ‘‘any one of the
principal pollutants for which the
USEPA has established and maintains a
NAAQS under 40 CFR part 50 and in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7409, as
amended, for the protection of public
health and welfare.’’ The proposed rule
clarifies that the USEPA has established
primary standards for the protection of
public health, including sensitive
populations, and it has established
secondary standards for the protection
of public welfare from adverse effect,
including those related to effects on
vegetation, ecosystems, and visibility.
The proposed rule would clarify criteria
air pollutants do not include VOCs or
any other precursor air pollutant not
already regulated under the NAAQS.
Precursor pollutants are defined under
the definition of precursor air pollutant
or precursor pollutant as explained later
in this rulemaking.
The proposed rule would define CP so
it has the identical meaning as used by
the USEPA. In those situations where
BOEM intends for the proposed rule to
refer only to CPs rather than all air
pollutants, it has drafted the proposed
rule so it specifically uses the term
‘‘criteria pollutant.’’
Design Concentration
The proposed rule would define
design concentration to mean ‘‘the
pollutant concentration at a given
location projected, through computersimulated air dispersion or
photochemical modeling, as described
under 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
section 7.2.1.1 to result from your
projected emissions, combined with the
background concentration for the same
pollutant, averaging time, and statistical
form at the most appropriate receptor
location.’’ Each NAAQS has both an
averaging time and a statistical form.
The statistical form tells how the
concentration level would be violated.
For instance, the ‘‘statistical form’’ of
the annual NO2 NAAQS is the annual
mean measured over three years.
The design concentration of any given
CP is compared against the NAAQS in
order to determine whether or not the
activities in a proposed plan, together
with the background concentrations,
would exceed any NAAQS at any point
landward of the SSB. The appropriate
background concentration is measured
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
from the nearest point at which there is
data from an USEPA-approved air
monitoring system, or as determined on
some other appropriate scientifically
justified basis approved by BOEM. The
design concentration of any given CP is
compared against the NAAQS in order
to determine whether or not the
activities in a proposed plan would
cause the concentration of that pollutant
at any point landward of the SSB to
exceed the level of the NAAQS. This
approach takes into consideration the
pre-existing ambient air concentration
of that criteria air pollutant (i.e., the
background concentration), as well as
the increment added as a result of the
emissions generated by operations
associated with the proposed plan, in
determining what the impact of the
plan’s emissions will likely be at any
given location.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dispersion Modeling
This new term would be defined to
mean ‘‘the mathematical computer
simulation of air emissions being
transported from a source through the
atmosphere under given meteorological
conditions. Emissions from sources,
expressed as the rate of air pollutants
emitted over time (i.e., pounds per
hour), are translated through computer
modeling into pollutant concentrations,
expressed in units of micrograms of
pollutants per cubic meter of ambient
air (mg/m3), or in parts per million or
billion, depending on the
circumstances.’’
The dispersion model must take
various factors into account, including
the amount of air emissions generated
by the proposed facility and the relevant
meteorological conditions that would
apply at the proposed facility site, the
nearby coast, and over submerged State
lands. The proposed rule would clarify
that when a file containing
meteorological and emissions data are
evaluated, the computer model is used
to project the concentrations of the
pollutants at a receptor location.
Under the proposed subpart C of this
part (‘‘Air Quality Analysis, Control,
and Compliance’’), in the event that
proposed operations exceed EETs,
results of dispersion and photochemical
modeling would be used to project the
potential for a source to have a
significant adverse effect on the air
quality of a State onshore or at the SSB,
and to discern whether the control of an
individual emission source would have
the desired effect of reducing the
emissions’ impact for compliance with
the AAQSB.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Emission Control Efficiency (ECE)
This new term would be defined to
mean the effectiveness of ERM for any
given emissions source and air
pollutant. The greater the emission
control efficiency (ECE), the greater the
relative effectiveness of the underlying
controls. ECE measures effectiveness on
a relative basis (i.e., as a percent of the
pollution being reduced), rather than in
absolute terms (i.e., the total reduction
in the annual tonnage of the pollutant
emitted). ECE varies from 100%,
representing a control that completely
eliminates emissions, to zero,
representing a control that has no effect
on such emissions. The proposed rule
would describe the requirements
relating to ECE at proposed § 550.309.
Emissions Credits
The proposed rule would supplement
the use of the term ‘‘emissions offsets’’
with the broader term ‘‘emissions
credits.’’ Emissions credits include
emissions offsets as a subset. Emissions
credits represent emissions reductions
from emission sources that have nothing
to do with the proposed plan or any
facility or MSC associated with the plan.
The definition of this term would be
revised to mean ‘‘emissions reductions
from an emissions source(s) not
associated with the plan that are
intended to compensate for the
excessive emissions of criteria or
precursor air pollutants, regardless of
whether these emissions credits are
acquired from an emissions source(s)
located either offshore or onshore,
including: (1) Emissions offsets
generated by the lessee or operator
directly; or (2) emissions offsets
acquired from a third party; or (3)
trading allowances or other alternative
emission reduction method(s) or
system(s) associated with a marketbased trading mechanism, such as a
mitigation bank, or through other
market oriented or competitive markets
where these assets are exchanged.’’
Emissions credits are intended to
compensate for excessive emissions
associated with any given plan. The
new term ‘‘emissions credits’’ is
intended to have broader application
than the existing defined term
‘‘emissions offsets.’’ The proposed
definition is intended to account for any
reduction in emissions from an
emission source not associated with the
plan, whereas the existing definition
only includes reductions from facilities.
The proposed defined term is used in
subpart C to reflect a proposed change
whereby an emissions reductions of an
equivalent amount would be allowed in
lieu of BACT or other emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19765
reductions measures, regardless of
whether such reductions are achieved
on sources owned by the lessee or
operator or a third-party or regardless of
whether the reduction is obtained
through the use of a market-based
trading mechanism, such as a mitigation
bank. USEPA operates a number of
multi-State market-based emissions
trading programs. Because these
programs have broad geographic
coverage, purchase of allowances from
one of these programs would not be
certain to reduce emissions from
sources in any particular AQCR. The
intent of the proposed requirement is
that the purchase of emissions credits
result in actual emissions reductions in
the affected State. Consequently, such
multi-State trading programs might not
be an appropriate source of emission
credits under the proposed rule.
Emission Exemption Thresholds (EET)
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean ‘‘the maximum allowable
rate of projected emissions, calculated
for each air pollutant, expressed as short
tons per year, above which facilities
would be subject to the requirement to
perform modeling.’’ The emission
exemption threshold formulas are in
proposed § 550.303.
Emissions Factor(s)
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean a value that relates the
quantity of a specific air pollutant
released into the atmosphere with the
operation of a particular emissions
source. The proposed rule would clarify
emissions factors are usually expressed
as the mass of pollutant generated from
each unit (e.g., mass, volume, distance,
work, or duration) of activity by the
emissions source emitting the pollutant.
Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM)
The proposed rule would define
emission reduction measure(s) (ERM) to
mean any emissions credit(s),
operational control(s), equipment
replacement(s), or BACT, applied on
either a temporary or permanent basis,
to reduce the amount of criteria or
precursor air pollutant emissions that
would occur in the absence of the
application of such measures.
Existing Facility
The current regulations define this
term as ‘‘an OCS facility described in an
Exploration Plan or a Development and
Production Plan submitted or approved
before June 2, 1980.’’ The proposed rule
would define this term to mean ‘‘an
operational OCS facility described in an
approved plan.’’ The existing definition
is much narrower than the proposed
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19766
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
one, because the existing definition is
both limited to facilities described in
EPs and DPPs (i.e., excluding DOCDs)
and to those facilities described in plans
submitted prior to June 2, 1980.
Facility
The proposed rule would revise the
definition that exists in the current
regulation. The proposed rule would
define the term ‘‘facility’’ used in
proposed § 550.205 and proposed
subpart C to mean ‘‘any installation,
structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment, or
device that is temporarily or
permanently attached to the seabed of
the OCS, including but not limited to a
dynamically positioned ship, gravitybased structure, manmade island, or
bottom-sitting structure, whether used
for the exploration, development,
production, or transportation of oil, gas,
or sulphur.’’ The proposed rule would
specify all installations, structures,
vessels, vehicles, equipment, or devices
directly associated with the
construction, installation, and
implementation of a facility would be
considered part of a facility while
located at the same site, attached, or
interconnected by one or more bridges
or walkways, or while dependent on, or
affecting the processes of, the facility,
including any ROV while attached to
the facility. The proposed rule would
also specify that one facility may
include multiple drill rigs, drilling
units, vessels, platforms, installations,
devices, and pieces of equipment. Also,
under the proposed rule, MODUs, even
while operating in the ‘‘tender assist’’
mode (i.e., with skid-off drilling units),
and any other vessel engaged in drilling
or downhole operations, including wellstimulation vessels would be treated as
facilities for purposes of evaluating air
emissions. Under the proposed rule, the
term would also include all Floating
Production Systems (FPSs), including
Column-Stabilized-Units (CSUs),
Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading facilities (FPSOs), TensionLeg Platforms (TLPs), and spars. The
proposed rule would also provide any
vessel used to transfer production from
an offshore facility be considered part of
the facility while physically attached to
it. Finally, the proposed rule would
specify all DOI-regulated pipelines be
considered facilities, as would be any
installation, structure, vessel,
equipment, or device connected to such
a pipeline, whether temporarily or
permanently, while so connected. The
proposed rule would therefore require
both lease-term pipeline installations
and right-of-way pipeline installations
to comply with BOEM’s air quality
regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
The current regulation defines
facility, as used in subpart C, as: ‘‘[A]ny
installation or device permanently or
temporarily attached to the seabed
which is used for exploration,
development, and production activities
for oil, gas, or sulphur and which emits
or has the potential to emit any air
pollutant from one or more sources. All
equipment directly associated with the
installation or device shall be
considered part of a single facility if the
equipment is dependent on, or affects
the processes of, the installation or
device. During production, multiple
installations or devices will be
considered to be a single facility if the
installations or devices are directly
related to the production of oil, gas, or
sulphur at a single site. Any vessel used
to transfer production from an offshore
facility shall be considered part of the
facility while physically attached to it.’’
The proposed definition would be
similar to the current definition in at
least two ways. First, an onshore facility
or onshore support facility would not
constitute a ‘‘facility’’ under the
proposed definition. Second, under the
proposed rule one facility might include
multiple drill rigs, drilling units,
vessels, platforms, installations, devices,
and pieces of equipment.
The proposed rule would generally
reorganize the substance of the current
definition and provide examples and
more explanatory text. In addition, there
are several notable substantive changes
proposed. First, the proposed rule
would revise the definition by
eliminating the requirement that a
facility ‘‘emit or have the potential to
emit any air pollutant from one or more
sources.’’ This limitation could have
been read to imply that, for example,
since sub-sea tiebacks and other subsea
devices do not themselves emit air
pollutants, vessels engaged in installing
them were not facilities even though
they were connected to the seabed of the
OCS. Removing this limitation would
make clear that any vessel which is
temporarily or permanently attached to
the seabed such as a well-stimulation
vessel or a pipeline laying vessel
connected via a subsea tieback, would
be considered a facility for the purposes
of evaluating air emissions. Such a
vessel would be considered an MSC
when not attached to the seabed. The
current definition was developed when
wells were drilled individually and
generally connected separately to
distinct production platforms. Now,
many wells can be drilled and
connected to a single production facility
from significant distances, because
subsea tiebacks are becoming
increasingly viable, both technically and
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
economically. Similarly, under the
proposed rule, the same principle
would apply to any structure or vessel
that is connected to a pipeline or which
is laying a pipeline.
Second, whereas the existing
definition specifies facilities are ‘‘used
for exploration, development, and
production activities,’’ the proposed
rule would add ‘‘transportation’’ to this
list. This change is intended to make the
definition track the language in OCSLA
Section 4(a), which includes
installations and devices used for the
purposes of transporting oil and gas.
This change would also reflect the fact
the definition now explicitly covers
pipelines, which, though they do not
themselves normally emit air pollutants,
are the means by which vessels that do
emit air pollutants are connected to the
OCS.
The third change would specify more
clearly any equipment directly
associated with a facility is considered
part of that facility if it is dependent on,
or affects the processes of, that facility.
The existing definition contains the
provision: ‘‘During production, multiple
installations or devices will be
considered to be a single facility if the
installations or devices are directly
related to the production of oil, gas, or
sulphur at a single site.’’ The proposed
definition would remove the references
to production. Instead it would provide:
‘‘All installations, structures, vessels,
vehicles, equipment or devices directly
associated with the construction,
installation, and implementation of a
facility are part of a facility while
located at the same site, attached, or
interconnected by one or more bridges
or walkways, or while dependent on, or
affecting the processes of, the facility.’’
As a consequence of these changes,
mobile sources of emissions would
generally be considered part of the
facility only while attached to a facility,
and not part of the facility otherwise.
However, while these mobile sources,
such as ice breakers and other support
vessels, would not usually be
considered part of a facility, and
therefore not regulated by BOEM as a
facility, their emissions would be
accounted for and reported as attributed
emissions and would be evaluated to
determine whether a proposed plan
would cause a potential impact to a
State’s air quality and could, therefore,
trigger a requirement to apply controls
in accordance with the requirements of
subparts B and C of this part.
Facility Emissions
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean, ‘‘for any given
criteria or precursor air pollutant, the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
annual rate, the maximum 12
consecutive month rolling sum, and the
peak hourly emissions from all
emissions sources on or connected to a
facility’’ (to be consistent with the State
permit applications and consistent with
the standards for hourly NAAQS, as set
by the USEPA). Emissions data required
to evaluate compliance with other
NAAQS with averaging periods between
1 year and 1 hour, such as the 24-hour
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS and the and
rolling 3-month Pb NAAQS would be
estimated by applying temporal
allocation factors to annual emissions
modeling, rather than by requiring
facilities to also provide emissions
information for each of these averaging
periods. As described in proposed
§ 550.205, under the proposed rule,
facility emissions along with attributed
emissions would constitute projected
emissions.
Fugitive Emissions
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean the emissions of an
air pollutant from an emissions source
that do not pass through a stack,
chimney, vent, or other functionally
equivalent opening.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Fully Reduce(d)
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean ‘‘to decrease emissions of
VOCs to a rate that will not exceed the
emission exemption threshold
calculated under subpart C § 550.303(c),
or to decrease emissions of criteria air
pollutants to a rate that will cause
ambient impacts that do not exceed the
Significant Impact Levels set out in the
table in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), as
amended.’’
Long-Term Facility
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean a facility that remains at
the same general location for three years
or longer. Under the current regulations,
there is a definition for temporary
facility, but no corresponding one for
long-term facility. Thus, although the
definition is new, the concept
underlying the use of this term has been
in existence for many years.
There are two notable aspects of the
proposed definition. First, the definition
would specify a facility located on the
same lease block or within one nautical
mile of its original location is still
considered to be in the same location for
purposes of the air quality evaluation.
Second, once a facility becomes
attached to the sea floor and is used for
drilling, production, or transportation, it
would be considered to be ‘‘in use.’’ The
fact it might not be used for the entire
year does not mean BOEM should not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
consider it to be located at a site for the
year. For example, under the proposed
rule, a facility that is located at a site for
three months, then removed and later
put back into service at the same
location the next year would be
considered in use at that location for
two years. Likewise, under the proposed
rule, a facility that drills on the same
block for three months in each of ten
years would be considered a long term
facility because it is operating at the
same location for more than three years;
it would not be a short term facility by
virtue of the fact it is only physically
located in the block for a total of thirty
non-contiguous months.
If a facility must move from the
location where it first attached to the
seabed due to adverse weather or other
conditions over which the lessee or
operator had no control, the proposed
§ 550.313(b) would allow the Regional
Director to extend the time for which a
facility could avoid being classified as a
long-term facility by the number of
months during which a lessee or
operator is unable to operate at that
location.
Major Precursor Pollutant
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean any precursor
pollutant for which the States are
required to report actual emissions to
the USEPA, as defined in 40 CFR
51.15(a).
MARPOL-Certified Engine 78
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘either: (1) An engine
with a power output of more than 5,000
kW and a per cylinder displacement at
or above 90 liters installed on a ship
constructed on or after 1 January 1990
but prior to 1 January 2000 that is
subject to Regulation 13.7 of MARPOL
Annex VI; or, (2) an engine with a
power output of more than 130 kW built
on or after January 1, 2000 that is
subject to Regulations 13.1 through 13.6
of MARPOL Annex VI.
According to USEPA, a MARPOL
engine operated aboard a U.S. vessel
must have a U.S.-issued Enhanced
International Air Pollution Prevention
for each engine, as well as the relevant
Certificate of Compliance from the
USEPA.
78 Note that the USEPA requires that each
MARPOL engine installed on a U.S. vessel that
operates internationally must have a USEPA-issued
Engine International Air Pollution Prevention
(EIAPP) certificate as well as the relevant Certificate
of Compliance to the applicable CAA standards also
issued by the USEPA.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19767
Maximum Rated Capacity
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘the maximum power
an engine is capable of generating,
expressed in kW, and if necessary, as
converted from mechanical horsepower
(hpm, where 1 hpm of power equals
745.699872 W or 0.745699872 kW) or
from the International Table values of
British thermal units (BtuIT, where 1
BtuIT/hour of power equals 0.29307107
Watts or 0.00029307107 kW).’’
For the purposes of determining
whether a proposed facility should be
exempt from modeling, the current
regulation requires the reporting of
projected emissions based on ‘‘the
maximum rated capacity of the
equipment on the proposed drilling unit
under its physical and operational
design’’ 30 CFR 550.218(a)(3). Under the
proposed rule, this requirement would
apply to all engines, not just the drilling
unit, because the emission inventory
will also include attributed emissions
sources (§ 550.205(c) and (d)). The
proposed rule, at § 550.205(d)(2)(ii), is
aimed at estimating maximum
emissions that could occur given the
engines that will be used, under any
operating constraint proposed by the
source. This will involve determining
the type of engine operation that
produces the highest emissions per hour
of operation, which for some pollutants
will not be operation at maximum rated
capacity. However, even in such a case,
information on the maximum rated
capacity will be useful for converting
‘‘percent of rated capacity’’ into actual
engine loads and therefore emissions,
and for generally documenting the types
and sizes of engines that will be
operating as part of the planned
activities.
The proposed definition of maximum
rated capacity would specify that that
maximum rated capacity must be
expressed in kW, or converted from
hpm, or British thermal units per hour
from the International Tables (BtuIT),
since that is the most standard measure
for power. In contrast, the term
horsepower (hp) has many values,
including mechanical hp, electric hp,
international hp, metric hp, boiler hp, or
water hp. Because there is no standard
unit for hp—the range of equivalency is
735.5 watts to 750 watts; BOEM is
proposing to use kW instead.
Using kW would facilitate converting
measurements and would ensure the
use of one consistent standard,
International System of Units (SI), in
kilowatts. Also, using kW would
eliminate the reporting or misreporting
of hp based on the many types of hp
that can be used for various purposes
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19768
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
and, thereby, improve the accuracy of
the reports and information submitted
to BOEM.79
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean ‘‘the ambient air standards
established by the USEPA, as mandated
by the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7409), set out in
40 CFR part 50, for the criteria air
pollutants considered harmful to public
health or welfare when concentrations
are elevated over time.’’ The proposed
definition would explain that the
NAAQS consist of two categories, both
of which are included within the
defined term: Primary standards that set
limits to protect public health,
including the health of ‘‘sensitive’’
populations such as asthmatics,
children, and the elderly; and secondary
standards that set limits to protect
public welfare, including protection
against visibility impairment,
prevention of harm to animals,
including marine mammals, fish and
other wildlife, and avoidance of damage
to crops, vegetation, and buildings.
Non-Attainment Area
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
The proposed rule would revise the
definition that exists in the current
regulation to mean, for any given
criteria air pollutant, a geographic area,
which the Administrator of the USEPA
has determined exceeds a primary or
secondary NAAQS, as codified at 40
CFR part 81 subpart C. A designated
‘‘non-attainment area’’ is defined in the
current rule as, ‘‘for any given criteria
air pollutant, an area which is shown by
monitored data or which is calculated
by air quality modeling (or other
methods determined by the
Administrator of [US]EPA to be reliable)
to exceed any primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard established
by [US]EPA.’’ This revision is necessary
because the existing definition does not
clarify that any given area may be
designated as an attainment area for one
criteria air pollutant and yet be a
designated non-attainment area for
another criteria air pollutant.
79 Units called ‘‘horsepower’’ (hp) have differing
definitions: There is mechanical hp, also known as
imperial hp, of exactly 550 foot-pounds per second
(approximately equivalent to 745.7 watts); metric
hp of 75 kg-m per second (approximately equivalent
to 735.5 watts or 98.6% of an imperial mechanical
hp); boiler hp used for rating steam boilers
(equivalent to 34.5 pounds (about 15.6 kg) of water
evaporated per hour at 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100
degrees Celsius), or 9809.5 watts); electric motor hp
(equal to 746 watts); and British Royal Automobile
Club (RAC) hp is one of the tax hp systems adopted
around Europe which make an estimate based on
several engine dimensions (using a conversion rate
of 0.735 kW for 1 hp).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Operational Control(s)
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean a process, method, or
technique, other than a physical or
mechanical control or equipment
replacement, that reduces the emissions
of criteria or precursor pollutants (e.g.,
limitation on period of operation, load
balancing, use of less-polluting fuels,
and/or operating equipment at less than
full capacity). Operational control(s)
would include, but not be limited to,
operating a vessel or facility for a
limited number of hours per day,
limiting the total amount or type of fuel
used over a period of time, load
balancing or operating equipment at
some level less than full capacity.
Particulate Matter (PM)
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘an airborne
contaminant consisting of particulate
matter that is regulated as a criteria air
pollutant under the ambient air
standards.’’ The proposed rule would
explain that PM10 refers to airborne
contaminants of particulates less than or
equal to 10 micrometers. PM10 is
distinct from coarse PM in that coarse
PM consists of particulate matter equal
to or less than 10 micrometers but
greater than 2.5 micrometers. Further, it
would explain PM2.5, or fine PM, is an
airborne contaminant of particulates
less than or equal to a diameter of 2.5
micrometers.
rather than the actual emissions of a
stationary source. In this proposed rule,
the term facility emissions is generally
used to refer to the emissions of sources
regulated under BOEM’s AQRP,
whereas PTE is used to refer to the
emissions of sources not regulated by
BOEM.
Potential to emit means the maximum
capacity of a source to emit a pollutant
under its physical and operational
design. Any physical or operational
limitation on the capacity of the source
to emit a pollutant including air
pollution control equipment and
restrictions on hours of operation or on
the type or amount of material
combusted, stored, or processed, shall
be treated as part of its design if the
limitation or the effect it would have on
emissions is federally enforceable.
Attributed emissions 80 do not count in
determining the PTE of a stationary
source.
Precursor Air Pollutant or Precursor
Pollutant
The proposed rule would add this
new term to mean ‘‘a compound that
chemically reacts with other
atmospheric gases to form a criteria air
pollutant.’’ The proposed definition
notes some precursor air pollutants are
also defined as criteria air pollutants.
The proposed definition would also
explain precursor air pollutants include
VOCs, NOX, SO2, and NH3.
Plan
The proposed rule would add this
term to the definitions section to mean
‘‘any initial, revised, modified,
resubmitted, or supplemental
Exploration Plan (EP), or DPP, DOCD, or
application for a Right-of-Use and
Easement (RUE), a Pipeline ROW, or
lease term pipeline.’’ The term ‘‘plan’’ is
used throughout proposed § 550.205
and proposed subpart C, and this
definition would make explicit it is
intended to refer to all plans, regardless
of whether a plan is for exploration or
development or whether it is an initial
plan or a revised, modified,
resubmitted, or supplemental plan. For
simplicity, where the term plan is used
in proposed § 550.205 or proposed
subpart C, the specific requirement
would be equally applicable to all types
of plans.
Projected Emissions
Potential To Emit
The definition of ‘‘potential to emit’’
is derived from the USEPA regulations
at 40 CFR 51.301. In this proposed rule,
the term is used in a manner similar to
that of the term ‘‘facility emissions.’’
Both terms are meant to describe the
measure of the maximum potential
Proximate Activities
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘for any given criteria
or precursor air pollutant, the sum of
one facility’s emissions and its
corresponding attributed emissions over
the specified time period, with the
controlled or uncontrolled nature of the
pollutants specified by the context.’’
Projected emissions include the
attributed emissions from offshore
vessels and offshore vehicles that
support a facility. The individual
pollutants included among the projected
emissions may be reported on an annual
basis or as peak-hour projected
emissions, and may be either
uncontrolled or controlled and may or
may not require the use of BACT,
emissions credits, or other ERM from
any source(s) as described in
§ 550.205(e) and (f).
The proposed rule would define this
term to mean ‘‘activities that involve or
affect any of the following: The same
80 The USEPA refers to attributed emissions as
secondary emissions, which it defines in 40 CFR
52.21.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
well(s); a common oil, gas, or sulphur
reservoir; the same or adjacent lease
block(s); or, facilities located within one
nautical mile of one another.’’ The
proposed definition would also specify
that, where a well is drilled from one
facility, but production from the well
will ultimately take place through a
different facility, the drilling and
production activities constitute
proximate activities if they occur within
the same twelve-month period.
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘a Class II area
defined by an FLM agency as being
federal land where protection of air
resources has been prioritized, as
specified in acts, regulations, planning
documents, or policy.’’ Agencies with
land management responsibility
commonly refer to federal land areas
that are not Class I areas but are
environmentally sensitive as sensitive
class II areas. Although the USEPA has
not defined different air quality
standards or benchmarks for sensitive
Class II areas, Federal Land Managers
give special attention and subject
sensitive Class II area to a more
extensive air quality review than would
normally be accorded to a typical Class
II area. In the context of this rule, an
important example of a sensitive Class
II area would be the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Short-Term Facility
This new proposed term would
replace the term ‘‘temporary facility’’ in
current § 550.302. The proposed rule
would use this new term with a similar
but expanded meaning. The proposed
definition has been expanded so now
any facility that is not a long-term
facility or is not connected to such a
facility would be considered a shortterm facility.
If a facility must move from the
location where it first attached to the
seabed due to adverse weather or other
conditions over which the lessee or
operator had no control, the proposed
§ 550.313 would allow the Regional
Director to extend the time for which a
facility could be classified as a shortterm facility by the number of months
during which a lessee or operator is
unable to operate at that location.
BOEM recognizes that the USEPA
classifies a short-term facility as being a
facility that is located at the same
location for no more than two years and
solicits comments on the implications of
retaining or potentially changing this
longstanding practice.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Significant Impact Level (SIL), or
Significance Level
Paragraph 550.303(b)—Calculating
Projected Emissions
The proposed rule would define these
terms to mean ‘‘an ambient air
benchmark that applies to the ambient
air impact of the emissions of a criteria
air pollutant, as set out in the table in
40 CFR. 51.165(b)(2).’’ The terms
‘‘significant impact level’’ and
‘‘significance level’’ mean the same
thing and are interchangeable.
These paragraphs would establish the
requirement that a lessee or operator
must compare its projected emissions or
its complex total emissions with the
applicable EETs. More detailed
requirements for calculating and
reporting projected emissions, facility
emissions, and attributed emissions are
set forth in proposed § 550.205 and
explained in the preamble discussion
regarding that provision.
Technically Feasible
Sensitive Class II Area
Jkt 238001
19769
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘a technology or
methodology that: (1) Has been
demonstrated and operated successfully
on the same type of emissions source as
the one under review; or (2) is available
and applicable to the type of emissions
source under review.’’
BOEM solicits comments on whether
the technical feasibility should have to
be demonstrated for the particular
source identified in the plan or whether
the feasibility could be demonstrated
through use of similar but different
sources.
Total Support Emissions
The proposed rule would define this
new term to mean ‘‘for any criteria or
precursor air pollutant, the total
emissions generated by an MSC that
operates in support of your and any
other facilities, for the 12-month period
over which the corresponding facility
emissions are measured.’’ Proposed
§ 550.205(d) would set forth an example
for calculating total support emissions.
Section 550.303—What analysis of my
projected emissions is required under
this subpart?
Section 550.303(a)—Establishing
Emission Exemption Thresholds
BOEM establishes emission
exemption thresholds (EETs). BOEM
would define EETs as the maximum
allowable rate of projected emissions,
calculated for each air pollutant, above
which facilities would be subject to the
requirement to perform modeling. These
EETs would establish those levels of
consolidated emissions below which
BOEM has determined would not cause
or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS.
The proposed rule would provide
that, if projected emissions or complex
total emissions are exempt, then the
lessee or operator would not be required
to perform air quality modeling in
accordance with the requirements of
proposed § 550.304 of this subpart and
to apply any controls, as described in
proposed §§ 550.305 through 550.307.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 550.303(c)—Emission
Exemption Threshold(s)
Under the proposed rule, BOEM
would determine whether the lessee or
operator’s projected emissions or
complex total emissions have the
potential to significantly affect the air
quality of any State, in accordance with
the EETs calculated under this proposed
paragraph. This paragraph would
provide that BOEM will, sometime after
the rule is finalized, publish updated
EETs in the Federal Register. These
thresholds would be based on criteria
proposed in this rule and would fall
within a range proposed in this rule.
Under the proposed rule, until such
time as BOEM has published these new
EETs in the FR (herein referred to as the
date of the Notice) 81 and has solicited
public comment thereon, a lessee or
operator’s projected emissions or
complex total emissions would be
exempt if its projected emissions or
complex total emissions are below the
EETs set in the current regulation at
§ 550.303(d). During this period, the
distance variable in these formulas
would continue to be the shortest
distance of the facility to the shoreline,
as is the case under the current rule.
The proposed rule would require BOEM
to provide notice of proposed EETs in
the FR, and an opportunity to comment
on them, any time it subsequently issues
new EETs or revises existing ones.
The proposed rule would establish
the process BOEM would follow to
provide notice of proposed EETs in the
FR, and an opportunity to comment on
them, any time it subsequently issues
new EETs or revises existing ones.
BOEM anticipates that it would
establish new EETs based on the EET
studies currently underway and would
publish these in the FR after the
completion of the studies (estimated in
2020). BOEM would then require that
all future plans be evaluated in terms of
their effects on the air quality of
neighboring States by considering the
impacts landward of the SSB (including
81 Estimated
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
to take place in 2020.
05APP2
19770
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the air above the State’s submerged
lands, at the shoreline and inland of the
shoreline). New EETs for those
pollutants added to this proposed rule
will not be established until such time
as the relevant studies have been
completed.
Section 550.303(c)(2) of the proposed
rule provides criteria that BOEM would
use to determine the formulas that
BOEM would publish in the FR. These
include: The absolute level of projected
emissions; the distance of the proposed
facility or facilities from any State or
from critical natural resources, animals,
and habitats; the existing ambient air
pollution in potentially affected States;
the trend in the ambient air pollution in
those States; the associated attainment
status of such areas and the associated
effects to public health and welfare; any
USEPA AAQSB applied by this
proposed rule; the types, frequency and
duration of any air pollutant emissions
and their formation and/or dispersion
characteristics; the characteristics of the
facility or facilities and MSCs, including
the type and nature of the emissions
sources, and the height of the associated
emission points or stacks; the prevailing
meteorological characteristics in any
given area, including air stability,
relevant wind speeds and directions; the
amount of emissions from existing
facilities and vessels in the vicinity of
the proposed facility; and other
necessary and appropriate conditions.
Several of these criteria (used to
determine the EETs) are localized and
may differ according to area even within
one OCS region (e.g., prevailing
meteorological characteristics and the
amount of emissions from existing
facilities and vessels in the vicinity).
Accordingly, BOEM expects that the
EETs it would set in the FR would vary
from area to area. This could result in
different sets of formulas for each
planning area or smaller geographic
unit.
The proposed rule also would
establish a range within which these
new EET formulas will apply. Above
this range, lessees and operators would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
always be required to perform air
quality modeling, in accordance with
the requirements of § 550.304 of this
subpart, or to apply controls, as
described in §§ 550.305 through
550.307, and below this range lessees
and operators would not be required to
do so. Within this range, lessees and
operators would be exempt from these
requirements only if their projected or
complex total emissions were below the
EETs defined by the formulas BOEM
will publish in the FR.
Proposed § 550.303(c)(3)(ii) would set
the upper boundary of this range. The
proposed subparagraph would set the
upper bounds of this range with the
current EET formulas (currently
codified at 30 CFR 550.303(d)).
However, the distance variable in the
formulas would be measured from the
closest point on the SSB.82 Because this
feature of the upper boundary formulas
would allow the upper boundary to vary
all the way down to zero (when the
distance is zero), BOEM is proposing to
set constant values for the EETs for
facilities within the first three nautical
miles of the State’s seaward boundary.
These proposed values would be based
on the current values of the current
emission exemption formulas at the
SSB, and, for all pollutants other than
CO, they would correspond to the 100
tpy major source criteria from the
USEPA NSR permitting program, as
defined in its regulations at 40 CFR part
70.83 Chart II, below, depicts how the
current thresholds would shift to
become the upper boundaries of the
82 Because these same formulas would also serve
as the EETs during the period after the rule is
finalized and before the new formulas are
established in the FR, subparagraph (4)(i) sets forth
the same formulas as (4)(ii) but defines the distance
variable as the distance from the shoreline.
83 The USEPA has two thresholds used to
determine what constitutes a major source for
purposes of its permitting program. In addition to
the 28 source categories for which the 100 tpy
threshold applies, the USEPA has a 250 tpy
threshold that applies to other source categories.
BOEM’s existing exemption thresholds were
originally based on the 100 tpy standard and BOEM
has elected to retain this as the criteria, since it is
a more conservative approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
range once BOEM publishes the future
thresholds in the Federal Register. The
highest series represents the current
thresholds, while the two lower series
represent the EETs that would apply to
those States with three and nine
nautical mile State submerged land
boundaries, respectively.
At the present time, BOEM does not
have EETs for Pb, PM2.5, or PM10, nor
has it established EETs that would
apply to anything other than the
projected annual emissions. Until such
time as EETs are established for these
pollutants, no plan would be required to
model on the basis of their emissions of
these pollutants alone (except for Pb, for
which the proposed rule would set an
EET which could trigger a requirement
for modeling).
BOEM recognizes there may be a more
appropriate distance-adjusted maximum
emission exemption threshold for these
pollutants and solicits comments from
stakeholders on what they should be.
Any comments should include an
analysis of the reasoning used to
support an alternative threshold,
keeping in mind that the key goal is to
ensure that offshore projected emissions
of Pb, PM2.5, or PM10 do not ‘‘cause or
contribute to a violation’’ of their
corresponding NAAQS.
Proposed § 550.303(c)(3)(i) would set
the lower boundary of this range. The
proposed formulas for these minimums
represent emissions levels below which
the ambient air impact at the nearest
point in a State would not exceed any
annual SIL. To derive these equations
BOEM used a Gaussian dispersion
equation, setting the concentration
variable of the equation equal to a SIL
and solving for the corresponding
emissions rate. An example of the
theoretical model underlying this
analysis is provided for illustration
purposes below: 84
84 BOEM Alaska OCS Region, 2015, Chukchi Sea
Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193 in the
Chukchi Sea, Alaska Final Second Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement BOEM 2014–669.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
19771
Chart 1: Gaussian Dispersion Model:
Gaussian
e
In deriving these equations BOEM
used conservative assumptions
regarding the wind speed, stack height
and air stability. For a full description
of the method used to derive these
equations see the Appendix: BOEM
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Analysis of Minimum Emission
Exemption Thresholds available in the
rulemaking docket at
www.regulations.gov.
If you have questions concerning the
analysis done regarding the formulas or
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
analysis related to the minimum
emission exemption thresholds, you
may contact Virginia Raps of the BOEM
Alaska OCS Regional Office, by mail at
the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Alaska OCS Region, 3801
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP16.004
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
H
19772
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
maximum exemption threshold, and the
proposed minimum exemption
threshold for NOX. The chart shows that
the proposed maximum threshold
would have the same slope as the
current threshold but would shift
slightly lower due to proposed rule’s
changing the ‘‘distance’’ variable to be
measured from the SSB. The space inbetween the proposed maximum and
the proposed minimum represents the
range where BOEM would apply the
formulas it will publish in the Federal
Register.
Section 550.303(c)(3)(i) lists the
formulas for the proposed new
minimum emission exemption
thresholds for those CPs for which the
USEPA has established SILs. Paragraph
303(c)(ii) would include a minimum
emission exemption threshold for Pb.
To establish a minimum emissions
exemption level for Pb, the proposed
rule would adopt the USEPA significant
emissions rate for Pb, as described in
USEPA regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i). This amount is currently
set at 0.6 short tons of emissions per
year. BOEM is proposing this addition
in order to ensure consistency with
USEPA regulations and to ensure all
OCS facilities comply with the
requirements of OCSLA. BOEM is not
proposing to establish a distance-based
formula for Pb because the USEPA has
not established SILs for Pb which would
enable BOEM to apply the above
methodology. Instead, BOEM is
proposing to utilize the USEPA’s
significant emissions rate for Pb as an
emissions threshold.
As an alternative to the proposed
distance-based formula, BOEM is also
considering an option in which it would
establish new minimum EETs based on
the PSD emissions limits in the
USEPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i). Those USEPA tables are
intended primarily to determine
whether a facility will generate
potentially significant incremental
increases in pollutant concentrations in
the area surrounding the proposed
85 This chart would apply to all CPs other than
CO, ozone and lead.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP16.005
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500,
Anchorage, AK 99503, or by email at
Virginia.Raps@boem.gov, or by phone at
(907) 334–5200.
The following chart illustrates the
proposed emission exemption
thresholds for NOX. It shows the current
exemption threshold, the proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions source. BOEM could either
apply the current absolute numbers or
utilize the values in the USEPA table
and adjust them, on either a linear basis
or on the basis of a Gaussian dispersion
equation, in an appropriate manner
based on the distance of the facility
from the State.
BOEM solicits comments on this and
other possible alternative approaches to
establishing new maximum EETs (above
which all plans would be subject to
modeling) and minimum EETs (below
which BOEM would not establish any
new EETs).86 Such a discussion would
ideally include information both on the
levels of the two sets of formulas, as
well as on the type and nature of the
formulas that should be applied.
Finally, because the NAAQS are
subject to change as scientific
knowledge improves and because
technical and modeling capabilities may
improve over time, the proposed rule
provides that BOEM, at its discretion,
would revise the emission exemption
thresholds on an ongoing basis either as
a result of a change in an applicable
standard or because BOEM’s ability to
measure and evaluate the impact of
existing emission exemption thresholds
has improved or for some other reason.
Thus, under the proposed rule, if the
USEPA revises the NAAQS, or any
applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM would
examine the appropriateness of its
emission exemption thresholds, and,
BOEM, at its discretion, could
periodically revise its exemption
formula(s) or its exemption threshold
amount(s) for the corresponding air
pollutant(s), as appropriate.
Paragraph 550.303(d)—Consolidation of
Air Pollutant Emissions From Multiple
Facilities
The purpose of this section is to
determine whether two or more
facilities wholly or partially owned,
controlled or operated by the same
entity that are located in relatively close
proximity may collectively cause or
contribute to a violation of any relevant
air quality standard or benchmark, even
if they would not do so when
considered on a separate basis.
The proposed rule would require
projected emissions from multiple
facilities under common ownership to
be combined for analysis and reported
as complex total emissions under
certain circumstances. BOEM’s current
practice is to require, in specific
circumstances, the consolidated
86 With the adoption of the new EETs, there
would be no need for any lessee or operator to
review or evaluate their emissions as compared to
the minimum thresholds because those minimums
will, in all cases, be below the EETs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
analysis of facilities covered by multiple
plans in accordance with the following
provision of § 550.303(j): ‘‘If, during the
review of a new, modified, or revised
Exploration Plan or Development and
Production Plan, the Regional
Supervisor determines or an affected
State submits information to the
Regional Supervisor which
demonstrates, in the judgment of the
Regional Supervisor, that projected
emissions from an otherwise exempt
facility will, either individually or in
combination with other facilities in the
area, significantly affect the air quality
of an onshore area, then the Regional
Supervisor shall require the lessee to
submit additional information to
determine whether emission control
measures are necessary.’’ The current
regulations do not specify under what
circumstances the Regional Supervisor
would make such a determination.
This proposed paragraph recognizes
the fact that emissions from two or more
OCS facilities located in close proximity
to one another may have an impact on
the air quality of a State, when operated
contemporaneously, even in those
situations where the emissions from any
one of those facilities, when compared
against the emission exemption
thresholds, would indicate that that
facility should not cause an adverse
impact to the air quality of a State.
Closely-grouped facilities that emit
pollutants at the same time can affect
the air quality of a State differently than
facilities that are spread across a larger
area. The proposed rule would require
a lessee or operator to add together its
projected emissions with the emissions
from other facilities whether or not they
are described in lessee or operator’s
plan and whether they currently exist or
are proposed.
The proposed paragraph would
specify the conditions under which a
lessee or operator would be required to
consolidate the projected emissions
from multiple facilities. Under the
proposed rule, projected emissions from
multiple facilities would be required to
be consolidated if: (1) The emissions
from multiple facilities are generated by
proximate activities (i.e., the same
well(s); a common oil, gas, or sulphur
reservoir; the same or adjacent lease
block(s); or, by facilities located within
one nautical mile of one another); (2)
the lessee or operator wholly or partially
owns, controls or operates those
facilities; (3) the construction,
installation, drilling, operation, or
decommissioning of any of the lessee or
operator’s facilities occurs within the
same 12-month period as the
construction, installation, operation, or
decommissioning of another facility that
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19773
meets conditions 1 and 2; and (4) such
a consolidation of emissions from
multiple facilities would generate
emissions sufficient to exceed an
applicable emission exemption
threshold.
If any two or more facilities meet all
of the conditions specified in
paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iv) of this
proposed section the lessee or operator
would be required to calculate the sum
of the projected emissions from those
facilities (including its respective
attributed emissions), as the complex
total emissions for its plan.
If there are two or more facilities that
would normally be submitted in one
plan, and which are intended to be part
of one unit or project, those facilities
should be evaluated together. This
requirement is intended to discourage
submission of multiple plans for the
purpose of remaining under the
exemption thresholds. This requirement
would be applied only to facilities that
are wholly or partially owned,
controlled or operated by the same
party. This limitation is intended to
further ensure that the associated air
quality analysis would be applied
consistently across projects, regardless
of whether a lessee’s or operator’s
project is submitted for approval in one
plan or whether it submits several plans
separately.
According to BOEM regulations (in
§ 550.105), a lessee is defined as being
‘‘a person who has entered into a lease
with the United States to explore for,
develop, and produce the leased
minerals. The term lessee also includes
the BOEM-approved assignee of the
lease, and the BOEM-approved
sublessee of operating rights in the
lease.’’ The definition of ‘‘you’’ includes
a ‘‘lessee, the owner or holder of
operating rights, a designated operator
or agent of the lessee(s), a pipeline ROW
holder, or a State lessee granted a right
of use and easement.’’ Thus, the
requirement for common ownership of a
facility would extend to the lessee or
their assignee as well as to those that
share other lease interests, including
joint ownership in a common unit, joint
operating rights interests, as well as
companies that use the same designated
operator or unit operator for those
facilities located in the same general
vicinity of the proposed new facility.
In order to determine common
ownership, BOEM will rely on the
criteria defined by the Office of Natural
Resources Revenue (ONRR) for
evaluating whether or not two
companies should be considered
affiliates, as defined in the regulations at
30 CFR 1206.101 and 30 CFR 1206.151.
BOEM solicits comments from lessees
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19774
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
and operators with respect to how it
could most effectively limit the
application of these consolidation
criteria to relevant parties and avoid the
consolidation of emissions associated
with facilities that are operated by
unaffiliated companies.
Facilities whose projected emissions
would have been consolidated but for
the exemption related to ownership and
control would still be evaluated for their
consolidated effects to the States outside
of the AQRP. BOEM will conduct
independent studies regarding the
consolidated effects of multiple
facilities on the air quality of the
neighboring States and will also
evaluate the potential for future
cumulative impacts in conjunction with
the associated NEPA review of the FiveYear Oil and Gas Leasing Program, the
associated lease sales and the lease sale
EISs.
The proposed paragraph would also
specify that if all of the emissions to be
combined relate to the lessee’s or
operator’s wholly-owned facilities, then
the lessee or operator would be required
to provide the data and analysis
regarding the complex total emissions.
However, where the lessee or operator
does not fully own all of the facilities
whose projected emissions are to be
consolidated, the lessee or operator
would need to gather data either from
the operator of any facilities that it does
not wholly own or which it does not
operate, or from the publically available
database of plans approved by BOEM,
and would need to provide all the data
and analysis it gathered. BOEM would
make a determination whether the
lessee or operator has appropriately
considered the relevant data in its
analysis of the complex total emissions.
If all of the emissions to be combined
relate to the lessee or operator’s whollyowned facilities, that lessee or operator
must provide all the data and analysis
of the complex total emissions.
Under the proposed rule, if any lessee
or operator were required to consolidate
projected emissions data from multiple
facilities, then anywhere a proposed
requirement is written to apply to
projected emissions that proposed
requirement would instead apply to
complex total emissions, except with
respect to the process by which
projected emissions are determined for
any given facility (as specified in
§ 550.205(c), (d), and (e)).
Paragraphs 550.303(e) and (f)—
Emissions Do Not Exceed any Threshold
or Exceed a Threshold
The purpose of these two paragraphs
is to determine whether the facility or
facilities covered by a proposed plan
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
should be required to do modeling to
determine whether, or to what extent,
its operations might adversely affect the
air quality of a State. If a plan is
proposed that would result in
operations such that none of the EETs
would be exceeded, then the plan
would not be required to include air
quality modeling. This is because BOEM
would already have determined that the
potential effects resulting from the
implementation of that plan would not
have the potential to cause any such
adverse effect.
Under the proposed § 550.303(e), if
none of a plan’s projected emissions or
complex total emissions for any
precursor or CP that exceeds the
applicable emission exemption
threshold, then its projected emissions
would be considered de minimis, and
therefore exempt, so that no further
analysis would be required under
subpart C.
Under the proposed § 550.303(f), if a
lessee’s or operator’s projected
emissions or complex total emissions of
the precursor or criteria air pollutant
exceed the applicable emission
exemption threshold, then further
review would be required and
potentially also controls. Under the
proposed rule, the requirements
associated with an exceedance would
depend on which pollutant or
pollutants exceed the threshold(s). If
emissions of VOCs, which have no SILs,
exceed a threshold, then controls would
be required pursuant to proposed
§ 550.306 or 550.307, depending on
whether the facility is short-term or
long-term. If emissions of a criteria air
pollutant exceed a threshold, then
modeling would be required under
proposed section 550.304. The current
rule accounts for both of these two
scenarios, just as the proposed rule
would.
The proposed rule would add
provisions specifying circumstances in
which additional photochemical
modeling would be required. One of
these proposed provisions would
require photochemical modeling of O3
when projected emissions exceed the
applicable emission exemption
threshold for the O3 precursors NOX,
VOCs, or CO. A second new proposed
provision would require photochemical
modeling for PM2.5 if a plan’s projected
emissions of the PM2.5 precursors, NOX,
VOCs, PM2.5, or SO2, exceed the
applicable emission exemption
threshold. In both cases, the proposed
rule would not impose these
photochemical modeling requirements,
until such time as the conditions
specified in § 550.304(b) have been met.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Paragraph 550.303(g)—Changes to
Previously Approved Plans
The proposed rule would set
requirements specifying when lessees
and operators must submit revisions to
their plans based on changes to how the
plan will be implemented. The first
proposed paragraph, (g)(1), would
provide that, if a lessee or operator
changes its plan implementation, such
that its projected emissions would occur
in years other than those that were
previously approved, it would be
required to submit a new plan and
obtain approval before it implements
the proposed changes. This requirement
would relate to when operations occur,
not the level of emissions associated
with those operations.
This proposed provision would
formalize an existing practice whereby a
lessee or operator is required to submit
a new plan if the actual emissions
associated with its operations will likely
occur in years other than those
proposed and approved in the original
plan. Depending on the timing of the
prospective emissions, the air impacts
of those emissions would vary due to
other activities in the area and to
seasonal effects. For future years, the
NAAQS or air quality benchmarks may
change. In addition, the complex total
emissions analysis may need to be
redone or reevaluated.
The second proposed paragraph,
(g)(2), would provide that, if a lessee or
operator anticipates any increase in the
maximum air pollutant emissions above
that projected for any time period
described in the previously approved
plan, the lessee or operator would be
required to submit a new plan, pursuant
to 30 CFR 550.283(a)(4). That existing
section provides that an operator must
submit a revised plan if it proposes to
increase the emissions of an air
pollutant to an amount that exceeds the
amount specified in the approved plan.
The proposed provision would relate to
the peak emissions that would be
generated by the facility, including its
attributed emissions, for any time
period (annual, 12-month rolling sum or
maximum hourly) during its OCS
operations.
The third proposed paragraph, (g)(3),
would provide that, if a lessee or
operator proposes to make a change to
operations on its existing facility or
facilities, but not to the equipment used
in such operations, such that its
approved projected annual emissions in
any given year are higher than those
previously approved for the particular
year, but lower than the maximum air
pollutant emissions for any year, the
lessee or operator would not need to
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
submit a revised plan—as long as the
operations would occur in the same year
as described in the previous plan.
The fourth proposed paragraph, (g)(4),
would require that a lessee or operator
submit a new plan any time it proposes
to change any equipment on its existing
facility or facilities such that the
proposed change would result in an
increase in air pollutant emissions from
that specific equipment for any air
pollutant, regardless of the impact on
the total emissions of the facility as a
whole.
The fifth proposed paragraph, (g)(5),
would specify if a plan was approved
for a short-term facility and it was
determined later that the facility would
be used in such a manner that it would
properly be classified as a long-term
facility, then a new plan must be
submitted for review and approval by
BOEM.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.303(h)—Federal Land
Manager
BOEM currently consults with
appropriate FLMs when it has reason to
believe a lessee’s or operator’s proposed
OCS activities could potentially cause a
significant effect on air quality in a
Class I area. Under the current practice,
BOEM occasionally asks lessees and
operators to submit additional
information to show their proposed
activities would not significantly affect
the air quality of such areas.
The proposed rule would expressly
provide that BOEM may consult with
one or more relevant FLMs if it believes
emissions from proposed activities
could potentially have a significant
effect on Class I areas or sensitive Class
II areas onshore or above State
submerged lands. It would further
provide that BOEM would consider the
views of the FLMs in determining
whether the proposed plan complies
with the provisions of proposed subpart
C. Based on this consultation, BOEM
might require additional information
and analysis, either prior to or as a
condition of approving the plan.
Finally, it would state that, if the FLM
does not raise any concerns regarding
the plan in a timely manner, BOEM
would assume the FLM has no
objections to the plan.
Under current practice and the
proposed rule, the FLMs would
independently evaluate the potential
impacts of air pollutant emissions from
OCS activities because of their
expertise, modeling and evaluation
skills. They have the unique ability to
evaluate and determine the likely
impacts of OCS activities on Class I and
sensitive Class II areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Section 550.304—What must I do if my
projected emissions exceed an emission
exemption threshold?
Paragraph 550.304(a)—Dispersion
Models
Paragraph 550.304(a) of the proposed
rule describes BOEM’s proposed
dispersion modeling requirements,
which would apply in the event the
lessee or operator’s projected emissions
or complex total emission exceed the
limits defined in § 550.303(c).
Dispersion modeling shows how a
pollutant that is emitted could affect the
concentrations of that pollutant onshore
or above State submerged lands. BOEM
has determined air pollutant emissions
could potentially affect a State only
under those circumstances where the
total annual projected emissions or the
complex total emissions of any given
pollutant exceed a relevant exemption
threshold. For this reason, a lessee or
operator must perform modeling to
estimate the projected increase in the
ambient concentration of a pollutant
onshore only if its proposed plan
proposes projected emissions that
exceed an emission exemption
threshold for one or more criteria air
pollutants.
The proposed rule would clarify that
if a lessee or operator’s projected
emissions, or complex total emissions,
of any given criteria or precursor
pollutant exceeds an emission
exemption threshold, then the lessee or
operator would be required to model the
potential impact of those emissions and
those of any other pollutant for which
the exceeding pollutant is a precursor,
in order to determine the potential
impact to the State. However, the rule
would not require that a lessee or
operator perform modeling with respect
to those pollutants whose emissions are
not projected to exceed any relevant
EET. This approach is similar to that
taken by the USEPA and is done for the
same reason, namely to ensure that
emissions are modeled in situations
where a potential impact may occur.
The USEPA method relies on the use of
its SERs to make this determination,
rather than requiring modeling,
however.87 In addition, the proposed
rule would make it explicit that
modeling must be based on the
projected emissions reported under
87 In USEPA’s case, any proposed facility that has
been identified as a major source of emissions for
any given pollutant must then be evaluated to
determine whether that facility would generate
emissions in excess of the Significant Emissions
Rate (SER) for every other air pollutant. BOEM’s
EETs are designed to accomplish a similar purpose,
namely to identify situations where a proposed
facility’s emissions may be potentially significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19775
§ 550.205(e), or the complex total
emissions, whichever is applicable.
This approach relies on the
presumption that there would be one
EET applicable at any given location for
each precursor or CP. As an alternative,
BOEM could establish multiple EETs for
any given pollutant in those situations,
such as for NOX, where the same
pollutant is both a CP and a precursor
for another CP. In this latter case, BOEM
would not require modeling of any
pollutant except in the case that that
pollutant exceeded a relevant EET.
The proposed rule would provide that
a lessee or operator must use one or
more of the following air dispersion
models: An air dispersion model listed
in appendix A to appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51; an air dispersion model listed
in the Federal Land Managers’ Air
Quality Related Values Workgroup
Guidance; or another model approved
by the BOEM Chief Environmental
Officer. The lessee or operator would
also be required to follow the modeling
procedures recommended in 40 CFR
part 51 appendix W, as amended, to the
extent possible. A lessee or operator
would be required to provide BOEM
with a copy of its dispersion modeling
protocol and the associated data and
assumptions used to do its analysis
before it conducts such modeling.
Paragraph 550.304(b)—Photochemical
Models
The proposed rule would require both
dispersion and photochemical
modeling, under a limited number of
circumstances. For air photochemical
modeling, the proposed paragraph (b)
would also require lessees and operators
use a model approved by the BOEM
CEO and follow the modeling guideline
provided in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W,
as amended, to the extent possible.
BOEM does not anticipate
implementing a requirement for lessees
and operators to conduct single source
photochemical modeling for plan
facilities until such time as it has
determined that this modeling would be
reasonable and practical for such lessees
and operators, taking into consideration
both the technical feasibility and the
costs.
The proposed rule in § 550.304(b)
describes BOEM’s proposed
photochemical modeling
requirements.88 Photochemical
88 This section indicates that a photochemical
model will be used under certain circumstances so
long as it can be approved as an alternative model
under Section 3.2 of Appendix W. This is similar
to what the USEPA is proposing to do, in that the
USEPA’s proposed revisions to Appendix W do not
solely rely upon explicit use of photochemical
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
Continued
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19776
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
modeling shows the concentration
increase onshore of an air pollutant that
is formed as a result of photochemical
processes in the atmosphere.
Photochemical modeling would be
required only if: (1) The projected
emissions for the relevant precursor air
pollutants exceed the applicable
emission exemption threshold; (2) an
appropriate photochemical air quality
model is available that either meets the
USEPA’s requirements in section 3.2 of
40 CFR part 51, appendix W, or
complies with the FLM’s modeling
guidance, or has been approved by
BOEM’s CEO; and (3) BOEM has
determined that adequate relevant
information on background
concentrations is available for the
relevant location(s) in a potentially
affected State. The proposed rule would
require lessees and operators provide
BOEM, upon request, with a copy of the
photochemical modeling protocol and
the associated data and assumptions
used to perform the photochemical
analysis before the actual modeling is
conducted.
The USEPA is currently evaluating
the feasibility of establishing and
requiring single source photochemical
modeling, something that was
technically challenging and generally
cost prohibitive in the past. BOEM is
reviewing the USEPA’s work in this
area. Once BOEM has determined that
the appropriate models are available,
photochemical modeling may be done
cost effectively, and the relevant
background concentration data are
available, BOEM will consider
approving model(s) for use under this
proposed section. Modeling protocols
and the regional exemption studies
supporting the EETs will likely allow
BOEM to approve a photochemical
model in the year 2020.
In order to make a determination as to
the appropriate circumstances under
which single source photochemical
models should be required, BOEM must
also establish appropriate EETs as the
screening mechanism. BOEM may
develop EETs specific to O3 and PM2.5
formation, either in addition to or in
lieu of specific SERs or EETs, or utilize
reduced form photochemical models as
a screening tool to determine the
circumstances under which full single
source photochemical modeling may be
required.89 BOEM might consider
models for each permit situation. Rather, EPA has
a tiered approach with a first tier that uses existing
information or reduced form models in lieu of full
photochemical modeling.
89 BOEM is considering chemical transport
models, including Lagrangian puff models and
Eulerian grid (e.g., photochemical transport)
models, as well. Lagrangian puff models would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
current and future USEPA regulatory
models, assessment techniques, and
related guidance to develop EETs
specific to O3 and PM2.5 formation.
Paragraph 550.304(c)—Projected
Emissions
Section 550.304(c) of the proposed
rule would require the lessee or operator
to base its modeling on its maximum
projected emissions, as reported under
§ 550.205(e), or on the complex total
emissions in those situations where that
reporting is otherwise required.
Paragraph 550.304(d)—Meteorology
Section 550.304(d) of the proposed
rule would require, that for any
modeling performed, lessees and
operators must apply the best available
and most recent meteorological
dataset(s), either as directed in 40 CFR
part 51 appendix W, or by using an
alternate dataset(s) approved by the
Regional Supervisor. In addition, the
proposed rule would require lessees and
operators to create a modeling report
documenting all emissions sources,
inputs, parameters, assumptions,
procedures, methods, and results
including input and output files, and
data upon which their analyses under
subpart C would be based, and to
provide BOEM with copies of all data
and access to any programs used in their
modeling.
Paragraph 550.304(e)—Estimates of
Ambient Air Concentrations
The proposed rule would specify in
§ 550.304(e) that, for each criteria air
pollutant resulting from your projected
emissions (or complex total emissions
where applicable), the lessee and
operator must estimate the peak
incremental concentrations projected in
any attainment area(s) and, separately,
in any non-attainment area(s), in any
State, including State submerged lands
and onshore. BOEM is proposing this
new requirement because the highest air
pollutant concentration on the onshore
area of a State may or may not occur at
the onshore area that is closest to the
require a realistic chemical environment for input,
whereas photochemical transport models typically
estimate a realistic chemical environment. Even
though single source emissions are injected into a
grid volume, comparisons with in-plume
measurements indicate these types of models can
capture downwind secondary pollutant impacts
when applied appropriately for this purpose. Single
source impacts estimated by photochemical grid
models can be done by comparing a (1) model
simulation with all sources and the project source
at preconstruction levels and (2) model simulation
with all sources and the project source at postconstruction levels. Alternatively, post-construction
emissions could be tracked with photochemical
grid model source apportionment or source
sensitivity model extensions.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facility described in the plan.
Depending on the meteorology of the
OCS region, the maximum
concentration will likely occur at that
point on the shoreline or above State
submerged lands where the emissions
are directed by the prevailing winds.
The distinction between the peak
attainment and peak non-attainment
areas is important because the
evaluation and ERM criteria are
different for impacts to these two kinds
of areas.
Section 550.304(e) would require, to
the extent practicable, estimates of the
ambient air concentrations of any
criteria air pollutant consider not only
the dispersion of each criteria air
pollutant itself, but also the formation of
any criteria air pollutant that may result
from the dispersion or presence of any
relevant precursor air pollutant(s). The
proposed rule would state specifically
which precursors would be required to
be included in the analysis of PM2.5 and
O3.
The proposed rule would also state
that BOEM may provide information
through Notices to Lessees to assist
lessees and operators in evaluating
existing ambient air concentrations, or
changes in such concentrations over
time, if BOEM determines that there is
an effective means of estimating
ambient air quality. Under the proposal,
if BOEM has determined that there is an
effective means of estimating ambient
air quality and BOEM has established
appropriate background concentration
data for any given pollutant, at any
given location and point in time, a
lessee or operator would be required to
use the relevant data provided by
BOEM. Alternatively, in the event that
BOEM has not determined appropriate
background concentration data for any
given pollutant, for any given location,
and point in time, a lessee or operator
would be required to use the relevant
data from the USEPA for the closest
appropriate location, as specified by the
Regional Supervisor.
Paragraph 550.304(f)—Attributed
Emissions
Section 550.304(f) would require that,
for the purpose of calculating the
relevant attributed emissions, lessees
and operators conduct modeling of
attributed emissions from those
locations where those emissions are
most likely to occur, utilizing the most
appropriate line, area, volume, or
pseudo point source model that would
most accurately estimate the actual
emissions that will result from MSCs, or
other support operations. Under the
current practice, in contrast, modeling is
performed on the assumption that all
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
attributed emissions originate at the
same location as that of a single
stationary facility.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.304(g)—Documentation
and Reporting
The proposed rule in § 550.304(g)
would require the lessee or operator to
create a modeling report documenting
all emissions sources, inputs,
parameters, assumptions, procedures,
methods, and results, including input
and output files, and underlying data
upon which its analysis under this
subpart is based. The rule would require
the lessee or operator provide BOEM
with copies of the modeling report,
copies of all relevant data and the lessee
or operator provide access to any
programs used to perform their
modeling.
Section 550.305—How do I determine
whether my projected emissions of
criteria air pollutants require ERM?
The proposed rule would require
lessees and operators to compare the
results of the modeling conducted under
proposed § 550.304 with the USEPA’s
Significant Impact Levels (SILs). If the
modeling results are higher than the
SILs, ERM would be required as
specified in § 550.306, for a short-term
facility, or as specified in § 550.307, for
a long-term facility. Under current
BOEM regulations, if modeling indicates
an exceedance of the SILs, which the
current regulations refer to as
Significance Levels, this triggers the
requirement to apply BACT. The table
of Significance Levels in current
§ 550.303(e) was based on the table of
the USEPA’s SILs as they existed in
1980. The USEPA’s tables, however,
have been updated since then.
The USEPA’s regulation on SILs, at 40
CFR 51.165(b), states that an emissions
source ‘‘will be considered to cause or
contribute to a violation of a national
ambient air quality standard’’ when
such a source would cause an
exceedance of the SILs. Accordingly,
BOEM is proposing to use the SILs to set
the level of projected air pollution
increase at a measurement point either
onshore or above State submerged
lands, that, if exceeded, ERM may be
evaluated and controls may be required.
BOEM is proposing to cross-reference
the USEPA’s table of SILs so, if there is
an update or addition that results in a
change to the USEPA table, that change
would automatically become
incorporated into BOEM’s regulatory
standards.
Since PM2.5 is both emitted and
formed in the atmosphere, lessees and
operators would be required to add the
results of their air dispersion modeling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
for direct PM2.5 emissions to the results
of their photochemical modeling, if
required under proposed section
550.304, before comparing the results
with the PM2.5 SILs. If the resulting sum
exceeds a SIL for PM2.5 for any
averaging time, the operator would be
required to apply ERM. As set out in
proposed section 550.304 and explained
above, this additional modeling for
PM2.5 would only be required if the
relevant photochemical models and
background concentration are available.
In contrast to the other criteria air
pollutants, the USEPA’s current
regulations do not set a SIL or AAI for
O3. Rather than determine equivalent
standards for O3 at the present time,
BOEM is proposing to require ERM
based on emissions precursors of O3
when modeling would indicate the
NAAQS for O3 would be exceeded.
Accordingly, lessees and operators
would be required to add the results of
their photochemical modeling, if
required under section 550.304, to the
existing background concentrations and
determine if a NAAQS for O3 would be
exceeded for any averaging time. If any
NAAQS is exceeded, the lessee or
operator would be required to apply
ERM. BOEM solicits comments both on
this approach and whether
photochemical modeling should be
required in all cases. Alternatives could
include reserving a full scale analysis
until such time as the USEPA has
established a SIL for O3, applying a
consultative process between applicant
and BOEM consistent with current
appendix W until such time as revisions
to appendix W have been finalized and
the USEPA has established or
recommended significance levels.
Under the proposed rule, BOEM
would eliminate the standard for TSPs,
which measures the ambient
concentration of particulates having a
diameter of less than 100 micrometers.
Instead, BOEM would formally adopt by
cross-reference the two new standards
that the USEPA created in place of the
TSP standard: PM10 and PM2.5. PM10
represents an ambient air concentration
standard for particulates of a diameter of
10 micrometers or less, while PM2.5
represents an ambient air concentration
standard for particulates of a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less. The USEPA’s
annual and 24-hour averaging time SILs
for PM10 are the same as those which
BOEM currently applies to TSP.90 The
current regulation’s reference to TSP
90 The annual SIL for TSP in the current BOEM
regulations has an equivalent for PM10 because the
USEPA has not revoked the annual SIL for PM10,
although the USEPA revoked the annual NAAQS
for annual PM10 subsequent to the publication of
BOEM’s air quality regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19777
includes particulates of a larger size
than those covered by the USEPA’s
definition of PM10. At the time the
current regulation was promulgated, the
use of a TSP standard reflected the
USEPA practice; however, the USEPA’s
standard for PM10 has been in place
since 1987. Because the USEPA
standard has been in place for many
years, the majority of OCS operators
have already adopted this standard, and
BOEM has largely replaced TSP with
PM10 in the GOM.
The existing SILs for other criteria air
pollutants in BOEM’s current
regulations would not change as a result
of this revision in BOEM’s regulations,
because they are currently set at the
same levels as those set by the USEPA.
The proposed rule would, however,
incorporate the addition of new SILs
established by the USEPA, since the
adoption of BOEM’s original air quality
rule. Going forward, there is the
possibility that the USEPA will further
change the SILs, or add new SILs, in
which case BOEM’s decision to crossreference the USEPA’s regulation would
automatically cause the BOEM
significance threshold rates to change,
as well.
There are some circumstances where
the USEPA has not established a SIL for
a given CP or in which it has established
only an interim SIL that it or the
relevant State air quality regulatory
authority may also use in evaluating the
impacts of a proposed facility. In some
circumstances, the USEPA may have
established one or more SILs in its
regulations and an additional interim
SIL(s), typically for some other
averaging time(s), outside of its
regulations. In other cases, the USEPA
may have repealed a SIL without
establishing a new one. Thus, there may
be situations where a lessee or operator
may propose a plan that exceeds the
relevant EETs, then perform modeling
only to find there may not be a relevant
SIL to compare against its incremental
emissions or a situation where it may be
unclear which SIL(s) to use. In similar
situations where the USEPA or the State
would issue an air quality permit, the
USEPA or the relevant State permitting
authority has issued permitting
guidance to supplement its regulations.
The proposed rule does not contain a
provision on this topic and BOEM
solicits comments on how best to
address this issue.
BOEM also requests comment on
what BOEM should do about NAAQS
that do not have corresponding SILs in
the USEPA regulations; comments on
the following two alternative
approaches are particularly welcome.
One alternative would be for BOEM to
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19778
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
require in the final rule that, for any
NAAQS (pollutant and averaging
period) for which there is no SIL in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2), lessee and operators
must apply the appropriate SIL being
used by the most affected State (at the
point where the incremental emissions
caused by the facility would be highest).
Another alternative would be for BOEM
to establish its own interim SILs based
on the USEPA’s interim SILs, to be used
unless and until the USEPA finalizes
appropriate SILs in its regulation at 40
CFR 51.165(b).
Section 550.306—What ERM are
required for a short-term facility?
Proposed § 550.306 would set forth
the requirements for ERM for both
criteria and major precursor pollutants
on a short-term facility when modeling
shows the facility will cause emissions
to exceed the SILs, or when modeling
will indicate a violation of the NAAQS
for O3. ERM would also be required
when emissions of VOCs exceed the
EETs under the proposed § 550.303(b).
Unlike the proposed requirements for a
long-term facility, the proposed control
requirements for a short-term facility
would be the same for criteria and major
precursor pollutants.
Under BOEM’s existing regulations in
§ 550.303(h), ‘‘[t]he lessee shall apply
BACT to reduce projected emissions of
any air pollutant from a temporary
facility which significantly affects the
air quality of an onshore area of a
State.’’ The current regulations also
explicitly exempt temporary facilities
from the requirements for controls set
out in current regulations in
§ 550.303(g), which require additional
analysis on top of the application of
BACT for non-temporary facilities. In
contrast, the proposed rule would
require lessees and operators to apply
only operational controls and/or
equipment replacements, but not BACT
in those situations where a SIL or VOC
EET is exceeded. The proposed rule,
like the current regulations, would not
require additional AAI analysis after the
application of ERM for a short-term
facility.
Under the proposed rule, an ERM
analysis would start by identifying all
available non-BACT control measures
that would be relevant to the emissions
of the pollutant(s) for which ERM would
be required. The lessee or operator
would then determine which of these
are technically feasible. BOEM is
proposing to define ‘‘technically
feasible’’ in proposed § 550.302. The
proposed rule would also add a
requirement that a ‘‘demonstration of
technical infeasibility must be clearly
documented and must show, based on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
physical, chemical or engineering
principles, that technical difficulties
would preclude the successful use of
the applicable emission control
technology or methodology.’’ The lessee
or operator would rank the technically
feasible control measures by their ability
to reduce actual emissions, based on the
overall emission control efficiency (e.g.,
percent pollutant removed, or emissions
per unit of product) for each alternative.
The lessee or operator would then
evaluate and select the non-BACT ERMs
that are technically feasible and that are
designed to limit the facility’s projected
emissions to the greatest practicable
extent, taking into consideration the
effectiveness of emissions control(s).
Then the lessee or operator would be
required to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of each of the selected
technically feasible operational controls
in order to determine its economic
impacts and feasibility. To justify
elimination of an option on economic
grounds, the lessee or operator should
demonstrate that the costs of pollutant
removal for that option are
disproportionately high. As an
alternative, lessees or operators could
substitute permanent emissions credits
for operational controls or equipment
replacements, at their discretion.
If no technically feasible operational
controls or equipment replacements
could be implemented cost effectively
and the projected emissions affect only
attainment areas, then no ERM would be
required for the pollutant exceeding a
standard other than those that the lessee
or operator proposed in its plan. If no
technically feasible operational controls
or equipment replacements could be
implemented cost effectively, and the
projected emissions would affect a nonattainment area, then the Regional
Supervisor could require the
implementation of other ERM, including
BACT, as a condition of approving the
lessee’s or operator’s plan. Such ERM
could be required on either a permanent
or temporary basis, depending on the
circumstances and location of the
proposed facilities. If this ERM includes
any proposed BACT, then the lessee or
operator would be required to provide a
description of the associated energy,
environmental, and economic impacts,
and other costs.
The nature of any ERM could vary
widely depending on the issue being
addressed and the location of the
relevant operations. Examples of such
measures could be: Running specific
equipment at optimal efficiency for
certain periods of time, only operating
certain equipment on specific days or
for some number of days in a month or
week or at specific times of day, etc.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
They could vary based on the existing
background levels of pollution, the
climatic conditions and the type of plan
proposed. Operational controls could
involve using specific types of fuel or
specific types of combustion technology
or limiting the use of certain equipment
to a specific purpose or circumstance.
They could also involve keeping certain
equipment at a specified distance from
other equipment or facilities, etc.
The purpose of implementing such
controls would be to keep the volume of
air pollutants produced in connection
with the operations conducted under a
plan within a range such that none of
the AAQSB would be violated, either on
a temporary or ongoing basis, thereby
ensuring such operations comply with
BOEM air quality requirements.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed section
would specify what must be included in
a lessee’s or operator’s plan describing
the results of the ERM analysis. This
would consist of: An evaluation of the
ERM selected, quantifying and verifying
the emissions reductions measures and
associated costs; a description of how
the selected operational controls or
replacement equipment meets the
criteria in § 550.309 for ERM; and a
calculation of the revised projected
emissions (or complex total emissions,
where applicable), taking into account
the selected operational controls or
replacement of equipment.
The proposed rule would specify that,
if an operator has committed to apply
appropriate operational controls or
replacement of equipment, in the case of
a plan affecting only an attainment area,
or committed to apply appropriate ERM,
with respect to a plan affecting a nonattainment area, BOEM could approve
the plan, provided all other applicable
requirements have been met. However,
if BOEM were to have a reason to
believe a lessee’s or operator’s projected
emissions may cause the NAAQS to be
exceeded, the Regional Supervisor
could require additional data, analysis,
or modeling to demonstrate compliance
with the NAAQS or might require
additional ERM so that the NAAQS are
not exceeded.
Section 550.307—What ERM are
required for a long-term facility?
Unlike short-term facilities, long-term
facilities are generally intended to
remain in operation for many years.
Correspondingly, they, in conjunction
with their MSCs, generally emit
considerable amounts of air pollutants
on an ongoing basis. Because of this,
long-term facilities warrant more
stringent air quality compliance
requirements. This proposed section
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
describes the air quality control analysis
required of such facilities.
Proposed § 550.307 would set forth
the requirements for ERM on a longterm facility when modeling shows the
facility will cause emissions exceeding
the AAIs or SILs (or when it would
cause a violation of the NAAQS for O3).
This proposed section would expand
upon the existing control requirements
for facilities in § 550.303(g) of the
existing regulations. The current
regulations mandate the application of
BACT whenever a facility’s emissions
exceed the SILs, but they then allow
‘‘the application of additional emission
controls or through the acquisition of
offshore or onshore offsets.’’ The
proposed rule eliminates the preference
for BACT and provides for additional
options, including equipment swaps
and operational controls. As is the case
with current BOEM regulations, the
requirements of this section differ
depending on whether the potential
impacts of any proposed facility would
affect only attainment areas or whether
non-attainment areas might also be
affected. More stringent air quality
requirements, of course, apply to
situations where an area already
exceeds a relevant pollution standard
than in an area that is below that
standard (i.e., has better overall air
quality). BOEM has not proposed a
definition of what ‘‘affect’’ means in this
context but solicits comments on how
this determination should be best made.
One alternative would be that a
facility that does not cause an
exceedance of a SIL at any location in
a State would not be considered to be
one that impacts an affected area of the
State. Conversely, any location at which
a facility’s projected emissions could
cause an exceedance of a SIL would
constitute an affected area of a State for
the purpose of this rule. The difficulty
with this approach, however, lies in the
fact that there may be many locations at
which a SIL is exceeded and the
boundary of this exceedance may be
difficult or impractical to determine—
particularly in the context of the nonattainment areas.
Another alternative would be to
require that any modeling be done with
receptors just inside the outer boundary
of a non-attainment area or at the
attainment/non-attainment area
boundary nearest to, or directly
downwind of, the proposed facility. If
modeling indicates that that no AAQSB
would be exceeded at that point, then
no non-attainment area would be
considered affected by the proposed
facility.
There may be other approaches to
handling the determination of affected
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
areas. BOEM would welcome
suggestions or alternatives for how best
to address this issue.
Paragraph 550.307(a)—Control of
Emissions of VOCs From a Long-Term
Facility
The proposed rule at § 550.307(a), like
the current regulation, separates
requirements for controls of VOCs from
requirements for controls for other air
pollutants. If the projected emissions of
VOCs exceed an emission exemption
threshold, then the lessee or operator
would be required to apply controls.
The controls required would depend
upon the attainment status of the areas
of the State(s) potentially affected by the
emissions. If the projected emissions
affect, or have the potential to affect,
only attainment areas for O3 and PM2.5,
then the lessee or operator would be
required to propose ERM, excluding
BACT, and would be required to
demonstrate the proposed ERM would
reduce the emissions of VOCs to the
lowest practicable and reasonable rate
(i.e., the lowest rate that can reasonably
be achieved). If any designated nonattainment area for O3 or PM2.5 is
affected, then the lessee or operator
would be required to evaluate all the
potentially applicable ERM, including
BACT, and propose sufficient ERM to
reduce VOC emissions below the
applicable emission exemption
threshold. For any proposed BACT, the
operator or lessee would be required to
provide a description of the associated
energy, environmental, and economic
impacts, and other costs.
Paragraph (a)(3) of the proposed
section would provide for an exception
to the requirement to reduce VOC
emissions when they affect a State
coastal area where an increase in VOCs
would not lead to the formation of
increased O3 or would lead to a decrease
in the formation of O3. The proposed
rule would also provide that emissions
credits could be utilized as an
alternative to any other relevant ERM,
regardless of the attainment or nonattainment status of any area that would
potentially be affected by the projected
emissions associated with any lessee or
operator’s proposed plan.
Paragraph 550.307(b)—Control of
Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants
From a Long-Term Facility
For emissions of criteria air
pollutants, the controls that would be
required for long-term facilities also
depend on the attainment status of the
area affected by the projected emissions.
If all areas affected by the projected
emissions are designated attainment
areas, then the lessee or operator would
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19779
be required under § 550.307(b)(1) to
evaluate all the potentially applicable
ERM, excluding BACT, and propose
sufficient ERM to reduce the ambient
impact of the projected emissions and to
conduct refined modeling to show the
effects of the ERM, using the process
described in proposed § 550.306(a)(1)
through (4) for a short-term facility.
Once the appropriate ERM have been
determined, the lessee or operator
should re-conduct modeling to evaluate
the effect of applying ERM to reduce
emissions and to determine whether or
not the operator or lessee’s reduced
emissions would cause an exceedance
of the AAIs. Lessees and operators
would be required to combine the
ambient air effects of their emissions
with the emissions from other onshore
and offshore sources which contribute
to the consumption of the maximum
allowable increases above the baseline
concentrations for each air pollutant
and baseline area, as established in 40
CFR 52.21. In conducting this additional
modeling, operators would be required
to use the ambient air concentration
data, as specified in proposed
§ 550.304(e)(2). If this modeling shows
that ERM is not sufficient to reduce the
projected concentration increases below
the AAIs applicable to the potentially
affected State, then the lessee or
operator would be required to apply
additional ERM and perform additional
modeling until such efforts confirm that
no AAIs would be exceeded. As
discussed above, this was the intent
expressed in the preamble to the
BOEM’s current rule. This proposed
rule would make this intent clear in the
regulatory text itself.
Once this additional modeling shows
the ERM is sufficient to reduce the
projected concentrations below the
AAIs applicable to the potentially
affected State, then the lessee or
operator would be required to compare
the resulting design concentration of
each criteria air pollutant with the
NAAQS. If any of the NAAQS are
shown to be exceeded, the lessee or
operator would be required to apply
additional ERM and perform additional
modeling until it determines none of the
NAAQS would be violated.
As discussed earlier, the current
regulations use the MACIs in place of
the AAIs for determining whether longterm facilities have sufficiently reduced
their impacts on attainment areas. The
MACIs were based on the AAIs at the
time the current rule was promulgated.
While BOEM is now proposing to crossreference the AAIs, it is also considering
whether other standards would be
better. Particularly, BOEM is
considering whether it would be better
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19780
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
to use standards that are based on a
percentage of the level of the NAAQS,
rather than the AAIs. BOEM would
appreciate comment on this issue and
on what standards to set. BOEM also
requests comments on the most
appropriate method for defining the size
and extent of the relevant ‘‘baseline
areas’’ for the purpose of conducting the
AQRP analysis.
Under the proposed rule at paragraph
550.307(b)(2), if projected emissions
affect any area designated as a nonattainment area, then the lessee or
operator would be required to evaluate
all the potentially applicable ERM,
including BACT, and propose sufficient
ERM to reduce the ambient impact of its
emissions of all criteria air pollutants
below the applicable SILs at 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2). The proposed rule would
then require a lessee or operator to
conduct modeling using the revised
projected emissions and compare the
results with the SILs. If photochemical
modeling would be required under
§ 550.304, then the lessee or operator
would be required to also perform
photochemical modeling and add the
results of that modeling to the results of
the additional dispersion models. If the
modeling results exceed any SIL for any
criteria air pollutant for any averaging
time, then the lessee or operator would
be required to apply additional ERM
until additional modeling demonstrates
all projected emissions have been fully
reduced below the SILs for all criteria
air pollutants for every applicable
averaging time.
Paragraph 550.307(c)—Exceptions to the
ERM Requirement
The proposed rule at § 550.307(c)
would also provide that, for any
averaging time other than an annual
period, a facility’s projected emissions
may cause an ambient impact that
exceeds an applicable AAI one time
during any rolling 12-month period for
any given criteria air pollutant at any
one location and still be considered to
have fully reduced emissions. This
provision is retained from the language
in existing regulation
§ 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B), which states: ‘‘For
any period other than the annual period,
the applicable maximum allowable
increase may be exceeded during one
such period per year at any one onshore
location;’’ however, slight changes have
been made in the wording for clarity.
Additionally, this proposed paragraph
would provide that if an operator or
lessee’s projected emissions of NOX
potentially affect a State coastal area,
but would not cause an increase, or
would cause a reduction, in the
formation of O3, then no ERM are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
required for NOX. However, this
exception would not apply if the
potentially affected area is an
attainment area for NO2 and the lessee
or operator’s analysis indicates that the
AAIs for NO2 would be exceeded in the
absence of such ERM or if the
potentially affected area is a nonattainment area for NO2.
This proposed paragraph would also
provide an exception if the
implementation of a plan under these
regulations would compromise the
safety of the operation of the facility,
and such implementation of any
AAQSB cannot be otherwise addressed.
Paragraph 550.307(d)—NAAQS
Requirement Applicable to All Plans
The proposed rule at § 550.307(d)
would contain a provision, consistent
with the current BOEM regulations at
§ 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) (‘‘No concentration
of an air pollutant shall exceed the
concentration permitted under the
national secondary ambient air quality
standard or the concentration permitted
under the national primary air quality
standard, whichever concentration is
lowest for the air pollutant for the
period of exposure’’), stating no
concentration of an air pollutant could
exceed the concentration permitted
under any primary or secondary
NAAQS, whichever concentration is
lowest for the air pollutant for the
period of exposure. The proposed rule
would state that NAAQS may not be
exceeded, even for a short-term facility.
Paragraph 550.307(e)—Emissions
Credits
The proposed rule would clarify that
a lessee or operator may propose to use
emissions credits to achieve the
equivalent reduction of emissions for
any criteria air pollutant as an
alternative to any other ERM, regardless
of the attainment status of the State area
affected by its facility’s potential
emissions.
Section 550.308—Under what
circumstances will BOEM require
additional ERM on my proposed facility
or facilities?
The purpose of this proposed
provision is to provide a safeguard to
the plan approval process, such that any
approval of a facility made according to
these regulations does not cause a
violation of an applicable air quality
control standard. Because all of BOEM’s
plan reviews are done on a prospective
basis, it is possible the impacts of the
implementation of such a plan could
cause an adverse effect on a State that
was not anticipated. This provision in
the proposed rule provides a
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mechanism for State and local
government entities, and certain
Federally-recognized Indian tribes, that
might be adversely affected by the
approval of a plan or a RUE, pipeline
ROW, or lease term pipeline application
to raise objections on the basis of data
or information that may not have been
available to BOEM at the time a plan
was originally approved. The current
rule contains a similar provision that
applies only to States.
The current regulations, under
§ 550.303(j), provide ‘‘[i]f . . . the
Regional Supervisor determines or an
affected State submits information . . .
which demonstrates . . . that projected
emissions from an otherwise exempt
facility will, either individually or in
combination with other facilities in the
area, significantly affect the air quality
of an onshore area, then the Regional
Supervisor shall require the lessee to
submit additional information to
determine whether emission control
measures are necessary.’’
Paragraph 550.308(a)—Regional
Supervisor Review
The proposed rule at § 550.308(a)
would expand upon this provision by
specifying the Regional Supervisor
could require the lessee or operator to
apply additional ERM on either a
temporary or permanent basis,
depending on the circumstances, if he/
she determines the projected emissions,
or, where applicable, complex total
emissions, may cause or contribute to a
violation of a NAAQS, based on (1)
information submitted by a State, or a
local government, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe; (2) information
resulting from a cumulative impacts
analysis conducted for a NEPA analysis;
(3) a compliance review of a proposed
plan under subpart B, § 550.232(b) for
an EP, or § 550.267(c) for a DPP or
DOCD; or (4) the declaration by an
adjacent State, or the USEPA, of an air
quality emergency for a location that
may be affected by air emissions
generated by operations.
Paragraph 550.308(b)—Lessee’s or
Operator’s Right To Challenge
The proposed rule would provide in
§ 550.308(b) any lessee or operator
affected by the requirements of this
section would be given notice of the
Regional Supervisor’s determination
under paragraph (a) of this proposed
section, as well as an opportunity to
present additional information and
analysis for review by the Regional
Supervisor. Under the proposed rule, if
the lessee or operator presents the
Regional Supervisor with additional
information and analysis, the Regional
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Supervisor would reassess whether the
projected emissions, or complex total
emissions, might cause or contribute to
a violation of any NAAQS, and whether
additional ERM would be required for
the facility. Similar to the current
regulations, under the proposed rule,
the Regional Supervisor would then
notify the affected State, or Federallyrecognized Indian tribe, and explain the
reasons for this determination.
Section 550.309—What requirements
apply to my ERM?
The proposed rule would provide
explicit requirements to ensure the
sufficiency, effectiveness, and control
efficiency for a lessee’s or operator’s
ERM. It also would specify how a lessee
or operator could use emissions offsets.
Paragraph 550.309(a)—Sufficiency
Under the proposed rule at
§ 550.309(a), a lessee’s or operator’s
proposed ERM would need to be
sufficient to achieve actual emissions
reductions corresponding to those
reported in the plan for the duration of
the plan’s operations under all
reasonably foreseeable conditions.
Under the proposed rule, the Regional
Supervisor would review a lessee’s or
operator’s proposed ERM on a case by
case basis and make a determination
whether such measures met the
applicable criteria.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.309(b)—Effectiveness
Under § 550.309(b), the lessee or
operator would need to continually
ensure the effectiveness of its ERM for
the duration of the plan’s operations
under the proposed rule. If emissions
reductions measures become disabled or
unavailable, the lessee or operator must
immediately notify the Regional
Supervisor and replace such ERM with
others of equal or superior effectiveness
within 30 days of discovering the
disability or unavailability, unless the
Regional Supervisor approves an
extension not to exceed 90 days.
Paragraph 550.309(c)—Control
Efficiency
The proposed rule at § 550.309(c)
would specify that the analysis of the
proposed ERM would need to reflect
actual ECE. The proposed rule would
require a lessee or operator to
substantiate any ECEs it projects and
provide sufficient evidence to justify its
projected ECEs to the satisfaction of the
Regional Supervisor. The rule would
further specify at § 550.309(c)(1) that,
should the substantiating data indicate
a range of efficiencies, the lessee or
operator would be required to utilize the
more conservative estimates (i.e., those
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
that would result in lower ECE) in its
analysis and modeling. The intent of
this provision is to ensure the proposed
benefits that would result from BACT
and/or other emissions controls would
not be over-estimated, in order to ensure
any controls that are proposed would be
sufficient to actually reduce the
emissions of a proposed facility to the
levels projected in the analysis
conducted pursuant to subpart C.
Consistent with this, a further
requirement is proposed at
§ 550.309(c)(2) whereby ECE estimates
of 100 percent ECE would generally not
be considered acceptable, except in
cases where there is clear and
convincing and/or historical evidence to
justify their use. This requirement
recognizes the fact there are virtually no
emissions control mechanisms that can
entirely eliminate all potential air
pollutant emissions, and it is both
unrealistic and unreasonable to make
such an overstated estimate, without
definitive evidence of its accuracy.
Paragraph 550.309(d)—Emission
Reduction Monitoring
Further, under § 550.309(d), if ERM
would be required in an approved plan,
then the proposed rule would authorize
the Regional Supervisor to require
lessees and operators to provide
information needed to verify the
effectiveness and efficiency of the
proposed ERM. The proposed rule states
that a lessee or operator with a plan that
is approved subject to the application of
BACT must ensure that the emissions
associated with each emissions source
for which BACT is required complies
with the emissions verification
requirements of § 550.311 of this
subpart. The rule further states that the
Regional Supervisor may also require
the installation of emissions
measurement meters if the Regional
Supervisor determines that such meters
are necessary to ensure compliance with
this requirement (i.e., that other
alternatives may not be sufficient to
ensure compliance).
Paragraph 550.309(e)—Emissions
Credits
The purpose of acquiring an
emissions credit is to cause a reduction
in the emissions of a given pollutant
from a business or activity unrelated to
the plan, so that the total concentration
of a given pollutant within a given area
will not increase (as a result of the
operations associated with a plan)
beyond a permissible level.
The proposed rule at § 550.309(d)
would set forth requirements for
emissions credits. First, the lessee or
operator would be required to acquire
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19781
emissions offsets from emissions
source(s), either offshore or onshore,
that affect the air quality of the same
AQCR). Second, for a CP, the emissions
credits that the lessee or operator
proposes would need to provide a net
air quality benefit for the same
pollutant; for a precursor pollutant, any
emissions credits that a lessee or
operator proposes would need to
provide a net air quality benefit for that
CP for which the pollutant is a
precursor. Third, the lessee or operator
would need to demonstrate to the
Regional Supervisor that the emissions
credit it proposes binds it and any other
parties who agree to lower their
emissions. Fourth, the lessee or operator
would need to also demonstrate that any
emissions reductions will last for the
entire period of operations covered in
its plan. The Regional Supervisor might
periodically require the lessee or
operator to certify that the emissions
reductions are still in place. Fifth, any
emissions credits would need to reduce
emissions below rates otherwise
required by law. Sixth, in addition to
BOEM, the lessee or operator would be
required to notify the appropriate State
air quality control jurisdiction of its
proposal to acquire emissions credits,
modify the permit for the underlying
onshore facility to reflect the proposed
reduction in emissions and, if
necessary, its need to revise the State
Implementation Plan to include the
information regarding the emissions
credits the lessee or operator has
acquired. Seventh, emissions credits
would be allowed in those
circumstances where BOEM could
readily verify the historical emissions
from the facility to be used for the
emissions credit, and the emissions
reduction associated with the acquired
emissions credit. Eighth, the approval of
an emissions credit would not be
granted unless the reductions in
emissions associated with the credit are
verifiable by an appropriate State, tribe
or federal agency (primarily through the
modification of the air emissions
permits for the relevant onshore
facility). Finally, the proposed rule
would specify that nothing in these
regulations is intended to restrict
emissions credits from being obtained
and divided among multiple lessees or
operators.
If an OCS lessee or operator proposes
to use emissions credits as an emission
reduction measure (ERM), in lieu of
BACT, operational controls or the
replacement of equipment used on the
OCS, then that lessee or operator would
be responsible for ensuring that the
reductions are permanent and verifiable.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19782
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
In the event that a lessee or operator
elected to reduce the pollutant
emissions of an onshore facility to offset
corresponding emissions for a new
facility proposed on the OCS, that lessee
or operator could ensure that the
reductions are permanent and verifiable
by notifying the relevant State air
quality regulatory body and seeking a
modification of the permit for the
underlying onshore facility to reflect the
proposed reduction in emissions. The
State could then update the permitted
level of emissions which would ensure
compliance with the reduced emissions
requirements on an ongoing basis. The
State could also update its SIP, if
appropriate, and modify its reporting to
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. BOEM does not believe that
this process would be unduly
burdensome to the States or that it
would require any State-funded
monitoring or compliance activities
beyond those that are already in place
or contemplated.
Rather, BOEM believes that this
process would largely be beneficial to
the States, in that the reduction in air
emissions of onshore facilities, beyond
those that would otherwise be legally
required, could cause a net air quality
benefit to the States and localities
affected. Such a change could also allow
a greater level of economic
development, and a greater number of
approvals for additional stationary
sources onshore than might otherwise
be the case (in the absence of the
emissions credit). For these reasons,
BOEM believes that the potential use of
emissions credits by lessees or operators
would be neither onerous nor
unreasonable.
The proposed rule would allow
emissions credits to be obtained and
divided among multiple lessees or
operators (presumably located near to
one another in the vicinity of the State)
in order to spread the costs of
complying with air quality requirements
over a broad area, or for any other
reason.
The manner in which the proposed
rule would have the potential to affect
the relationship between the federal and
State governments has to do with a
situation in which an OCS lessee or
operator proposes to use emissions
credits as an emission reduction
measure (ERM), in lieu of BACT. In the
event that a lessee or operator elected to
reduce the pollutant emissions of an
onshore facility to offset corresponding
emissions for a new facility proposed on
the OCS, that lessee or operator would
be required to notify the relevant State
air quality regulatory body and arrange
for the modification of the permit for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
underlying onshore facility to reflect the
proposed reduction in emissions. The
State could then update the permitted
level of emissions which would ensure
compliance with the reduced emissions
requirements on an ongoing basis. The
State may also need to update its SIP,
as appropriate, and modify its reporting
to the USEPA. Lessees have not
typically utilized emissions credits as a
pollution mitigation measure in the
past. BOEM solicits comments on the
practicality and potential costs
associated with the implementation of
these proposals at the State level, as
well as comments on how these
proposals could most effectively be
implemented in coordination with the
States.
Paragraph 550.309(f)—Emission
Reduction Measures
Under proposed § 550.309(f), unless
otherwise specified, the lessee or
operator could employ any operational
control, equipment replacement(s),
BACT, or emissions credit, on either a
temporary or permanent basis, to reduce
the amount of emissions that would
occur in the absence of such measures.
The proposed paragraph would also
provide that any proposed ERM would
become a condition of its plan upon
approval and could be required on
either a permanent or temporary basis,
depending on the circumstances and
location of the proposed facilities.
In addition, the rule would clarify
that any lessee or operator proposing a
plan that includes equipment
replacement would be subject to
compliance with all other applicable
federal regulations, including those of
the USCG.
Section 550.310—How will revisions to
the ambient air standards or
benchmarks affect my plan?
Paragraph 550.310(a)—Review of Plans
The proposed rule at § 550.310(a)
specifies that BOEM would review air
pollutant emissions data in a plan
according to the AAQSB that are in
effect on the date the plan is deemed
submitted. Because BOEM’s regulations
would cross-reference the USEPA’s
standards, BOEM would make the
appropriate changes to its review of
plans if the USEPA revised such
standards.
Paragraph 550.310(b)—Proposed Plans
The proposed rule at § 550.310(b)
would specify that all activities
described in initial, revised, modified,
and supplemental plans would be
required to comply with the AAQSB in
effect on the date the plan is deemed
submitted.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The proposed rule, however, would
provide exceptions in two situations.
First, under § 550.310(b)(1), if a plan
were deemed submitted shortly after the
effective date of a new or revised
AAQSB, and the lessee or operator
believed the immediate application of
the new or revised AAQSB would be
impracticable or would otherwise
impose an unreasonable hardship on its
proposed operations, then the lessee or
operator would be able to request a
deferral from the requirement to comply
with the new or revised standard. The
Regional Director, with the concurrence
of the Director, would review the
request and would have the discretion
to grant a temporary deferral, not to
exceed two years, from compliance with
the new or revised AAQSB based upon
a finding of impracticability or undue
hardship. Second, under § 550.310(b)(2),
for any proposed plan, upon a finding
that noncompliance with a new or
revised AAQSB would not significantly
affect the air quality of any State
onshore or over State submerged lands,
the Director would be able to grant a
departure from compliance with the
revised AAQSB. The Director would
have the discretion to condition the
departure upon any requirement(s)
deemed necessary to avoid causing or
contributing to a violation of the preexisting NAAQS. This exception would
account for situations in which the
USEPA could revise or add an ambient
air quality standard or benchmark that
would not be relevant to OCS operations
or that would go beyond BOEM’s
mandate to prevent significant effects on
the air quality of a State, would be
impracticable, or would otherwise
impose an unreasonable hardship.
Paragraph 550.310(c)—Approved Plans
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or
operator is operating under an approved
plan, it would be required to resubmit
a plan for a periodic air quality review
no more frequently than ten years after
BOEM’s previous approval of the plan.
This provision would be added in
furtherance of the objective of section
5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM
to ensure compliance with the NAAQS,
and which makes no exceptions with
respect to previously approved plans.
All of the applicable requirements of
this subpart in effect on the date of
resubmission would apply on the same
basis to a resubmitted plan as for an
initial plan. BOEM requests comments
on this provision, particularly with
respect to the potential impact on
lessees and operators.
In order to ensure that the lessee or
operator’s emissions remain compliant
with OCSLA’s air quality mandate,
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
starting in 2020, subsequent to the date
of the Notice, BOEM proposes to
conduct periodic reviews of plans
approved prior to the effective date of
the new exemption thresholds. At that
point, each lessee or operator whose
plan was approved prior to the effective
date of this proposed rule would be
required to resubmit its plan for a new
air quality review on a schedule listed
in the proposed rule. Although the
length of time required between the
original plan review and the subsequent
follow-up review would vary, in no case
would a lessee or operator be required
to re-submit its plan for an air quality
review more than once every ten
years.91 A plan initially submitted or
resubmitted pursuant to this proposed
provision would be required to comply
with the provisions of § 550.205 as they
exist at the time the plan is submitted,
using the most current data on
emissions factors and MSC emissions,
and such a plan would, in all cases, be
reevaluated against the EETs and
formulas as they exist at the time of the
plan resubmission, rather than those in
effect at the time the plan was originally
approved.
When a plan is resubmitted under this
provision that plan would be required to
include estimates for the annual
projected emissions for the subsequent
ten years or for however long the facility
would be expected to remain in
operation, whichever is shorter. With
respect to the emissions calculations for
any given emissions source, the
resubmitted plan would be required to
account for the most recent available
data on the actual emissions of that
emission source. Under the proposal, if
a plan would indicate an exceedance of
any applicable emission exemption
threshold, all applicable requirements of
this subpart would apply as for an
initial plan.
For plans that were approved prior to
the effective date of this rule, the lessee
or operator would be required to submit
a new plan for a new air quality review
of its existing facilities according to a
schedule in a table listed in the
proposed rule. This table would require
that the oldest plans be submitted first
for re-review and that the most recently
approved plans would be re-submitted
last, according to the same ten-year
review cycle. In each case, each plan
would be due the same month as the
month in which the plan was originally
approved.
91 Unless the lessee or operator were required to
re-submit a plan for reasons unrelated to the tenyear periodic review cycle (i.e., because it was
proposing to change the plan schedule, add
additional equipment or for some other reason).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
After the year 2023, plans would be
re-reviewed every ten years; and the
plan resubmission would be required in
the month of the tenth anniversary of
the initial plan approval, or the month
of the tenth anniversary of the approval
of a revised, modified, resubmitted or
supplemental plan, whichever is later.
If a lessee or operator proposes to
make a change to the equipment on its
existing facility or facilities in a year or
years when its plan already anticipated
operations, and its proposed change
would result in an increase in air
pollutant emissions from that
equipment for any air pollutant, the
lessee or operator would be required to
submit a revised plan, not simply a plan
that describes the specific change being
proposed.
The proposed rule would provide that
if a lessee or operator fails to submit a
revised plan as required under this
section, then the previous approval of
its plan would be revoked. In this
circumstance the lessee or operator
could also be subject to civil penalties
or other appropriate sanctions,
including the requirement to cease
operations.
Section 550.311—Under what
circumstance will I be required to
measure and report my actual
emissions?
The purpose of this section is to
describe under what circumstances a
lessee or operator would be required to
demonstrate its actual emissions have
been and are in compliance with its
previously approved plan(s).
Paragraph 311(a)—Compliance
Demonstration Conditions
Paragraph (a) of this proposed section
would provide that facilities described
in plans that were approved by BOEM
under the listed conditions would be
required to measure actual emissions:
(1) If a plan is approved subject to the
implementation of BACT or emissions
credits; (2) if any emissions source on
your facility uses any engine or
equipment that is neither certified by
the USEPA for domestic use in the U.S.
nor MARPOL-compliant; (3) if the
Regional Supervisor determines that
lessees or operator’s projected
emissions, complex total emissions, for
any criteria or precursor air pollutant,
calculated on either an annual basis or
on the basis of a 12 month rolling sum,
may significantly underestimate the
actual emissions, based on either
historical data or ambient air
monitoring; or, (4) if BOEM determines
that your facility is causing or
contributing to an exceedance of the
NAAQS in any State.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19783
Paragraph 550.311(b)—Emissions
Reporting Requirements
For lessees and operators who would
be required to measure and report actual
emissions, proposed subsection (b)
would state several basic requirements
for measurement and reporting of actual
emissions. Lessees and operators that
are required to measure and report
emissions would be required to include
enough of the emissions sources to
ensure that the actual emissions
associated with facilities and MSCs
operating under an approved plan are
consistent with the projected emission
limits approved for that plan. In other
words, they would be required to
demonstrate that a sufficient number of
their large emissions sources are at or
below the projected emissions for that
equipment so that the emissions
associated with the remaining emissions
sources would not be sufficient to cause
an exceedance of the projected
emissions limits approved in the plan.
Under the proposed rule, each lessee
or operator would be required to
consider every source that was included
in its approved plan in addition to any
source that would be classified as part
of the projected emissions if the plan
were resubmitted under the current
regulations. Since the objective is to
ensure that the actual emissions
associated with facilities and MSCs
operating under an approved plan do
not significantly exceed the emissions
projected for that plan, BOEM proposes
to provide (as an option) a list of the
kinds of emissions sources that lessees
and operators could monitor to satisfy
the requirements of this paragraph. On
facilities, engine reporting and
monitoring would include and apply to:
Onboard facility engines; power
generation engines; Hydraulic Power
Units (HPU); deck cranes; cementing
units; and other engines with a
maximum power rating exceeding 200
hp (149 kW). On facilities, this list
would exclude: propulsion engines,
boilers and incinerators, emergency
generators, and lifeboat engines. For
MSCs, the emissions sources subject to
measurement and reporting could
include: Propulsion engines; power
generation engines; marine auxiliary
engines; and engines with a maximum
power rating exceeding 200 hp (149
kW). On MSCs, this list would exclude
boilers and incinerators, emergency
generators, all engines onboard science
vessels, offshore supply vessels, or
lifeboats.
Further, measurement of actual
emissions would be required to reflect
actual operations on the OCS and not
exclusively on the basis of ECEs, fuel
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19784
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
logs, or activity data. The lessee or
operator would need to demonstrate
that the data submitted to BOEM under
this section is consistent with any data
provided to BOEM under the
requirements of § 550.187. The lessee or
operator would be required to provide
this information in a manner and on a
schedule determined by the Regional
Supervisor.
BOEM solicits comments as to how it
should best implement the requirements
of this section with respect to those
facilities that would be required to
report their actual emissions. BOEM
invites comments on this issue with
respect to how best to achieve the
objective of obtaining actual data on
potentially large pollution emitters
while not adversely impacting those
small-volume emitters whose emissions
do not have any realistic potential to
adversely affect the air quality of any
State.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paragraph 550.311(c)—Notification
Requirements
Proposed paragraph (c) would require
the lessee or operator to notify BOEM,
if any of its actual emissions exceed its
projected emissions at any time after the
plan has been approved and to provide
BOEM with the appropriate data
regarding the exceedance.
If a lessee or operator proposes to
make a change to the equipment on its
existing facility or facilities in a year or
years when its plan already anticipated
operations, and its proposed change
would result in an increase in air
pollutant emissions from that
equipment for any air pollutant, the
lessee or operator would be required to
submit a revised plan, not simply a plan
that describes the specific change being
proposed.
Paragraph 550.311(d)—Data Submittal
Requirements
As with the reporting done pursuant
to § 550.205(d) of the proposed section
would specify that a lessee or operator
must submit data and information in a
format, and using the forms, specified
by BOEM. The lessee or operator must
submit information in an electronicallyreadable format, unless otherwise
directed by the Regional Supervisor. If
it transmits the information to BOEM
electronically, then it must use a
delivery medium or transmission
method authorized by BOEM.
While the current regulation requires
monitoring and reporting of emissions,
it does not specify what monitoring is
required. The proposed rule at § 550.311
would provide more specificity on how
the monitoring and reporting must be
carried out. BOEM believes a more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
comprehensive approach to emissions
measurement and monitoring could
improve the quality and type of
information for estimating impacts on
affected States. BOEM requests
comments and suggestions with respect
to the best approach to post-approval
record-keeping, monitoring and
reporting, including potential
alternative approaches.
Section 550.312—What post-approval
recordkeeping and reporting is
required?
Paragraph 550.312(a)—Stack Testing
The proposed rule would include
requirements necessary to validate the
emissions estimates that are described
in a plan. The proposed rule would
specify at § 550.312(a) if stack testing
was used as a method to develop
emissions factors under proposed
§ 550.205 or was used to develop any
other information submitted pursuant to
that section, then a lessee or operator
would be required to conduct the stack
testing every three years and to report
the results. BOEM seeks comment on
whether it should require or recommend
that the stack testing data be collected
with the USEPA’s electronic reporting
tool and submitted via CDX
(Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface-), so that the USEPA
can update the AP 42/WebFIRE
emissions factors and so BOEM can
compile the relevant data and supply it
to other lessees and operators for their
use in the future.
Paragraph 550.312(b)—Fuel Logs and
Activity Data
Proposed § 550.312(b) would describe
the recordkeeping requirements that
would be necessary to demonstrate
compliance with the plan in all cases,
whether or not ERM are required and
whether or not the conditions in
proposed § 550.311(a) were satisfied.
Under the proposed rule, lessees or
operators would be required to retain
information on monthly fuel
consumption, for each emissions source,
including attributed emissions sources,
showing the quantity, type, and sulphur
content of fuel used; collect facility and
equipment usage information, including
hours of operation at each percent of
capacity for each emissions source.
Venting, flaring, flashing and any other
release of any air pollutant emissions
that would not otherwise be accounted
for by fuel consumption would be
required to be reported for any
emissions source that generates criteria
air pollutants or precursor air pollutants
in connection with OCS activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The proposed rule would require the
lessee or operator to retain this
information for a period of no less than
10 years. Reporting of fuel logs, facility
and equipment activity and usage
information, and fuel sulphur content
must be provided to BOEM on a
schedule established by the Regional
Director. This provision is intended to
ensure ongoing air quality compliance,
after a plan is approved. It would both
maintain consistency with the USEPA’s
approach to regulating OCS operations
and retain the requirements of BOEM’s
current regulations at 30 CFR 550.303(k)
and 550.304(g).
If BOEM elects to obtain the relevant
data for a lessee’s or operator’s
attributed emissions from an
independent third party, then the
Regional Supervisor may waive the
requirement to submit fuel logs or
collect facility and equipment usage
information for MSCs.
BOEM solicits comment on whether
there are other ways of collecting
information or monitoring to ensure
ongoing compliance with approved
plans. Additionally, BOEM requests
comment on alternative approaches to
ensure compliance with an approved
plan. BOEM also requests specific
comment on whether there are ways to
minimize the data collection and
reporting burden associated with fuel
logs while also ensuring the ongoing
compliance with an approved plan. For
example, there may be circumstances
under which some facilities and/or
MSCs would generate such low levels of
emissions that there would be no
practical possibility that the operations
of those facilities and/or MSCs,
cumulatively or separately, could
exceed any relevant EET(s). Under those
circumstances, the requirement to
maintain fuel logs and/or activity data
records may not be necessary or could
be modified. BOEM solicits comment on
what those circumstances may be and
how BOEM might craft an exception or
modification to the record-keeping
requirements for small facilities and/or
MSCs, so as to minimize the cost burden
on lessees and operators—consistent
with BOEM’s need to ensure the
integrity of its air quality regulatory
program.
The proposed rule would also specify
that record-keeping and reporting must
be consistent with the USEPA’s
requirements for Electronic Reporting
and Recordkeeping Requirements for
New Source Performance Standards.
These are available in the following
document: Electronic Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements for New
Source Performance Standards, 80 FR
15099, RIN 2060–AP63, March 20, 2015.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Paragraph 550.312(c)—Meteorological
Reporting
The current § 550.303(l) provides the
Regional Supervisor may require, for a
period of time and in a manner
approved or prescribed, a lessee to
collect and submit meteorological data
from any of its facilities. The proposed
rule in § 550.312(c) would include a
provision with similar language.
However, the proposed rule would add
a provision allowing a lessee or operator
to instead collect and report
meteorological data derived from any
other mutually agreed upon location
with the approval of the Regional
Supervisor.
Paragraph 550.312(d)—Other
Information
The proposed rule in § 550.312(d)
would add a provision to make clear the
Regional Supervisor might require other
information needed to support any
finding or determination under subpart
C.
Paragraph 550.312(e)—Additional
Requirements Imposed by Other
Agencies
The proposed rule would clarify that
another federal agency could impose
additional reporting, monitoring, or
other requirements beyond those
proposed by BOEM. None of the
provisions of this paragraph would
prevent the imposition of additional
monitoring or reporting requirements on
the part of BSEE or any other federal
agency.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 550.313—Under what
circumstances will BOEM impose
additional requirements on facilities
operating under already approved
plans?
The proposed rule would provide that
under certain circumstances BOEM
might impose additional requirements
on existing facilities operating under
approved plans. In addition to the new
requirement that all plans be subject to
a ten-year re-review process, the
proposed rule would provide that
BOEM might impose other requirements
on facilities operating under an already
approved plan if an applicable AAQSB
changes or if BOEM determines the
operations are:
• Causing or contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS, either individually or in
combination with any other offshore
operations (this provision would also
account for plans approved with either a
NOX or VOC waiver that may not continue
to be appropriate);
• Emitting unauthorized air pollutants;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Creating conditions posing an
unreasonable risk to public health or welfare;
or
• Violating any applicable federal, State or
tribal law related to air quality.
Also if a plan approved as a shortterm facility later becomes a long-term
facility, the proposed rule would require
a lessee or operator to submit an initial
plan under the standards applicable to
long-term facilities. The proposed rule
would allow the Regional Director to
grant a temporary exception to this
requirement if the short-term facility
became a long-term facility as a result of
adverse weather conditions or other
circumstances beyond the lessee’s or
operator’s control that delayed
operations in the lease area. The
exception would not be allowed to
exceed the number of months the lessee
or operator had been unable to operate.
Section 550.314—Under what
circumstances will the Regional
Supervisor review the projected
emissions from my existing facility or
facilities?
The purpose of this proposed section
is to outline the ongoing requirements,
which are intended to ensure the lessee
or operator will not allow its facility or
facilities to generate emissions in excess
of those approved in the plan.
This section would update and
modify the requirements in current
§ 550.304(a). That paragraph describes a
process by which a State, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe having either a
TAS status or a USEPA-approved TIP,
can request more information about
emissions data or the review of an
existing plan. The proposed rule would
provide that a State or Indian tribe
could request that the Regional
Supervisor to supply it with the air
pollution data regarding an existing
facility’s projected emissions, if such
data were needed either for the updating
of the State’s or Indian tribe’s emissions
inventory or because a State or Indian
tribe believed an existing facility’s
projected emissions might cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.
The proposed rule would further
provide that lessees or operators might
be required to submit air pollutant
emissions data to the entity submitting
such a request.
Further, under the proposed rule, the
entity submitting a request would be
permitted to submit information to
BOEM that it believed indicated that
projected emissions from an existing
facility could cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. In such a case,
the lessee or operator responsible for the
facility would be given the opportunity
to present information to the Regional
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19785
Supervisor that demonstrates its
facility’s projected emissions would not
cause such an effect. The Regional
Supervisor would evaluate the new
information submitted and would
determine whether the lessee or
operator’s actual emissions, including
their attributed emissions, would have
the potential to cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. The Regional
Supervisor would base this
determination on an evaluation of the
emissions data, the available
meteorological data, and the distance of
the facility from the State or
Reservation. If the Regional Supervisor
were to determine an existing facility’s
projected emissions had the potential to
cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS, then the lessee or operator
would be required to submit additional
data as requested by the Regional
Supervisor. This provision is intended
to complement the provision described
in § 550.205(m), which outlines those
exceptional circumstances under which
additional data or information may be
required.
D. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart J
The following change is proposed in
part 550, subpart J:
Section 550.1012—What are the air
quality requirements for pipeline rightsof-way holders?
Applications for rights-of-way are
currently sent to and reviewed by BSEE.
The proposed rule would not change
that process except to add a requirement
that any application for approval of a
new pipeline ROW would also be
subject to BOEM’s air quality
requirements. The proposed rule would
specify that when a person applies for
a right-of-way (ROW) in any part of the
OCS under the air quality regulatory
jurisdiction of the Department, its
application would be required to
include the information required by
§ 550.205 of this part and demonstrate
that the ROW complies with subpart C
of this part. The proposed rule would
also specify that any requirement in
either § 550.205 or subpart C that refers
to plans should be interpreted to apply
equally to rights-of-way and that any
requirement that refers to lessees should
be interpreted to apply equally to ROW
holders or grantees.
There are a few exceptions proposed
to these requirements that are based on
the unique nature of pipeline ROWs:
The provisions in subpart C that refer to
the consolidation of multiple facilities
and, the periodic resubmittal of plans
under proposed § 550.310(c) would not
apply to ROW holders or grantees.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19786
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
In addition, the proposed rule
specifies that no additional
requirements would apply to a proposed
or existing RUE that is already included
within the scope of an existing or
proposed exploration or development
plan. The proposed rule would also
specify that BOEM will notify BSEE of
its determination that the organization
or individual has provided the
information required by § 550.205 and
met the requirements of subpart C of
this part. If necessary, BOEM would
notify BSEE of additional conditions
necessary to ensure that the activities
will comply with subpart C of this part.
VI. Interagency and Public Outreach
The Department has and continues to
make a substantial effort to review its
proposals with relevant stakeholders,
both within and outside the federal
government. It has conferred, and
intends to continue to further confer,
with the BSEE, the BLM, the FWS, the
NPS, the USEPA, the United States
Coast Guard (USCG), the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and other relevant
federal agencies prior to formulating the
final rule. BOEM also intends to review
this proposed rule with affected States.
DOI strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship
with Federally-recognized Indian Tribes
and Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act Corporations through a commitment
to consultation with Indian Tribes and
recognition of their right to selfgovernance and Tribal sovereignty. This
proposed rule will be subject to an
extensive public comment period and
the views of all potentially affected
industry and interested environmental
groups will be solicited and carefully
considered. The Department will
consider and evaluate the comments of
all potentially affected and interested
parties, consistent with the OCSLA
mandate that it appropriately balance
the economic benefits associated with
‘‘expeditious and orderly development’’
against the potential environmental
risks (i.e., ‘‘subject to environmental
safeguards’’) that may be associated
with any changes to existing air quality
regulations.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Legal & Regulatory Analyses
A. Statutes
1. National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969
BOEM has developed a draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) to
determine whether this proposed rule
would have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment
under the NEPA. The draft EA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
available for review and public
comment in the docket for this proposed
rule at www.regulations.gov. Questions
or comments related to the EA should
be directed to Eric Wolvovsky at 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166;
phone (703)787–1719; or email at
Eric.Wolvovsky@boem.gov.
2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995
This proposed rule contains a
collection of information that has been
submitted to the OMB for review and
approval under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). If you
wish to comment on the IC aspects of
this proposed rule, you may send your
comments directly to OMB (see the
ADDRESSES section of this notice). Please
reference 30 CFR part 550, subpart C,
Air Quality, 1010—NEW, in your
comments. To see a copy of the IC
request submitted to OMB, go to https://
www.reginfo.gov (select Information
Collection Review, Currently under
Review); or you may obtain a copy of
the supporting statement for the new
collection of information by contacting
the Bureau’s Information Collection
Clearance Officer at (703) 787–1025.
The title of the collection for this rule
is Air Quality, 30 CFR part 550, subparts
A, B, and C (Proposed Rulemaking).
This rulemaking proposes to add new
IC requirements to current regulations
under 30 CFR part 550, subparts A, B,
and C. The IC for the current regulations
has been approved under the following
OMB Control Numbers:
• 1010–0114 (subpart A), expires
December 31, 2016 (30,635 hours; $165,492
non-hour costs).
• 1010–0151 (subpart B), expires January
31, 2018 (432,512 hours; $3,939,435 nonhour costs).
• 1010–0057 (subpart C), expires January
31, 2018 (112,111 hours; $0 non-hour costs).
This rule would add new and expand
existing requirements under regulations
at 30 CFR part 550, subparts A and B,
and would provide a rewrite of 30 CFR
part 550, subpart C. Therefore, we are
requesting OMB assign a new OMB
Control Number for the IC requirements
in the proposed rule. When the final
rule becomes effective, we will move
the requirements and burdens
associated with subpart A and subpart
B into their respective collections. We
will use the new OMB Control Number
for the IC requirements and burdens
associated with the new subpart C and
will discontinue the use of current OMB
Control Number 1010–0057.
The PRA provides 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The rule proposes: To incorporate the
USEPA’s regulatory standards for air
quality; address the expansion of
BOEM’s air quality jurisdiction to
include the OCS adjacent to the North
Slope Borough of the State of Alaska;
account for technological advances in
air quality measurement, evaluation,
and reporting capabilities; take into
account emissions from offshore
supporting vessels; and reflect changes
in practices and procedures as they have
evolved. Potential respondents are
holders and operators of federal OCS
leases, operating rights holders, holders
of Rights of Use and Easement (RUEs),
holders of Pipeline Rights-of-Way
(ROWs) or holders of a lease-term
pipeline, and independent third-parties
working on behalf of any of these
persons. The frequency of response
varies, but is primarily on the occasion
or as per the requirement. Responses to
this collection are mandatory or are
required to obtain or retain a benefit.
The IC does not include questions of a
sensitive nature. BOEM will protect
proprietary information according to the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552) and DOI’s implementing
regulations (43 CFR part 2), 30 CFR part
552, OCS Oil and Gas Information
Program, and 30 CFR 550.197, Data and
information to be made available to the
public or for limited inspection.
We expect the estimated hour burden
for the rulemaking to be 146,490 hours
and $3,455,000 in non-hour costs. Some
of the requirements, especially in
subpart A, are not new; they are being
moved or expanded. The table below
provides a breakdown of the estimates
for the rule. Current OMB-approved
hours and requirements are in regular
font; expanded requirements and hours
are shown in italics. The proposed new
requirements are shown in bold and are
summarized as follows:
• Subpart A. BOEM is proposing to
implement a requirement from the CAA to
work with the USEPA to expand and
maintain a national air emissions inventory.
The requirement to submit a copy of a
USEPA-required Episode Avoidance Plan is
currently approved as part of the IC in
subpart C but would be collected under
subpart A (§ 550.141(d)) in the proposed rule.
We expect no burden change since the
occurrence is very limited and therefore the
burden currently approved is sufficient. The
proposed rule would expand a requirement
under right-of-use and easement (RUEs) to
account for air quality documentation and
records (§ 550.160( f ) +287 hours). The
rulemaking also proposes to codify details
regarding the gathering and reporting of OCS
air inventory information, and broaden the
requirement from being applicable only to
the Western GOM to one that is applicable
to all OCS regions. This requirement and the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19787
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
associated burdens are not new; they were
originally accounted for in subpart C, but
have been modified and moved to subpart A.
The reasons for this are twofold. First, this
requirement is unrelated to the regulatory
requirements involving the review of the
potential air quality impacts associated with
proposed plans (i.e., the primary purpose of
subpart C). Second, the requirements for
collecting and maintaining air inventory
information are meant to apply to all owners
and operators of facilities, including lessees,
lease operators, operating rights holders,
holders of RUEs or pipeline ROWs—whether
or not that ROW includes an accessory
structure—and all owners and operators of
non-stationary sources operating on the OCS
in support of any facility, whether or not
such person was required to submit or
comply with the requirements of subpart C
(New § 550.187, +112,425 hours). This would
increase the total burden under subpart A
+112,712 hours.
• Subpart B. To simplify the air quality
review process, BOEM is proposing to
consolidate the requirements relating to air
quality into one new section (§ 550.205),
which would be equally applicable to all
Exploration Plans (EPs), Development and
Production Plan (DPPs), or DOCDs, as well as
to any updates or modifications of any such
plans. Proposed § 550.205 includes the
expanded air quality emissions factors and
reporting requirements for all emissions
DOCDs +5,150 hours. The proposed rule also
expands the current requirement to submit
post-approval information for EP/DPP/DOCD
to include RUEs (§ 550.284 +224 hours). This
would increase the burden under subpart B
+8,474 hours.
• Subpart C. This rulemaking proposes a
rewrite of current subpart C regulations to
address new air pollution prevention and
control requirements so we are addressing all
requirements as new. This subpart would
require analysis and modeling for expanded
air emissions and compliance reporting for
those criteria and major precursor air
pollutants that exceed the threshold, and
allow for air emissions consolidation from
multiple facilities (expanded from current
regulations) (§§ 550.303 and 550.304; 6,626
hours, $1,000,000 non-hour costs for
modeling). This subpart would also add the
requirements associated with emission
reduction measures, including but not
limited to the BACT (§§ 550.306 through
550.310; 682 hours), as well as monitoring
and reporting requirements, including the
collection of data and maintenance of fuel
logs (§§ 550.311 through 550.314; 17,986
hours, $2,455,000 non-hour costs); and
general departure information (§§ 550.300
through 550.314; 10 hours). The proposed
rule would create new subpart C with a total
burden of 25,304 hours and $3,455,000 nonhour costs.
sources. The proposed rule would expand
BOEM’s air quality submission requirements
to include any area in which BOEM is given
jurisdiction, including the OCS adjacent to
the North Slope Borough of the State of
Alaska. To accommodate various changes in
the air quality requirements, BOEM will
modify its current air quality information
forms (BOEM–0138, Air Emission
Calculations for EPs, and BOEM–0139, Air
Emission Calculations for DPPs and DOCDs).
These forms will be updated to include the
new air pollution emissions factors and to
reflect the addition of new emissions sources
and categories and types of equipment and
vessels (e.g., icebreakers). The forms will be
restructured to better accommodate the
consolidation of emissions across multiple,
related facilities; to better reflect the goal of
complying with USEPA AAQSB; and to
reflect various other changes necessitated by
the proposed rulemaking. The forms will be
renamed so that it is clear that they are
intended to be applicable and functional for
all affected OCS Regions. BOEM is working
with a contractor to revise these forms to
provide automated calculations after data
entry. The draft forms will be included in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking and will
be made available for public comment. The
proposed modifications to the forms will
increase the current aggregated burdens for
submitting an EP, DOCD, and DPP by the
following: for EPs, +3,100 hours; for DPP/
BURDEN TABLE
[Current requirements in regular font; expanded requirements shown in italic font; new requirements shown in bold font]
Citation 30 CFR part 550
subpart A and related
NTLs
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement **
Average number of
annual responses
Hour burden
Annual burden
hours
Per the requirements in this rule, you must submit information in an electronically readable format unless otherwise directed by BOEM. If you
transmit the information electronically, you must use a delivery medium or transmission method authorized by BOEM
Information and Reporting Requirements
141(d) ................................
Request approval to use new or alternative procedures; temporarily suspend equipment or implement operational control(s); submit required information.
160(f) .................................
Submit all air quality documentation/records pertaining to RUE applications; obtain approvals.
Request waiver of 10-year periodic review for RUEs
from Regional Supervisor.
Entities in all affected OCS Regions collect, maintain, retain for 10 yrs., and all air emissions-related data for each source that generates air pollutants on the OCS.
Request third-party submission of required air emissions data to BOEM or BOEM-designated agent.
160(f) .................................
New 187* ..........................
New 187(b)* ......................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Total for Subpart A ..
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
part 550, subpart A (1010–0114)
0
11
26 applications .................
286
.50
2 .......................................
1
43+
2,547 submissions .........
112,025
2
200 requests ...................
400
....................................................................................
........................
2,775 ................................
112,712
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
Hour burden
Average number of
annual responses
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart B and
related NTL(s)
Annual burden
hours
Contents of Exploration Plans
200–206; 209; 215(e);
231(b); 232(d); 234; 235;
281(d)(3); 283; 284; 285;
NTL 2010 N–06.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Submit amended, modified, revised, supplemental,
or updated EP, or resubmit disapproved EP; withdraw an EP.
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
550, subpart B (1010–0151)
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
0
19788
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart B and
related NTL(s)
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
New 205 ............................
Collect, maintain & submit all air quality & modeling
documentation/records (including but not limited
to, emissions sources, factors, reduction measures, attributed and projected emissions, distance
calculations, etc.); additional documentation as requested/required by BOEM; request departures;
obtain approvals.
200–206; 209; 211 through
228; NTL 2010–N–06.
Submit EP and all required information (including,
but not limited to, submissions required by BOEM
forms 0137, 0138, 0142; withdrawals; lease stipulations; reports; H2S; Geological and Geophysical
(G&G); etc.); provide notifications.
New 205 ............................
Submit expanded air emissions & compliance data
for EPs whose air emissions are above the exemption threshold. Burdens for analysis/modeling
covered under 30 CFR part 550, subpart C
(§§ 550.303–550.307).
Collect, maintain & submit all air quality & modeling
documentation/records (including but not limited
to, emissions sources, factors, reduction measures, attributed and projected emissions, distance
calculations, etc.); additional documentation as requested/required by BOEM; request departures;
obtain approvals.
Alaska Region submits air quality information as required in EP.
Subtotal .....................
Average number of
annual responses
Hour burden
....................................................................................
20
110 changed plans ........
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
part 550, subpart B (1010–0151)
Annual burden
hours
2,200
0
25
20 plans ..........................
500
200
2 Alaska plans ...............
400
........................
132 ...................................
3,100
Contents of DPP and DOCD
Submit amended, modified, revised, updated, or
supplemental DPP or DOCD, or resubmit disapproved DPP or DOCD.
New 205 ............................
Collect, maintain & submit all air quality & modeling
documentation/records (including but not limited
to, emissions sources, factors, reduction measures, attributed and projected emissions, distance
calculations, etc.); additional documentation as requested/required by BOEM; request departures;
obtain approvals.
200–206; 209; 241 thru
262; NTL 2010 N–06,
and others.
Submit DPP/DOCD and accompanying/supporting
information (including, but not limited to, submissions required by BOEM Forms 0137, 0139, 0142
used in GOM; lease stipulations; withdrawals,
etc.); provide notifications.
New 205 ............................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Current 200–206; 209;
266(b); 267(d); 272(a);
273; 281(d); 283(a–b);
284; 285(a–b); NTL
2010 N–06.
Submit expanded air emissions & compliance data
for DPPs/DOCDs whose air emissions are above
the exemption threshold. Burdens for analysis/
modeling covered under 30 CFR part 550, subpart C (§§ 550.303–550.307).
Collect, maintain & submit all air quality & modeling
documentation/records (including but not limited
to, emissions sources, factors, reduction measures, attributed and projected emissions, distance
calculations, etc.); additional documentation as requested/required by BOEM; request departures;
obtain approvals.
Alaska Region submits air quality information as required in DPP/DOCD.
Submit updated information on activities conducted
under approved EPP/DPP/DOCD/RUE.
284 ....................................
Subtotal .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
....................................................................................
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
part 550, subpart B (1010–0151)
20
155 changed plans ........
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
part 550, subpart B (1010–0151).
0
3,100
0
25
50 plans ..........................
1,250
400
2 Alaska plans ...............
800
4
56 updates .......................
224
........................
263 ...................................
5,374
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart B and
related NTL(s)
Total Subpart B
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
Hour burden
Average number of
annual responses
....................................................................................
........................
19789
Annual burden
hours
395 ...................................
8,474
Non-hour costs
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart C and
related NTL(s)
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
Average number of
annual responses
Hour burden
Annual burden
hours
Air Quality Analyses in Plans
New 303–307 ....................
Conduct required analysis & modeling for expanded
air emissions for those criteria & major precursor
air pollutants that exceed the threshold & compliance requirements. Submit modeling reports.
38
87 plans ..........................
3,306
$10,000 × 20 instances for incremental
modeling/analysis cost of mobile sources =
$200,000
$20,000 × 40 instances for additional plans
that will now require modeling/analysis =
$800,000
$50,000 × 0 instances for plans now
requiring photochemical modeling/analysis
= no costs till 2020
$1,000,000
New 303(d) .......................
Report/consolidate air emissions data from multiple
facilities if required.
20
15 consolidations ..........
New 303(g); 310(c); 312(b)
Submit revised air emissions plans, as required. Request exceptions; obtain approvals.
New 303(h) .......................
10
300 submissions ............
3,000
New 304 ............................
Provide additional information/analysis as required
for plan approval.
Obtain approval of all modeling protocols & meteorological data sets. Provide BOEM with copies
of/access to protocols & all required information.
5
4 submissions ................
20
Subtotal .....................
....................................................................................
........................
406 ...................................
6,626
Burdens currently covered under 30 CFR
part 550, subpart B (1010–0151).
300
0
$1,000,000 Non-hour Costs
Emission Reduction Measures—BACT
New 306; 307; 308(a);
309(a), (c), (d).
New 307(a); 313(a) ...........
Document results of ERM analysis. Provide description of BACT proposal/data based on required
analyses, associated impacts and costs; demonstrating compliance; provide additional information as required; obtain approval; Submit ECE
data from manufacture.
Request VOCs or NOX waiver for ERM ....................
New 308(b); 309(a) ...........
Request reconsideration of BOEM emissions determination; submit supporting information.
New 309(b) .......................
Immediately notify BOEM if ERM become disabled
or unavailable; request extension for ERM (NTE
90 days).
Collect and maintain monthly logs of relevant meter/
monitoring equipment readings.
Notify appropriate State air quality control jurisdiction of proposal to acquire emissions offsets; revise State Implementation Plan to include new
info; submit to BOEM.
Request a departure from compliance with the new
or revised AAQSB.
New 309(d) .......................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
New 309(e) .......................
New 310(b) .......................
New 310(c) .......................
Resubmit plans for air quality review every 10 years
w/required information.
Subtotal .....................
....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
50
12 submissions ..............
600
1
1 .......................................
1
Not considered IC as defined in 5 CFR
1320.4(a)(2).
0
2
2 notifications ................
4
12/yr.
6 .......................................
72
1
1 notification ..................
1
2
2 requests .......................
4
There will be no burden until 2020
........................
24 .....................................
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
0
682
19790
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Non-hour costs
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart C and
related NTL(s)
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
Average number of
annual responses
Hour burden
Annual burden
hours
Monitoring & Reporting
New 311(a), (b), (f) ...........
New 311(c) .......................
Report/demonstrate actual emissions data/other information to verify compliance with previous approved plan on BOEM approved schedule.
Measure actual emissions using Predictive Emission
Monitoring System (PEMS).
16
12 submissions ..............
192
36
30 engines ......................
1,080
$26,000 μ 30 engines = 780,000 annually
New 311(c) .......................
New 312(b), (d); ................
New 312(a) .......................
Report data/information regarding exceedance of
projected emissions to BOEM.
Submit additional information as required to BOEM
Conduct/report stack testing results every 3 yrs .......
16
5 .......................................
80
2
48
10 submissions ..............
67 tests ...........................
20
3,216
$25,000 μ 67 stack tests = $1,675,000 annually
New 312(b) .......................
New 312(b) .......................
New 312(c), (d) .................
New 313(b) .......................
New 313(b) .......................
New 314 ............................
Retain monthly fuel information for each source on
determined schedule for 10 yrs.
Submit fuel logs or collect facility and equipment
usage information for MSCs to BOEM.
Collect/report meteorological data in a manner described by BOEM or from agreed location; other
information as required.
Submit new air quality plan for short-term facility
converted to a long-term facility.
Request exception due to adverse weather conditions or circumstances beyond your control.
Provide pollution data to State, Indian Tribe, or federal agency requests submit additional info. for
determination to any cause/contribution to
NAAQS violation within 120 days or a longer time
specified by BOEM.
48
265 ...................................
12,720
8
80 .....................................
640
4
3 .......................................
12
10
2 submissions ................
20
.50
4 .......................................
2
2
2 requests .......................
4
480 ...................................
17,986
Subtotal .....................
....................................................................................
........................
$2,455,000 Non-hour Costs
General
New 300–314 ....................
General departure and alternative compliance/requests not specifically covered elsewhere in subpart C.
2
5 requests .......................
10
Subtotal .....................
....................................................................................
........................
5 .......................................
10
Total for Subpart
C.
....................................................................................
........................
915 ...................................
25,304
$3,455,000 Non-Hour Costs
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement
1012 ..................................
Collect, maintain & submit all air quality documentation/records pertaining to pipeline ROW applications; obtain approvals..
Total Burden .............
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Citation 30 CFR 550
subpart J and related
....................................................................................
Average number of
annual responses
Hour burden
Annual burden
hours
Burden covered under 30 CFR part 550,
subparts B and C.
........................
4,085 ................................
0
146,490
$3,455,000 Non-Hour Costs
* The requirements and burdens added to 30 CFR part 550, subpart A, are not entirely new; they are in current 30 CFR part 550, subpart C.
This rulemaking moves those requirements to subpart A.
** In the future, BOEM will be allowing the option of electronic reporting for certain requirements.
+ Exact numbers of responses and annual burden hours were approved by OMB January 2015; numbers are from ROCIS.
BOEM uses the information collected
under subparts A, B, and C to ensure
operations on the OCS are carried out in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
a safe and environmentally sound
manner, do not interfere with the rights
of other users, and balance the
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
protection and development of OCS
resources.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, we invite the public and other
federal agencies to comment on any
aspect of the reporting and
recordkeeping burden. We specifically
solicit comments on the following
questions:
(1) Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for BOEM to
properly perform its functions, and will
it be useful?
(2) Are the estimates of the burden
hours of the proposed collection
reasonable?
(3) Do you have any suggestions that
would enhance the quality, clarity, or
usefulness of the information to be
collected?
(4) Is there a way to minimize the IC
burden on those who must respond,
including the use of appropriate
automated electronic, mechanical, or
other forms of information technology?
In addition, the PRA requires agencies
to estimate the total annual reporting
and recordkeeping non-hour cost
burden resulting from the collection of
information, and we solicit your
comments on this item. For reporting
and recordkeeping only, your response
should split the cost estimate into two
components: (1) Total capital and
startup cost component; and, (2) annual
operation, maintenance, and purchase
of services component. Your estimates
should consider the costs to generate,
maintain, and disclose or provide the
information. You should describe the
methods you use to estimate major cost
factors, including system and
technology acquisition, expected useful
life of capital equipment, discount
rate(s), and the period over which you
incur costs. Generally, your estimates
should not include equipment or
services purchased (1) before October 1,
1995; (2) to comply with requirements
not associated with the IC; (3) for
reasons other than to provide
information or keep records for the
Government; or (4) as part of customary
and usual business or private practices.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed regulations
between 30 to 60 days after publication
of this document in the Federal
Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it by May 5, 2016. This
does not affect the deadline for the
public to comment to BOEM on the
proposed regulations. If you wish to
comment on the IC aspects of this
proposed rule, you may send your
comments by email directly to OMB
(OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov) or by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
fax 202–395–5806, with a copy to
BOEM (see the ADDRESSES section).
Please reference Air Quality, 30 CFR
part 550, subparts A, B, and C (Proposed
Rulemaking) in your comments. To see
a copy of the IC request, with the draft
proposed forms, submitted to OMB, go
to https://www.reginfo.gov (select
Information Collection Review,
Currently under Review). You may also
obtain a copy of the supporting
statement and draft forms for the new
collection of information by contacting
Nicole Mason, the Bureau’s Information
Collection Clearance Officer, by mail at
45600 Woodland Rd., Sterling, VA
20166, by email at Nicole.Mason@
boem.gov, or by phone at (703) 787–
1025.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of
proposed regulations when a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities is likely and to
consider regulatory alternatives that will
achieve the agency’s goals while
minimizing the burden on small
entities. In addition, the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 note, requires
agencies to produce compliance
guidance for small entities if the rule
has a significant economic impact. For
the reasons explained in this section,
BOEM has concluded that the proposed
rule would likely not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities and, therefore,
a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. This Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) assesses the
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, as defined by the applicable
Small Business Administration (SBA)
size standards. The IRFA can be found
in the Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
(IRIA) within the docket for this
rulemaking. The IRFA assesses the
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, as defined by the applicable
SBA size standards.
Based on this initial analysis, BOEM
expects the implementation of this
proposed rule may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under 5 U.S.C.
605(b). BOEM, however, is seeking
comments on the IRIA to inform its
analysis and conclusions regarding the
degree to which this rule may have an
economic impact on such entities.
As defined by the SBA, a small entity
is one that is ‘‘independently owned
and operated and which is not
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19791
dominant in its field of operation.’’ The
definition of small business varies from
industry to industry in order to properly
reflect industry size differences. The
proposed rule would affect operators
and holders of BOEM-issued oil and gas
leases that are seeking to explore,
develop or transport OCS oil and gas
resources. BOEM’s analysis shows that
this could include about 130 companies
with active operations. Entities that
operate under this rule fall under the
SBA’’s North American Industry
Classification System codes 211111
(Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Extraction) and 213111 (Drilling Oil and
Gas Wells) or 237120 (Oil and Gas
Pipeline and Related Structures). For
these codes, a small company is defined
as one with fewer than 500 employees.
A small entity is one that is
‘‘independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field
of operation.’’ Based on this criterion,
approximately 90 (69 percent) of the 130
companies operating on the OCS are
considered small and the remaining are
considered large businesses.
Of the approximately 130 operators, a
total of 56 companies submitted initial,
revised, or supplemental exploration/
development plans during calendar year
2013. Twenty-four large companies
submitted 63 percent of the plans and
thirty-two small companies submitted
37 percent of the plans. Operators not
submitting exploration or development
plans typically are continuing existing
operations or hold leases undergoing
geological and geophysical exploration.
Submitting an exploration or
development plan is a necessary step
before companies explore for
hydrocarbons on the OCS or develop an
economic prospect. All companies
operating on the OCS including small
entities must be well capitalized to
undertake these multi-million or multibillion dollar projects. The incremental
cost for providing additional or
consolidated air quality information for
exploration plans, DOCDs or DPPs,
ROWs or RUEs is a small cost in the
context of an exploration or
development project. Most of the
compliance costs imposed as a result of
this rulemaking are variable costs
directly dependent on the complexity
and number of plans submitted.
Emission reduction measure costs
would be directly related to the impact
a project may have on a State’s air
quality. BOEM’s first-order estimate for
the rulemaking’s small entity
compliance costs is proportional to the
number of plans submitted excluding
ERM costs.
The compliance costs from this
rulemaking may be less for most small
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19792
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
entities because these companies are
less likely to operate the large projects
that employ multiple MODUs drilling
concurrently. If a facility or project is
located close to the federal/State
submerged lands boundary, shows
emissions above the SILs in a nonattainment area and is operated or
owned by a small entity, this proposed
rule could have an economic impact.
The GOM shelf is a mature hydrocarbon
environment and few companies are
initiating new exploration or
development projects. However, the
GOM shelf is where most of the small
entities operate and hold leases. While
most of the compliance costs would be
imposed on lessees and operators of
large deepwater projects, some nearshore projects may be impacted.
Using 2013 as a base, small
companies submit about 37 percent of
the plans each year and are expected to
incur approximately the same
proportion of costs. The incremental
first year compliance costs for this
rulemaking are projected to be $23
million and the peak year is $49
million. Some of those costs are for ERM
or emissions credits on a very small
number of projects which may or may
not be owned or operated by small
entities. The modeling, reporting and
other costs range from $7 to $28 million
each year and small entities operating in
the GOM are estimated to incur a
similar proportion (37 percent) of costs
in each subsequent year. As described
in more detail in the Executive
Summary to the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA), these costs are expected
to vary from approximately $3 million
in the first year up to $10 million in the
10th year.
BOEM prepared an IRFA to assess the
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, as defined by the applicable
SBA size standards. The IRFA is
prepared using conservative
assumptions and seeks public
comments on potential small entity
impacts. This rule would only affect
operators and federal oil and gas lessees
that could conduct operations on the
OCS. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601–612, defines small entities as
small businesses, small nonprofits, and
small governmental jurisdictions. We
have identified no small nonprofits or
small governmental jurisdictions that
the rule would impact.
For the reasons explained below,
BOEM has concluded this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
and that, therefore, a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
This incremental modeling and
reporting costs for this rulemaking will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
generally be required of both the larger
deepwater projects and near-shore
projects. While there are smaller
companies that explore and operate in
deeper water, these companies are well
capitalized and the incremental
compliance costs for this rulemaking are
estimated to be minimal when
compared to the cost of drilling a single
deepwater well.
Although BOEM does not believe that
the proposed rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
BOEM is requesting comment on the
costs and impacts of the proposed
policies in this rule on small entities.
We will consider all comments at the
final rule stage. We specifically request
comments on the compliance cost
estimates as well as regulatory
alternatives that would reduce the
burden on small entities.
This proposed rule:
a. Would not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.
The compliance cost will not materially
affect the economy nationally or in any
local area.
b. Would not cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers;
individual industries; federal, State,
tribal or local government agencies; or
geographic regions. This proposed rule
would have minimal effects on OCS
operators and is not anticipated to
impact oil and gas production or the
cost of fuels for consumers.
c. Would not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule would have a negligible
economic effect on the OCS oil and gas
industry. BOEM has determined that the
current costs of implementation of the
current USEPA standards would likely
not be significant, and that any costs
associated with potential future USEPA
actions are too speculative for purposes
of analysis.
Pursuant to section 213(a) of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule so
they can better evaluate its effects on
them and participate in the rulemaking.
If you believe this rule would affect
your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, you may
contact Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management Office of Policy,
Regulation, and Analysis at
Peter.Meffert@boem.gov or mail to
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
45600 Woodland Road, Sterling,
Virginia 20166; or call (703)787–1610.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of federal employees who
enforce, or otherwise determine
compliance with, federal regulations to
the Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman,
and to the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Board. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of BOEM, call 1–888–REG–
FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule does not impose on State,
local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector an unfunded mandate of
more than $100 million per year. The
rule does not have a significant or
unique effect on State, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information
required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not
required.
B. Executive Orders (E.O.) and
Presidential Memorandum
1. Governmental Actions and
Interference With Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630)
March 15, 1988
According to E.O. 12630, this
proposed rule does not have significant
takings implications. The rulemaking is
not a governmental action capable of
interfering with constitutionally
protected property rights. A Takings
Implication Assessment is not required.
2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.
12866) October 4, 1993
The OMB has reviewed this
rulemaking under section 6(a)(3) of E.O.
12866. OMB has determined this
proposed rule is significant because it
will potentially raise novel legal or
policy issues. This rulemaking is not
economically significant.
Executive Order 12866 provides the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) within OMB will review
all significant rules. To the extent
permitted by law, each agency must,
among other things: (a) Propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (b) tailor
its regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
attaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (c) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive benefits; and
equity); (d) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (e) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information with which choices can be
made by the public.
(1) The proposed requirements in this
rule would not have an effect of $100
million or more per year on the
economy. The proposed rule would
alter requirements for reporting
emissions in an operator’s exploration
or development plan. The proposed rule
also would require more accurate
estimating and reporting of the
emissions associated with offshore
operations. The compliance costs for
this rulemaking primarily relate to air
dispersion and photochemical grid
modeling, air pollutant emissions
monitoring, air quality monitoring and
the implementation of emission
reduction measures (including the use
of emissions credits). The remaining
compliance costs are for additional
paperwork burden hours identified in
the section of the preamble on the PRA
for Operators submitting EPs and
DOCDs or DPP pipeline Rights-of-Way
ROW, RUE and lease term pipeline
applications. BOEM estimates the
industry compliance costs for activities
in the first year will be $23 million, the
peak year (2020) $49 million and $290
million over 10 years discounted at 3
percent. The government staffing costs
are estimated to be about $1.6 million
per year and $12 million over 10 years
discounted at 3 percent. BOEM
estimates the total first year compliance
cost for both the regulated industry and
the government is $23.6 million, $51
million for the peak year and over 10
years is $302 million discounted at 3
percent. Additional information on the
compliance costs can be found in the
rulemaking’s draft RIA posted in the
docket.
The qualitative benefits for the
proposed regulatory changes would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
the improved ability to ensure the
continued development of offshore
facilities does not adversely impact any
State, including its human population,
economy and environment, as well as
the improved information BOEM and
States will receive regarding the
expected air quality impacts onshore
and above State submerged lands from
OCS exploration and development. The
proposed regulatory changes will
require more accurate emissions
information resulting from BOEMauthorized operations in both the Arctic
and GOM. This improved air emission
information will better ensure BOEM
only approves plans that meet the
requirements of the OCSLA (43 U.S.C.
1331 et seq., Pub. L. 83–212, as
amended), to ensure compliance with
the NAAQS to the extent that these
operations do not significantly affect the
air quality of any State. The proposed
rule would strengthen the requirements
for identifying, modeling, measuring
and tracking the emissions of air
pollutants. Coastal States and other
stakeholders can thereby be more
confident regarding the expected
onshore air quality impacts from OCS
oil and gas exploration and
development. The additional
monitoring information required for
certain plans will also permit the BSEE
to better assess the air quality
compliance for OCS operations on a
plan-by-plan basis.
Based on a consideration of the
qualitative as well as quantitative
factors related to the rulemaking
proposal, BOEM’s assessment is that it
is necessary to achieve compliance with
the requirements of the OCSLA and that
the proposed rule’s adoption would
provide a net benefit to the public. The
additional monitoring information
required for certain plans will also
permit the BSEE to better assess the air
quality compliance for OCS operations
on a plan-by-plan basis.
The table below summarizes BOEM’s
estimate of the 10-year quantifiable net
benefits. BOEM has only estimated the
quantified benefits of NOX reductions.
The greatest compliance cost and NOX
reduction benefits are expected for
deepwater projects, especially in the
Mississippi Canyon area. The
quantifiable benefits are estimated to
range from $8 million to $43 million per
year and are attributed to the NOX
reductions due to ERMs or emissions
credits on those few projects that are
expected to require emission reductions.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19793
The bureau’s analysis did not quantify
other benefits that are too difficult to
estimate in concrete fiscal terms.
Additional information on the
compliance costs and benefits can be
found in the IRIA. Even though the
quantified net benefits are negative in
most years, these benefits do not reflect
the full implications of the impact that
the rule will have overall. First, the rule
could result in the reduction of VOCs,
SOX, CO, and PM emissions if
operational controls are required as a
condition of BOEM plan approval that
would not otherwise be employed by
operators. These potential reductions
have not been quantified because BOEM
believes most operators will voluntarily
utilize operational controls including
best combustion practices due to fuel
savings. Second, the rule could result in
a lower rate of O3 and PM formation
onshore than those which have been
quantified because there are likely to be
reductions in O3 and PM formation rates
associated with non-NOX reductions in
precursor air emissions.92 Third, the
rule is necessary in order to ensure
continued compliance with the
mandates of OCSLA and, as such, is
essential to the continued development
of oil and gas resources on the OCS.
Fourth, the elimination of the mandate
to use BACT as an emissions control
will allow lessees and operators to
utilize offsets whenever they are
cheaper. This unquantified benefit
would directly reduce the compliance
costs of this rule, as compared to the
current regulations. Finally BOEM
believes the other qualitative benefits
referred to in the RIA, such as the
potential reduction in compliance
costs 93 associated with this rulemaking
and the superior environmental effects
of implementing offsets onshore rather
than offshore, will be more than
sufficient to provide on overall positive
benefit and justification for this
rulemaking.
92 In addition to reductions in the rate of O3
formation resulting from NOX emissions reductions,
there could also be reductions in the rate of O3
formation by unquantified reductions in VOCs. In
addition, there could be additional reductions in
the rate of PM formation that are due to
unquantified reductions in non-NOX PM
precursors.
93 Examples of this include, the ability to
substitute offsets for BACT in cases where the
offsets would be more cost effective and allowing
offsets to be established onshore, where they are
likely to be less expensive and more
environmentally beneficial, rather than offshore.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19794
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
ESTIMATED AD82 ANNUALIZED RULEMAKING NET BENEFITS
Millions $, years
2017
Estimated Industry Compliance Costs .........................
Estimated Benefit (NOX Reductions) ............................
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Estimated Net Benefit ....
2018
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$29.9
$35.9
$49.4
$45.1
$36.6
$31.5
$31.7
$27.7
$28.4
$26.5
$35.3
$43.1
$43.1
$34.3
$18.6
$8.8
$7.8
$0.0
$0.0
$3.5
$5.4
$7.2
¥$6.3
¥$10.8
¥ $18.0
¥$22.7
¥$23.9
¥$27.7
¥$28.4
94 USEPA has issued guidance recommending a
SIL for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, which it published
at: https://www3.epa.gov/nsr/documents/
20100629no2guidance.pdf.
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
2020
$22.9
BOEM does not expect that the
proposed regulatory changes will be
unduly burdensome to industry. The
proposed requirements are intended to
improve BOEM’s review and approval
of planned operations by requiring more
accurate information and better
assessments of the air quality impacts
from OCS oil and gas operations. While
many of the proposed regulatory
changes require additional information
from operators, the changes are not
expected to increase the incidences of
mechanical BACT on OCS facilities.
BOEM expects that plans usually will
employ ERMs and emissions credits as
a response to failing to meet exemption
thresholds. Mechanical BACT emission
controls or other ERMs may be required
for some projects due to the proposed
requirements in this rulemaking if
emissions credits are not available.
Other exploration or development
projects may require ERMs due to
changes in the USEPA 1-hour NOX
standard 94 or changes to the O3
standard.
(2) The proposed rule would not
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities. The
changes proposed in this rule would
strengthen the environmental safeguards
and provide additional information to
BOEM and coastal States to assess
potential impacts to air quality. As
discussed in the E.O. 13175
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments section of
this preamble, BOEM will hold
consultation meetings in Alaska.
(3) This proposed rule would not
create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency. BOEM
has consulted with the BLM, FWS, NPS,
the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture, and the USEPA and has
proposed changes to align its
regulations with those of the BLM, FWS,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2019
Jkt 238001
the NPS and the USEPA where
applicable. While the proposed rule
would allow the use of the MARPOL
emissions standards as proxies for
marine diesel engine emission factors
for marine engines, the USCG and the
USEPA will continue to enforce any
applicable emissions limits on vessels.
The proposed regulatory changes would
improve the information available and
facilitate BLM, FWS and NPS analysis
regarding the air quality impacts on
Class II areas and endangered species.
(4) This proposed rule would not alter
the budgetary effects of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights or obligations of their recipients.
(5) This proposed rule potentially
raises novel legal or policy issues
regarding consistency with other federal
agencies or international vessel
requirements. The novel legal and
policy issues are the change in
attributed emissions for plans as well as
the proposed relocation of the
compliance boundary from the
shoreline to the offshore submerged
lands (State seaward) boundary used for
determining exemptions from more
detailed air quality analysis and/or
modeled compliance with NAAQS. This
proposed rule formalizes the
methodology for attributed emissions.
The 25-mile radius traditionally used by
BOEM will no longer apply; the
projected emissions calculations
account for all emissions supporting a
plan’s activity, including in certain
cases support emissions from aircraft
and onshore facilities.
BOEM has linked its air quality
regulations, where applicable, to those
of other agencies in multiple areas.
Many USEPA standards have been
explicitly cited and referenced. The
Marine Pollution Convention
(MARPOL) standards, which are
covered in USEPA and USCG
regulations, are incorporated. The BLM,
FWS, NPS, and the Forest Service of the
Department of Agriculture programs to
maintain AQRVs, as part of the FLM
process, have been explicitly referenced
in the BOEM regulations. In addition,
informal consultations have and will
continue to take place with other federal
and State agencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We have developed this proposed rule
consistently with these requirements.
The proposed changes in this
rulemaking would update and better
conform BOEM’s air quality regulations
to the requirements of OCSLA. The
proposed air quality requirements
would automatically be updated as the
USEPA changes its standards with
respect to which pollutants are
potentially harmful and at what levels
of exposure those pollutants cause
harm. The proposed rule would replace
various provisions in the current
regulations with more comprehensive
and up-to-date provisions based upon
more recent science and technology.
The rulemaking would better address
DOI’s mandate to evaluate the potential
impact of any OCS development with
respect to the probable impacts to most
closely affected States.
3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
February 7, 1996
This proposed rule complies with the
requirements of E.O. 12988.
Specifically, this proposed rule:
(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a)
requiring all regulations be reviewed to
eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
written to minimize litigation; and
(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2)
requiring that all regulations be written
in clear language and contain clear legal
standards.
4. Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
(E.O. 13045) April 21, 1997
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under E.O. 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. The USEPA has
determined, and BOEM agrees, that
children are an at-risk group for health
effects associated with exposures to
certain air pollutants, including some
pollutants released or formed from OCS
operations.
This proposed rule addresses those air
pollutants of greatest concern. BOEM
welcomes additional comments on this
topic and whether, or to what extent,
the proposed rule addresses these
relevant issues.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
This proposed rule is not an
economically significant rule and does
not create an environmental risk to
health or a risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) August 10,
1999
Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this
proposed rule would not have any
substantial federalism implications.
This proposed rule would not
substantially and directly affect the
relationship between the federal and
State governments. To the extent that
State and local governments have a role
in OCS activities, this proposed rule
would not have any significant effect on
that role.
A separate federalism assessment is
not required and has not been prepared.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)
November 6, 2000
DOI strives to strengthen its
government-to-government relationship
with Indian tribes through a
commitment to consultation with Indian
tribes and recognition of their right to
self-governance and Tribal sovereignty.
BOEM has evaluated this proposed rule
under the Department’s consultation
policy and under the criteria in
Executive Order 13175 and has
determined this proposed rule would
not cause a substantial direct or adverse
effect on any Federally-recognized
Indian tribe.
There are a number of reasons why
BOEM has come to this conclusion.
There are many circumstances whereby
the proposed rule has strengthened the
requirements for identifying, measuring
and tracking the emissions of air
pollutants and no circumstances in
which the proposed rule would relax or
lessen any existing air quality
requirements or standards. The
proposed rule would incorporate the
various enhancements to the current
BOEM air quality regulatory process,
including but not limited to the
following:
• The proposed rule would incorporate all
key USEPA air quality standards and
benchmarks by direct cross-reference. Thus,
BOEM’s proposed regulations would both
reflect current USEPA standards and would
be updated automatically in the future if a
new air quality standard or benchmark were
to be promulgated by the USEPA.
• The proposed rule expands the
circumstances under which emissions from
MSCs would be accounted for in both
exploration and development plans. MSC
emissions would be tracked and reported
whenever a vessel would be operating in
support of a regulated facility, regardless of
its distance from that facility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
The proposed rule would enhance the
accuracy of the evaluation of emissions
from support vessels by measuring all
such emissions from the point at which
they occur. The proposed rule mandates
all potentially significant emitters of air
pollutants maintain fuel logs, which can
be used to calculate their potential
emissions. This proposed rule contains
new provisions for mandatory stack
testing or the installation of meters
when the Regional Supervisor
determines emissions estimates may be
unreliable or inaccurate. In
circumstances where a lessee or
operator proposes to use equipment that
is not compliant with the USEPA
requirements, the proposed rule would
require the lessee or operator to obtain
relevant air pollutant emissions data
from the equipment manufacturer or,
alternately, to test the actual level of
pollutants that are emitted.
The proposed rule does reflect
changes Congress made with respect to
the CAA when it granted Federallyrecognized Indian tribes the right to
regulate the air quality over their
territories independently from the
States. If such a tribe has been granted
the authority to regulate its own air
quality, by issuing air quality permits in
lieu of the States, or if the tribe has
implemented a tribe-wide air quality
implementation plan to which new
permit applicants must comply, BOEM
would recognize this authority and
grant the tribes the same authority as a
State to appeal BOEM’s approval of
plans for OCS development activities.
This authority would not be extended to
all tribes, however, since a tribe may
elect not to establish any air quality
regulatory scheme. In the event that a
tribe has not established its own air
quality regulatory mechanism, there is
no reason that it should have the same
rights as a State under BOEM’s
regulations. Such a tribe would, of
course, retain all the rights of public
comment on rulemakings and to provide
feedback to BOEM at public forums.
Although BOEM does not believe this
proposed rule would cause any
substantial direct or adverse impact to
any Indian tribe, in order to inform such
Indian tribe(s), DOI intends to initiate
consultations with potentially affected
tribe(s) on a government-to-government
basis during the public comment period
for this rule. BOEM will fully consider
all tribal views and concerns before
issuing a final rule on this topic.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19795
7. Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) May 18,
2001
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’
and have determined this rule is not a
significant energy action under the
definition in Executive Order 13211.
The IRIA provides a general discussion
of modeling, monitoring and emission
reduction compliance costs on
potentially marginal GOM development
projects.
8. Enhancing Coordination of National
Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 13689)
January 21, 2015
E.O. 13689 recognizes the Arctic has
critical long-term strategic, ecological,
cultural, and economic value, and it is
imperative we continue to protect our
national interests in the region, which
include: National defense; sovereign
rights and responsibilities; maritime
safety; energy and economic benefits;
environmental stewardship; promotion
of science and research; and
preservation of the rights, freedoms, and
uses of the sea as reflected in
international law.
E.O. 13689 also recognizes it is vital
that federal agencies work together to
enhance coordination on Arctic efforts.
Pursuant to this goal, the E.O.
establishes an Arctic Executive Steering
Committee (Steering Committee), to
provide ‘‘guidance to executive
departments and agencies (agencies)
and enhance coordination of federal
Arctic policies across agencies and
offices, and, where applicable, with
State, local, and Alaska Native tribal
governments and similar Alaska Native
organizations, academic and research
institutions, and the private and
nonprofit sectors.’’ DOI is a member of
this Steering Committee.
Consistent with DOI’s long-standing
commitment to coordinate with other
federal agencies on Artic matters, BOEM
will work with the Steering Committee
and other relevant agencies, including
the USEPA, BSEE, FWS, NPS, BLM, and
the Forest Service within the
Department of Agriculture.
The E.O. also recognizes ‘‘it is in the
best interest of the Nation for the
Federal Government to maximize
transparency and promote collaboration
where possible with the State of Alaska,
Alaska Native tribal governments and
similar Alaska Native organizations, and
local, private-sector, and nonprofitsector stakeholders.’’ BOEM intends to
take action consistent with this
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19796
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
objective in order to ensure the
implementation of the underlying goals.
9. Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review (E.O. 13563) January 18, 2011
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further regulations must be based on the
best available science and the
rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rulemaking in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Executive Order 13563 also calls for
consideration regarding a regulation’s
impact on employment. It states, ‘‘Our
regulatory system must protect public
health, welfare, safety, and our
environment while promoting economic
growth, innovation, competitiveness,
and job creation.’’ An analysis of
employment impacts is a standalone
analysis, and these impacts are not
included in the estimation of benefits
and costs.
BOEM does not expect the proposed
rule’s compliance cost will be great
enough to close operations or prevent
new ones from starting. However,
employment reductions are possible in
related activities if operators chose to
slow development due to the provisions
of this rulemaking. On the other hand,
actions taken to comply with this
proposed rule also will create
employment opportunities; for example,
consulting firms specializing in air
quality analysis and modeling are likely
to experience increased employment
demand. As more companies need to
model and maintain records of their
emissions, new employment
opportunities in the broad field of air
quality analysis will emerge. While
BOEM does not anticipate that
companies will adopt an emission
reduction measure like post-combustion
SCR, the companies that install these
mitigation technologies would benefit
from increased demand for their
equipment.
The proposed rule is not expected to
generate either large negative or positive
employment impacts. On balance, there
will likely be adjustments on both sides
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
among companies directly and
indirectly affected by the regulation.
As stated in E.O. 12866, to the extent
permitted by law, each agency must,
among other things: (1) Propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination its benefits justify its
costs (recognizing some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
its regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with
attaining regulatory objectives, taking
into account, among other things, and to
the extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive benefits; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information with which choices can be
made by the public. BOEM has
evaluated these options and made the
determination there is no alternative
that meets the need for this rulemaking
and the proposed rulemaking is the best
alternative for addressing the important
policy objectives that BOEM is
pursuing.
The proposed changes in this
rulemaking would better ensure that
BOEM’s air quality regulations conform
to the requirements of OCSLA. Unlike
the current regulations, the proposed air
quality requirements would
automatically be updated if the USEPA
changed its standards as to which
pollutants are potentially harmful and at
what levels of exposure those pollutants
cause harm. The proposed rule would
replace various provisions in the current
regulations with more comprehensive
and up-to-date provisions based upon
more recent science and technology.
The rule would better address DOI’s
mandate to evaluate the potential
impact of any OCS development with
respect to the probable impacts to most
closely affected States.
10. Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998 on Regulation Clarity
E.O. 12866 (section 1(b)(2)), E.O.
12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), E.O. 13563
(section 1(a)), and the Presidential
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require
every agency write its rules in plain
language. This means that, wherever
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
possible, each rule must: (a) Have a
logical organization; (b) use the active
voice to address readers directly; (c) use
common, everyday words and clear
language, rather than jargon; (d) use
short sections and sentences; and (e)
maximize the use of lists and tables.
If you feel we have not met these
requirements, send your comments to
Peter.Meffert@boem.gov. To better help
BOEM revise the proposed rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the number of any section or
paragraph that you think we wrote
unclearly, which section(s) or
sentence(s) are too long, or the section(s)
where you believe lists or tables would
be useful, etc.
Public Availability of Comments
We will post all comments, including
names and addresses of respondents, at
www.regulations.gov. Before including
your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware we may make your
entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public view, we
cannot guarantee we will be able to do
so.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 550
Administrative practice and
procedure, Air pollutant, Air pollution,
Air quality, Arctic, Attainment area,
Continental shelf, Compliance, Criteria
pollutants, Development plan,
Development and production plan,
Environmental assessments,
Environmental impact statements,
Environmental protection, Exploration
plan, Federal lands, Federal Land
Manger, Greenhouse gasses, Hazardous
air pollutants, Incorporation by
reference, New source review, Nonattainment area, Oil and gas exploration,
Oil and gas development, Oil pollution,
Oil production, Outer Continental Shelf,
Ozone, Penalties, Pipelines, Precursor
pollutants, Prevention of significant
deterioration, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur.
Dated: March 11, 2016.
Amanda C. Leiter,
Acting Assistant Secretary—Land and
Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, (BOEM) proposes to
amend 30 CFR part 550 as follows:
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
primary or secondary National Ambient
TABLE TO § 550.102—WHERE TO
FIND INFORMATION FOR CON- Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), in 40
CFR part 50, pursuant to section 109 of
DUCTING OPERATIONS—Continued
PART 550—OIL AND GAS AND
SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for 30 CFR
part 550 is revised to read as follows:
■
For information about
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751, 31 U.S.C. 9701,
43 U.S.C. 1334.
(12) Oil and gas wellworkover operations.
Subpart A—General
(13) Platforms and structures
2. Revise the section heading for
§ 550.101 to read as follows:
■
§ 550.101
■
(14) Rights-of-Use and Easement (RUE).
Applicability.
3. Revise § 550.102 to read as follows:
§ 550.102
TABLE TO § 550.102—WHERE TO
FIND INFORMATION FOR CONDUCTING OPERATIONS
(1) Applications for permit to
drill (APD).
(2) Development and Production Plans (DPP) and Development Operations Coordination Documents
(DOCD).
(3) Downhole commingling ...
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(15) Pipelines and Pipeline
Rights-of-Way (ROW).
What does this part do?
(a) 30 CFR part 550 contains the
regulations of the BOEM Offshore
program that govern oil, gas and sulphur
exploration, development and
production operations on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). These
regulations may require you, when
conducting operations on the OCS, to
submit plans, requests, applications,
and notices, and, upon request, to
submit supplemental information.
(b) The following table of general
references shows where to look for
information about these processes.
For information about
Refer to
30 CFR part
250, subpart D.
30 CFR part
550, subpart B.
30 CFR part
250, subpart K.
(4) Exploration Plans (EP) .... 30 CFR part
550, subpart B.
(5) Flaring .............................. 30 CFR part
250, subpart K.
(6) Gas measurement ........... 30 CFR part
250, subpart L.
(7) Off-lease geological and
30 CFR part
geophysical (G&G) Permits.
551.
(8) Oil Spill Financial Re30 CFR part
sponsibility (OSFR) cov553.
erage.
(9) Oil and gas production
30 CFR part
safety systems.
250, subpart H.
(10) Oil spill response plans
30 CFR part
254.
(11) Oil and gas well-comple- 30 CFR part
tion operations.
250, subpart E.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
19797
(16) Sulphur operations ........
(17) Training ..........................
(18) Unitization ......................
(19) Air Quality ......................
Refer to
30 CFR part
250, subpart F.
30 CFR part
250, subpart I.
30 CFR part
550, subpart A.
30 CFR part
250, subpart J and
30 CFR part
550, subpart J.
30 CFR part
250, subpart P.
30 CFR part
250, subpart O.
30 CFR part
250, subpart M.
30 CFR part
550, subpart C.
4. Revise § 550.105 as follows:
a. Revise the definition of ‘‘Air
pollutant’’;
■ b. Delete the definitions of
‘‘Attainment area’’, ‘‘Best available
control technology’’, and ‘‘Emission
offsets’’;
■ c. Add a definition for ‘‘Emissions
source’’;
■ d. Delete the definitions of ‘‘Existing
facility’’ and ‘‘Facility’’;
■ e. Add a definition for ‘‘Federal Land
Manager,’’
■ f. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Flaring’’
and ‘‘Minerals’’;
■ g. Add a definition for ‘‘Mobile
support craft’’;
■ h. Delete the definition of
‘‘Nonattainment area’’;
■ i. Add a definition for ‘‘Offshore
vehicle’’;
■ j. Delete the definition of ‘‘Projected
emissions’’;
■ k. Remove the definition for ‘‘Right-ofuse’’ and add in its place a definition for
‘‘Right-of-use and easement (RUE)’’;
■ l. Add a definition for ‘‘State’’; and
■ m. Revise the definition of ‘‘Venting’’.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 550.105
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Air pollutant means any of the
following:
(1) Any criteria pollutant for which
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) has established
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the Clean Air Act (CAA);
(2) Any precursor air pollutant
identified by the USEPA that
contributes to the formation of a criteria
pollutant through a photochemical or
other reaction, including, but not
limited to, Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and those
criteria pollutants (CPs) that are also
precursors for other CPs (such as
sulphur dioxide (SO2));
(3) any USEPA-defined Greenhouse
Gas (GHG), as defined at 40 CFR 98.6,
pursuant to section 111 of the CAA; and
(4) Any USEPA-defined Hazardous
Air Pollutant, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2,
pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.
*
*
*
*
*
Emissions source means a device or
substance that emits air pollutant(s) in
connection with any authorized activity
described in your plan. Several
emissions sources may exist on a single
facility, aircraft, vessel, or vehicle.
Anything that: Produces or results in the
release of one or more air pollutant(s),
including the flashing, flaring or venting
of natural gas, involves burning any oil
or well test fluids, or generates fugitive
emissions, is an emissions source.
Examples include, but are not limited
to: Boilers/heaters/burners, diesel
engines, drilling rigs, combustion flares,
cold vents, glycol dehydrators, natural
gas engines, natural gas turbines,
pneumatic pumps, pressure/level
controllers, amine units, tanks, dual fuel
turbines, sources involved in mud
degassing, storage tanks, well testing
equipment, vessels (including support
vessels, pipeline lay barges, pipeline
bury barges, derrick barges), and any
other equipment that could cause
fugitive emissions, venting, losses from
flashing, or loading losses.
*
*
*
*
*
Federal Land Manager (FLM) means
the Secretary of the Department with
authority over any federal Class I area or
sensitive Class II area (or the Secretary’s
designee).
Flaring means the burning of natural
gas or other hydrocarbons and the
release of the associated emissions into
the atmosphere. The term ‘‘flaring’’ is
equivalent to combustion flaring (i.e.,
burning of the gases), but is distinct
from cold venting, which involves the
discharge of raw pollutants into the air
without burning.
*
*
*
*
*
Minerals includes oil, gas, sulphur,
geopressured-geothermal and associated
resources, and all other minerals that
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19798
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
are authorized by an Act of Congress to
be produced from public lands.
*
*
*
*
*
Mobile support craft (MSC) means any
offshore supply vessel (OSV) as defined
by the USCG in accordance with 46
U.S.C. 2101, and any ship, tanker, tug or
tow boat, pipeline barge, anchor
handling vessel, facility installation
vessel, refueling or ice management
vessel, oil-spill response vessel, or any
other offshore vessel, remotely operated
vehicle (ROV), or any offshore vehicle
used by, or in the support of, the
offshore operations described in a plan.
For the purpose of evaluating air
emissions, an MSC is considered a
facility while temporarily attached to
the seabed or connected to another
facility.
*
*
*
*
*
Offshore vehicle means a type of MSC
that is capable of being driven on ice
and which provides support services or
personnel to your facility or facilities.
*
*
*
*
*
Right-of-use and easement (RUE)
means seabed use authorization, other
than an OCS lease, that BOEM may
grant at an OCS site pursuant to
§§ 550.160 through 550.166 of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
State means any State of the United
States (U.S.) extending to the limit of
the State seaward boundary (SSB), as
defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301(b).
*
*
*
*
*
Venting means the release of gas into
the atmosphere, including though a
stack without igniting it, whereby relief
flows of natural gas or other
hydrocarbons are directed to an
unignited flare or which are otherwise
discharged directly to the atmosphere.
This includes gas that is released
underwater and bubbles to the
atmosphere.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 550.141, add paragraphs (d)
and (e) and revise the title to read as
follows:
§ 550.141 May I use or be required to use
alternate procedures or equipment?
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(d) In order to protect public health,
you may be required or allowed by the
Regional Supervisor to temporarily
suspend the use of equipment that emits
air pollutants, or to implement
operational control(s) on the use of such
equipment, when an adjacent State or
locality declares an air quality episode
or emergency, provided that any such
suspension or operational control(s)
would not cause an immediate threat to
safety or the environment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(e) With respect to published
documents cited in these regulations,
including those incorporated by
reference in § 550.198, the following
provisions apply:
(1) In each instance, the applicable
document is the one specifically
referred to, including any referenced
supplement or addendum, and not any
other version, supplement or
addendum, even if by the same author,
agency or publisher. You may comply
with a later edition of a specific
document incorporated by reference,
provided you show that complying with
the later edition provides a degree of
scientific or technical accuracy,
environmental protection, or
performance equal to or better than
would be achieved by compliance with
the listed edition; and you obtain the
prior written approval for alternative
compliance from the authorized BOEM
official.
(2) In the case of USEPA documents,
you may always use the most recent
version approved by the USEPA.
■ 6. In § 550.160, redesignate current
paragraphs (f), (g), (h) and (i) as
paragraphs (g), (h), (i) and (j)
respectively, and add a new paragraph
(f) to read as follows:
§ 550.160 When will BOEM grant me a
right-of-use and easement, and what
requirements must I meet?
*
*
*
*
*
(f) If you apply for a RUE with a
facility as defined in § 550.302 or you
hold a RUE with such a facility, then
you must submit the information
required by § 550.205, except that the
ten-year periodic review requirement in
§ 550.310(c) may be waived by the
Regional Supervisor. For the purposes
of this section, any provisions of those
sections applicable to a lessee or
operator should be read to refer equally
to any RUE applicant or any holder
thereof. If the RUE is approved or held
as part of an existing or proposed plan,
no additional air quality requirements
would apply to the plan.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Add § 550.187 to subpart A to read
as follows:
§ 550.187 What region-wide offshore air
emissions data must I provide?
(a) OCS emissions inventory. You, as
a lessee, an operator, or a holder of a
RUE or pipeline ROW (whether or not
that ROW includes an accessory
structure), must collect and maintain
information regarding all air pollutant
emissions from all emissions sources
associated with your operations. You
must retain this information for a period
of no less than 10 years. You must
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
submit this information to the
appropriate regional office on an
ongoing basis according to a schedule
corresponding to the schedule for the
National Emissions Inventory as
established by the USEPA. If you have
an emissions source that generates
facility emissions that have a potential
to emit (PTE) such that it would qualify
as a Type A source according to
USEPA’s regulations in table 1 of
appendix A of subpart A (‘‘Emission
Thresholds by Pollutant for Treatment
as Point Source’’) of 40 CFR 51.50, then,
beginning in either 2017 or the next
reporting period after [EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], you must
report this information according to the
timeframes specified in 40 CFR 51.30(b).
(b) The information provided must
include the emissions of or the activity
data necessary to calculate the
emissions of stationary emissions
sources, including all facilities, and all
non-stationary sources, including
MSC(s) and any other non-stationary
emissions source(s) of air pollutants
above the OCS or above State
submerged lands that operate in support
of your facility or facilities, as
determined by the Regional Supervisor.
You may request that the owner of such
non-stationary emissions source(s)
provide the information to BOEM or a
BOEM-designated agent, but if the
owner does not provide the information,
the lessee, operator, or RUE or pipeline
ROW holder is still responsible for
submitting the required information.
(c) As part of the information required
in this section, you must submit, in a
form and manner as specified by the
Regional Supervisor:
(1) Your facility and equipment usage,
including hours of operation at each
percent of capacity for each emissions
source; and/or
(2) Your monthly and annual fuel
consumption showing the quantity,
type, and sulphur content of fuel used
for each emissions source that generates
air pollutants in connection with
operations on the OCS.
(3) The information provided should
be at a sufficient level of detail so as to
facilitate BOEM’s compilation of a
comprehensive OCS emissions
inventory of air pollutants.
(4) You must classify the emissions
according to the appropriate Source
Classification Codes (SCCs) as defined
by the USEPA in FIRE Version 5.0:
Source Classification Codes and
Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air
Pollutants, incorporated by reference in
§ 550.198(b)(1)(iv).
(d) The Regional Director may waive
or permit delay in compliance with the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
requirements of this section on a regionwide basis.
■ 8. Add § 550.198 to read as follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 550.198 Documents incorporated by
reference.
(a) (1) Certain material is incorporated
by reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. In each instance, the
applicable document is the one
specifically referred to, including any
referenced supplement or addendum,
and not any other version, supplement
or addendum, even if by the same
author, agency or publisher. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in
this section, BOEM will publish a
document in the Federal Register and
the material will be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Office of
Policy, Regulation and Analysis, 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia
20166 or by phone at (703) 787–1610,
and is available from the sources listed
below. It is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or refer to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(2) The effect of incorporation by
reference of a document into the
regulations in this part is that the
incorporated document is a regulatory
requirement. When a section in this part
incorporates all of a document, you are
responsible for complying with the
provisions of that entire document,
except to the extent that the section
which incorporates the document by
reference provides otherwise. When a
section in this part incorporates part of
a document, you are responsible for
complying with that part of the
document as provided in that section.
BOEM incorporated each document or
specific portion by reference in the
sections noted. The entire document is
incorporated by reference, unless the
text of the corresponding sections in
this part calls for compliance with
specific portions of the listed
documents. In each instance, the
applicable document is the specific
edition or specific edition and
supplement or addendum cited in this
section.
(b) Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Radiation, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., MS6101A,
Washington, DC 20460.
(1) AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources, January 1995, incorporated by
reference at § 550.205(b.
(2) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES), User Guide, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, EPA–
420–B–14–055, July 2014, incorporated
by reference at § 550.205(b).
(3) User’s Guide for the Final
NONROAD2005 Model, EPA420–R–05–
013, December 2005 incorporated by
reference at § 550.205(b).
(4) FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval
System) Version 5.0: Source
Classification Codes and Emission
Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants,
EPA 454/R–95–012, August 1995,
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.187(c).
(c) Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), Office of Environment and
Energy, (AEE–100), 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
(1) Aviation Environmental Design
Tool (AEDT) User’s Guide, Version 2B,
July 2015 (as amended) incorporated by
reference at § 550.205(b).
(2) Aviation Environmental Design
Tool (AEDT), Version 2B, AEDT
Standard Input File (ASIF) Reference
Guide, May 2015 (as amended)
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.205(b).
(d) International Maritime
Organization, 4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or
https://www.imo.org, or 44–(0)20–7735–
7611.
(1) Revised MARPOL (Marine
Pollution) Annex VI, Regulations for the
Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships,
and NOX Technical Code [NTC] 2008,
2009 edition, incorporated by reference
at § 550.205(b).
(2) Revised MARPOL Annex VI,
Regulations for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (‘‘2008 Annex
VI’’), incorporated by reference at
§ 550.205(b.
(3) NOX Technical Code 2008,
incorporated by reference at
§ 550.205(b).
Subpart B—Plans and Information
§ 550.200
[Amended]
9. Remove the definition of ‘‘Offshore
vehicle’’ from § 550.200:
■ 10. Add § 550.205 to read as follows:
■
§ 550.205 What air emissions information
must be submitted with my Plan (EPs,
DPPs, DOCDs, or application for a RUE,
pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline)?
All of the terms used in this section
have the meaning described in
§ 550.302, unless defined in § 550.105.
Except if excluded from the Air Quality
Regulatory Program (AQRP) by
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19799
paragraph (o) of this section, the
requirements in this section apply to all
plans, RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease
term pipeline applications submitted in
any area of the OCS in which the
Secretary of the Interior has authority to
regulate air quality on the OCS. Your
plan must contain the following criteria
air pollutant and major precursor air
pollutant emissions information:
(a) Emissions sources. You must list
and describe every emissions source on
or associated with any facility or
facilities and MSC(s) described in your
plan. This includes each emissions
source used during the construction,
installation (including well protection
structure installation), and operation of
any exploration, testing, drilling
(including well test flaring),
development, or production equipment
or facility or facilities (including every
platform or manmade island included in
your plan). You must account for the air
pollutant emissions sources associated
with all drilling operations, including
workovers and recompletions,
sidetracking and from pipeline
construction. You must include
emissions sources associated with your
use of oil or gas produced from your
lease. The list of emissions sources must
cover the duration of the plan’s
proposed activities.
(1) For each emissions source, you
must identify, to the extent practicable:
(i) Equipment type and number,
manufacturer, make and model,
location, purpose (i.e., the intended
function of the equipment and how it
would be used in connection with the
proposed activities covered by the plan),
and physical characteristics;
(ii) The type and sulphur content of
fuel stored and/or used to power the
emissions source; and
(iii) The frequency and duration of the
proposed use.
(2) For every engine on each facility,
including non-road engines, marine
propulsion engines, or marine auxiliary
engines, in addition to the information
specified under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, you must identify and provide
the engine manufacturer, engine type,
and engine identification, and the
maximum rated capacity of the engine
(given in kilowatts (kW)), if available. If
you have not yet determined what
specific engine will be available for you
to use, you must provide analogous
information for an engine with the
greatest maximum rated capacity for the
type of engine which you will use. If the
engine has any physical design or
operational limitations and you choose
to base your emissions calculations on
these limitations, then you must provide
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19800
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
documentation of these physical design
or operational limitations.
(3) For engines on MSCs, including
marine propulsion and marine auxiliary
engines, in addition to the information
specified under paragraph (a)(1) and (2)
of this section, you must provide the
engine displacement and maximum
speed in revolutions per minute (rpm).
If the specific rpm information is not
available, indicate whether the rpm
would be less than 130 rpm, equal to or
greater than 130 rpm but less than 2,000
rpm, or equal to or greater than 2,000
rpm, based on best available
information. If the actual MSC engine
types needed for calculating emissions
are unknown or cannot be verified,
assume an MSC possessing the
maximum potential emissions for the
type of MSC you would typically use for
your planned operations.
(4) For offshore vehicles, you must
provide the information specified under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the
actual offshore vehicle engine types
needed for calculating emissions are
unknown or cannot be verified, assume
an offshore vehicle possessing the
maximum emissions for the types of
offshore vehicles you would typically
use for your planned operations.
(5) For any emissions source not
described above, you must provide all
information needed to calculate and
verify the associated emissions, such as
volumes vented, volumes flared, size of
tank, and number of components.
(b) Emissions factors. For each
emissions source identified under
paragraph (a) of this section, you must
identify the most appropriate emissions
factors used to calculate the emissions
for every criteria air pollutant and major
precursor air pollutant emitted by that
source.
(1) Emissions testing. You may use
actual emissions amounts as measured
from emissions testing conducted on a
specific emissions source, in lieu of the
standards or emissions factors for that
source which are described in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. However, if none
of the methods in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section are applicable, you must
conduct stack testing on the emissions
source to determine the appropriate
emissions factor. The data from stack
testing may be used only for the engine
for which the stack testing was
conducted. When determining the
emission factors through testing, you
must consider:
(i) Test points and procedures. (A) In
general, test points should be devised
based on actual operations as opposed
to using the test points and engine loads
contained in one of the various marine
duty cycles. If, based on the unique
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
circumstances of the proposed project,
this is impracticable, an alternative
approach for defining test points may be
implemented with the approval of the
Regional Supervisor. It cannot be
assumed that emissions per hour or
emissions per kW hour or horse-power
hour from large main engines on drill
ships and platforms are highest during
full load or near-full load operation. The
emissions factor and emission per hour
or emissions per kW hour or horsepower hour for the operation that is
actually expected should be determined,
and the emissions under 90% load
should be used only if emissions at this
load are the highest and thus
conservative.
(B) Testing should be done consistent
with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR
part 53 to the maximum extent
practicable. Where the unique
circumstances or requirements of the
proposed operations make such
procedures impracticable, alternative
procedures may be implemented with
the approval of the Regional Supervisor.
As appropriate, you must use the
General Provisions for Determining
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources, at 40 CFR 60.8.
(ii) Fuel. You must ensure that the
fuel used in the testing to generate the
emission factors reflects the type of fuel
that will be used by the engine in actual
operation and that the sulphur content
of the fuel is the same as that which will
be used in the engine.
(2) In the event that you elect not to
measure the actual emissions for any
given emissions source, select an
emissions factor from one of the
following references (references are
listed in priority order; you may use a
method only if all the methods
identified above it are not available):
(i) You may use the emissions
factor(s) that are vendor-guaranteed or
provided by the manufacturer of the
specific emissions source, if available;
where a manufacturer has not provided
an emissions factor for the emissions
source you propose to use, you may use
a manufacturer’s emissions factor for a
similar source only if you can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Regional Supervisor that the emissions
generated by your emissions source are
the same as or lower than that for which
a manufacturer’s emissions factor is
available. If you elect to use vendorguaranteed or manufacturer data, you
must demonstrate that:
(A) The fuel used by the manufacturer
to generate the emission factors reflects
the type of fuel that will be used by the
engine in actual operation; and,
(B) The actual engine has not been
modified outside the configuration used
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to generate the emission factors; thus,
the emission factors used in the plan
must represent the actual pattern of use
for that equipment in operations.
(ii) You may use emissions factors
generated from source tests required by
the USEPA OCS permits as BOEM
emission estimates for a specific rig. If
emissions factors were not generated
through testing for a particular engine,
emissions factors generated from a
recent and similar permit engine may be
used. Data from a rig from the same
manufacturer, having an engine of the
same model and year is generally
allowed, unless the Regional Supervisor
has a reason to believe that such data
may not be accurate or reliable.
(iii) You may use a model or table, as
appropriate, developed by the USEPA or
FAA, if available and appropriate to the
emissions source, and you may use the
emissions factors from that model or
table.
(A) For commercial marine engines
operating aboard MSC, excluding
vehicles and aircraft, apply emission
factors based on the classification of the
engine (i.e., category 1, category 2, and
category 3), the year the engine was
manufactured, and the maximum engine
power expressed in kW. Some category
3 engine emission factors are based on
rpm rather than maximum engine
power. Engine category, year, model,
and emission factors, by kW power
rating, are given in 40 CFR 1042.101 for
category 1 and category 2 commercial
engines and consider the useful life
provisions of each engine category.
Engine category, year, model, and
emission factors, by rpm rating, are
given in 40 CFR 1042.104 for category
3 commercial marine engines, and also
consider the useful life provisions for
each engine category.
(B) For non-road equipment used on
the drill ships or platforms, non-road
emission factors, rather than marine
engine emission factors may be used.
The primary source for these emission
factors is the NONROAD portion of the
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) model (https://www.epa.gov/
otaq/models/moves/index.htm), as
incorporated by reference at § 550.198.
Depending on the type of engine, the
NONROAD2008A Model may also be
used, as incorporated by reference at
§ 550.198. That model is available at
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
nonrdmdl.htm.
(C) For storage tanks, use the USEPA’s
TANKS model, or the most recent
USEPA-recommended update or
replacement, to generate emission
factors, such as the AP 42 Compilation
of Emissions Factors, Chapter VII,
incorporated by reference at § 550.198.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(D) In the event that you are required
to report emissions data from aircraft,
use emissions factors generated by the
AEDT, incorporated by reference at
§ 550.198, or from another appropriate
model, or set of models, approved by
the FAA, in the event that the AEDT
does not contain emissions factors for
the relevant aircraft proposed in your
plan. AEDT emissions factors are
available at: https://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/
research/models/aedt/.
(iv) You may use an emission factor
from a published study conducted by a
reputable source, such as the California
Air Resources Board, a university, or
research agency, if such source yields
reliable emission factors or formula(s) to
calculate emissions factors for certain
types of engines and equipment other
than for the large main engines on
drilling ships and drill platforms and for
locomotive-sized engines powering
cranes. If an emission study is used, the
study must cover representative
engines, fuels, and duty cycles.
(v) For non-U.S. flagged vessels
having non-USEPA-certified, MARPOLcertified marine engines, you may use
the MARPOL Annex VI standards,
available from the International
Maritime Organization, incorporated by
reference at § 550.198, or the Revised
MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
incorporated by reference at § 550.198,
as appropriate taking vessel flag as well
as engine size into account when
determining the emission factor that
should apply to an engine. With respect
to calculations specifically for NOX
emissions or emissions factors, any
reporting must comply with the NOX
Technical Code [NTC] 2008
incorporated by reference at § 550.198.
If this method is used, the plan must
account for any differences in the
sulphur limits of the fuel being used
and the sulphur limit of the fuel used
for emission testing. All fuel used by the
subject drilling ships and offshore
platforms must either be purchased in
the U.S. or comply with applicable CAA
fuel emissions requirements, unless the
lessee or operator can demonstrate that
it has properly accounted for any
differences in emissions that may result
from the use of non-U.S. fuel.
(vi) For a natural gas-powered engine
of any rated capacity, or for a non-road
diesel-powered engine with a maximum
rated capacity less than 900 kW, or for
a non-engine emissions source, you may
use the appropriate emissions factor
from the Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary
Point and Area Emissions Sources, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
any update thereto, incorporated by
reference at § 550.198; or,
(vii) If you elect to use the methods
described in paragraph (b)(2)(v) or (vi)
of this section, you must take
appropriate account of the deterioration
in the performance of the equipment
based on its age and the potential
variation of the actual emissions from
the standard to account for the
maximum potential emissions that the
emissions source may emit. Given that
equipment tends to operate less
efficiently over time, you should make
an appropriate upward adjustment in
the emissions estimates for older
equipment. At any time you revise your
plan, including resubmissions every ten
years, you must consider the age of the
equipment, adjust for any change in
operating efficiency, and provide the
associated emissions factors in your
revised or resubmitted plan, as
applicable.
(3) If the Regional Supervisor has
reason to believe that any air emissions
factor used in your plan is
inappropriate, or new or updated
information on emissions factors
becomes available, the Regional
Supervisor may require you to use a
different emissions factor for any
emissions source for any air pollutant.
The Regional Supervisor may require
you to perform stack testing, in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, or some other form of validation
to verify the accuracy of an emissions
factor.
(4) If you propose to utilize an engine
or equipment that is not certified by the
USEPA for use in the U.S., you may not
use a USEPA emissions factor intended
to apply to a certified engine or
equipment. If you propose to utilize an
engine or equipment that is USEPAcertified, then you must submit
documentation of its certification.
(5) If your projected emissions
include emissions for a U.S. flagged
vessel, you must submit documentation
of the USEPA-issued Certificate of
Conformity for each engine on the
vessel.
(6) If you propose to use any non-U.S.
engine or equipment on a non-U.S. flag
vessel that is not MARPOL-compliant,
you may not use an emissions factor
intended to apply to a MARPOLcompliant engine or equipment.
(c) Facility emissions. For each
criteria and major precursor air
pollutant, calculate the projected annual
emissions for each of your facilities, the
maximum 12 month rolling sum of
facility emissions and the maximum
projected peak hourly emissions using
the following procedures:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19801
(1) Calculate total emissions generated
annually by each emissions source on or
physically connected to each of the
facilities described in your plan that
would result from the construction,
installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility. Such
calculations should be done for each
year that the plan states that the
operator proposes to engage in operating
activities, up to ten years. This
calculation should be based on the
maximum rated capacity of each
emissions source associated with the
facility, or the capacity that generates
the highest rate of emissions, and the
facility’s maximum potential projected
annual emissions, using the methods
and procedures specified under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(2) Calculate the maximum 12-month
rolling sum of emissions from each
emissions source on or physically
connected to each facility and the
maximum 12-month rolling sum of
emissions from each facility that would
result from the construction,
installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility. Identify
the 12-month period used for this
calculation. This should be the 12month period during which your facility
generates the highest amount emissions
over the life of your plan.
(3) Calculate the maximum projected
peak hourly emissions from each
emissions source on or physically
connected to each facility and the
maximum projected peak hourly
emissions from each facility that would
result from the construction,
installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility.
(d) Attributed emissions. For each
criteria and major precursor air
pollutant, calculate the attributed
projected annual emissions for each of
your MSCs, the maximum 12-month
rolling sum of each MSC’s emissions,
and the maximum projected peak
hourly emissions for each MSC, using
the following procedure:
(1) For each facility described in your
plan, identify the MSCs that will be
used to support that facility. To the
extent practicable, identify the other
facilities that each MSC will support.
(2) For each MSC referred to in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section:
(i) An MSC that is intended to remain
at sea continuously (i.e., a vessel that
does not typically return to port on a
regular basis) should be assumed to
operate on a 24-hour basis for any day
the MSC operates in the waters
overlying the OCS or State submerged
lands.
(ii) For all other MSCs, calculate the
emissions per trip, irrespective of what
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19802
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
other facilities the MSC may also service
on each trip. These emissions include
all the emissions generated between the
time that the MSC leaves its port or
home base until it returns (i.e., support
emissions per trip). All calculations
must be based on the maximum rated
capacity or the capacity that generates
the highest rate of emissions, if greater,
for each emissions source on the MSC.
(3) Multiply the emissions per trip
from paragraph (d)(2) of this section by
the number of trips the MSC will make
during the 12 month period described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section to get the
total support emissions for that MSC. If
the MSC will remain at sea
continuously, multiply the emissions it
will generate per day by the number of
days that it will operate in support of
your facility during the 12 month period
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(4) If the MSC provides support only
to your facility, then you must attribute
the MSC’s total support emissions to
that facility.
(5) For each MSC described in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section that
supports multiple facilities, you may
attribute the total support emissions for
that MSC to your facility or you may
attribute a portion of its total support
emissions to your facility (i.e., calculate
the attributed emissions for that MSC)
using the following procedure:
(i) Subtract the emissions you can
document that should be reasonably
allocated to other facilities from the
total support emissions calculated
under paragraph (d)(3) of this section for
that MSC; or
(ii) If it is not practicable to use the
method in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this
section, divide the total support
emissions calculated under paragraph
(d)(3) of this section by the lowest
number of facilities that the MSC will
service on a typical trip; or
(iii) Where it is not practicable to use
either paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this
section, calculate the greater of:
(A) The emissions that would be
generated by the MSC traveling roundtrip between the port or home base and
the facility; or
(B) The emissions generated by the
MSC for the entire time it will operate
within 25 statute miles of the facility.
(6) Calculate the sum of the emissions
estimates that result from the
calculation in paragraph (d)(4) or (5) of
this section for every MSC identified in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. That
sum represents the attributed emissions
for your facility.
(7) All calculations must be based on
the maximum rated capacity or the
capacity that generates the highest rate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
of emissions for each of the relevant
sources on every MSC.
(8) If BOEM questions your
determination of the attributed
emissions, the Regional Supervisor may
require additional documentation to
support your findings and may direct
you to make changes, as appropriate.
(e) Projected emissions. For every
facility described in your plan, you
must identify the maximum projected
emissions for each criteria and major
precursor air pollutant by calculating
the annual rate (for each calendar year),
the maximum 12-month rolling sum,
and the maximum peak hourly rate for
your facility emissions under paragraph
(c)(2) of this section and your attributed
emissions under paragraph (d)(6) of this
section.
(1) If any of your proposed facilities
would be located in such a manner as
to potentially constitute proximate
activities with a pre-existing facility or
a facility that was previously approved
but not yet constructed, you must
identify any such facility in your plan.
(2) If you are required to consolidate
air emissions from multiple facilities, in
accordance with the provisions of
§ 550.303(d), you must provide the
projected emissions information for
each facility and provide the complex
total emissions for all of the
consolidated activities.
(f) Emission reduction measure(s)
(ERM). You must provide a description
of all proposed ERM, including: the
affected emissions source(s); the
proposed emissions reduction control
technologies, procedures and/or
operational limits; the emission control
efficiencies; the projected quantity of
reductions to be achieved; and any
monitoring or monitoring system you
propose to use to measure or evaluate
the associated emissions. You must be
able to demonstrate that all ERM meet
the requirements of § 550.309.
(g) Modeling information. If you are
required to conduct any air quality
modeling in support of your plan, then
you must provide:
(1) Table(s) of the appropriate and
relevant maximum projected air
pollutant concentrations over any
area(s) of any State(s), including the
most affected attainment area(s) and the
most affected non-attainment area(s);
(2) Table(s) of the appropriate and
relevant maximum projected air
pollutant concentrations over any Class
I area(s), if relevant;
(3) The maximum projected
concentrations resulting from the
projected emissions for each of your
facilities, for each criteria air pollutant
and major precursor air pollutant, for
the corresponding averaging time(s)
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(e.g., 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour,
annual, etc.) specified in the tables in 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2), 40 CFR 52.21(c), and
40 CFR part 50;
(4) A list of all inputs, assumptions,
and default values used for modeling
and justification for each, including the
source and justification for the proposed
meteorological information;
(5) The name and version of the
model(s), and whether the model is
listed on the USEPA preferred list of
models in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W;
and
(6) A modeling report, including the
modeling results. If you have previously
provided such a report and/or results of
the analysis relevant to paragraphs (e)
and (g) of this section to the Regional
Supervisor, and the projected emissions
are the same as or lower than in the
previously submitted report(s) or
results, you may instead provide a
reference to such report and/or results.
(7) For each MSC, provide the
distance from each facility described in
your plan to the closest relevant home
port (for MSCs other than offshore
vehicles) or home base (for offshore
vehicles), consistent with the maps and
information you provide under
§ 550.224(e) or 550.256(b).
(h) Requirements applicable to
specific air pollutants—(1) Nitrogen and
Sulphur Oxides (NOX and SOX). Various
documents cross-referenced by these
regulations, refer to NOX and NO2
(nitrogen dioxide) or SOXand SO2
(sulphur dioxide). Whenever possible,
you must utilize data or reasonable
estimates for NOX and SOX. At a
minimum, your projected emissions of
NOX must include emissions of nitrogen
oxide and NO2, and your projected
emissions of SOX must include
emissions of SO2. In the event that data
on NOX or SOX emissions are not
available, you must instead utilize data
on nitrogen oxide plus NO2 as a
substitute for NOx, and SO2 emissions
as a substitute SOX.
(2) Particulate Matter (PM10 and
PM2.5). For each emissions source, you
must provide data and information on
both PM10 (PM that is 10 micrometers or
less in diameter) and PM2.5 (PM that is
2.5 micrometers or less in diameter)
whenever such information is available
and evaluate each type of particulate
matter (PM) separately under every
applicable standard. All reporting of
PM2.5 must include the sum of filterable
and condensable PM. In the event that
data for PM is not separately available
for both PM10 and PM2.5 for any given
source, you must utilize the PM10 data
for the PM10 analysis and the same data
for the PM2.5 analysis. A plan that does
not contain separate emission
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19803
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
exemption threshold and modeling
analysis for each type of PM will not be
considered complete.
(3) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). All
emissions of SOX that result from the
flaring of hydrogen sulfide must be
included in the projected emissions of
SOX reported and analyzed as part of
your plan, in accordance with the
USEPA’s Oil and Natural Gas Sector
New Source Performance Standards and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews. If
your projected emissions of H2S will
potentially exceed the USEPA’s
Significant Emission Rate for H2S, as
defined in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i), you
must report the nature and extent of
these emissions and their likely impact
as part of your plan.
(4) Methane (CH4). Unless specifically
directed to the contrary by another
regulatory provision, the analysis or
reporting of CH4 emissions is not
required.
(5) Ozone (O3). Generally reporting is
not required other than in accordance
with the provisions of § 550.304(b),
unless another regulatory provision
specifically addresses O3.
(6) Lead (Pb) or Ammonia (NH3).
Reporting of emissions for these
pollutants, for any given source, is
required: if there are published
manufacturer specifications of
emissions factors for these pollutants; or
if such information is available from the
USEPA or could be obtained or derived
from another recognized source, such as
utilizing a mass balance approach. If
you intend to use a source known to
emit a potentially significant amount of
Pb or NH3, then you must obtain a
reasonable estimate of the associated Pb
or NH3 emissions. Zero emissions for
these pollutants should be assumed in
the situation where relevant data are not
available and neither you nor BOEM
have a reason to anticipate that the
emissions could be potentially
significant.
(i) Distance calculations—(1) Distance
from shore. For each facility described
in your plan, you must calculate and
provide the distance in statute miles, as
measured in a straight line from the site
of the facility to the closer of:
(i) The nearest mean high water mark
of a State, or, on the Pacific coast, the
nearest mean higher high water mark; or
(ii) The nearest Class I area of any
State.
(2) Distance from SSB. For each
facility described in your plan, you
must calculate and provide the distance
in statute miles, as measured in a
straight line from the site of the facility
to the closest point at which the OCS
borders any State, at the SSB.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(j) Documentation. You must collect,
create, and maintain records or any data
or information establishing,
substantiating, and verifying the basis
for all information, data, and resources
used to calculate your projected
emissions under this section. The
emissions factors you propose to use
must be documented, and any relevant
certifications, citations, methods, and
procedures used to obtain or develop
emissions factors must be retained. You
must collect and maintain all
documentation pertaining to the
modeling analysis under § 550.205(g), if
applicable, including all references and
copies of any referenced materials, as
well as any data or information related
to any ERM that you propose or
implement. You must provide this
information, unless the Regional
Supervisor waives this requirement for
good cause.
(k) Compliance. You must provide a
description of how you will comply
with § 550.303 when the emissions
generated by your proposed plan
activities exceed the respective emission
exemption thresholds (EETs), calculated
using the formulas in § 550.303(c). If
you are subject to the requirement to
monitor and report your actual
emissions in accordance with § 550.311,
then the description you provide must
describe how you propose to monitor
your emissions.
(l) Reporting. You must submit data
and information in a format, and using
the forms, as specified by BOEM. You
must submit information in an
electronically-readable format, unless
otherwise directed by the Regional
Supervisor. If you transmit the
information to BOEM electronically,
you must use a delivery medium or
transmission method authorized by
BOEM.
(m) Additional information. (1) If you
are required to conduct modeling, and
if, under § 550.305 your projected
emissions would cause an increase in
the concentration of any pollutant that
is within 95% of any Significant Impact
Level (SIL), then you must: Report the
amount of emissions from aircraft or
onshore support facilities as attributed
emissions; and combine the impacts of
aircraft and onshore support facilities
emissions with the impacts of your
projected emissions for the purposes of
this section and for your analysis under
subpart C of this part. The aircraft and
support facilities for which you are
required to report emissions are those
described in §§ 550.224, 550.225,
550.257, and 550.258. If required to
report your aircraft or onshore support
facilities and those aircraft or onshore
support facilities support multiple OCS
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
facilities then you must allocate their
emissions in an appropriate manner
similar to that described for MSCs in
§ 550.205(d).
(2) The Regional Supervisor may
require such additional data or
information related to these sources as
is necessary to demonstrate your plan’s
compliance with subpart C of this part,
and/or applicable federal laws related to
the protection of air quality within
BOEM jurisdiction.
(n) Requirements for plans to be
deemed submitted. Your plan will not
be deemed submitted in accordance
with the requirements of § 550.231 or
§ 550.266 until:
(1) All of the requirements of this
section have been completed;
(2) You have completed the Ambient
Air Increment (AAI) analysis, including
the required BOEM forms, the modeling
protocol, and the modeling results, as
specified in § 550.307(b) if required; and
(3) You have completed any other
analysis required by subpart C of this
part.
(o) Plans exempt from review under
the AQRP. If you can demonstrate that
your facility will not generate projected
emissions of any criteria or precursor air
pollutant in an amount greater than the
corresponding significant emissions rate
limit described in the ‘‘Pollutant and
Emissions Rate’’ table defined in 40 CFR
52.21((b)(23)(i), your plan is exempt
from the AQRP requirements of this
section and subpart C of this part.
■ 11. Revise § 550.211(c) to read as
follows:
§ 550.211
What must the EP include?
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Drilling unit. (1) A description of
the drilling unit and associated
equipment you will use to conduct your
proposed exploration activities,
including a brief description of its
important safety and pollution
prevention features, and a table
indicating the type and the estimated
maximum quantity of fuels, oil, and
lubricants that will be stored on the
facility.
(2) For purposes of this section, the
term ‘‘facility’’ means any installation,
structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or
device that is temporarily or
permanently attached to the seabed of
the OCS, including an artificial island
used for drilling, well completion, wellworkover, or other operations.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Revise § 550.212(f) to read as
follows:
§ 550.212 What information must
accompany the EP?
*
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
*
*
05APP2
*
*
19804
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(f) Air emissions information required
by § 550.205;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Amend § 550.215 by revising
paragraph (d)(2) and adding paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
§ 550.241
include?
What must the DPP or DOCD
*
*
*
*
(c) Drilling unit. A description of the
drilling unit and associated equipment
you will use to conduct your proposed
development drilling activities. Include
§ 550.215 What hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
a brief description of its important
information must accompany the EP?
safety and pollution prevention features,
*
*
*
*
*
and a table indicating the type and the
(d) * * *
estimated maximum quantity of fuels
(2) If any H2S emissions are projected and oil that will be stored on the
to affect any location within a State in
facility. For the purpose of this section,
a concentration greater than 10 parts per the term facility means any installation,
million, the modeling analysis must be
structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or
consistent with the USEPA risk
device that is temporarily or
management plan methodologies
permanently attached to the seabed of
outlined in 40 CFR part 68.
the OCS, including an artificial island
(e) Hydrogen sulfide. If you propose to used for drilling, well completion, wellflare any gasses containing a potentially workover, or other operations.
significant amount of H2S, you must
(d) Production facilities. A description
separately identify this activity in your
of the production platforms, satellite
plan and separately identify the
structures, subsea wellheads and
resulting emissions of sulphur oxides
manifolds, lease term pipelines (see
(SOX) as part of your projected
definition at § 550.105), production
emissions under § 550.205(e).
facilities, umbilicals, and other facilities
you will use to conduct your proposed
§ 550.218 [Removed and reserved]
development and production activities.
■ 14. Remove and reserve § 550.218.
Include a brief description of their
■ 15. Revise § 550.224(a) and (b) to read
important safety and pollution
as follows:
prevention features, and a table
§ 550.224 What information on support
indicating the type and the estimated
vessels, offshore vehicles, and aircraft you
maximum quantity of fuels and oil that
will use must accompany the EP?
will be stored on the facility. For the
*
*
*
*
*
purpose of this section, the term facility
(a) General. A description of the MSCs means a vessel, a structure, or an
and aircraft you will use to support your artificial island used for drilling, well
exploration activities. The description
completion, well-workover, or other
of MSCs must estimate the storage
operations or used to support
capacity of their fuel tanks and the
production facilities.
frequency of their visits to your facility
*
*
*
*
*
or facilities.
■ 18. Revise § 550.242(g) to read as
(b) Air emissions. See § 550.205.
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 550.242 What information must
■ 16. Revise § 550.225(b) to read as
accompany the DPP or DOCD?
follows:
*
*
*
*
*
§ 550.225 What information on the
(g) Air emissions information required
onshore support facilities you will use must
by § 550.205;
accompany the EP?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Air emissions. A description of the ■ 19. Amend § 550.245 by revising
paragraph (d)(3) and adding paragraph
emissions source, the frequency and
(e) to read as follows:
duration of its operation, and the types
of air pollutants likely to be emitted by
§ 550.245 What hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
the onshore support facilities you will
information must accompany the DPP or
use. Except as required under
DOCD?
§ 550.205(m), the amount of air
*
*
*
*
*
pollutants emitted need not be reported.
(d) * * *
You do not need to report this
(3) If any H2S emissions are projected
information for any onshore support
to affect any location within a State in
facility if the facility is permitted under a concentration greater than 10 parts per
the CAA or if you can identify another
million, the modeling analysis must be
agency to which this emissions
consistent with the USEPA risk
information from the facility was
management plan methodologies
submitted.
outlined in 40 CFR part 68.
(e) Hydrogen sulfide. If you propose to
*
*
*
*
*
flare any gasses containing a potentially
■ 17. Revise paragraphs § 550.241(c)
significant amount of hydrogen sulfide,
and (d) to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
*
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
you must separately identify this
activity in your plan and separately
identify the resulting emissions of SOX,
including reporting the sulphur
emissions under § 550.205(e).
§ 550.249
[Removed and reserved]
20. Remove and reserve § 550.249.
21. Revise paragraphs § 550.257(a)
and (b) to read as follows:
■
■
§ 550.257 What information on the support
vessels, offshore vehicles, and aircraft you
will use must accompany the DPP or
DOCD?
*
*
*
*
*
(a) General. A description of the MSCs
and aircraft you will use to support your
activities. The description of MSCs must
estimate the storage capacity of their
fuel tanks and the frequency of their
visits to the facilities you will use to
conduct your proposed development
and production activities.
(b) Air emissions. See § 550.205.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 22. In § 550.258, revise paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
§ 550.258 What information on the
onshore support facilities you will use must
accompany the DPP or DOCD?
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Air emissions. A description of the
source, the frequency and duration of its
operation, and the types of air
pollutants likely to be emitted by the
onshore support facilities you will use.
Except as required under § 550.205(m),
the amount of emissions of air
pollutants need not be reported. You do
not need to report this information for
any onshore support facility if the
facility is permitted under the CAA or
if you can identify another agency to
which emissions from the facility was
submitted.
*
*
*
*
*
Post-Approval Requirements for an EP,
DPP, DOCD, RUE, Pipeline ROW or
Lease Term Pipeline Application
23. Revise the undesignated center
heading that occurs before § 550.280 to
read as set out above.
■ 24. In § 550.280, revise the section
heading and the introductory text of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 550.280 How must I conduct activities
under the approved EP, DPP, DOCD, RUE,
pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline
application?
(a) Compliance. You must conduct all
of your lease and unit activities
according to your approved EP, DPP,
DOCD, or RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease
term pipeline application, and any
approval conditions. You may not
install or use any facility, equipment,
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
vessel, vehicle, or other emissions
source not described in your EP, DPP,
DOCD, or RUE, pipeline ROW or lease
term pipeline application, and you may
not install or use a substitute for any
emissions source described in your EP,
DPP, DOCD, or RUE, pipeline ROW,
lease term pipeline application, without
BOEM prior approval. If you fail to
comply with your approved EP, DPP,
DOCD, or RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease
term pipeline application:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 25. In § 550.284, revise the section
heading, paragraph (a) introductory text,
and (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 550.284 How will BOEM require revisions
to the approved EP, DPP, DOCD or
application for a RUE?
(a) Periodic review. The Regional
Supervisor will periodically review the
activities you conduct under your
approved EP, DPP, DOCD, or RUE
application and may require you to
submit updated information on your
activities. The frequency and extent of
this review will be based on the
significance of any changes in available
information, applicable law or
regulation, or onshore or offshore
conditions affecting, or affected by, the
activities in your approved EP, DPP,
DOCD, or RUE application. After 2020,
any EP, DPP, DOCD or RUE application
that was approved more than ten years
prior must be resubmitted for air quality
review in accordance with the
requirements of § 550.310.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 26. Revise subpart C to read as
follows:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Subpart C—Air Quality Analysis,
Control, and Compliance
Sec.
550.300 [Reserved]
550.301 Under what circumstances does
this subpart apply to operations in my
plan?
550.302 Acronyms and definitions
concerning air quality.
550.303 What analysis of my projected
emissions is required under this subpart?
550.304 What must I do if my projected
emissions exceed an emission exemption
threshold?
550.305 How do I determine whether my
projected emissions of criteria air
pollutants require ERM?
550.306 What ERM are required for a shortterm facility?
550.307 What ERM are required for a longterm facility?
550.308 Under what circumstances will
BOEM require additional ERM on my
proposed facility or facilities?
550.309 What requirements apply to my
ERM?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
550.310 How will revisions to the ambient
air quality standards and benchmarks
(AAQSB) affect my plan?
550.311 Under what circumstances will I be
required to measure and report my actual
emissions?
550.312 What post-approval recordkeeping
and reporting is required?
550.313 Under what circumstances will
BOEM impose additional requirements
on facilities operating under already
approved plans?
550.314 Under what circumstances will the
Regional Supervisor review the projected
emissions from my existing facility or
facilities?
§ 550.300
[Reserved]
§ 550.301 Under what circumstances does
this subpart apply to operations in my
plan?
The provisions of this subpart apply
to any existing facility or proposed plan
involving a facility or facilities
operating on, or proposed to operate on,
any area of the OCS where the Secretary
of the Interior has authority to regulate
air emissions pursuant to section 5(a)(8)
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8), as
amended, and jurisdiction pursuant to
section 328(b) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7627(b), as amended, including OCS
operations conducted pursuant to any
plan approved under this part.
§ 550.302 Acronyms and definitions
concerning air quality.
(a) Acronyms and terms used in this
subpart, and in § 550.205, have the
following meanings:
AAI means ambient air increment(s).
AAQSB means ambient air quality standards
and benchmarks.
AEDT means aviation environmental design
tool.
APD means application for a permit to drill.
AQCR means air quality control region.
BACT means best available control
technology.
BLM means the Bureau of Land Management.
Btu IT means British Thermal Unit
International Tables.
CAA means the Clean Air Act.
CEO means Chief Environmental Officer
(BOEM)
CH4 means methane.
CO means carbon monoxide.
CP means criteria pollutant.
CSU means column-stabilized-units.
DOCD means development operations
coordination document.
DOI means the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
DPP means development and production
plan.
ECE means emission control efficiency.
EET means emission exemption threshold(s).
EIS means environmental impact statement.
EP means exploration plan.
ERM means emission reductions measure(s).
FAA means Federal Aviation Administration.
FLM means Federal Land Manager, which
includes the heads of the U.S. Bureau of
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19805
Land Management (BLM), Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park
Service (NPS), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in DOI and U.S. Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture.
FPS means floating production systems.
FPSO means floating production storage and
offloading vessel.
G&G means geological and geophysical.
GHG means greenhouse gas.
hp means horsepower.
hpm means mechanical horsepower.
HPU means hydraulic power unit.
H2S means hydrogen sulfide.
kW means kilowatt.
MARPOL means Marine Pollution
Convention.
MODU means mobile offshore drilling unit.
MOVES means motor vehicle emission
simulator.
MSC means mobile support craft.
NAAQS means the primary or secondary
national ambient air quality standards.
NARA means National Archives and Records
Administration.
NH3 means ammonia.
NO2 means nitrogen dioxide.
NOX means nitrogen oxides.
O3 means ozone.
OCS means Outer Continental Shelf.
OCSLA means Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act.
ONRR means the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue
OSFR means oil spill financial responsibility.
OSV means offshore supply vessel.
Pb means lead.
PM means particulate matter.
PM2.5 means fine particulate matter equal to
or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.
PM10 means particulate matter equal to or
less than 10 micrometers in diameter.
PTE means potential to emit.
ROW means rights-of-way.
Rpm means revolutions per minute.
RUE means right-of-use and easement.
SILs means significant impact levels.
SO2 means sulphur dioxide.
SOX means sulphur oxides.
SSB means State seaward boundary
TAS means treatment as State.
TIP means tribal implementation plan.
TLP means tension-leg platforms.
VOC means volatile organic compound.
U.S. means the United States.
USEPA means the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
mg/m3 means micrograms per cubic meter.
(b) Terms used in this subpart have
the following meanings:
Air quality control region (AQCR)
means an interstate area or major
intrastate area, which the USEPA deems
appropriate for assessing the regional
attainment and maintenance of the
primary or secondary national ambient
air quality standards described in 42
U.S.C. 7409, as provided under 40 CFR
part 81, subpart B, Designation of Air
Quality Control Regions.
Ambient Air Increments (AAIs) means
the national benchmarks for Ambient
Air Increments set out in the table in 40
CFR 52.21(c), as amended, or in 42
U.S.C. 7473 et seq., as amended.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19806
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Ambient air quality standards and
benchmarks (AAQSB) means any or all
of the national ambient air quality
standards and benchmarks referenced in
this subpart, including the primary and
secondary NAAQS defined in 40 CFR
part 50; the SILs, in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2);
the AAIs, as set out in the table in 40
CFR 52.21(c).
Attainment area means, for any given
criteria air pollutant, a geographic area,
which is not designated by the USEPA
as being a designated non-attainment
area, as codified at 40 CFR part 81
subpart C (40 CFR 81.300 through
81.356). This includes areas that are
referred to as attainment, maintenance,
unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/
attainment in that subpart, as well as
areas that have not yet been designated
because the two-year period to complete
such designations after revision of a
NAAQS has not yet passed.
Attributed emissions means, for any
given criteria or precursor air pollutant,
the emissions from MSC and, if
appropriate, aircraft, operating above
the OCS or State submerged lands, that
are attributed to a facility pursuant to
the methodology set forth in
§ 550.205(d) for the period over which
the corresponding facility emissions are
measured.
Background concentration means the
ambient air concentration of any given
criteria air pollutant that arises both
from local natural processes and from
the transport into the airshed of natural
or anthropogenic pollutants originating
locally or from another location, either
as measured from an USEPA-approved
air monitoring system or as determined
on some other appropriate scientifically
justified basis approved by BOEM.
Baseline concentration means the
ambient background concentration of
any given air pollutant that exists or
existed at the time of the first
application for a USEPA Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
in an area subject to section 169 of the
CAA, based on air quality data available
to the USEPA or a State air pollution
control agency and on the monitoring
data provided in the permit application
and as defined in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(13).
The baseline concentration is
distinguished from the background
concentration in that the background
concentration changes continually over
time to reflect the current ambient air
concentration for any given air
pollutant, whereas the baseline
concentration remains fixed until such
time as a new AAI is established for an
attainment area.
Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) means a physical or mechanical
system or device that reduces emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
of air pollutants subject to regulation to
the maximum extent practicable, taking
into account: The amount of emissions
reductions necessary to meet specific
regulatory provisions; energy,
environmental, and economic impacts;
and costs.
Class I area means an area designated
by the USEPA, a State, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe, where visibility
and air emissions are protected by a
FLM to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7472(a) or
7474, as amended; Class I areas include
certain national parks, wilderness areas,
national monuments, and areas of
special national or regional natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value.
Class II area means an area designated
by the USEPA, a State, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe, that is protected
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7472(a) or 7474,
as amended, to limits less stringent than
those for Class I areas. Sensitive Class II
areas represent a sub-classification of
Class II areas that are defined by Federal
Land Management Agencies as federal
lands where the protection of air
resources has been prioritized, as
specified in acts, regulations, planning
documents, or by policy.
Complex total emissions means the
sum of the facility emissions that would
result from all of the facilities that have
been aggregated for the purposes of
evaluating their potential consolidated
impact on air quality, pursuant to the
methodology set forth in § 550.303(d),
and the sum of all corresponding
attributed emissions for those facilities.
Criteria air pollutant or criteria
pollutant means any one of the
principal pollutants for which the
USEPA has established and maintains a
NAAQS under 40 CFR part 50 in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7409, as
amended, for the protection of public
health and welfare, and the
environment. The USEPA has
established primary standards for the
protection of sensitive populations of
children and the elderly and secondary
standards for the protection of crops,
vegetation, buildings, visibility, and
prevention of harm to animals. Criteria
air pollutants do not include Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) or any
other precursor air pollutant not already
regulated under the NAAQS.
Design concentration means the
pollutant concentration at a given
location projected, through computersimulated air dispersion or
photochemical modeling, as described
under 40 CFR part 51, appendix W,
section 7.2.1.1 to result from your
projected emissions, combined with the
background concentration for the same
pollutant, averaging time, and statistical
form at the most appropriate receptor
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
location. The appropriate background
concentration is measured from the
nearest point at which there is data from
an USEPA-approved air monitoring
system, or as determined on some other
appropriate scientifically justified basis
approved by BOEM.
Dispersion modeling means the
mathematical computer simulation of
air emissions being transported from a
source through the atmosphere under
given meteorological conditions.
Emissions from sources, expressed as
the rate of air pollutants emitted over
time (i.e., pounds per hour), are
translated through computer modeling
into pollutant concentrations, expressed
in units of micrograms of pollutants per
cubic meter of ambient air (mg/m3), or
in parts per million or billion,
depending on the circumstances. When
a file containing meteorological and
emissions data are input into the
computer model, the model will project
the concentrations of the pollutants at a
receptor location.
Emission control efficiency (ECE)
means the effectiveness of an ERM for
any given emissions source and air
pollutant. The greater the emission
control efficiency, the greater the
effectiveness of the underlying controls
(i.e., measured as a percentage reduction
in the underlying emissions of any
given pollutant). ECE varies from 100%,
representing a control that completely
eliminates emissions, to zero,
representing a control that has no effect
on such emissions.
Emissions credits mean emissions
reductions from an emissions source(s)
not associated with the plan that are
intended to compensate for the
excessive emissions of criteria or
precursor air pollutants, regardless of
whether these emissions credits are
acquired from an emissions source(s)
located either offshore or onshore,
including: Emissions offsets generated
by the lessee or operator itself; or
emissions offsets acquired from a third
party; or trading allowances or other
alternative emission reduction
method(s) or system(s) associated with a
market-based trading mechanism;
examples include mitigation banks or
other competitive markets where these
assets are exchanged.
Emission exemption threshold(s)
(EET) means the maximum allowable
rate of projected emissions, calculated
for each air pollutant, expressed as short
tons per year (tpy), above which
facilities would be subject to the
requirement to perform modeling.
Emissions factor(s) means a value that
relates the quantity of a specific
pollutant released into the atmosphere
with the operation of a particular
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
emissions source. Emissions factors are
usually expressed as the mass of
pollutant generated from each unit (e.g.,
mass, volume, distance, work, or
duration) of activity by the emissions
source emitting the pollutant.
Emission reduction measure(s) (ERM)
means any operational control(s),
equipment replacement(s), BACT, or
emissions credit(s), applied on either a
temporary or permanent basis, to reduce
the amount of emissions of criteria or
precursor air pollutants that would
occur in the absence of such measures.
Existing facility means an operational
OCS facility described in an approved
plan.
Facility means, any installation,
structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment, or
device that is temporarily or
permanently attached to the seabed of
the OCS, including but not limited to a
dynamically positioned ship, gravitybased structure, manmade island, or
bottom-sitting structure, whether used
for the exploration, development,
production or transportation of oil, gas,
or sulphur. All installations, structures,
vessels, vehicles, equipment, or devices
directly associated with the
construction, installation, and
implementation of a facility are part of
a facility while located at the same site,
attached, or interconnected by one or
more bridges or walkways, or while
dependent on, or affecting the processes
of, the facility, including any ROV
attached to the facility. One facility may
include multiple drill rigs, drilling
units, vessels, platforms, installations,
devices, and pieces of equipment.
Facilities include Mobile Offshore
Drilling Unit(s) (MODU), even while
operating in the ‘‘tender assist’’ mode
(i.e., with skid-off drilling units), or any
other vessel engaged in drilling or
downhole operations, including wellstimulation vessels. Facilities also
include all Floating Production Systems
(FPSs), including Column-StabilizedUnits (CSUs), Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading facilities
(FPSOs), Tension-Leg Platforms (TLPs),
and spars. Any vessel used to transfer
production from an offshore facility is
part of the facility while physically
attached to it. Facilities also include all
DOI-regulated pipelines and any
installation, structure, vessel,
equipment, or device connected to such
a pipeline, whether temporarily or
permanently, while so connected.
Facility emissions means, for any
given criteria or precursor air pollutant,
the annual, the maximum 12-month
rolling sum, and the peak hourly
emissions from all emissions sources on
or connected to a facility.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Federally-recognized Indian tribe
refers to a Federally-recognized Indian
tribe that has either a Treatment as State
(TAS) status recognized by the USEPA
or an approved TIP.
Fugitive emissions means the
emissions of an air pollutant from an
emissions source that do not pass
through a stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally-equivalent opening.
Fully reduce(d) means to decrease
emissions of VOCs to a rate that will not
exceed the emission exemption
threshold calculated under § 550.302, or
to decrease emissions of criteria air
pollutants to a rate that will not exceed
the Significant Impact Levels set out in
the table in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
Long-term facility means a facility that
has remained or is intended to remain
in the same lease block or within one
nautical mile of its original location for
three years or longer; this three year
period is measured from the time the
facility is first attached to the seafloor,
or another facility, and continues to run
until the facility’s planned operations
cease, regardless of the length of time
the facility remains attached to the
seafloor in any given year.
Major precursor pollutant means any
precursor pollutant for which the States
are required to report actual emissions
to the USEPA, as defined in 40 CFR
51.15(a).
MARPOL-certified engine means
either:
(1) An engine with a power output of
more than 5,000 kW and a per cylinder
displacement at or above 90 liters
installed on a ship constructed on or
after January 1, 1990 but prior to
January 1, 2000 that is subject to
regulation 13.7 of MARPOL Annex VI;
or
(2) An engine with a power output of
more than 130 kW built on or after
January 1, 2000 that is subject to
regulations 13.1 through 13.6 of
MARPOL Annex VI.
Maximum rated capacity means the
maximum power an engine is capable of
generating over time, expressed in kW,
and if necessary, as converted from hpm
(where 1 hpm of power equals
745.699872 Watts or 0.745699872 kW)
or from the International Table values of
British thermal units (BtuIT, where 1
BtuIT/hour of power equals 0.29307107
Watts or 0.00029307107 kW).
National ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) means the ambient
air standards established by the USEPA,
as mandated by the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7409), set out in in 40 CFR part 50, for
the common criteria air pollutants
considered harmful to public health or
welfare. There are two categories of the
NAAQS: Primary standards that set
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19807
limits to protect public health,
including the health of ‘‘sensitive’’
populations such as asthmatics,
children, and the elderly; and secondary
standards that set limits to protect
public welfare when concentrations are
elevated over time, including protection
against visibility impairment;
prevention of harm to animals,
including marine mammals, fish and
other wildlife; and avoidance of damage
to crops, vegetation, and buildings. This
term includes both categories.
Non-attainment area means, for any
given criteria air pollutant, a geographic
area, which the Administrator of the
USEPA has designated as nonattainment for a NAAQS, as codified at
40 CFR part 81 subpart C. For the
purposes of these regulations, all other
areas will be considered Attainment
areas.
Operational control means a process,
method or technique, other than a
physical or mechanical control, or
equipment replacement that reduces the
emissions of criteria or precursor air
pollutants (e.g., limitation on period of
operation, load balancing, and/or use of
less-polluting fuels).
Particulate matter (PM) means an
airborne contaminant of particulate
matter that is regulated as a criteria air
pollutant under the ambient air
standards. PM10 refers to airborne
contaminants of particulates less than or
equal to 10 micrometers. PM2.5, or fine
PM, is an airborne contaminant
composed of particulates less than or
equal to a diameter of 2.5 micrometers.
Plan means any initial, revised,
modified, resubmitted, or supplemental
Exploration Plan (EP), Development and
Production Plan (DPP), Development
Operations Coordination Document
(DOCD), or application for a Right-ofUse and Easement (RUE), a Pipeline
ROW, or a lease term pipeline
application.
Potential to emit (PTE) means the
maximum capacity of a source to emit
a pollutant under its physical and
operational design. Any physical or
operational limitation on the capacity of
the source to emit a pollutant, including
air pollution control equipment and
restrictions on hours of operation or on
the type or amount of material
combusted, stored, or processed, will be
treated as part of its design if the
limitation or the effect it would have on
emissions is federally enforceable.
Attributed emissions are not counted in
determining a facility’s PTE.
Precursor air pollutant or precursor
pollutant means a compound that
chemically reacts with other
atmospheric gases to form a criteria air
pollutant. Some precursor air pollutants
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19808
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
are also defined as criteria air
pollutants. Precursor air pollutants
include VOCs, NOX, SOX, and NH3.
Projected emissions means, for any
given criteria or precursor air pollutant,
the sum of facility’s (or facilities’)
emissions and the corresponding
attributed emissions over the specified
time period, with the controlled or
uncontrolled nature of the pollutants
specified by the context.
Proximate activities means activities
that involve or affect any of the
following: The same well(s); a common
oil, gas, or sulphur reservoir; the same
or adjacent lease block(s); or, facilities
located within one nautical mile of one
another. Where a well is drilled from
one facility, but production from that
well will ultimately take place through
a different facility, the drilling and
production activities constitute
proximate activities if they occur within
the same twelve months.
Sensitive Class II area means a Class
II area defined by an FLM agency as
being federal land where protection of
air resources has been prioritized, as
specified in acts, regulations, planning
documents, or policy.
Short-term facility means any facility
that is not a long-term facility or
connected to a long-term facility.
Significance level or Significant
impact level (SIL) means an ambient air
benchmark or limit that applies to the
ambient air impact of the emissions of
a criteria air pollutant, as set out in the
table in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
Technically feasible means a
technology or methodology that: Has
been demonstrated to operate
successfully on the same type of
emissions source as the one under
review; or is available and applicable to
the type of emissions source under
review.
Total support emissions means, for
any criteria or precursor air pollutant,
the total emissions generated by an MSC
that operates in support of your and any
other facilities, for the 12-month period
over which the corresponding facility
emissions are measured. For example,
for any given MSC, the total support
emissions would equal the number of
service trips (i.e., from the port to the
supported facilities) made during the
relevant 12-month period multiplied by
the average number of hours per service
trip multiplied by the emissions per
hour for all emissions source(s) on that
MSC (derived from the emissions factor
calculation).
§ 550.303 What analysis of my projected
emissions is required under this subpart?
(a) Establishing emission exemption
thresholds. BOEM establishes the rate of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
projected emissions, calculated for each
air pollutant, above which facilities
would be subject to the requirement to
perform modeling. These EETs establish
those rates of emissions below which
BOEM has determined emissions would
not significantly affect the air quality of
any State. If your projected emissions or
complex total emissions are exempt,
then you will not be required to perform
air quality modeling in accordance with
the requirements of § 550.304 and to
apply any controls, as described in
§§ 550.305 through 550.307.
(b) Calculating projected emissions.
You must compare your projected
emissions, or your complex total
emissions if you are required to
consolidate multiple facilities under
paragraph (d) of this section, with the
EETs, pursuant to the following
methodology:
(1) Projected emissions. You must
calculate and report the projected
emissions for each facility as set forth in
§ 550.205(e).
(2) Attributed emissions. You must
calculate and report all attributed
emissions for each facility as set forth in
§ 550.205(d).
(c) Exempt emissions thresholds.
BOEM will establish EETs under this
paragraph. These will determine
whether your projected emissions or
complex total emissions have the
potential to significantly affect the air
quality of any State.
(1) BOEM will establish new EETs
based on the factors listed in this
paragraph and publish them in the
Federal Register. BOEM may establish
different EETs that apply to different
areas of the OCS or that apply to
different kinds of emissions sources.
BOEM may establish different EETs that
apply to different areas of the OCS or
that apply to different kinds of
emissions sources. If your projected
emissions for any criteria air pollutant
or precursor air pollutant exceeds an
EET, then you will be required to
perform air quality modeling in
accordance with the requirements of
§ 550.304 and you may be required to
apply controls, as described in
§§ 550.305 through 550.307, unless
scientific evidence and the application
of the factors set in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section demonstrates otherwise.
(i) The first time that BOEM
establishes a new set of EETs, BOEM
will publish a notice in the Federal
Register describing the proposed EETs
and will specify the length of a
corresponding comment period. At the
conclusion of the comment period,
BOEM will review and evaluate the
comments and make a determination as
to the final EETs. BOEM will publish a
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
subsequent notice in the Federal
Register listing the new EETs, along
with a corresponding effective date for
the new EETs.
(ii) Any time that BOEM determines
that a revised EET should be
established, BOEM will publish a notice
in the Federal Register describing the
proposed revised EET and will specify
the length of a corresponding comment
period. At the conclusion of the
comment period, BOEM will review and
evaluate the comments and make a
determination as to the final EET.
BOEM will publish a subsequent notice
in the Federal Register listing revised
EET, along with a corresponding
effective date for the revised EET.
(iii) Until the date of the notice
described in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section, a facility will not be exempt
under this section if its projected
emissions of any pollutant exceed EETs
as calculated using the following
formulas:
(A) EET = 3400 × D2/3 for emissions of
carbon monoxide (CO); and
(B) EET = 33.3 × D for emissions of each
of the following: Nitrogen oxides
(NOX); SOX; volatile organic compounds
(VOCs); and PM10.
Where D is the distance of the facility
from the shoreline, as identified in
§ 550.205(i)(1).
(C) For Pb, the EET value is the level
defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
(iv) Subsequent to the date of the
notice, a facility will not be exempt
under this section if its projected
emission of any pollutant exceeds an
EET published in the notice.
(v) Because the USEPA’s AAQSB are
subject to change as scientific
knowledge improves and because
modeling and evaluation techniques
may improve over time, BOEM will
revise EETs on an ongoing basis. Thus,
as the USEPA revises the NAAQS, or
any applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM, at its
discretion, will periodically revise its
EET formula(s) or its amount(s) for the
corresponding air pollutant(s), as
appropriate.
(2) BOEM will determine new EET
formulas taking into account the
following factors:
(i) The absolute level of projected
emissions;
(ii) The distance of the proposed
facility or facilities from any State or
from areas critical to natural resources,
animals, and habitats;
(iii) The existing ambient air pollution
in potentially affected States, trend in
the ambient air pollution in those
States, the associated attainment status
of such areas, and the associated effects
to public health and welfare;
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(iv) Any USEPA AAQSB applied in
this part;
(v) The types, frequency, and duration
of any air pollutant emissions and their
formation and/or dispersion
characteristics;
(vi) The characteristics of the facility
or facilities and MSCs, including the
type and nature of the emissions
sources, and the height of the associated
points or stacks;
(vii) Prevailing meteorological
characteristics in any given area,
including air stability, relevant wind
speeds and directions;
(viii) The amount of emissions from
existing facilities and vessels in the
vicinity of the proposed facility; and
(ix) Other necessary and appropriate
considerations.
(3) BOEM will set the EET formulas
within the following ranges:
(i) The minimum values in this range
are determined by the formulas in table
1 to § 550.303.
TABLE 1 TO § 550.303
Minimum value
equation
Pollutant * and
averaging period
Emin = 0.677(d 1.2693)
Annual NOX, SOX,
and PM10.
Emin = 0.2031(d 1.2693) Annual PM2.5.
Emin = 3.3851(d 1.2693) 24-hr SO2 and PM10.
Emin = 0.8124(d 1.2693) 24-hr PM2.5.
Emin = 1354(d 1.2693) .. 1-hr CO.
Emin = 338.51(d 1.2693) 8-hr CO.
Emin = 16.926(d 1.2693) 3-hr SO2.
Where d is the distance in statute miles from
the State seaward boundary, as reported
in your plan under § 550.205(i)(2) and Emin
equals tons per year.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* For Pb, the minimum value amount is the
level defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i).
(ii) The maximum values of this range
are set by the following formulas:
(A) If d ≤ 3, then Emax = 7072 for CO;
and Emax = 100 for NOX, SOX, VOCs,
and PM10.
(B) If d > 3, then Emax = 3400 × d2/3 for
CO; and Emax = 33.3 × d for NOX,
SOX, VOCs, and PM10.
Where d will be the distance of the
facility from the SSB as identified in
§ 550.205(i)(2).
(4) If your projected emissions for any
criteria air pollutant or precursor air
pollutant exceeds the EETs as
determined pursuant to § 550.303, then
you will be required to perform air
quality modeling in accordance with the
requirements of § 550.304 and you may
be required to apply controls, as
described in §§ 550.305 through
550.307.
(d) Consolidation of air pollutant
emissions from multiple facilities. (1)
You must report the projected emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
from multiple facilities which may have
been or are described in multiple plans,
as the complex total emissions for your
plan, if:
(i) The air pollutant emissions are
generated by proximate activities (i.e.,
the same well(s); a common oil, gas, or
sulphur reservoir; the same or adjacent
lease block(s); or, by facilities located
within one nautical mile of one
another); and
(ii) You wholly or partially own,
control or operate those facilities; in the
event of a dispute as to what constitutes
common ownership, control or
operations, BOEM will make a
determination by reference to the ONRR
criteria defined in 30 CFR 1206.101 and
1206.151; and
(iii) The construction, installation,
drilling, operation, or decommissioning
of any of your facilities occurs within a
contemporaneous 12-month period as
the construction, installation, drilling
operation, or decommissioning of any
other facility; and
(iv) Such a consolidation of emissions
from multiple facilities would generate
emissions sufficient to exceed an
applicable emission exemption
threshold (based on the exemption
review described in paragraphs (e) or (f)
of this section).
(2) If any two or more facilities meet
all of the conditions specified in (d)(1)(i)
through (iii) of this section, you must
calculate the sum of the projected
emissions from those facilities
(including their respective attributed
emissions) as the complex total
emissions for your plan.
(3) BOEM will make a determination
that you have appropriately considered
the relevant data in your analysis of the
complex total emissions.
(4) If you are required to consolidate
projected emissions data from multiple
facilities, then anywhere a requirement
applies to projected emissions you must
instead use complex total emissions,
except with respect to the process by
which projected emissions are
determined for any given facility (as
specified in § 550.205(d)).
(e) Emissions do not exceed any
threshold. If none of your projected
emissions or complex total emissions of
any precursor or criteria air pollutant
exceeds the applicable emission
exemption threshold, then your
projected emissions are de minimis, and
no further analysis is required under
this subpart.
(f) Emissions exceed a threshold. If
your projected emissions or complex
total emissions of the precursor or
criteria air pollutant exceed the
applicable emission exemption
threshold, then further review and/or
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19809
controls are required, in accordance
with the provisions below:
(1) If the exceedance is for VOCs, you
must control your emissions of VOCs in
accordance with § 550.306, for a shortterm facility, or § 550.307, for a longterm facility.
(2) If the exceedance is for any criteria
air pollutant, then you must conduct
modeling in accordance with § 550.304.
(3) If the exceedance is for NOX,
VOCs, or CO, and if the conditions
specified in § 550.304(b) have been met,
you are required to conduct
photochemical modeling for O3.
(4) If the exceedance is for NOX,
VOCs, PM2.5, or SOX, and if the
conditions specified in § 550.304(b)
have been met, you are required to
conduct photochemical modeling for
PM2.5.
(g) Changes to previously approved
plans. (1) If you change your plan
implementation, such that your
projected emissions, or your complex
total emissions, will occur in years other
than those that were previously
approved, you must submit a revised
plan, and that revised plan must be
approved before you implement the
proposed changes.
(2) If at any time you anticipate an
increase in the maximum air pollutant
emissions from a previously approved
plan, you must submit a revised plan,
pursuant to 30 CFR 550.283(a)(4).
(3) If you propose to make a change
to your operations on your existing
facility or facilities, but not to the
equipment used in such operations, and
your approved projected annual
emissions in any given year are higher
than those previously approved for the
particular year, but lower than the
maximum air pollutant emissions for
any year, you do not need to submit a
revised plan—as long as the operations
would occur in the same year as
described in the previous plan.
(4) If you propose to make a change
to the equipment on your existing
facility or facilities in a year or years
where your plan already anticipated
operations, and your proposed change
would result in an increase in air
pollutant emissions from that
equipment for any air pollutant, you
must submit a revised plan.
(5) If your plan was approved for a
short-term facility that becomes a longterm facility, then you must submit a
revised plan for review and approval by
BOEM.
(h) Federal land manager. If BOEM
believes that your proposed activities
may affect a Class I or a Sensitive Class
II area of a State:
(1) BOEM may consult with one or
more relevant FLMs to determine what
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19810
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
effects could result from your proposed
activities.
(2) BOEM will consider the views of
the FLMs in determining whether your
plan complies with the provisions of
this subpart. Based on this consultation,
BOEM may require additional
information and analysis, either prior to
or as a condition of approving your
plan.
(3) If the FLM does not raise any
concerns regarding your plan in a timely
manner, BOEM will assume that the
FLM has no objections to the proposed
plan.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 550.304 What must I do if my projected
emissions exceed an emission exemption
threshold?
If your projected emissions or your
complex total emissions exceed the
limits defined in § 550.303(c) for any
criteria or precursor pollutant, you must
conduct modeling of that pollutant, and
any other pollutant for which that
pollutant is a precursor, to project the
impacts of those emissions.
(a) Dispersion models. (1) You must
use one or more of the following air
dispersion models:
(i) A model approved by the USEPA,
as described in appendix A to appendix
W of 40 CFR part 51 (Summaries of
Preferred Air Quality Models); or
(ii) A model included in the Federal
Land Managers’ Air Quality Related
Values Workgroup Guidance; or
(iii) Another model approved by the
BOEM Chief Environmental Officer
(CEO).
(iv) The BOEM CEO may disapprove
the use of a USEPA-approved or FLMapproved air quality model, if the CEO
determines that such model would not
be appropriate in the OCS context.
(2) You must follow the modeling
procedures recommended in 40 CFR
part 51 appendix W, to the extent
possible. You must provide BOEM with
a copy of your dispersion modeling
protocol and the associated data and
assumptions used to do your analysis
before you conduct modeling.
(b) Photochemical models.
Photochemical modeling is required
only if:
(1) Your projected emissions (or your
complex total emissions where
applicable) for the relevant precursor air
pollutants exceed an applicable EET;
(2) An appropriate photochemical air
quality model is available that:
(i) Meets the USEPA’s requirements of
section 3.2 of appendix W to 40 CFR;
(ii) Complies with the Federal Land
Managers’ Air Quality Related Values
Workgroup Guidance; or
(iii) Is another model approved by the
BOEM CEO;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(3) BOEM has determined that
adequate relevant information on
background concentrations is available
for the relevant location(s) in a
potentially affected State(s).
(4) Upon request, you must provide
BOEM with a copy of your
photochemical modeling protocol and
the associated data and assumptions
used to do your photochemical analysis
before you conduct modeling.
(c) Projected emissions. Base your
modeling on the maximum projected
emissions, as reported under
§ 550.205(e), or on the complex total
emissions, where applicable;
(d) Meteorology. Apply the best
available and most recent
meteorological dataset, either as
directed in 40 CFR part 51 appendix W,
or by using an alternate dataset
approved by the Regional Supervisor.
(e) Estimates of ambient air
concentrations. For each criteria air
pollutant resulting from your projected
emissions (or complex total emissions
where applicable), estimate the peak
incremental concentrations projected in
any attainment area(s) and, separately,
in any non-attainment area(s), in any
State (over State submerged lands or
onshore), both on an annual basis and
for the other averaging times specified
in the appropriate USEPA regulations at
40 CFR part 50 and the tables at 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(c).
(1) To the extent practicable, your
estimate of the incremental ambient air
concentrations of any criteria air
pollutant must consider not only the
dispersion of each criteria air pollutant
itself, but also the formation of any
criteria air pollutant that may result
from the dispersion or presence of any
relevant precursor air pollutant(s).
Specifically:
(i) Any analysis of PM2.5 must include
NOX, SOX, VOCs, and NH3
(ii) Any analysis of O3 must include
NOX, VOCs, and CO.
(2) BOEM may provide information
though a Notice to Lessees to assist
lessees and operators in evaluating
existing ambient air concentrations, or
changes in such concentrations over
time if it determines that there is an
effective means of estimating ambient
air quality.
(i) In the event that BOEM has
established appropriate background
concentration data, or baseline
concentration data, for any given
pollutant, at any given location and
point in time, you must use the data
provided by BOEM.
(ii) In the event that BOEM has not
established appropriate background
concentration data for any given
pollutant, for any given location, and
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
point in time, you should use the
relevant data from the USEPA for the
closest appropriate location, as specified
by the Regional Supervisor.
(f) Attributed emissions. Conduct
modeling of attributed emissions from
those locations where the emissions are
expected to occur (i.e., utilizing a line,
area, volume, or pseudo point source
model).
(g) Documentation and reporting.
Create a modeling report documenting
all emissions sources, inputs,
parameters, assumptions, procedures,
methods, and results, including input
and output files, and data upon which
your analysis under this subpart is
based, and provide BOEM with this
report, copies of all data and access to
any programs used in your modeling.
§ 550.305 How do I determine whether my
projected emissions of criteria air
pollutants require ERM?
(a) For all criteria air pollutants other
than PM2.5 and O3, compare the results
of the modeling described in § 550.304
with the SILs set out in the table at 40
CFR 51.165(b)(2). If the modeling results
exceed a SIL for any criteria air
pollutant for any averaging time, you are
required to apply ERM to sources to
reduce emissions only for the CPs that
exceed a SIL, as specified in § 550.306
for a short-term facility, or as specified
in § 550.307 for a long-term facility.
(b) For PM2.5, you must add the
results of your dispersion modeling of
direct PM2.5 emissions conducted under
§ 550.304(a) to the results of your
photochemical modeling, if required
under § 550.304(b), before you compare
the results with the PM2.5 SILs set out
in the table at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). If
this sum exceeds a SIL for PM2.5 for any
averaging time, you are required to
apply ERM for a short-term facility as
specified in § 550.306, or as specified in
§ 550.307, for a long-term facility.
(c) For O3, you must add the results
of your photochemical modeling, if
required under § 550.304(b), to the
existing background concentrations, as
described under § 550.302, and
determine if the sum exceeds the
NAAQS for O3 for any averaging time.
If so, for a short-term facility, you must
apply ERM as specified in § 550.306, or
as specified in § 550.307 for a long-term
facility.
§ 550.306 What ERM are required for a
short-term facility?
(a) If any short-term facility requires
ERM under § 550.303(f) for VOCs or
§ 550.305 for a CP, then you are required
to conduct an ERM analysis to
determine potential control options and
their likely cost effectiveness. In
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
conducting your ERM analysis, you
must:
(1) Identify all available control
technologies relevant to the emissions of
the pollutant(s) for which ERM is
required;
(2) Determine which of these options
are technically feasible for your plan; a
demonstration of technical infeasibility
must be clearly documented and must
show, based on physical, chemical or
engineering principles, that technical
difficulties would preclude the
successful use of the applicable
emission control technology or
methodology.
(3) Rank the technically feasible
control technologies by their emission
control efficiencies (ECE) and determine
their likely reduction of criteria air
pollutant emissions (i.e., absolute
effectiveness), in tpy of emissions
avoided;
(4) Evaluate the most effective ERM
and document the results of your
analysis; and
(5) Select reasonable operational
controls or replacement(s) of equipment
that are technically and economically
feasible and that are designed to limit
your facility’s projected emissions to the
greatest practicable extent, taking into
consideration the effectiveness and the
cost of implementation, for each option
considered. You must demonstrate that
you have chosen the most effective
technically and economically feasible
operational controls or replacement(s) of
equipment for every pollutant requiring
such controls that can be implemented
cost effectively. As an alternative, you
may propose an equivalent reduction
through the use of emissions credits.
(6) If you can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor
that no technically feasible operational
controls or equipment replacement(s)
can be implemented cost effectively,
then;
(i) For any given pollutant, if your
emissions would affect only attainment
areas, no ERM will be required with
respect to that pollutant beyond that
which was proposed in your plan.
(ii) If your emissions affect any nonattainment area for a specific pollutant,
the Regional Supervisor may require the
implementation of other ERM for that
pollutant in lieu of operational controls
or equipment replacement(s) as a
condition of approving your plan. For
any proposed BACT, you must provide
a description of the associated energy,
environmental, and economic impacts,
and other costs.
(b) Unless you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Regional Supervisor
that no technically feasible control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
technology can be implemented cost
effectively, your plan must include:
(1) An evaluation of the ERM you
select, quantifying and verifying the
emission reduction measure(s) and
associated cost(s);
(2) A description of how your selected
operational controls or replacement(s) of
equipment meet the criteria in § 550.309
for emission reduction measures; and a
calculation of your revised projected
emissions (or complex total emissions,
where applicable), taking into account
your selected operational controls or
replacement(s) of equipment.
(c) Upon making a commitment to
apply the appropriate operational
controls or replacement(s) of equipment
or other ERM in lieu of operational
controls or replacement(s) of equipment,
BOEM may approve your plan, provided
all other applicable requirements have
been met.
(d) In the event that BOEM obtains
information or data that would indicate
that your projected emissions may cause
the NAAQS to be exceeded, the
Regional Supervisor may require you to
provide additional data, analysis, or
modeling to demonstrate compliance
with the NAAQS or may require that
you implement additional ERM so that
the NAAQS are not exceeded.
§ 550.307 What ERM are required for a
long-term facility?
(a) Control of emissions of VOCs from
a long-term facility. If any long-term
facility requires ERM for VOCs under
§ 550.303(f), you must propose ERM for
the facility. The extent of the ERM
required depends on the attainment
status of the State area affected by your
projected emissions.
(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(3), if all the State areas potentially
affected by your projected emissions of
VOCs are designated as attainment areas
for O3 and PM2.5, then you must
evaluate and propose ERM utilizing the
process described for a short-term
facility in § 550.306(a)(1) through (4)
and consider all relevant ERM,
excluding BACT. You must demonstrate
in your plan that the ERM you propose,
excluding BACT, will reduce the
emissions of VOCs to the lowest
practicable and reasonable rate,
expressed in tpy. If you elect to propose
BACT in lieu of an alternative ERM, you
must provide a description of the
associated energy, environmental, and
economic impacts, and other costs.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph
(a)(3) of this section, if your projected
emissions of VOCs potentially affect a
State coastal area designated as a nonattainment area for O3 or PM2.5, then
you must evaluate BACT and other
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19811
relevant ERM and propose ERM
utilizing the process described for a
short-term facility in § 550.306(a)(1)
through (4). You must fully reduce the
projected emissions of VOCs to a level
not to exceed the EET for VOCs, as
calculated for your plan in accordance
with § 550.303(c). If your proposed ERM
are insufficient to reduce the emissions
of VOCs to a level that does not exceed
the EET, you must propose and apply
additional ERM until such reduction is
achieved. For any proposed BACT, you
must provide a description of the
associated energy, environmental and
economic impacts, and other costs.
(3) VOC waiver: If your projected
emissions of VOCs potentially affect a
State coastal area but you can
demonstrate that your VOCs will not
cause an increase, or would cause a
reduction, in the formation of O3 (i.e.,
reduce the O3 production efficiency),
then no ERM are required for those
VOCs.
(b) Control of emissions of criteria air
pollutants from a long-term facility. If a
long-term facility requires ERM for
criteria air pollutants under § 550.305,
then you must propose ERM and
conduct modeling as specified below.
The objectives of your proposal, and the
extent to which additional requirements
may apply, depend on the attainment
status of the affected State area(s).
(1) If all State areas affected by your
emissions are designated as attainment
areas, then:
(i) You must consider all relevant
ERM excluding BACT, utilizing the
process described for a short-term
facility in § 550.306(a)(1) through (4).
(ii) You must conduct modeling for all
of the air pollutants set out in the table
at 40 CFR 52.21(c) using the reduced
projected emissions that result from
your proposed ERM. If photochemical
models are required under § 550.304,
then you must also perform
photochemical modeling and add the
results of those models to the results of
the subsequent model results.
(iii) You must combine the ambient
air concentrations resulting from the
projected emissions of each relevant CP
with those emissions of the same CP
from other onshore and offshore sources
which contribute to the consumption of
the maximum allowable increases above
the baseline concentration for each
pollutant and baseline area as
established in 40 CFR 52.21. Compare
your results with the AAIs applicable to
the Class area designation of the State
area set out in table 40 CFR 52.21(c).
(A) For this analysis, use the ambient
air quality concentration data specified
in § 550.304(e)(2).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19812
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(B) As an alternative, you may instead
model only the increment-related
emissions increases and decreases
between the baseline date and the
modeling date (using emissions
inventory data) for all relevant onshore
and offshore sources, combined, and
then compare the resulting modeled
concentration change to the appropriate
increment value, without regard to
ambient background concentrations.
(iv) If your projected emissions affect
State areas with multiple class area
designations, then you must reduce
your projected emissions to meet the
AAIs set out in the table in 40 CFR
52.21(c), according to the requirements
for each class area.
(v) If your proposed ERM are
sufficient to reduce projected emissions,
such that projected concentrations do
not exceed any of the AAIs, you must
then conduct the analysis described in
§ 550.307(b)(1)(vi). If your modeling
results exceed the AAIs for any given air
pollutant, then you must continue to
apply additional ERM to sources to
reduce that pollutant until additional
modeling confirms that your projected
concentrations do not exceed any AAI.
Having done this, you must then
conduct the analysis described in
§ 550.307(b)(1)(vi).
(vi) You must conduct additional
modeling, adding the appropriate
background concentrations defined
under § 550.302 and specified in
§ 550.304(e)(2) to your results, in order
to determine the relevant design
concentrations. You must compare the
design concentrations for each criteria
air pollutant with the NAAQS set out in
40 CFR part 50. If any of the NAAQS is
exceeded for any air pollutant for any
period of exposure, then you must
propose additional ERM, and repeat the
corresponding modeling, until you can
demonstrate that your design
concentrations do not exceed the
NAAQS.
(2) If your emissions affect any area
designated as a non-attainment area,
then you must evaluate BACT and other
relevant ERM utilizing the process
described for a short-term facility in
§ 550.306(a)(1) through (4) and consider
all relevant ERM, including BACT. You
must reduce the ambient impact of your
emissions of all criteria air pollutants to
a level that does not exceed the
applicable SILs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
You must conduct modeling using your
revised projected emissions and
compare the results with the SILs. If
photochemical modeling is required
under § 550.304, then you must also
perform additional photochemical
modeling and combine the results of
that modeling with the results of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
subsequent dispersion models. If your
results exceed any SIL for any criteria
air pollutant for any averaging time,
then you must apply additional ERM
until additional modeling demonstrates
that all projected emissions have been
fully reduced so that no SIL is exceeded
for any criteria air pollutant over any
applicable averaging time. Having done
this, you must then conduct the analysis
described in § 550.307(b)(1)(vi).
(c) Exceptions to the ERM
requirement: (1) AAIs. For any
averaging time other than an annual
period, a facility’s projected emissions
may cause an ambient impact that
exceeds an applicable AAI one time
during any rolling 12-month period for
any given criteria air pollutant at any
one location and still be considered to
have fully reduced emissions.
(2) NOX Waiver: If your projected
emissions of NOX potentially affect a
State coastal area, but you can
demonstrate that those emissions would
not cause an increase, or would cause a
reduction, in the formation of O3 (i.e.,
reduce the O3 production efficiency),
then no ERM are required for NOX,
unless:
(i) The potentially affected area is an
attainment area for NOX and your
analysis indicates that the AAIs for NOX
would be exceeded in the absence of
such ERM; or
(ii) The potentially affected area is a
non-attainment area for NOX.
(3) VOC Waiver. A VOCs waiver
could apply, as described in
§ 550.307(a)(3).
(4) Safety exception. If the
implementation of a plan under these
regulations would compromise the
safety of the operation of the facility,
and such implementation of any air
quality standards or benchmarks cannot
be otherwise addressed, then BOEM
may waive the requirement to apply
ERM.
(d) NAAQS requirement. No
concentration of an air pollutant may
exceed the concentration permitted
under any primary or secondary
NAAQS.
(e) Emissions credits. You may
propose to use emissions credits to
achieve the equivalent reduction of
emissions for any criteria air pollutant
as an alternative to any other ERM,
regardless of the attainment status of the
State area affected by your potential
emissions.
§ 550.308 Under what circumstances will
BOEM require additional ERM on my
proposed facility or facilities?
(a) Regional Supervisor review. You
may be required to apply additional
ERM, on either a temporary or
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
permanent basis, depending on the
circumstances, even though you have
demonstrated compliance with the
sections above, if BOEM determines that
your projected emissions or, where
applicable, complex total emissions,
may cause or contribute to a violation of
a NAAQS. The Regional Supervisor may
make this determination based on:
(1) Information submitted by a State
or local government, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe;
(2) A cumulative impacts analysis
conducted for an environmental impact
statement (EIS) prepared to comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA);
(3) A compliance review of your
proposed plan under § 550.232(b) for an
EP, or § 550.267(c) for a DPP or DOCD;
or
(4) The declaration by an adjacent
State, or the USEPA, of an air quality
emergency for a location that may be
affected by air emissions generated by
your operations.
(b) Lessee’s or operator’s right to
challenge. You will be given notice of
the Regional Supervisor’s
determination, as well as an opportunity
to present additional information and
analysis for review by the Regional
Supervisor. If you present the Regional
Supervisor with additional information
and analysis, the Regional Supervisor
will reassess whether your projected
emissions, or complex total emissions,
may cause or contribute to a violation of
any NAAQS, and whether additional
ERM will be required for your facility.
The Regional Supervisor will then
notify the State or local government, or
Federally-recognized Indian tribe, and
explain the reasons for this
determination.
§ 550.309
ERM?
What requirements apply to my
(a) Sufficiency. Your proposed ERM
must be sufficient to achieve actual
emissions reductions corresponding to
those reported in your plan for the
duration of your plan’s operations under
all reasonably foreseeable conditions.
On a case-by-case basis, the Regional
Supervisor will review your proposed
ERM and make a determination whether
such measures meet the applicable
criteria.
(b) Effectiveness. You must
continually ensure the effectiveness of
your ERM for the duration of your
plan’s operations. If your measures
become disabled or unavailable, you
must immediately notify the Regional
Supervisor and replace such ERM with
others of equal or superior effectiveness
within 30 days of discovering the
disability or unavailability, unless the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Regional Supervisor approves an
extension not to exceed 90 days.
(c) Control efficiency. Your proposed
ERM must reflect actual ECE. You must
substantiate any ECE that you project
and provide sufficient evidence to
justify your ECE to the satisfaction of
the Regional Supervisor.
(1) Should your substantiating data
indicate a range of ECE, you must utilize
the more conservative estimates (i.e.,
those that would result in lower ECE) in
your analysis and modeling.
(2) ECE estimates of 100 percent are
generally not acceptable, except in cases
where there is clear and convincing
and/or historical evidence to justify
their use.
(d) Emission reductions monitoring. If
ERM are contained in your approved
plan, the Regional Supervisor may
require that you provide actual
emissions data and/or any other
information annually that the Regional
Supervisor deems necessary to verify
the effectiveness of your proposed ERM
or their emission control efficiency.
(1) If your plan is approved subject to
the application of ERM, you must
ensure that the emissions associated
with each emissions source for which
ERM is required complies with the
emissions verification requirements of
§ 550.311. The Regional Supervisor may
require that you install emissions
measurement meters if the Regional
Supervisor determines that such meters
are necessary to ensure compliance with
this requirement.
(2) If you propose or are required to
install emissions meters or any other
monitoring equipment, you must collect
and maintain monthly logs of the
relevant meter or monitoring equipment
readings.
(e) Emissions credits. For emissions
credits, the following requirements also
apply:
(1) You must acquire your emissions
credits from emissions source(s), either
offshore or onshore, that affect the air
quality of the same AQCR.
(2) For a CP, the emissions credits that
you propose must provide a net air
quality benefit for the same pollutant;
for a precursor pollutant, any emissions
credits that you propose must provide a
net air quality benefit for that CP for
which the pollutant is a precursor.
(3) You must demonstrate to the
Regional Supervisor that the emissions
credit you propose binds you and any
other parties who agree to lower their
emissions.
(4) You must also demonstrate that
any emissions reductions will last for a
period of time sufficient to ensure your
plan’s continued compliance with the
provisions of this subpart. The Regional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
Supervisor may periodically require you
to certify that the emissions reductions
are still in place.
(5) Any emissions credits must reduce
emissions below rates otherwise
required by law;
(6) In addition to BOEM, you must
notify the appropriate State air quality
control jurisdiction of your proposal to
acquire emissions offsets and, if
necessary, its need to revise the State
Implementation Plan to include the
information regarding the emissions
offsets you have acquired. You must
provide evidence of such State
notification to BOEM before you
commence any operations that rely on
the associated emissions credits.
(7) Emissions credits are allowed in
those circumstances where BOEM can
readily verify the historical emissions
from the facility to be used for the
emissions credit, and the emissions
reduction associated with the acquired
emissions credit.
(8) The approval of an emissions
credit will be contingent upon receipt of
proper documentation and will not be
granted if such an emissions credit
would require BOEM to engage in
ongoing monitoring to verify continued
compliance.
(9) Nothing in these regulations is
intended to restrict emissions credits
from being obtained and shared by
multiple lessees or operators.
(f) Emission reduction measure(s)
(ERM): Unless otherwise specified, you
may employ any operational control,
equipment replacement(s), BACT, or
emissions credit, on either a temporary
or permanent basis, to reduce the
amount of emissions that would occur
in the absence of such measures. Any
proposed ERM will become a condition
of your plan upon approval and could
be required on either a permanent or
temporary basis, depending on the
circumstances and location of the
proposed facilities.
(1) In the event that you elect or are
required to apply equipment
replacement on a facility as the selected
form of ERM, both the method of
replacement and the equipment must
comply with all other applicable federal
regulations.
(2) In the event that the equipment
being replaced is part of an MSC subject
to USCG regulation, such replacement
must be implemented in such a manner
as to comply with USCG regulations.
§ 550.310 How will revisions to the
ambient air quality standards and
benchmarks (AAQSB) affect my plan?
(a) Review of plans. BOEM will
evaluate the air pollutant emissions data
submitted in your plan for compliance
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19813
with the AAQSB s in effect on the date
your plan is deemed submitted.
(b) Proposed plans. All activities
described in initial, revised, modified,
and supplemental plans must comply
with the AAQSB in effect on the date
the plan is deemed submitted, except:
(1) If your plan was deemed
submitted shortly after the effective date
of a new or revised AAQSB, and you
believe the immediate application of the
new or revised AAQSB is impracticable
or would otherwise impose an
unreasonable hardship on your
proposed operations, then you may
request a deferral from the requirement
to comply with the new or revised
standard. The Regional Director will
review your request and may with the
concurrence of the Director grant a
temporary deferral, not to exceed two
years, from compliance with the new or
revised AAQSB based upon a finding of
impracticability or undue hardship.
(2) Upon a finding that
noncompliance with a new or revised
AAQSB would not significantly affect
the air quality of any State, the Director
may grant a departure from compliance
with the revised AAQSB. The Director
may condition the departure upon any
requirement(s) deemed necessary to
avoid causing or contributing to a
violation of the NAAQS.
(c) Approved plans. (1) In order to
ensure that your emissions remain
compliant with any changes to the
NAAQS, you are required to resubmit
your plan for a periodic air quality
review ten years after BOEM’s previous
approval of your plan, as further defined
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. A
plan resubmitted pursuant to this
provision must be updated to comply
with the requirements of § 550.205 as
they exist at the time of the plan
resubmission, including the most
current data on emissions factors and
MSC emissions, and must be
reevaluated against the EETs and
formulas as they exist at the time of the
plan resubmission. When you resubmit
a plan under this provision, that plan
must include estimates for the annual
projected emissions for the subsequent
ten years, or for however long the plan’s
facility or facilities would be expected
to remain in operation, whichever is
shorter. With respect to the emissions
calculations for any given emissions
source, the resubmitted plan must
account for the most recent available
data on the actual emissions of the
relevant emission source. All of the
applicable requirements of this subpart
in effect on the date of resubmission
apply on the same basis to a resubmitted
plan as for an initial plan.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19814
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(2) In order to ensure that your
emissions remain compliant with
OCSLA, starting in 2020, BOEM will
conduct periodic reviews of plans
approved prior to the effective date of
the new exemption thresholds. To
accomplish this, from that year forward,
you must submit the air quality
component of your previously approved
plan according to the following
schedule, regardless of whether you
have a change in emissions.
Year the plan was
approved
Prior to 1980 .............
1980 through 1984 ....
1985 through 1989 ....
1990 through 1994 ....
1995 through 1999 ....
2000 through 2004 ....
2005 through 2009 ....
2010 through 2012 ....
2013 through 2014 ....
2015 through 2016 ....
2017 through 2018 ....
2019 through 2020 ....
2021 through 2022 ....
2023 and beyond ......
Year in which
resubmission is
required
2020.
2021.
2022.
2023.
2024.
2025.
2026.
2027.
2028.
2029.
2030.
2031.
2032.
Ten years after year
of approval.
(i) The plan is due to BOEM on the
same month as the month in which the
plan was originally approved.
(ii) For an initially approved plan, the
lessee or operator is required to
resubmit the plan in accordance with
the table in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(iii) If a revised, modified,
resubmitted, or supplemental plan is
submitted within ten years from the
date of the initial plan submittal, the
new resubmission date would be ten
years from the date of approval of the
revised, modified, resubmitted, or
supplemental plan.
(iv) If you fail to submit a revised plan
as required under this section, then the
previous approval of your plan is
revoked. You may be subject to civil
penalties or other appropriate sanctions
for a regulatory violation, including the
requirement to cease operations, as
provided by 43 U.S.C. 1350.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 550.311 Under what circumstances will I
be required to measure and report my
actual emissions?
(a) Compliance demonstration
conditions. Under any of the following
conditions, you must demonstrate that
your actual emissions have at all times
and continue to be in compliance with
your previously approved plan:
(1) Your plan is approved subject to
the implementation of BACT or
emissions credits;
(2) Any emission source on your
facility uses an engine that is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
certified by the USEPA consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 1042 or 40
CFR 1043, for U.S.-flag vessels, or that
is not certified to the MARPOL Annex
VI Regulation 13 requirements as
required by the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships, for foreign-flag vessels
operating in the U.S.
(3) The Regional Supervisor
determines that your projected
emissions, or complex total emissions,
for any criteria or precursor air
pollutant, calculated on either an
annual basis or on the basis of a 12month rolling sum, may significantly
underestimate your actual emissions
based either on historical data about
your emissions sources or on ambient
air monitoring.
(4) BOEM determines that your
facility causes or contributes to an
exceedance of the NAAQS in any State.
(b) Emissions reporting
requirements.If you are required to
make the demonstration described in
this section:
(1) Your measurement of actual
emissions must include enough of your
emissions sources to ensure that the
actual emissions associated with
facilities and MSCs operating under
your approved plan are consistent with
the projected emissions approved for
your plan. You must consider every
source that was included in your
approved plan in addition to any source
that would be classified as part of your
projected emissions if your plan were
resubmitted under the current
regulations.
(2) BOEM will consider various
alternatives for reporting of relevant
emissions sources. One option would be
to monitor only the following key pieces
of equipment:
(i) For facilities, the required
monitoring and reporting of engines
would typically include:
(A) Onboard facility engines;
(B) Power generation engines;
(C) Hydraulic power units (HPU)
engines;
(D) Deck cranes;
(E) Cementing units;
(F) Engines with a maximum power
rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW).
(ii) For facilities, monitoring and
reporting would typically exclude:
(A) Propulsion engines;
(B) Boilers and incinerators;
(C) Emergency generators;
(D) Lifeboat engines.
(iii) For MSCs the sources, monitoring
and reporting would likely include:
(A) Propulsion engines;
(B) Power generation engines;
(C) Marine auxiliary engines; or,
(D) Engines with a maximum power
rating exceeding 200 hp (149 kW).
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(iv) MSCs monitoring and reporting
would typically exclude boilers and
incinerators, emergency generators, and
any engines onboard science vessels,
OSVs, or lifeboats.
(3) Your demonstration must reflect
your actual operations on the OCS and
must be based exclusively on data
derived from your actual equipment and
not only on the basis of ECEs or fuel
logs or activity data.
(4) You must be able to demonstrate
that the data submitted to BOEM under
this section is consistent with any data
provided to BOEM under the
requirements of § 550.187.
(5) You must provide the information
required for this demonstration in a
manner and on a schedule determined
by the Regional Supervisor.
(c) Notification requirements. If, on
the basis of your demonstration of
actual emissions, you determine at any
time your actual emissions exceed your
projected emissions for any pollutant
you must notify BOEM and provide
BOEM with the appropriate data
regarding the exceedance.
(d) Data submittal requirements. You
must submit data and information in a
format, and using the forms as specified
by BOEM. You must submit information
in an electronically-readable format,
unless otherwise directed by the
Regional Supervisor. If you transmit the
information to BOEM electronically,
you must use a delivery medium or
transmission method authorized by
BOEM.
§ 550.312 What post-approval
recordkeeping and reporting is required?
(a) Stack testing. If stack testing was
used as a method to develop your
emissions factors under § 550.205 or
was used to develop any of the other
information submitted pursuant to that
section, then you must conduct the
stack testing every three years and
report the results, utilizing the General
Provisions for Determining Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources, Available at 40 CFR 60.8.
(b) Fuel logs and activity data. In
order to demonstrate compliance with
your plan, you must retain information
on monthly fuel consumption, for each
emissions source, including attributed
emissions sources, showing the
quantity, type, and sulphur content of
fuel used; collect facility and equipment
usage information, including hours of
operation at each percent of capacity for
each emissions source. Venting, flaring,
flashing and any other release of any air
pollutant emissions that would not
otherwise be accounted for by fuel
consumption must be reported for any
emissions source that generates criteria
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
air pollutants or precursor air pollutants
in connection with OCS activities.
(1) You must retain this information
for a period of no less than ten years.
You must submit this information to
BOEM on a schedule set by the Regional
Director.
(2) If BOEM obtains the relevant data
for your attributed emissions from an
independent third party, then the
Regional Supervisor may waive the
requirement to submit fuel logs or
collect facility and equipment usage
information for MSCs.
(3) Electronic Records. Recordkeeping and reporting must be
consistent with the USEPA’s
requirements for electronic reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for new
source performance standards.
(c) Meteorological reporting. The
Regional Supervisor may require, for a
period of time and in a manner
approved or prescribed, that you collect
and report meteorological data from any
of your facilities. The Regional
Supervisor may allow you to substitute
facility-specific data for meteorological
data derived from any other mutually
agreed upon location.
(d) Other information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
within this subpart, the Regional
Supervisor may require you to provide
any other information within your
possession, or otherwise reasonably
obtainable, to support any finding or
determination under this subpart.
(e) Additional requirements imposed
by other agencies. None of the
provisions of this section would prevent
the imposition of additional monitoring
or reporting requirements on the part of
BSEE or any other federal agency.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 550.313 Under what circumstances will
BOEM impose additional requirements on
facilities operating under already approved
plans?
(a) BOEM may impose additional air
quality requirements on facilities
operating under already approved plans
if an applicable AAQSB changes or if
BOEM determines:
(1) Your operations are causing or
contributing to a violation of the
NAAQS, either individually or in
combination with any other offshore
operations;
(2) Your plan was approved with
either a NOX waiver or a VOC wavier,
and the air quality conditions in the
affected State have changed to such an
extent that your emissions of NOX or
VOCs would contribute to an increase in
the ambient O3 concentration such that
the NAAQS for O3 may be exceeded (in
an attainment area), or the NAAQS for
O3 would continue to be exceeded (in
an area that is non-attainment for O3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
(3) Your plan was approved with a
NOX waiver, and the air quality
conditions in the affected State have
changed to such an extent that your
emissions of NOX would contribute to
an increase in the ambient
concentration of NOX such that the
NAAQS for NOX may be exceeded (in
an attainment area), or the NAAQS for
NOX would continue to be exceeded (in
an area that is non-attainment for NOX).
(4) Your operation is emitting
unauthorized air pollutants;
(5) Your operation is creating
conditions posing an unreasonable risk
to public health or welfare; or
(6) Your operation is violating any
applicable federal, State or tribal law
related to air quality.
(b) If a plan was approved for a shortterm facility that becomes a long-term
facility, a new air quality plan must be
submitted for the facility under the
standards applicable to a long-term
facility. If this reclassification resulted
from adverse weather conditions, or
other circumstances beyond your
control, that prevented operations in
your lease area, the Regional Director
may grant a temporary exception for a
period not to exceed the number of
months that you were unable to operate.
§ 550.314 Under what circumstances will
the Regional Supervisor review the
projected emissions from my existing
facility or facilities?
(a) A State, or a Federally-recognized
Indian tribe, may request the Regional
Supervisor to supply it with the air
pollution data regarding an existing
facility’s projected emissions, when
such data are needed either for the
updating of the State’s emissions
inventory or because a State believes an
existing facility’s projected emissions
may cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS.
(b) The Regional Supervisor may
require you to submit air pollutant
emissions data to the State, or a
Federally-recognized Indian tribe,
submitting such a request.
(c) The State, or a Federallyrecognized Indian tribe, submitting a
request may submit information to
BOEM that it believes indicates
projected emissions from an existing
facility may cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS. You will be
given the opportunity to present
information to the Regional Supervisor
that demonstrates that your facility’s
projected emissions do not cause such
an effect.
(d) The Regional Supervisor will
evaluate the new information submitted
and will determine, based on the
emissions data, the available
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
19815
meteorological data, and the distance of
the facility from the SSB whether your
actual emissions, including your
attributed emissions, has the potential
to cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS.
(1) If the Regional Supervisor
determines that your existing facility’s
projected emissions are unlikely to
cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS, the Regional Supervisor will
notify the requesting State, or a
Federally-recognized Indian tribe, and
you and explain the reasons for this
finding.
(2) If the Regional Supervisor
determines that your existing facility’s
projected emissions have the potential
to cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS, you must submit the
additional information that the Regional
Supervisor requests in order for BOEM
to determine whether or not your
existing facility causes or contributes to
a violation of the NAAQS. You must
submit this information within 120 days
of the Regional Supervisor’s request, or
within a longer period of time at the
Regional Supervisor’s discretion.
■ 26. Add § 550.1012 to subpart J to
read as follows:
§ 550.1012 What are the air quality
requirements for pipeline rights-of-way
holders?
(a) When you apply for or acquire a
ROW in any part of the OCS under the
air quality regulatory jurisdiction of the
Department, you must:
(1) Include in your application the
information required by § 550.205; and
(2) Demonstrate that your activities
will comply with the requirements of
subpart C of this part.
(b) For the purpose of this section:
(1) Any requirement in either
§ 550.205 or subpart C of this part that
refers to plans should be interpreted to
apply equally to ROW applications
except for the provision regarding the
consolidation of multiple facilities
(§ 550.303(d)) and for the periodic
resubmission of plans (§ 550.310(c));
(2) Any requirement in either
§ 550.205 or subpart C of this part that
refers to lessees or operators applies
equally to ROW holders or grantees,
except that no additional requirements
apply to any proposed or existing
pipeline ROW or lease term pipeline
holders, that are already included
within the scope of an existing or
proposed exploration or development
plan.
(3) BOEM will notify BSEE of its
determination that you have provided
the information required by § 550.205
and met the requirements of subpart C
of this part. If necessary, BOEM will
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
19816
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 / Proposed Rules
notify BSEE of additional conditions
necessary to ensure that your activities
will comply with subpart C of this part.
[FR Doc. 2016–06310 Filed 4–4–16; 8:45 am]
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:26 Apr 04, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19717-19816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06310]
[[Page 19717]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 65
April 5, 2016
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
30 CFR Part 550
Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance; Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19718]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
30 CFR Part 550
[Docket ID: BOEM-2013-0081]
RIN 1010-AD82
Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance
AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend existing BOEM regulations
related to air quality measurement, evaluation, and control with
respect to oil, gas, and sulphur operations on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) of the United States (U.S.), in the Central and Western
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the area offshore the North Slope Borough of
the State of Alaska, as part of the BOEM approval process for offshore
oil and gas exploration and development plans, right-of-use and
easement (RUE), pipeline rights-of-way (ROW), and lease term pipeline
applications. The proposed rule would: (1) Fulfill BOEM's statutory
responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA) by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air
pollutants and by cross-referencing BOEM standards and benchmarks for
those pollutants to those of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA); (2) change the manner in which lessees would evaluate
and model vessel emissions attributed to OCS facilities; (3) change the
methods for measuring and evaluating air emissions including measuring
their impacts over State submerged lands; (4) provide a process by
which exemption thresholds are established and updated; (5) change the
circumstances when emission reduction measure(s) (ERM), including Best
Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establish new
criteria for the application of ERM; (6) formalize requirements for the
consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (7) consistent
with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulate a schedule and
requirements for ensuring that all plans, including those previously
approved, will remain compliant on an ongoing basis with these updated
regulations; and (8) include an air quality component in the submission
of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications.
Key policy changes include the following: (1) Aligning the list of
pollutants that are subject to an air quality review with the current
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and cross-referencing
the ambient air quality standards and benchmarks (AAQSB) for those
pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and
application of the term ``attributed emissions;'' (3) changing the
locations where air emissions will be measured and evaluated; and (4)
modifying the process by which exemption thresholds are established and
updated. This rulemaking would be the first major re-write of the OCS
air quality regulations in 35 years.
DATES: Submit comments on the substance of this rulemaking by June 6,
2016. Send your comments on the substance of the proposed rule to the
Department as directed in the ADDRESSES section below. Submit comments
on the information collection (IC) burden in this rulemaking to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by May 5, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1010-AD82,
by any of the following methods:
Federal rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instruction for submitting comments.
Mail: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, Attention:
Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166.
Hand delivery: Front Desk, Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and
Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling,
Virginia 20166.
Please include your name, return address and phone number and/or
email address, so we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
Send comments on the IC of this rule to: Interior Desk Officer
1010-AD82, Office of Management and Budget; 202-395-5806 (fax); email
OIRA_Submission@eop.gov. Please also send a copy to BOEM at 45600
Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166.
Public Availability of Comments: BOEM does not consider anonymous
comments; please include your name and address as part of your
submittal. Before including your name, address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee we will
be able to do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at
Peter.Meffert@boem.gov or mail to 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling,
Virginia 20166; or call (703) 787-1610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for BOEM?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
B. Availability of Related Information
C. Abbreviations of Terms and Acronyms
II. Executive Summary
III. Background
A. Statutory Authority
B. Current Air Quality Framework--Air Quality Regulatory Program
C. Air Quality Regulatory Program Data Requirements
1. Projected Emissions
2. Maximum Potential Emissions
3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and Combustibles
4. Distance to Shore
5. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM)
6. Non-Exempt Drilling Units
7. Documentation
D. Proposed Analytical Approach
1. Flowchart
2. Exemption Threshold Analysis
3. Modeling Analysis
4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities
5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities
6. Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources
7. Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Evaluation
8. Intersection With the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
9. Additional Environmental Review
E. Conclusion
IV. Summary of Key Changes
A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards
B. Attributed Emissions
1. Emissions From Stationary Sources
2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft
3. Determination of Attributed Emissions
4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore Emissions Sources
C. Points of Measurement
1. Point-of-Origin Measurement
2. State Seaward Boundary (SSB)
3. Point-of-Impact Measurement
4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
D. Emission Exemption Threshold(s) (EETs)
E. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM)
1. Emissions Credits and Offsets
2. Applicability of Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Upon an Exceedance of the Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
3. ERM Evaluation Criteria
[[Page 19719]]
4. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Waiver and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) Waiver
F. Consolidation of Emissions From Multiple Facilities
G. Ongoing Monitoring and Review of Projected Emissions
1. Recordkeeping and Measurement Criteria
H. Structure of the Proposed Rule
1. Potential Monitoring Alternative
2. Plan Resubmittals
I. Gulf-Wide Offshore Activities Data System (GOADS)
J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Rule
A. 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 550, Subpart A
B. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart B
C. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart C
D. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart J
VI. Interagency, Tribal, and Public Outreach
VII. Legal and Regulatory Analyses
A. Statutes
1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
4. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
B. Executive Orders (E.O.) and Presidential Memorandum
1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630) March 15, 1988
2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) October 4, 1993
3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) February 7, 1996
4. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety
Risks (E.O. 13045) April 21, 1997
5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) August 10, 1999
6. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
(E.O. 13175) November 6, 2000
7. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) May 18, 2001
8. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic
(E.O. 13689) January 21, 2015
9. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563)
January 18, 2011
10. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 on Plain Language in
Government Writing
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for BOEM?
1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Do not submit CBI or proprietary information to BOEM through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD
ROM you mail to BOEM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, submit a copy
of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed.
Any CD or data submitted to BOEM must be virus-free and usable, as
submitted. BOEM will not attempt to correct, fix or amend any CD or
other electronic media that is not readily accessible.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register (FR) date
and page number).
Organize Comments--When your comments respond to specific
provisions, organize your comments by referencing the relevant CFR part
or section number in the proposed rule.
Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest
alternatives, and/or substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data you used.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
B. Availability of Related Information
A number of documents relevant to this air quality rulemaking,
including past and planned environmental studies and analysis, are
available on the BOEM Web site at www.BOEM.gov. In addition, the
economic and environmental analyses associated with this rulemaking are
available for inspection and copying in the BOEM docket for this
rulemaking, as identified above and are also available at www.BOEM.gov.
C. Abbreviations of Terms and Acronyms
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
AAI Ambient Air Increment
AAQSB Ambient Air Quality Standards and Benchmarks
AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool (Federal Aviation
Administration)
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
AQRP Air Quality Regulatory Program
AQRV Air Quality Related Value
AQS Air Quality Subsystem (USEPA)
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BC Black Carbon (component of PM2.5)
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Btu IT British Thermal Unit International Tables
CAA Clean Air Act, as amended
CAMX Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEO Chief Environmental Officer (BOEM)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (USEPA)
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CP Criteria Pollutant
CSU Column-Stabilized Units
DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document
DOI Department of the Interior
DPP Development and Production Plan
EC Elemental Carbon
ECE Emission Control Efficiency
EET Emission Exemption Threshold(s)
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
EP Exploration Plan
ERM Emission Reduction Measure(s)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FIRE Factor Information Retrieval System
FLM Federal Land Manager (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS),
and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS))
FPS Floating Production System
FPSO Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel
FR Federal Register
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI)
GAO Government Accountability Office
G&G Geological and Geophysical
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GOADS Gulf-wide Offshore Activities Data System
GOM Gulf of Mexico
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
hp Horsepower
hpm Mechanical Horsepower
IC Information Collection
IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
kW kilowatt
MACI Maximum Allowable Concentration Increase
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships
MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit
MSC Mobile Support Craft
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEI National Emissions Inventory (USEPA)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NH3 Ammonia
[[Page 19720]]
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NPS National Park Service (DOI)
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review (USEPA)
NTC NOX Technical Code
NTL Notice to Lessees
O3 Ozone
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Office of
Management and Budget)
OMB Office of Management and Budget (Executive Office of the
President)
ONRR Office of Natural Resources Revenue (DOI)
OSV Offshore Supply Vessel
Pb Lead
PEMS Parametric Emissions Monitoring Systems
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, 2.5 micrometers in
diameter or less
PM10 Particulate Matter, 10 micrometers in diameter or
less
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PTE Potential to Emit
Pub. L. Public Law
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
ROW Right-of-Way
rpm Revolutions per minute
RUE Right of-Use and Easement
SBA Small Business Administration
SCC Source Classification Codes
SIL Significant Impact Level
SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
SO2 Sulphur Dioxide
SOB Statement of Basis
SOX Sulphur Oxides
SIP State Implementation Plan
SSB State seaward boundary
TAS Treatment as State
TIMS-Web Technical Information Management System Web-based
Application
TIP Tribal Implementation Plan
TLP Tension-Leg Platforms
tpy Tons per year
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
U.S. United States
USCG United States Coast Guard
U.S.C. United States Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
[mu]g/m\3\ Micrograms per cubic meter
II. Executive Summary
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the
Department of the Interior (DOI) to promulgate regulations for
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the
extent that activities approved under OCSLA significantly affect the
air quality of any State (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), a BOEM predecessor agency, prepared the first air
quality regulations under OCSLA, which were promulgated by the
Secretary of the Interior in 1980 (45 FR 15128, March 7, 1980). The
current version of these regulations is contained in 30 CFR part 550
(``Oil, Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf'')
subparts A (``General''), B (``Plans and Information''), and C
(``Pollution Prevention and Control''). These regulations require: (1)
The submission of information on projected air emissions from offshore
oil and gas exploration or development activities with a proposed plan
for exploration (i.e., an exploration plan (EP)) or development (i.e.,
a Development and Production Plan (DPP) or a Development Operations
Coordination Document (DOCD); (2) the application of various emission
exemption thresholds to determine whether air quality impacts would be
presumed de minimis and, therefore, not require further BOEM review
under subpart C or whether the impacts would exceed the threshold and
require further review under subpart C; (3) the modeling of projected
emissions when a facility's projected emissions exceed the exemption
thresholds and would therefore potentially cause air quality impacts to
a State; \1\ and, (4) the control of an emissions source proposed for
any facility that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
AAQSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress added two
provisions authorizing Federally-recognized Indian tribes to be
treated like States under the CAA. Congress added section 301(d)
that authorizes the Administrator of the USEPA ``to treat Indian
tribes as States.'' In implementing this provision, the USEPA
published proposed rule entitled ``the Tribal Clean Air Act
Authority'' to implement this provision of the Act. In its proposed
rule (63 FR 7271, Feb. 12, 1998), the USEPA stated ``[The]
Regulations in this part identify those provisions of the Clean Air
Act for which Indian tribes are or may be treated in the same manner
as States. In general, these regulations authorize eligible tribes
to have the same rights and responsibilities as States under the
Clean Air Act and authorize EPA approval of tribal air quality
programs meeting the applicable minimum requirements under the
Act.'' Furthermore, in its ``EPA Statement of Policy on Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribes,'' dated May 4, 2011, on p. 3 in
the section entitled Guiding Principles, the USEPA states: ``EPA
recognizes and works directly with Federally-recognized tribes as
sovereign entities with primary authority and responsibility for
each tribe's land and membership, and not as political subdivisions
of states or other governmental units.'' Just as States establish
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with CAA/USEPA
requirements, the tribes can establish Tribal Implementation Plans
(TIPs) to regulate the air quality over tribal lands (which are then
outside the general jurisdiction of the State SIP). In addition, for
those tribes that have been granted ``treatment as State'' (TAS)
status (i.e., providing for Indian tribes to play essentially the
same role in Indian country that states do within State lands for
purposes of air quality management), BOEM will allow such a tribe to
appeal the approval of a plan, in a manner similar to that accorded
to States. For this reason, BOEM has proposed to expand the analysis
of impacts under its air quality rules to include potential impacts
to Federally-recognized Indian tribes having either TAS status or an
approved TIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM is proposing to revise and replace its air quality regulations
with a new set of regulations that reflect a number of policy changes
with respect to the existing air quality regulatory program (AQRP (30
CFR 550 subpart C)). While the existing underlying framework would
remain the same in a number of key aspects, the proposed rule would
change in significant ways the manner in which BOEM regulates emissions
from certain sources on the OCS. The most significant changes in the
proposed rule relate to: (1) Fulfilling BOEM's statutory responsibility
under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA by addressing all relevant criteria and
major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing the AAQSB for
those pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and
application of the term ``attributed emissions;'' (3) changing the
methods for determining the locations from which air emissions will be
measured and evaluated; (4) modifying the process by which emission
exemption thresholds (EETs) are established and updated; (5) changing
the circumstances when ERM, including Best Available Control Technology
(BACT), are required, and establishing new criteria for the application
of ERM; (6) revising the boundary at which BOEM determines air quality
compliance to the State seaward boundary (SSB), rather than the
coastline; (7) formalizing requirements for the consolidation of
emissions from multiple facilities; (8) consistent with BOEM's existing
regulatory authority, articulating a schedule for ensuring that plans,
including previously approved plans, will be compliant with these
updated regulations; (9) adding an air quality component to the
submission of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications; (10) an
expanded use of offsets as an alternative in circumstances where BACT
was previously required; and (11) the addition of a new requirement for
all plans to be reviewed at least every 10 years, to ensure ongoing
compliance with the NAAQS, as amended from time to time.
BOEM is proposing to amend the current regulations to provide a
mechanism by which the regulations remain up-to-date in the future,
particularly when the USEPA changes an applicable AAQSB; to reflect the
[[Page 19721]]
recent statutory expansion of BOEM's air quality jurisdiction (42
U.S.C. 7627, as amended by Pub. L. 112-74); to improve the clarity of
existing regulatory provisions; to account for technological advances
in air quality measurement, evaluation, and reporting that have
occurred since the current regulations were promulgated; and to reflect
industry practices and procedures that have evolved since 1980.
BOEM is proposing to define a number of additional key terms, to
clarify the objectives and procedures associated with the AQRP, and to
reorganize a number of existing provisions in its regulations. The
proposed rule would consolidate all the existing data collection and
information requirements in a single section dedicated to air quality.
The pertinent provisions of BOEM's regulations related to air quality
would be either substantially updated or entirely replaced.
The proposed rule would make a number of changes to the existing
requirements associated with reporting, tracking, modeling, and
monitoring the air emissions from stationary facilities operating on
the OCS and emissions from associated non-stationary sources, including
vessels and vehicles, and aircraft traversing above the OCS or over
State submerged lands \2\ that operate in support of such facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ State submerged lands are the part of each State's territory
that extends from the shoreline up to the point of federal
jurisdiction (typically three miles from shore, but in some cases
extending up to nine miles from shore). In contrast, the offshore
lands under federal jurisdiction are referred to as the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since BOEM's current air quality regulations were published in
1980, the USEPA has revised the NAAQS to include additional criteria
pollutants (i.e., to include Fine Particulate Matter, 2.5 micrometers
in diameter or less (PM2.5)), standards with a wider range
of averaging times and statistical forms.\3\ There are two types of
NAAQS: Primary NAAQS, which are intended to protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety; and secondary NAAQS, which are focused on
protecting public welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In general, air quality standards are based on the
concentration of a given pollutant at a given location averaged over
a particular length of time, called the averaging time, evaluated in
combination with some statistical parameter, which is referred to as
the statistical form of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would enhance the process by which operators of
OCS facilities determine whether their proposed exploratory or
developmental activities could cause or contribute to a significant
adverse impact to the air quality of any State. It would define the
circumstances under which BOEM would require lessees and operators \4\
to control their air emissions in order to meet the USEPA's air
pollution control-related standards for criteria air pollutants (i.e.,
pollutants for which there are NAAQS) and major precursor air
pollutants. The proposed rule would incorporate by reference USEPA's
Significant Impact Levels (SILs), Ambient Air Increments (AAIs), and
the primary and secondary NAAQS. It would also make a number of changes
to ensure that certain provisions within BOEM's rules are automatically
updated whenever the USEPA updates its NAAQS, SILs and AAIs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Although the rule refers to lessees or operators, the
provisions of the proposed rule would also apply to right-of-way
holders, right-of-use and easement holders, lease-term pipeline
applicants and any other party or parties that may be required to
submit a plan to BOEM for review and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the USEPA's current NAAQS include standards for both annual
and short-term averaging times, the proposed rule would also provide
for the collection, evaluation, and consideration of data with respect
to the long-term and short-term exposure to air pollution originating
from the OCS. Under current BOEM regulations, most of the effects that
are evaluated relate to an annual exposure to a certain level of
pollution. Short-term averaging times measure something different,
namely the potential impact of a short-term exposure to the same
pollutant, where the level of pollution is much greater. In some cases,
the long-term exposure to low levels of pollution may be harmful; in
other cases, the short-term exposure to high levels of pollution may
also be harmful. Because the proposed rule would evaluate different
levels of exposure over different time periods, the proposed rule would
more accurately determine whether any OCS operations would have the
potential to cause an adverse effect to a State's air quality. The
proposed rule would require the modeling of emissions over any
averaging time that the USEPA has determined would be relevant whenever
the projected annual emissions of a given pollutant exceed the EETs.
This change would, therefore, enable BOEM to better ensure compliance
with all the NAAQS. This change is of particular relevance in the case
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) because that air pollutant is the
one for which the annual exemption threshold is most often exceeded.
In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS referenced in
OCSLA, the proposed rule would also provide for the collection of
additional information on approved activities described in any initial,
revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental EP, DPP, or DOCD, or
application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline
(hereinafter referred to by the general term ``plan''), in order to
verify the information reported in the plan. As is the case with the
current BOEM regulations, the proposed rule would establish emissions
exemptions thresholds. The proposed rule would continue to require
facilities whose projected emissions of criteria and major precursor
pollutants would exceed the thresholds to model those emissions in
order to determine whether such emissions could potentially cause the
air quality of any State to exceed the NAAQS.
To ensure that OCS operations do not cause any such impact to the
air quality of a State, the proposed rule would require large emitters
of air pollutants, namely, those whose facilities exceed BOEM's EETs--
not only to project their emissions in their plan, but also to
demonstrate that their actual emissions do not exceed their projected
emissions (as contained in their original plan). To ensure ongoing
compliance, three major new procedures have been proposed. First, under
the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises any AAQSB that applies (NAAQS,
or any applicable SIL, or AAI), BOEM would examine the appropriateness
of its EETs, and, BOEM, at its discretion, would periodically revise
its EETs for the air pollutant(s) corresponding to USEPA's revision(s).
Second, certain large emitters would be required to develop a method
for measuring and reporting their emissions to demonstrate their actual
emissions do not exceed the original projections upon which approval
was granted. Third, starting in 2020,\5\ all lessees and operators with
previously approved plans would be required to update their plans with
then current emissions data, and BOEM would re-evaluate all of these
updated plans against the current EETs and for compliance with current
AAQSB, according to a schedule proposed in 550.310(c)(2). All lessees
and operators that submit plans would be required to include up-to-date
emissions data in their plans to ensure they comply with then current
AAQSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BOEM is proposing this date because BOEM expects that it
will have completed the studies to set new EETs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although BOEM does not issue air quality permits and instead
reviews air emissions in the context of its AQRP, BOEM recognizes that
a one-time review of a particular facility's compliance with AAQSB may
not be adequate to ensure that the facility does not cause or
[[Page 19722]]
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS within a State. USEPA
periodically updates the NAAQS and adds new averaging times and
statistical forms for the various indicator pollutants. Measurement and
evaluation techniques and methods are expected to improve over time.
Equipment ages and becomes less efficient as it does so. The types and
characteristics of support vessels, vehicles and aircraft may change.
For these and various other reasons, BOEM has proposed that evaluating
a plan's effectiveness more than once may aid BOEM in ensuring
``compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the extent that
activities authorized under [OCSLA] significantly affect the air
quality of any State'' (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). Consistent with the
requirement in every offshore lease that lessees and operators are
required to comply with changes to the regulations, as they are
refined, BOEM is proposing plans be reevaluated periodically for air
quality purposes.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Sec. 550.310(c)(2), below, of the proposed rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, this rule proposes to codify the existing mechanism BOEM
uses in the GOM OCS Region to report ongoing emissions information
(i.e., the Gulf-wide Offshore Activities Data System or GOADS, as
described in Notice to Lessees and Operators ([NTL], BOEM NTL No. 2014-
G01) and apply it to all OCS regions under BOEM air quality
jurisdiction. This information is important to ensure that OCS
activities authorized by BOEM do not cause any State to exceed the
NAAQS. BOEM also uses this information in its National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents at several stages of the OCS leasing and
plan review and approval process. In addition, BOEM shares this data
with the USEPA to enhance its national emissions inventory (NEI), and
with States and local air quality management agencies for the
development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In-addition, BOEM
collects emissions information related to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) on a
regular basis as part of the GOADS program and provides this
information to lessees and operators to facilitate their reporting to
the USEPA.
III. Background
A. Statutory Authority
OCSLA grants DOI authority to issue leases for the development of
the nation's energy and mineral resources on the OCS. The U.S. OCS
extends from three to nine nautical miles (nm) offshore (this varies by
State) to the extent of U.S. claimed jurisdiction and control, which is
200 nm or more from the coastal States' baseline.\7\ BOEM makes OCS
resources available for expeditious and orderly development through
leasing, subject to environmental safeguards, in a manner that is
consistent with the maintenance of competition and other national needs
(43 U.S.C. 1332(3)). In 1978, OCSLA was amended to include a
requirement for DOI to promulgate regulations for ``compliance with the
national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.), to the extent that activities authorized under [OCSLA]
significantly affect the air quality of any State'' (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). In 1980, the USGS, a BOEM predecessor agency responsible
for overseeing OCS energy and mineral activity, promulgated air quality
regulations for activities authorized on the entire OCS, which are now
BOEM's air quality regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The official U.S. coastal baseline is recognized as the low-
water line along the coast in accordance with the articles of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 76, Dec.10,
1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, 428. The territorial sea extends seaward 12
nautical miles (nm) from the baseline. The Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) extends from the outer boundary of territorial sea seaward to
200 nm. The continental shelf begins at 12 nm, includes the EEZ and
may extend further. The U.S. OCS extends from the SSB to the extent
of the continental shelf. See 43 U.S.C. 1331(a); see also 43 U.S.C.
1301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1990, Congress amended section 328 of the CAA and transferred
authority to regulate air emissions on the OCS, other than in the
Central and Western GOM, from DOI to the USEPA. In 2011, Congress again
amended section 328 to transfer the authority for regulating air
emissions from the USEPA back to DOI for those parts of the OCS
adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. As of the
publication of this proposed rule, DOI's jurisdiction for ensuring
compliance with the NAAQS pursuant to the CAA includes OCS areas
adjacent to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the North Slope
Borough of the State of Alaska.
B. Current Air Quality Framework--Air Quality Regulatory Program
Congress has geographically divided air quality regulatory
authority for authorized OCS activities between the USEPA and BOEM,
based upon where those activities occur on the OCS. While the overall
objectives of BOEM's and the USEPA's air quality regulations are
similar, there are differences in each agency's statutory authority and
differences in the way each agency implements its statutory charge. The
USEPA implements its charge through permitting (CAA Sections 165 and
173). The CAA directs the USEPA to establish requirements to control
air pollution from sources on the OCS to attain and maintain federal
and State ambient air quality standards and to comply with the
provisions of part C of subchapter I of the CAA (CAA Section 328(a)).
USEPA regulations for permitting OCS sources ``ensure that there is a
rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of federal and
State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of part C of
title I, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing
exploration and development of the OCS'' (40 CFR 55.1). The USEPA's OCS
air quality regulations incorporate requirements derived from other
areas of the CAA and USEPA regulations and for sources within 25 miles
of the State boundary require compliance with local rules as if the
source were located onshore, the result of which is that operators must
demonstrate compliance with several different types of requirements.
BOEM's jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to
promulgate regulations ``for compliance with the national ambient air
quality standards pursuant to the [CAA] . . . to the extent that
activities under OCSLA significantly affect the air quality of any
State.'' Thus, regulations implementing this section regulate offshore
emissions specifically to protect State air quality rather than
protecting air quality above the OCS generally. Upon submission by a
lessee or operator of a plan, BOEM will determine whether the plan is
consistent with the OCSLA and BOEM's regulations. If BOEM determines
that a plan is inconsistent with OCSLA or BOEM's regulations, BOEM will
require modifications of the plan as necessary to achieve consistency.
BOEM may approve, require modification of, or disapprove an EP. BOEM
can disapprove an EP only if there are no possible modifications that
would avoid ``serious harm or damage to life (including fish and other
aquatic life), to property, to any mineral (in areas leased or not
leased), to the national security or defense, or to the marine,
coastal, or human environment,'' as described in 43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(2)(A)(i). With respect to a DPP or a DOCD, BOEM must approve,
disapprove, or require modification of the plan after conducting a
compliance review, which includes compliance with the regulations
implementing section 1334(a)(8). In addition, the timing of BOEM's
decisions is also circumscribed
[[Page 19723]]
by the provisions of OCSLA. Under OCSLA, BOEM is required to approve a
plan within 30 days for an EP or within 60 days for a DPP or DOCD, if
BOEM finds that the plan is consistent with OCSLA and its implementing
regulations, including those ensuring air quality compliance under
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA. (See 43 U.S.C. 1340(c) and 1351(h)).
BOEM's predecessor, USGS, developed the current air quality
regulatory framework in 1980 to address potential onshore air quality
impacts of OCS operations on adjacent States. These regulations require
lessees or operators to submit information on projected air emissions
in their proposed EPs, DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM considers air emissions
information submitted by lessees and operators as one component of its
review of the overall exploration or development plan. The regulatory
process by which BOEM evaluates the submitted emissions information is
referred to in this document as BOEM's AQRP. The 1980 regulations first
established a process for determining whether the potential air quality
impacts from any given plan are low enough that they should be exempt
from further air quality regulatory analysis. Plans that do not exceed
these EETs are generally exempt from further analysis. For plans that
exceed these exemption thresholds, BOEM regulations require lessees and
operators to conduct modeling intended to help BOEM determine whether
emissions from any facility could cause an exceedance of the AAIs or
NAAQS onshore, and if so, what mitigation (i.e., emissions reduction)
measures, if any, BOEM should impose on those proposed exploration and
development activities to reduce the potential impacts to affected
States.
BOEM conducts its AQRP analysis whenever a lessee or operator
proposes new exploration, development, or production operations on the
OCS or submits a revised or supplemental plan, which would modify
operations in a manner that could cause an increase in the release of
regulated pollutants above the amounts described in a previously
approved plan. The AQRP focuses on the impact of emissions from a
specific exploration or development and production project and its
potential onshore impacts on air quality. The AQRP does not directly
regulate OCS air quality, since 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to
focus its plan review on the potential impacts to the air quality of
the States. The AQRP consists of a quantitative review of specific air
quality data that informs a decision to approve, require modification
of, or disapprove a specific plan. Any modifications BOEM requires as a
result of the AQRP review become an enforceable provision of the
approved plan. As BOEM fulfills its statutory obligation, its AQRP also
achieves other objectives: (1) To protect public health from adverse
air quality effects; (2) to protect public welfare by preventing a
deterioration in the air quality of the environment (e.g., to protect
crops, forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the formation of new
designated non-attainment areas; and, (4) to preserve and prevent
degradation of the air quality in national parks and other areas of
special natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value. In practical
terms, this is accomplished by assessing whether OCS operations and
activities will advance these objectives. The AQRP is one factor that
BOEM considers in making a determination on the overall plan.
The AQRP analysis is intended to account for emissions of
pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment from
facility and associated support craft. The plan must include
descriptions of all relevant emissions sources--offshore, stationary
and nonstationary, and certain onshore ones--regardless of whether they
are intended to be used on a short-term or long-term basis, and
regardless of attainment status. As part of the AQRP analysis, BOEM
currently evaluates the emissions of most pollutants that the USEPA has
designated as NAAQS ``criteria pollutants'' (CPs) in the USEPA's air
quality regulatory scheme. The USEPA currently defines the following
six pollutants as CPs: Carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide
(NO2); sulphur dioxide (SO2); ozone
(O3); particulate matter (PM); and lead (Pb). BOEM evaluates
air emissions using the NAAQS as a standard because OCSLA provides that
BOEM must ensure compliance with the NAAQS (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). At
the time the current regulations were promulgated, BOEM's predecessor,
USGS, determined that Pb was generally not released in sufficient
quantities from offshore oil and gas operations to warrant a separate
analysis, and so BOEM does not currently review Pb data as part of the
AQRP. Also, as of 1980, the USGS had determined that there was no way
to review O3 formation directly, but it instead decided to
regulate O3 formation indirectly, through the tracking of
O3 precursor pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and NOX.
In addition to regulating CPs, BOEM currently regulates most of the
major precursor pollutants that lead to the formation of the CPs. Some
CPs are also precursors for other CPs. For example, USEPA has
identified SO2 as a precursor to the formation of
PM2.5, which is PM that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or
less, and both are CPs. BOEM's current regulations address two
precursor pollutants of ozone, NOX and VOCs. Ammonia
(NH3) is not currently covered by BOEM's regulations but is
proposed to be regulated in this proposed rule, because it may be
regulated under the Clean Air Act as a precursor pollutant to the
formation of PM2.5.
The USEPA has found that GHG \8\ emissions endanger the public
health and welfare (74 Federal Register (FR) 66496, Dec. 15, 2009).
BOEM recognizes that the continued and prospective emissions of GHGs
from offshore oil and gas operations will contribute to global GHG
concentrations.\9\ The goal of this rule, however, is to implement
Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM to regulate air quality
so as not to allow exceedances of the NAAQS in any State. While GHGs
are not regulated under the NAAQS and are currently being addressed by
the USEPA through other sections of the CAA, climate change itself
impacts air quality, particularly ground-level ozone, and has
consequential health impacts associated with poor air quality.\10\
However, because GHGs are not regulated under the NAAQS, Section
5(a)(8) of OCSLA specifically is not the appropriate statutory vehicle
to address the harm that GHGs cause and BOEM is not proposing to
address the issue of GHG emissions in this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ GHGs are defined by the USEPA as the aggregate group of the
following six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(i).
\9\ More recently, in the preamble to its proposed new source
performance standards for the oil and gas industry, the USEPA
provided an update regarding the climate change impacts that result
from GHG emissions (80 FR 56593, 56602, Sept. 18, 2015). Many of the
numerous impacts identified by the USEPA, such as increased severity
of storms, increased water pollution (including ocean
acidification), rising sea levels, loss of sea ice, and habitat
loss, relate to coastal areas and the natural resources of the OCS.
Both the 2009 endangerment finding and the recent proposed new
source performance standards underscore that these impacts will
exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in Alaska, and will
particularly impact Alaska native communities.
\10\ See 74 FR 66496 (No. 239, December 15, 2009),
``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' or the United States
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) National Climate Assessment,
available at https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report or the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports available
at https://www.ipcc.ch/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bureau, however, is still interested in addressing GHGs
[[Page 19724]]
consistent with its legal authorities. Lessees and operators currently
submit to the NEI the results of BOEM's calculation of GHG information
as part of GOADS, and GHG emissions are considered as part of the NEPA
review of lease sales and post-lease approvals. In the coming months,
BOEM will engage stakeholders regarding potential avenues to address
GHG emissions, as appropriate, either through a separate rulemaking or
some other action.
Separate but related to the GHG issue is the matter of black carbon
(BC) dispersion and deposition in Alaska and other parts of the Arctic,
which is an environmental concern. BC is a component of
PM2.5, and as such would be a component of a CP that will be
regulated under the proposed rule.\11\ The ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, including BC, would be considered in any analysis of
the pre-existing background pollution levels before any plan could be
approved for development on the OCS. Recent scientific studies \12\
have indicated that BC can be a source of negative health effects.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Black carbon is not classified as a unique CP and the USEPA
does not directly regulate its emissions other than as a component
of PM2.5.
\12\ For example, ``Black Carbon Exposures, Blood Pressure, and
Interactions with Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in MicroRNA
Processing Genes,'' in Environmental Health Perspectives, 118:943-
948 (2010), and ``Long-Term Exposure to Black Carbon and Carotid
Intima-Media Thickness: The Normative Aging Study'' in Environmental
Health Perspectives, 121:1061-1067 (2013). Web addresses for these
studies described are at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27822949?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents and https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/11877015.
\13\ Based on an assessment of the scientific evidence for
health effects associated with exposures to ambient PM, in the most
recent review of the NAAQS for PM, the USEPA concluded that ``many
constituents of PM can be linked with differing health effects and
the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those
constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific
health outcomes'' (PM Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), section
2.4.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM is actively investigating this issue and our evaluation of the
potential impacts of BC and a determination of appropriate controls is
continuing to evolve. BOEM and the USEPA are coordinating their efforts
on this matter.
In addition to the health effects associated with the
PM2.5 emissions that include BC, there are also potentially
significant implications to climate change and global warming from BC.
These relate primarily to three factors: (1) BC particles directly
absorb sunlight and reduce the planetary albedo \14\ when suspended in
the atmosphere; (2) BC absorbs incoming solar radiation, disturbs the
temperature structure of the atmosphere, and influences cloud cover;
and (3) when deposited on high albedo surfaces like ice and snow, BC
particles reduce the total surface albedo \15\ available to reflect
solar energy back into space. Small initial snow albedo reduction may
have a large radiative forcing effect \16\ because of a positive
feedback: Reduced snow albedo increases surface temperatures and the
increased surface temperature decreases the snow cover and further
decreases surface albedo.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Albedo is the fraction of solar energy (shortwave
radiation) reflected from the Earth back into space. It is a measure
of the reflectivity of the earth's surface. Ice, especially with
snow on top of it, has a high albedo: Most sunlight hitting the
surface bounces back towards space.
\15\ Total surface albedo is the diffuse reflectivity or
reflecting power of a surface. It is the ratio of reflected
radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. In this
case, the reduction in total surface albedo would represent the
reduction in albedo that is caused by the relevant OCS operations in
the vicinity of the project or development that is generating BC
emissions.
\16\ Radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the
difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy
radiated back to space.
\17\ Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato (January 17, 2013). ``A Smut
Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could Also Promote Global Warming:
Atmospheric black carbon is not only bad for the lungs, but can also
act as greenhouse particles under certain circumstances.''
Scientific American. January 22, 2013.
IPCC, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative
Forcing, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution Of Working Group I To The Fourth Assessment Report Of
The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 129, 132 (2007),
available at https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm. (Magnitudes
and uncertainties added together, as per standard uncertainty
rules).
V. Ramathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate
changes due to black carbon, 1 NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221-22 (23 March
2008) (``The BC forcing of 0.9 W m-2 (with a range of 0.4 to 1.2 W
m-2) . . . is as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is
larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as
CH4, CFCs, N2O or tropospheric ozone.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While BOEM does not currently have sufficient data to support a
specific limit on BC, the exemption thresholds research study currently
underway for the Gulf of Mexico (which is described in detail in
section III.D.1, under the heading of ``Exemption Threshold Analysis'')
will analyze BC as part of the overall review. The study will apply the
Community Multi-scale and Air Quality (CMAQ) Model and the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMX)
photochemical grid models, as part of the analysis. PM emissions
specified in the emissions inventory will be allocated to individual PM
species \18\ as part of the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
(SMOKE) emissions processing and modeling system \19\ using PM
speciation factors obtained from USEPA's SPECIATE database \20\ for
each source category (as defined by the Source Classification Code
(SCC)). This evaluation will result in PM mass being broken into the
mass associated with elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon, and other
elements, as well as particle bound VOCs, such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons. BC is essentially equivalent to the EC portion of PM.
CMAQ \21\ and CAMX \22\ model projections of EC will be
calculated and modeled for further analysis. This will be done both for
the domain defined for the study (see section III.D.1), and for
specific sources. Two other models commonly used by the industry and
BOEM to evaluate air quality, AERMOD \23\ and CALPUFF,\24\ are being
considered for use and will apply a similar technique to apportion
PM2.5 mass for a BC analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ There are many forms of PM. The U.S. National Research
Council has emphasized the importance of examining the risk of PM
species (``Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: IV:
Continuing Research Progress.'' Washington, DC, National Research
Council, 2004). Determining the differential toxicity of
PM2.5 species and identifying species with greatest
toxicity is of great importance to emission-control strategies and
regulations. These investigations have reported numerous components
that may be responsible for particle toxicity, such as elemental and
organic carbon, sulfate, nitrate, and metals including zinc, nickel,
iron, potassium, and chromium.
\19\ See the following site for additional information on the
SMOKE modeling system: https://cmascenter.org/smoke/.
\20\ SPECIATE is the USEPA's repository of volatile organic gas
and PM speciation profiles of air pollution sources. For additional
information, see: https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/speciate/.
\21\ Further information on CMAQ is available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/.
\22\ Further information on CAMX is available at: https://www.camx.com/.
\23\ AERMOD is described in detail in the publication, ``AERMOD:
DESCRIPTION OF MODEL FORMULATION,'' U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-454/R-03-004, September 2004, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermod_mfd.pdf.
\24\ CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and
air quality modeling system adopted by the USEPA in its Guideline on
Air Quality Models as the preferred model for assessing long range
transport of pollutants and their impacts on federal Class I areas
and on a case-by-case basis for certain near-field applications
involving complex meteorological conditions. Further information on
this model is available at: https://www.src.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM requests comments and data on the extent of BC emissions from
OCS-related operations and potential means of reducing such emissions
and their negative effects. BOEM also requests comment on other
factors, information, or data that BOEM should consider in its analysis
of BC, either in connection with or in addition to its air quality
regulatory analysis.
[[Page 19725]]
C. Current Air Quality Regulatory Program Data Requirements
As explained above, BOEM's AQRP review, conducted under existing
regulations at 30 CFR part 550 subparts B and C, is triggered when a
lessee or operator submits or resubmits an exploration or development
plan. With respect to air quality, BOEM currently requires the
submitter to provide the following information:
1. Projected Emissions
Under existing BOEM regulations, the lessee or operator must
provide tables showing the projected air emissions of all regulated
criteria and major precursor pollutants, except PM2.5, Pb,
and O3,\25\ generated by the submitted plans. In addition,
for each source for each pollutant, lessees must identify: The
projected hourly emissions rate in peak pounds per hour; the total
projected annual emissions in tons per year (tpy); the frequency and
duration of projected emissions; and all projected emissions over the
duration of the plan (i.e., for as many years as the operations will
continue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Existing BOEM air pollution prevention and control
regulations (30 CFR part 550 subpart C) apply air quality standards
and screening methods current as of 1980. At that time
PM2.5 was not regulated and all PM was considered as
total suspended particulates (TSP). Neither Pb nor O3
were included in the USEPA's screening methods under 40 CFR 52.21(c)
or 40 CFR 165(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maximum Potential Emissions
The lessee or operator must base all of its projected air emissions
identified in (1) above on the maximum rated capacity of the equipment
on the plan's drilling unit or facility.
3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and Combustibles
The lessee or operator must provide a description of processes,
processing equipment, combustion equipment, fuels, and storage units,
including the characteristics and the frequency, duration, and maximum
burn rate of any well test fluids to be burned.
4. Distance to Shore
The lessee or operator must provide the distance between any given
facility and the closest shoreline of an adjacent State.
5. Emission Reduction Measures (ERM)
Each lessee or operator must describe any proposed air emission
reduction measures (ERM), including a description of the relevant
source(s), the emission reduction control technologies or procedures,
the quantity of reductions to be achieved, and any monitoring system
proposed to measure emissions.
6. Reductions in Emissions From Non-Exempt Drilling Units
The lessee or operator must provide a description of how the lessee
or operator intends to address the emissions generated, if emissions
from the plan are greater than the lessee's or operator's respective
emission-exemption amounts and if modeling indicates that some form of
emissions reductions will be necessary.
7. Documentation
The lessee or operator must document the basis for all of its
calculations, including engine size, rating, and applicable operational
information. In the GOM region, BOEM and industry have historically
used worksheets contained in forms BOEM-0138 (Gulf of Mexico Air
Emissions Calculations for EPs) and BOEM-0139 (Gulf of Mexico Air
Emissions Calculations for DOCDs) for air quality information.
D. Proposed Analytical Approach
1. Flowchart
The following flow chart illustrates the analytical approach that a
lessee or operator would use to evaluate its projected emissions under
this proposed rule. The flow chart is intended for informational
purposes only. In any circumstances where the flow chart may be
interpreted to conflict with the regulatory text, the regulatory text
is controlling.
[See attached flowchart]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-C
[[Page 19726]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP16.000
[[Page 19727]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP16.001
[[Page 19728]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP16.002
[[Page 19729]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP16.003
While many significant changes would be made to BOEM's AQRP under
the proposed rule, the analytical framework remains fundamentally the
same. Under both the current regulations and the proposed rule, the
[[Page 19730]]
lessee or operator must perform the following fundamental steps: (1)
Identify and describe the characteristics of all the relevant emissions
sources; (2) calculate the emissions associated with these sources; (3)
determine which emissions should properly be allocated to the lessee's
or operator's plan; (4) compare the emissions totals, on a per-
pollutant basis, to a series of exemption formulas; (5) apply ERMs to
sources of VOC emissions that exceed the VOC exemption threshold; (6)
conduct modeling of the potential impacts for any criteria pollutant
that exceeds an exemption threshold and compare against various AAQSB;
and (7) propose emission reduction measure(s) as necessary to ensure
compliance with those standards and benchmarks. The ``Summary of Key
Changes'' section of this preamble outlines the major changes included
in this proposed rule. While the basic steps of the AQRP process would
remain similar, the proposed rule would alter how the data are
gathered, the standards and benchmarks against which the data are
evaluated, and the process by which the air quality information is
reviewed.
BOEM's current air quality evaluation methodology is based in large
part on the USEPA's New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction permitting
program.\26\ Under one part of that program, USEPA uses pollutant-
specific emission rates (called Significant Emissions Rates) to
determine whether a permit applicant is required to conduct an ambient
air quality analysis for each pollutant.\27\ If so, USEPA then uses
concentration levels known as SILs to help determine whether an
individual source will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
NAAQS and the level of analysis necessary to make that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The NSR pre-construction permitting program is mainly
composed of two parts: The Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program in attainment areas and the New Source Review Program
for non-attainment areas. The PSD program applies to any ``major
emitting facility,'' including any OCS source, that commences
construction or undertakes a major ``modification'' in an attainment
area (CAA sections 165(a) and 169(2)(C)). A ``major emitting
facility'' or ``major source'' is a stationary source that emits or
has the potential to emit (PTE) any air pollutant in the amount of
at least 100 or 250 tpy, depending on the source category and
irrespective of the facility's location. A major ``modification'' is
any physical or operational change to a stationary source that would
result in both a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase of one or more regulated NSR pollutants. A
new major source or major modification must apply BACT, which is
determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account, among other
factors, the cost effectiveness of the control and energy and
environmental impacts (40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) and (j)).
\27\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23); 40 CFR 52.21(m)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM uses emission exemption thresholds to determine whether the
lessee's plan emissions would potentially impact the air quality of the
State. When the thresholds are not exceeded, those emissions are
presumed to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. The
USEPA uses applicability thresholds to determine if a source is subject
to the requirements of the respective parts of the NSR permitting
program and then applies screening criteria like the SILs \28\ to
determine whether emissions per pollutant require further regulatory
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The SILs are benchmarks used by the USEPA to determine
whether some area may potentially be significantly affected by the
emissions generated from a proposed new stationary source of
emissions. The SILs are used as a screening tool to determine what
additional steps, if any, may be required before a stationary source
can be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given BOEM's distinct mandate to focus on State impacts from OCS
activities, BOEM currently uses a formula that accounts for the
distance of the facility from the shoreline. Specifically, the
determination as to whether a facility could significantly affect
onshore air quality under BOEM's AQRP is based on a formula that
considers both the amount of air pollutant emitted and the distance of
the proposed facility from the shoreline.\29\ Because BOEM's
determination of what constitutes potentially significant emissions
varies depending on a proposed facility's distance from shore, BOEM
uses distance as a variable in its formula to determine the relevant
EET. If a proposed plan would cause emissions of criteria or precursor
air pollutants in excess of the EET, the proposed plan is required to
include a detailed air quality analysis. If a proposed plan would not
cause emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants in excess of
the EET, the plan is not required to include a detailed air quality
analysis. BOEM refers to plans that are not required to include a
detailed air quality analysis as ``exempt.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ This differs from the way in which the USEPA determines
which facilities are subject to the NSR preconstruction permitting
program. As explained in the previous footnote, the USEPA makes this
determination based on whether the emissions of a new source or
modification to an existing source are higher than a certain amount
of tons of air pollution per year or whether the modification would
result in both a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase of one or more regulated NSR pollutants
irrespective of the facility's or facilities' location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Exemption Threshold Analysis
The first step in the approach of both the current regulations and
the proposed rule is the exemption threshold analysis discussed above.
BOEM determines, based on the information provided by the lessee or
operator, whether or not any given plan (EP, DPP or DOCD) will generate
emissions above a defined exemption threshold. If so, further analysis
is required. If not, the impact to the air quality of the State is
presumed to be de minimis and no further action is required.
BOEM currently has only one set of exemption thresholds, which are,
under the existing regulations, applied identically in the Central and
Western GOM OCS Regions and offshore of the North Slope Borough of the
State of Alaska. BOEM is now in the process of conducting scientific
studies to re-evaluate the exemption thresholds formulas, for both the
GOM and Alaska OCS Regions to tailor those thresholds to the relevant
environmental characteristics of each region and to take into
consideration USEPA standards applied to various time periods, whether
annual or shorter intervals. These BOEM studies will evaluate and, if
necessary, provide the basis for updating the current exemption
threshold equations and consider whether recent advances in the field
of computer simulation modeling and the availability of comprehensive
meteorological datasets unique to each region may be applied to improve
the exemption threshold equations by applying the updated underlying
data. The studies will use computer-simulated air quality dispersion
and photochemical modeling to provide the information necessary to
evaluate the current threshold equations (i.e., for the EETs) and, if
necessary, establish a basis for developing a new method. All modeling
conducted for the studies will be consistent with the USEPA's Guideline
on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 appendix W).
The GOM and Alaska OCS studies are designed to fulfill the
following objectives:
Prepare onshore and offshore emissions inventories for
use in computer simulation air quality dispersion and photochemical
modeling, based on the multi-sale 2017-2022 scenario emissions for
both OCS Regions;
Evaluate current meteorological data and develop new
data, as necessary, for input into air quality models;
Conduct air quality dispersion and photochemical
modeling to discern the collective effect of onshore and offshore
emissions on the onshore area of adjacent States;
Investigate the current exemption threshold formulas
for evidence the rates are protective of the annual and short-term
(24-hours or less) AAQSB using dispersion and photochemical air
quality modeling and, if necessary, develop a new method;
[[Page 19731]]
Conduct visibility analyses for the GOM Region Class I
areas: Breton Wilderness; Saint Marks Wilderness; Chassahowitzka
Wilderness; and Bradwell Bay; and,
Perform a 40 CFR part 51 appendix W section 3.2.2
``Equivalency Demonstration'' for modeling purposes in the GOM
region. Such an ``Equivalency Demonstration'' would involve
determining the most appropriate model for the exemption thresholds,
taking into account the USEPA list of preferred models and the
relevant criteria for evaluating alternatives.
As discussed above, BOEM is considering establishing two or more
sets of EETs (i.e., per pollutant, averaging time, and location), at
least one for the GOM OCS Region and at least one for the area offshore
of the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. For this reason,
BOEM would like comments on the appropriateness of potentially distinct
emissions thresholds or threshold formulas for these two areas, and/or
how these thresholds should be structured.
The USEPA recently established new one-hour NAAQS for
NO2, and SO2, as well as changes to the 8-hour
O3 and annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and also given that
the USEPA has recommended an interim SIL for one-hour NO2 at
8[mu]g/m3 \30\ and an interim SIL for one-hour
SO2 at 3 parts per billion,\31\ but has not proposed to add
these SILs (or any SILs for PM2.5 or ozone) to 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2), comments are solicited on how these new ambient standards
and SILs that have the status of only being USEPA recommendations
should be implemented in the context of the new studies, for the
purpose of updating the new EETs that result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf.
\31\ Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwso2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until such time as new EETs are established, the existing exemption
thresholds will continue to apply identically in both regions.
3. Modeling Analysis
In the event the exemption threshold analysis indicates that one or
more criteria or major precursor pollutants would exceed an applicable
threshold, the plan submitter must proceed to the second step in the
BOEM AQRP, which is the modeling analysis. The purpose of the modeling
analysis is to help BOEM determine, based on the information provided
by the lessee or operator, whether or not the proposed operations that
generate emissions above an exemption threshold would cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.\32\ BOEM's AQRP currently
models the onshore concentrations created by the relevant criteria or
precursor pollutants emitted offshore. Under existing regulations,
plans that would result in operations or uses that generate ambient
concentrations above these Significance Levels as modeled onshore are
subject to further review and analysis. BOEM's Significance Levels are
listed in its regulations at 30 CFR 550.303(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Under this proposed rule, the modeling analysis would also
be used in certain cases to determine whether an exceedance of the
AAIs has occurred; this is not listed separately, since the purpose
of the AAI analysis is to protect an attainment area from
potentially exceeding the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These Significance Levels in BOEM's existing regulations are based
on USEPA's SILs (as they existed approximately 35 years ago), which are
ambient concentration levels used by the USEPA to determine whether the
ambient air concentration of any given air pollutant could cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS at a given location. Under
USEPA's historical practice in the PSD program, if the ambient air
impacts of each criteria air pollutant are below the applicable SILs
for all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are
considered to have an impact that is de minimis and, therefore, not
significant. BOEM's regulations utilize the USEPA's SILs to determine
whether emissions of any given pollutant that originates offshore could
have a potentially significant effect onshore. The USEPA SILs are
expressed in terms of pollutant concentrations averaged over a specific
period of time (i.e., averaging time), for example on an annual basis.
There are also SILs designed to evaluate peak emissions of air
pollutants over shorter time intervals, which include the 1-hour, 3-
hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging times. By incorporating the
relevant USEPA values listed in a table in an USEPA regulation, BOEM
would automatically apply these timing intervals or averaging times, as
well for those pollutants and averaging times that are reflected in
USEPA regulations.
Under BOEM's existing regulations, in order to evaluate the
potential onshore effects of offshore emissions, the models project the
ambient concentration of any given air pollutant at various measurement
points onshore, which are referred to as receptor locations. If any
projected concentration of a given air pollutant does not exceed BOEM's
applicable Significance Level(s) at all receptor locations onshore for
all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are
presumed de minimis, and no further analysis is required of emissions
of that pollutant under the BOEM AQRP. In other cases, additional
modeling and/or the application of relevant emissions reductions
measures will generally be required.
At the time the current BOEM regulations were promulgated, there
were no USEPA-approved modeling approaches to quantify the impacts of
single sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions on ambient
O3 levels. For this reason, the current rule does not
require modeling of VOCs and there is nothing analogous to a SIL to
indicate ambient impact of VOCs. Instead of evaluating VOC emissions
against a SIL, VOCs are evaluated only against an exemption threshold.
CPs and the reductions in their emissions that may be required under
the current regulations are determined based on several different
levels that can vary with the location of the facility, the attainment
status of the areas it affects, and whether the facility is long- or
short-term. In contrast, in those situations where the emissions of
VOCs exceed the relevant emission exemption threshold, BOEM's
regulations instead require a reduction in the emissions of VOCs \33\
Based on the analysis done at the time, BOEM concluded that this
reduction should have been sufficient to address the potential impact
of VOCs on the formation of O3.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ When VOC emissions exceed the EET for a short-term facility
or a long-term facility affecting only an attainment area, the
lessee or operator must apply ERM to reduce VOC emissions to the
greatest extent possible. For a long-term facility affecting a non-
attainment area, the lessee or operator must apply ERM to reduce VOC
emissions so that the EET is not exceeded.
\34\ Results of the ongoing studies in the GOM and Alaska will
provide an updated method for evaluating VOC contributions to
ambient ozone concentrations in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities
If it is determined through modeling that the planned operations
will generate an onshore concentration of one or more air pollutants in
excess of the SILs, various further analyses must be done in order to
determine what controls must be applied. Under the current AQRP, if a
facility is projected to cause ambient concentrations of air pollution
above acceptable levels (i.e., the SILs), the lessee or operator of
that facility must propose the application of BACT \35\ in connection
with post-control modeling, to demonstrate the AAQSB will likely be
met. The requirements applicable to making this determination
[[Page 19732]]
vary depending on the amount of time that the facility described in the
proposed plan is anticipated to be present at any given location. The
current regulations make a distinction between temporary and permanent
facilities. Under the proposed rule, the phrase ``short-term facility''
is used instead of the phrase ``temporary facility.'' In both cases,
these terms refer to a facility that is located in one place for less
than three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ In this proposed rule, references to BACT are intended to
refer to BOEM's current or proposed requirements, unless the USEPA's
definition is specifically referenced. Under the USEPA regulations,
most types of ERM could qualify as BACT, whereas BOEM's definition
is substantially limited to physical or mechanical controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed rule, if the projected concentration increase
due to emissions from the proposed short-term facility exceeds the SILs
but such exceedance only affects attainment areas, the lessee or
operator would be required to determine the maximum amount of emissions
reductions that it can achieve with operational controls and/or
equipment replacements that are technically and economically feasible.
This would represent a level of emissions reductions that achieves the
maximum efficiency of their operations with respect to emissions
reduction. At that point, the lessee or operator could decide whether
to apply those operational controls and/or equipment replacements, or
to instead obtain emissions credits. If it is determined that there are
no operational controls and/or equipment replacements that are
technically and economically feasible, and the emissions from the
proposed facility would affect only attainment areas, then no ERM would
be required. In BOEM's proposed rule, a maintenance area is treated as
an attainment area; thus, the same requirements would apply.
If the projected emissions for the proposed short-term facility
exceed the SILs and such exceedance would affect a designated non-
attainment area, the lessee or operator would not only be required to
conduct an ERM analysis, but might also be required by the Regional
Supervisor to apply additional types of ERM (beyond that which was
proposed in the original plan).
Under the proposed rule, described in more detail in the section-
by-section analysis for section 550.306, a process has been outlined to
facilitate the determination of the most appropriate ERM, of which BACT
is one option. If the lessee or operator proposes to use BACT, the
lessee or operator would be required to provide a description of the
associated energy, environmental and economic impacts,\36\ and other
costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The description of the associated energy, environmental and
economic impacts is not required in the case of non-BACT ERM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of a short-term facility, the application of ERM would
generally be sufficient for BOEM to conclude, without further analysis,
that the facility does not cause a significant effect on the air
quality of a State. As explained in the next Section, this presumption
would not apply in the case of a long-term facility. Although BOEM
would set the air emissions limits in connection with its approval of
the plan, BSEE would be responsible for ensuring that any required ERM,
including BACT, are actually applied in compliance with the plan
requirements.
5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities
If emissions from a long-term facility generate onshore
concentrations of air pollutants in excess of the SILs, under the
current regulations, the lessee or operator must apply BACT. If only an
attainment area is affected, the proposed BACT must result in the plan
or facility meeting the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases
(MACIs), which are set out in a table in BOEM's regulations. The MACIs
are based on the USEPA's AAIs, and are designed to prevent the air
quality in clean areas from deteriorating to an unacceptable level as
set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS represent a maximum allowable concentration
``ceiling'' for each air pollutant and averaging time that does not
vary geographically. A MACI, on the other hand, represents the maximum
increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline
concentration for any given pollutant. Baseline concentrations vary
geographically. When the MACI \37\ is added to the baseline
concentration, the result is a new ``ceiling'' specific to that area. A
significant deterioration in the air quality is said to occur when the
concentration of a pollutant would exceed the applicable MACI added to
the baseline concentration in that area. BOEM and its predecessors have
taken the position that the exceedance of a MACI constitutes a
significant deterioration in air quality that ``significantly affect[s]
the air quality of any State.'' Moreover, the MACIs are designed to
ensure that attainment areas do not fall out of attainment, and so they
are appropriate increments to ``ensure compliance with the [NAAQS].''
Thus an activity that has the potential to cause an exceedance of the
MACIs should not be approved under BOEM's current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Under BOEM's current regulations, the term MACI is used.
This proposed rule would eliminate that term and use the term AAI
exclusively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These MACIs, and the AAIs on which they were based, vary depending
on whether any given location is defined as a Class I, a Class II or
Class III location (described below in the discussion of the
definitions of those terms) and the relevant timeframes of exposure
(i.e., averaging times).
Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in an attainment
area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to generate
concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess of the
SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an ERM
analysis, excluding BACT, to determine the most effective and
technically and economically feasible approach for reducing the
projected emissions from its facility. If the projected concentration
increase due to emissions from the proposed facility exceed the SILs
but do not exceed the AAIs, the proposed plan could be approved without
the lessee or operator having to bring the concentration increase due
to the emissions from its operations below the SILs. If the projected
emissions exceed the AAIs after the application of ERM, the lessee or
operator would be required to use additional ERM until it could
demonstrate its emissions no longer resulted in such an exceedance.
Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in a non-
attainment area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to
generate concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess
of the SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an
ERM analysis, including BACT, to determine the most environmentally
effective of the technically and economically feasible approaches for
reducing the projected emissions from its facility. If the projected
concentration increase--due to emissions from the proposed facility--
continue to exceed the SILs after the application of ERM, the proposed
plan could not be approved without the lessee or operator having to
bring the concentration increase due to emissions from its operations
below the SILs. Regardless of whether the projected emissions would
affect a designated non-attainment or attainment area, the lessee or
operator would be free to propose emissions credits in lieu of any
other ERM to accomplish this objective.
The proposed rule retains a requirement in the current regulations
(in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B)) that no plan can be approved if that
plan would result in the generation of emissions sufficient to cause an
area of a State to switch from attainment to a non-attainment status.
For that reason, any long-term facility that demonstrates projected
emissions in excess of the SILs would be required to demonstrate that
those emissions do not cause the
[[Page 19733]]
exceedance of any NAAQS in an attainment area.
6. Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources
As part of the 1977 amendments to the CAA (Pub. L. 95-95; 91 Stat.
685), Congress mandated that the country be divided into various areas
based on their sensitivity to potential problems associated with poor
air quality. These amendments establish Class I, II, and III areas. The
restriction on emissions are most strict in Class I areas and are
progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. In addition to
the three classifications mentioned in the statute, the Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) \38\ have established a fourth classification which
they title ``sensitive Class II areas.'' Sensitive Class II areas
represent an intermediate classification intended to designate special
areas, such as national monuments and national refuges that, while not
subject to the same level of controls as Class I areas, require special
protections above those normally afforded to typical Class II areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work
Group (FLAG) was formed to develop a more consistent approach for
the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to evaluate air pollution effects
on their resources. Of particular importance is the New Source
Review (NSR) program, especially in the review of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality permit applications.
For a facility located in or near a Class I area, the PSD permitting
program uses AQRVs when evaluating the potential impact of a
proposed source or modification on resources which are sensitive to
air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, parts of the country are designated as Class I or sensitive
Class II areas to indicate that they have been identified for special
protections. National parks, national wilderness areas, national
monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or
regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value are generally
designated as Class I \39\ or as sensitive Class II areas. FLMs,
including the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, and
DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS) and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manage these areas. Together,
these FLMs have the affirmative responsibility to protect the unique
attributes and air quality of Class I and sensitive Class II areas.
BOEM has not proposed and does not intend to evaluate air quality
impacts in non-sensitive Class II or Class III areas other than by
applying the typical AQRP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Several tribes have also requested USEPA to redesignate
their lands from Class II to Class I to provide additional air
quality protection. These are the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, the
Flathead Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Spokane Indian Reservation and the Forest County Potawatomi
Community Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.1382(c), 52.2497(c) and
52.2581(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the CAA, FLMs are charged with reviewing available
information about proposed facilities in order to determine their
potential air quality impacts on Class I areas. FLMs have established
Air Quality Related Values (AQRV), which represent resources which are
sensitive to air quality and include a wide array of vegetation, soils,
water, fish and wildlife, and visibility. The goal of the FLMs is to
ensure that pollution levels stay below the critical loads (i.e., below
which they have determined there would be no adverse impact to a Class
I area). These AQRVs include values designed to protect visibility,
odor, flora, fauna, and geological, archeological, historical, and
cultural resources, as well as soil and water resources. The AQRVs for
various Class I areas differ depending on the purpose and
characteristics of a particular area and the assessment by an area's
FLM. The FLMs determine the requirements for compliance with each
AQRV.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See https://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLMs evaluate plans submitted to BOEM to determine whether there
would be any potential adverse impact to a Class I or sensitive Class
II area and to recommend controls, as appropriate, if there are
potentially adverse impacts. In order to complement this process,
BOEM's AQRP requires any proposed long-term facility whose emissions
cause an exceedance of the SILs to meet the standards for the MACIs
that correspond to the Class designation of the areas onshore of the
proposed operations.
7. Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Evaluation
Once BOEM determines the MACIs or the SILs would not be exceeded,
BOEM must make a further determination that the NAAQS would also not be
exceeded in any attainment area.
There are two types of NAAQS, primary and secondary. Primary NAAQS
are intended to protect public health, including the health of
sensitive subpopulations with a requisite margin of safety, whereas
secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare (e.g.,
effects on crop yields) from any known or anticipated adverse effects
associated with the presence of the specified pollutants in ambient
air. These standards are composed of four elements: Indicator;
averaging time; statistical form; and level. Under both BOEM's current
regulations and its proposed rule, for any pollutant for which there is
more than one standard, plans must comply with whichever NAAQS standard
is strictest in terms of the ERMs needed for the facility. Generally,
according to both BOEM and USEPA regulations, no project can be
approved if it would result in design concentrations for any given air
pollutant in excess of the level for either the primary or secondary
NAAQS for that pollutant in an attainment area.
The NAAQS, codified at 40 CFR part 50, identify the maximum
allowable concentrations, or ``ceilings,'' and forms, for each of the
various CPs at any given location. Under its current regulations, BOEM
will not approve a plan that it determines would cause the ambient air
quality either at the shoreline or farther onshore to deteriorate
significantly beyond the air quality specified by the applicable NAAQS
for any given air pollutant, regardless of whether the change would
comply with the other relevant SIL(s) or AAI(s) for that same
pollutant.\41\ Because the NAAQS represent the amount of an air
pollutant that is allowable at any given location, evaluating the
emissions of the pollutant to determine the potential for an exceedance
requires information on existing concentrations of the pollutant at the
location, i.e., the background concentration. The sum of the background
concentration of the pollutant plus the incremental concentration of
that same pollutant caused by the projected emissions for the relevant
averaging time and statistical form is referred to as the design
concentration of that pollutant. BOEM compares the design concentration
with the NAAQS to determine if there is likely to be an exceedance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ There could be an exception in a case where offsets are
used in lieu of another ERM. In the proposed rule, the emissions
credits must affect the same Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as
the facility's projected emissions. Because the boundaries of the
AQCR may not be the same as the boundaries of the non-attainment
areas (because non-attainment areas are typically much smaller), and
because the proposed rule would commit BOEM to always allowing
offsets provided they are in the same AQCR, the effects of the
facility's pollution and the offsets may occur in different areas.
Thus, it is possible that the non-attainment area may remain
unaffected even after the relevant ERM have been applied. Since the
offset is the same magnitude as the required reduction, the
statement would be accurate on an aggregate basis, regardless of the
attainment/non-attainment areas to which the offset would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Intersection With the National Environmental Policy Act
Under current BOEM regulations, while the AQRP is focused on the
extent
[[Page 19734]]
to which projected air emissions generated offshore could significantly
impact the air quality onshore, BOEM also considers air quality impacts
related to lease and plan approval as part of its analyses conducted
pursuant to NEPA. BOEM considers potential impacts from air emissions
individually and collectively, including potential air quality impacts
offshore and onshore that would be caused by proposed oil and gas
exploration and development activities. Because of BOEM's staged
decision-making with respect to activities conducted under an OCS
lease, NEPA reviews involve multiple analyses and occur at several time
points in the OCS lease and development process.
In order to comply with the applicable requirements of NEPA, BOEM
evaluates the likely cumulative impacts of OCS development during its
Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the associated Five-Year
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM conducts an
additional analysis of such prospective impacts at the time it prepares
a multi-sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a NEPA analysis on
an individual lease sale. BOEM conducts an even more detailed air
quality analysis at the time the lessee or operator submits the EP, or
RUE or ROW application, lease-term pipeline application, and again when
the lessee or operator submits a DPP or DOCD. At these two later
stages, BOEM conducts the AQRP in order to ensure the lessee's or
operator's implementation proposals comply with the applicable
requirements of OCSLA and the corresponding BOEM regulations.
9. Additional Environmental Review
BOEM conducts analyses of the potential impact of OCS development
on the conservation of the natural resources of the OCS and overlying
waters (including the fish, marine mammals, plants, corals, etc.) to
ensure the prevention of waste; to evaluate those circumstances that
could result in environmental and other hazards; and to conserve and
protect the associated mineral, economic, and environmental resources
in and over the OCS, in accordance with OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334(a),
1340(c), and 1351. Current BOEM regulations also specify each Regional
Supervisor should evaluate every plan and make a determination that the
proposed activities will not cause serious harm or damage to the
marine, coastal, or human environment (e.g., 30 CFR 550.202).
E. Conclusion
BOEM's AQRP is intended to protect the air quality of the States
and to achieve the following objectives with regard to OCS exploration
and development: (1) To protect public health from adverse effects; (2)
to protect public welfare, including the economies of the States, by
preventing a deterioration in the air quality of the environment (e.g.,
to protect crops, forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the formation
of new designated non-attainment areas; and (4) to preserve and enhance
the air quality in national parks and other areas of special natural,
recreational, scenic, or historic value. BOEM continues to maintain
these same goals and objectives as it proposes to amend the regulations
to more effectively meet these goals and objectives. In most cases,
these objectives are similar to those of corresponding analysis and
permit review processes of the States, working in conjunction with the
USEPA.
In addition to BOEM's AQRP, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE) has an enforcement program designed to ensure
lessees and operators comply with BOEM's air quality regulations and
that such lessees and operators do not emit air pollutants that exceed
the terms of their approved plans or RUE or pipeline ROW applications.
BOEM provides plan information to BSEE on a regular basis, and BSEE
uses this information to evaluate applications for permits to drill.
BSEE also monitors lessee or operator operations on an ongoing basis,
as one component of its inspections process.
IV. Summary of Key Changes
A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards
The current rule has AAQSB relevant to CO, SO2,
NOX, total suspended particulates (TSPs) and VOCs. The
proposed rule would broaden the scope of BOEM's AQRP to cover all the
NAAQS criteria pollutants and the major precursor pollutants, as
required by OCSLA. Under the proposed rule, carbon monoxide and VOCs
would be subject to substantially the same requirements as under the
current regulations. The review of SO2 would be expanded to
also include an evaluation of other sulphur oxides (SOX).
Total suspended particulates would be replaced as an indicator
pollutant with a new indicator pollutant titled PM10. New
regulatory requirements would be added for O3, Pb,
PM2.5, and NH3, none of which have specific
emissions limits in the current regulations. In addition, the
requirements for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a minor precursor
to SO2, would be refined. The proposed rule defines BOEM's
list of criteria and precursor pollutants by reference to the relevant
tables in the USEPA's regulations, thereby ensuring that any changes or
additions promulgated by the USEPA would be automatically accounted for
in the BOEM regulations.
In addition to accounting for all of the criteria and major
precursor pollutants, as required by OCSLA, the proposed rule would
result in enhanced collection, evaluation, and consideration of data on
such pollutants over a greater variety of time intervals (i.e.,
averaging times), because BOEM would evaluate air pollutant emissions
in terms of the effects, not only on annual pollution levels, but also
on pollution levels for the other averaging times the USEPA uses in
evaluating SILs, AAIs (MACIs) and NAAQS for CPs, including 1-hour, 3-
hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging times. The differing averaging
times were established in recognition that higher short-term
concentrations of a pollutant can have adverse effects even when the
long-term average concentration of the same pollutant falls within
relevant annual standards. The proposed rule would better align and
coordinate the information gathering and data analysis requirements in
BOEM's regulations with similar requirements used by the USEPA and
reflected in USEPA requirements and tables. Specifically, under the
proposed rule, BOEM would require the use of the USEPA's tables for
SILs, AAIs and NAAQS in any circumstance where modeling is required.
Thus, any changes to any applicable USEPA AAQSB would automatically be
cross-referenced by BOEM regulations and would not require that BOEM
amend or update its regulations.
Under the proposed regulations, certain provisions within BOEM's
rules would be updated automatically whenever the USEPA makes
corresponding changes in:
The SILs, also known as significant impact levels or
significance levels, with the associated averaging times, as defined
in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2);
The AAIs (i.e., concentration levels of ambient
pollutants and associated statistical form), as defined in 40 CFR
52.21(c);
The primary or secondary NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR
part 50;
The identification of criteria and major precursor air
pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.15(a);
The list of approved air quality models, as defined in
40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
USEPA air quality modeling requirements and
methodologies, as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W;
[[Page 19735]]
Emissions factors, based on models defined by the USEPA
or the FAA, to determine emissions levels for tier- and non-tier-
compliant marine and non-road engines and aircraft;
Reporting timeframes associated with the NEI; and
Significant emissions rates (SERs) for criteria and
major precursor pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.21(b)(23)(i).
Under the proposed rule, certain provisions in BOEM's rule would
also be updated automatically whenever the USEPA changes 40 CFR
1043.100 to reflect emissions standards and other requirements
applicable to marine engines under Annex VI to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as the protocol
is defined in 33 U.S.C. 1901), as implemented in the U.S. through the
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901-1915). This
protocol is commonly referred to as ``MARPOL.'' The MARPOL standards
are part of the federal coordinated strategy to address emissions from
vessels adopted by the USEPA which consists of (1) the CAA engine
standards and fuel limits for U.S. vessels contained in 40 CFR 80 and
40 CFR 1042; (2) the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea Emission
Control Areas designed by amendment to the MARPOL protocol; and (3) the
MARPOL engine emission and fuel sulphur limits that apply to all
vessels regardless of flag (see 75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). BOEM
proposes that foreign vessels be allowed to use the MARPOL standards as
emission factors for the purposes of the program, if there are no
preferred, more accurate alternatives, with certain adjustments.\42\ In
addition, as the following are modified by the USEPA, BOEM's standards
for review of plans and requirements would change correspondingly:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Such adjustment would be done in order to take appropriate
account the deterioration in performance, based on the age of the
equipment and the potential variation of the actual emissions from
the standard to account for the maximum potential emissions that the
emissions source may emit (as described in section
550.205(b)(2)(vii) of the proposed rule text).
The attainment or designated non-attainment status of
State lands potentially impacted by emissions from OCS activities,
as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C; and
The Class designation of federal, State or tribal lands
or waters on or potentially impacted by emissions from OCS
activities, as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
B. Attributed Emissions
Historically, BOEM has considered two primary sources of emissions
in connection with its regulation of OCS air emissions--stationary
sources, and non-stationary sources, such as support vessels, over-the-
ice vehicles and aircraft. The proposed rule would change the manner in
which lessees and operators must consider and model emissions from
support vessels and other non-stationary sources. The changes would
mean that plans will more accurately reflect how emissions may affect
the air quality of States, given improvements in modeling capabilities.
1. Emissions From Stationary Sources
BOEM proposes relatively few changes to what constitutes the kinds
of stationary sources of air emissions subject to review and/or
regulation. In accordance with OCSLA, all offshore facilities
constructed or operating on the OCS must be covered by an approved plan
that BOEM has evaluated for compliance with relevant emissions
standards. While the proposed rule would retain this basic principle,
the proposed rule would expand the definition of facility to address
the greater variety of facilities now being constructed. Accordingly,
the proposed rule would replace any existing reference to a ``drilling
unit'' with a reference to the broader term ``facility'' and would
clarify that air quality and air emissions information and analysis
must be provided with respect to any facility that is proposed to be
located on the OCS. Further details concerning the definition of the
term facility are provided in the section-by-section analysis of the
new or updated definitions listed in section 550.302. The proposed rule
would make clear that emissions from decommissioning activities would
be included in a facility's projected emissions.
This proposed rule does not specify air quality review requirements
associated with the decommissioning or removal of structures on the
OCS. BOEM is soliciting information on the most appropriate method for
establishing and reporting air quality requirements associated with
decommissioning and structure removal activities in the context of the
AQRP. This includes a request for information and comment on when and
how BOEM should receive air quality emission data and information
associated with decommissioning and structure removal and how an
assessment of feasible ERM should be applied. One approach on which
BOEM solicits comment would be whether it should provide for only the
collection of emissions data associated with decommissioning activities
for some period of time, followed by a second phase in which BOEM could
utilize the data that was previously collected to craft an approach
tailored to this unique type of activity.
2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft (MSC)
In the proposed rule, BOEM would continue to require the collection
and evaluation of emissions data related to offshore supply vessels
(OSVs) and other support vessels and vehicles (collectively, mobile
support craft (MSCs)) for two primary reasons. First, the data remain
necessary to accurately model the impact of any given exploration or
development project to determine whether the air emissions are likely
to exceed the emissions thresholds, and, therefore, to determine
whether the air emissions are potentially significant. Second, this
proposed rule would allow BOEM to use the data to determine whether
emissions associated with a project covered by a plan are at a level
such that the planned operations could cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS in a State.
BOEM's statutory responsibility to regulate ``for compliance with
the [NAAQS], to the extent that activities authorized under this
subchapter significantly affect the air quality of any State,''
authorizes BOEM to take into account sources of emissions directly
related to OCS operations that have the potential to significantly
affect a State's air quality.\43\ A portion of the emissions associated
with exploration and development of OCS oil and gas come from the MSCs
providing support to OCS operations. While MSC operations do not
require direct BOEM authorization, their activities and the associated
emissions are undertaken pursuant to contracts and orders from lessees
and operators engaging in oil and gas exploration and development,
which require BOEM's approval of a plan. Without an accounting of these
emissions in the plan, BOEM would not know whether emissions that will
stem
[[Page 19736]]
from its approval would have the potential to significantly affect the
air quality of any State. Accordingly, BOEM is not proposing to
regulate MSC sources directly, but it would continue its current
practice of attributing MSC emissions to the approved facilities that
the MSCs support. The most feasible, and perhaps only means, of
preventing significant effects on State air quality is to require
operators to manage the emissions that are closely associated with its
operations. In this rule BOEM is proposing to refine the method for
attributing these mobile source emissions to facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The conference report accompanying the enactment of section
5(a)(8) of OCSLA explained:
The standards of applicability the conferees intended the
Secretary to incorporate in such regulations is that when a
determination is made that offshore operations may have or are
having a significant effect on the air quality of an adjacent
onshore area, and may prevent or are preventing the attainment or
maintenance of the AAQSs of such area, regulations are to be
promulgated to assure that offshore operations conducted pursuant to
this act do not prevent the attainment or maintenance of those
standards. The terms ``may have'' and ``may prevent'' refer to the
Secretarial judgment regarding future consideration of exploration
plans, or development and production plans, in which the potential
for ``significant effect'' is analyzed prior to approval and thus
commencement of the proposed activities.
See, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1474, at 85-86 (1978) (Conf. Rep.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, and with cooperation from industry, BOEM followed an
approach similar to the USEPA's to account for vessel emissions in the
GOM. BOEM's current regulations require that operators report in their
plans those emissions from MSCs that occur within 25 miles of a OCS
facility. Although the current regulations are not explicit on this
point, BOEM's GOM practice has been to add these emissions to the
emissions of the facility and compare the total against the exemption
thresholds to determine whether modeling and controls are required.\44\
BOEM's predecessor agencies chose this approach to be consistent with
the approach used by the USEPA.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The practice has differed in BOEM's Alaska region during
those periods in which the Secretary had air quality jurisdiction
over the Arctic OCS. For the Arctic, BOEM's practice has been to
require reporting of MSC emissions in the plan, but the Alaska
region has not made it a practice to combine those emissions with
the facility's emissions to compare against the exemption
thresholds.
\45\ See sec. 328 of the CAA, 43 U.S.C. 7627, specifies that
``emissions from any vessel servicing or associated with an OCS
source, including emissions while at the OCS source or en route to
or from the OCS source within 25 miles of the OCS source, shall be
considered direct emissions from the OCS source.'' OCLSA does not
mention emissions from such vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However there are a number of reasons that attributing all MSC
emissions within a 25-mile radius of the facility may not be the best
approach. This method of attributing emissions does not provide the
most accurate picture of the effects of BOEM's plan approval on the
State's air quality. Historically, the vast majority of new OCS
operations were located within 50 miles of the shoreline. Thus, the 25-
mile facility radius adequately addressed the impact of vessel air
emissions on the air quality of States. For facilities located within
25 miles of the shoreline, 100% of all MSC emissions would have been
accounted for by this formula. For facilities located 50 miles from the
shoreline, roughly 50% of the total MSC emissions would have been
accounted for. For facilities located 100 miles from the shoreline,
only 25% of the total MSC emissions would be accounted for and at 200
miles distance, only 12.5% of the emissions would be considered. Also,
in terms of the potential impact to a State, the most important MSC
emissions generally would be those occurring closest to the State.
Therefore, although 25% of MSC emissions for a facility located 100
miles from shore may be accounted for under the 25-mile rule, the 75%
of emissions that are not considered would likely have a greater
impact. According to the formula used in BOEM's current exemption
thresholds, 3,300 tons of emissions 100 miles from shore would have an
equivalent effect to 100 tons of emissions of the same pollutant 3
miles from shore. Applying this formula, the 25% of emissions within 25
miles of a facility would account for less than 2% of the impact on
State air quality, and the portion of emissions from MSCs that occur
while the MSC is closer to the State's boundary would have a
proportionally larger effect on the State's air.
Historically, facilities in the GOM accounted for the vast majority
of the total emissions, with MSC emissions representing only a small
share of total emissions. However, in the most recent inventory, BOEM
determined that facilities only account for 45% of all OCS emissions
associated with oil and gas exploration and production. Also, today,
more facilities are being constructed at increasing distances from the
shoreline. Today, some are located as far as 200 miles away from shore.
Given these shifts, BOEM believes it is no longer appropriate to
utilize a blanket 25-mile radius, because that radius does not capture
most of the attributed emissions that occur between a port and the
facility. Thus, the importance of accurately taking MSC emissions into
consideration has grown substantially. BOEM could not ensure that it
has avoided permitting uses of the OCS that would adversely affect the
State if its evaluation of OCS projects did not take into account the
majority of the relevant emissions.
Additionally, current BOEM analysis treats all emissions from MSCs
as if they originate at the facility itself. Improvements in dispersion
modeling technology have made it easier to more accurately project
impacts of emissions based on where these emissions actually occur. For
this reason, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to aggregate
emissions from non-stationary sources at one location for purposes of
air quality analysis.
Increasingly, lessees and operators are using new types of support
vessels, including vessels that operate continuously offshore without
having to return to port. When considered along with those support
vessels that are unique to the Arctic, either due to its extreme
environmental conditions or to the need to make up for the lack of
onshore support facilities, it is increasingly evident that the use and
types of vessels are substantially different than in the past.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74),
Congress mandated that BOEM regulate air quality impacts from
activities on the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State
of Alaska along with activities on the OCS in the Central and Western
GOM. BOEM must now also consider the potential effects caused by air
pollution generated by operations unique to the Arctic region, such as
ice breakers and other vessels or vehicles that would not normally be
necessary or present in the GOM. The relative proportion of attributed
emissions to total emissions (i.e., support vessel emissions relative
to facility emissions) is substantially higher in Alaska than in the
GOM. This is due to, among several things, the substantial differences
in the existing oil and gas infrastructure, the significant variations
in climate between the GOM region and Alaska, and the relatively
greater need for MSCs (and their higher emissions) to support OCS
facilities offshore Alaska. In the Alaska region, a typical ratio of
MSC emissions to facility emissions would be in the range of 80% to
20%. Thus, the emissions of ice breakers, oil spill support vessels,
trucks that operate over ice and other vessels unique to the Arctic
make the need to account for MSC emissions even greater than is the
case in the GOM.
Furthermore, those MSCs used in Alaska are of a type whereby they
can more readily operate outside of a 25-mile radius of the facility.
While supply vessels, crew boats and tug boats cannot easily avoid
coming into close contact with the facility they support, this is not
true of ice breakers or oil spill support vessels. Such vessels can be
and often are located just beyond the 25-mile boundary, sometimes
closer to shore than the facility itself. Because, in an Arctic
context, the MSCs generate far more emissions than the facilities they
support, not accounting for their emissions makes it impossible to
appropriately avoid authorizing activity causing or contributing to a
violation of the NAAQS.
BOEM is proposing a more accurate standard, namely that the
emissions of MSCs should be accounted for while they are actually
operating in support of
[[Page 19737]]
the facility. As long as an ice breaker is engaged in active operations
on behalf of a facility (and, in whose absence, the ice breaker would
not be used), its emissions should count towards the total emissions
resulting from plan approval. Once the MSC is no longer providing
support to a facility, its emissions should not be considered as part
of the projected emissions in the plan.
In addition to these differences, technological advances with
respect to non-stationary source modeling allow more accurate modeling
of emissions from non-stationary sources. Unlike the situation in the
past, when there was no accurate means to evaluate the emissions of
mobile sources in terms of the impact to stationary sources, such
modeling can be readily and accurately done today. BOEM believes that
it is important to employ the most advanced and scientifically accurate
measurements and evaluation techniques of air pollution, in order to
most effectively implement its mandate.
For all these reasons, BOEM has reevaluated its historical method
of accounting for non-stationary source emissions (i.e., emissions
generated from support vessels, vehicles, and aircraft operating on the
OCS, or in State waters, that are associated with OCS facilities) and
proposes to revise the current practice in both Alaska and the GOM to
better address BOEM's mandate. Instead of automatically applying a 25-
mile radius, BOEM is proposing to require lessees and operators to
report and attribute the MSCs to facilities to which the vessel is
actually providing operational support, regardless of its distance from
that facility. In the proposed rule, the key is whether an MSC is
operating in support of a facility authorized under OCSLA, not how
close the MSC it is to that facility. The proposed rule would require
all MSCs operating in support of a facility to attribute their
emissions to that facility while they provide such support (except in
those rare cases where such attribution would be impractical). MSCs
that do not provide support to a facility would not be reported,
regardless of how close or distant they are. The discussion of proposed
Sec. 550.205(d), in the section-by-section description below, sets
forth the details of how the proposed rule would require lessees and
operators to attribute MSC emissions to a facility, including the
allocation of emissions from MSCs servicing multiple facilities (see
discussion below).
3. Determination of Attributed Emissions
BOEM is proposing to define the term ``attributed emissions'' to
cover non-stationary source emissions associated with a plan,
including, ``for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant, the
emissions from MSCs and aircraft, operating above the OCS or State
submerged lands, that are attributed to a facility.''
As described in the discussion of proposed Sec. 550.205(d), in
section V below, where an MSC described in a plan also supports one or
more facilities not described in a plan, the proposed rule would
provide several alternatives for determining the emissions from a
vessel or vehicle that should be attributed to the particular facility
in the plan. A lessee or operator could always choose to attribute all
of an MSC's emissions to a facility regardless of how many facilities
it supports. The rule, however, would allow a lessee or operator to
attribute only that relevant portion of a vessel's emissions to its
facility or facilities. The proposed rule would provide a lessee or
operator with a process to attribute only a portion of an MSC's
emissions to its facility. This procedure is designed to provide the
most detailed, accurate information available about the MSC's
emissions. BOEM recognizes that any given lessee or operator may not
know at the time of plan submittal, or RUE or pipeline ROW application,
the extent to which it will rely on MSCs that also support facilities
unrelated to those covered by the lessee's or operator's plan. For this
reason, the procedure would allow lessees and operators alternative
ways of making conservative estimates of the portion of an MSC's
emissions that should be attributed to a facility. The intent of these
alternatives is to simplify the process for determining the allocation
of support vessel emissions in situations where it would otherwise be
impracticable to do so.
BOEM's proposed approach would reduce the potential for over-
counting emissions resulting from plan approval compared with BOEM's
current practice. Under BOEM's current practice, one hundred percent of
the emissions of an MSC are counted when located within 25 miles of a
plan facility, regardless of whether that MSC also supports five, ten,
or even 20 unrelated facilities within a 25-mile radius of the
facility. Under the proposed rule, emissions would be allocated to the
appropriate facility in all cases where it would be practicable to do
so, in accordance with proposed Sec. 550.205(d). Only in the rare
situation where there would be no reasonable basis to make any more
accurate allocation would the 25-mile radius analysis remain as a last
resort option. Ultimately, BOEM believes there is no reason to hold an
operator responsible for emissions based on an emitting MSC's proximity
to a facility, but rather it should be required to manage its
operations to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS which result from only
those MSCs which actually support its operations. Air emissions of an
MSC may often occur close to shore, and therefore would cause a greater
impact onshore and/or at the SSB, than a similar amount of emissions
from that same MSC which occur in the vicinity of the facility. BOEM is
seeking comments on this proposed approach and will consider
alternative methods that more accurately attribute emissions from
mobile sources to the appropriate facility.
4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore Emissions Sources
BOEM also proposes to change its approach to accounting for air
pollutant emissions associated with other non-stationary sources. The
proposed rule would continue to require lessees or operators to
identify all vessels and vehicles supporting a facility and to report
their relevant air emissions as part of each plan, as is the case with
the current policy. However, BOEM is proposing to change how aircraft
and onshore emissions would be addressed.
Although lessees or operators would continue to be required to
identify the likely types and number of support aircraft they propose
to use, no collection of emissions data for those aircraft would
generally be required under the proposed rule, except in exceptional
circumstances. BOEM is proposing this change because collecting
information on emissions from aircraft that support OCS operations in
all plans would be unduly burdensome since aircraft emissions are a
small fraction of emissions in most plans and their inclusion would
likely not cause a facility's projected emissions to exceed the EETs or
any AAQSB in a State where it would otherwise not do so. Available data
from plans submitted to BOEM and its predecessors indicate that the
level of relevant emissions from aircraft is generally an extremely
small percentage of the total emissions reported in each plan.
Furthermore, there are a large number of aircraft supporting OCS
facilities and these aircraft service more facilities and are used for
a wider variety of purposes than MSCs, including for purposes other
than
[[Page 19738]]
supporting oil and gas facilities on the OCS. This makes it cumbersome
to accurately quantify and attribute (with respect to OCS support
functions) their emissions to individual facilities in a plan in many
cases. Accordingly, BOEM believes it is not prudent to require all
lessees and operators to report aircraft emissions.
The proposed rule, however, would require a lessee or operator to
submit aircraft emissions information to account for the situation in
which a plan proposes exceptional or unusual aircraft operations. This
provision would cover situations in which a lessee or operator plans
abnormally high use of aircraft to support its operations, or the
lessee or operator plans to use aircraft that emit exceptionally high
amounts of pollutants. In those situations, the proposed rule would
require the lessee or operator to determine whether aircraft emissions
would cause its projected emissions to exceed an emission exemption
threshold or AAQSB. If a plan which is already required to conduct
modeling results in incremental increases in concentration of a
pollutant that are greater than 95 percent of the value of a SIL, the
proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to also model its
aircraft emissions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ BOEM expects that aircraft emissions typically represent
less than two percent of all plan emissions, and that any plan with
emissions below 95 percent of the value of every SIL, excluding
aircraft emissions, would be extremely unlikely to generate total
emissions, even if including those from aircraft, in excess of any
SIL; therefore, modeling of aircraft emissions would normally not be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, under the proposed rule, lessees and operators would not
normally be required to report information on emissions from onshore
support facilities. Emissions from large sources onshore are in many
cases already identified and regulated by the USEPA, or by the States
in the context of their respective SIPs.\47\ In addition, under the CAA
the USEPA has established standards for several types of mobile
sources, no matter where they are operated through requirements that
engines, vehicles, and equipment be certified to exhaust emission
limits, and through the regulation of certain characteristics of the
fuels used in these engines. The proposed rule would not require a
lessee or operator to gather or report the emissions generated onshore
in support of an OCSLA-authorized activity on the OCS. BOEM has
determined in the past and continues to hold that, for purposes of this
separate program, such emissions are de minimis and that further
regulation of them, beyond what already applies or that may be
established by USEPA and States under applicable federal and State law,
is not warranted. As would be the case with aircraft, however, if a
plan describes the use of onshore sources that generate unusually high
levels of emissions, such that these emissions could cause the
project's total projected emissions to exceed an EET or AAQSB, then the
lessee or operator would be required to provide information on its
onshore emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ USEPA regulates these sources to the extent they are in
source categories subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) coverage. States regulate them to the extent they are
covered in their State NSPS plans, have taken delegation of NESHAPs,
or have chosen to regulate them in order to meet criterial pollutant
NAAQS or under NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While this proposal takes the approach described here for aircraft
and onshore emissions, BOEM is considering whether it should instead
establish a requirement whereby plans that propose aircraft and onshore
emissions above a certain threshold, expressed as either a percent of
the total plan emissions or an absolute amount of emissions, would have
to include emissions from aircraft and onshore support facilities. BOEM
would welcome comments on this approach, and also any data or analysis
relevant to the issue of whether, and to what extent, aircraft and
onshore emissions should be considered in evaluating a facility's
emissions profile.
Please provide comments on this approach and what threshold might
be most appropriate.
C. Points of Measurement
1. Point-of-Origin Measurement
Historically, BOEM applied ``point source'' modeling to plans for
facilities and their MSCs. Point source modeling evaluates all
emissions associated with any source as if they originated from a
single location, regardless of whether that source is stationary (e.g.,
a drilling unit or platform) or non-stationary (e.g., a supply vessel).
The term ``point source'' refers to the location from which the
pollutants are discharged, not the location at which the impacts from
the emissions are measured or evaluated (referred to as receptor
locations). In the case of a stationary facility, point source modeling
is appropriate because it accurately reflects where the emissions are
occurring.
With respect to non-stationary sources, however, point source
modeling is much less accurate because the actual emissions generated
by such a source are discharged over a broad area. BOEM's regulations
currently do not address the appropriate types of models to use to
account for emissions from non-stationary sources, although some
operators already model non-stationary emissions sources as (1) area or
line sources; (2) volume sources; or (3) so-called pseudo-points (i.e.,
some mobile sources are modeled as if their emissions originated at one
or more stationary points).\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ In line-, area-, and volume-source models, the emissions
are modeled as if they are emitted evenly and continuously across a
line, area, or volume. In point source models, some emissions may be
modeled as if they are emitted from many discrete points along a
path or over an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSCs operating in support of facilities on the OCS typically
discharge emissions continuously between the port and the facility.
BOEM believes line and volume source modeling for non-stationary
sources would accurately project the impact of emissions from such MSC
on onshore air pollution levels at the SSB. The improved accuracy and
information value from line and/or volume source modeling of pollutant
dispersions would provide BOEM a more realistic projection of actual
impacts on the air quality of a State.
With volume source modeling, it is also possible to more accurately
model the effect of emissions discharged by non-stationary sources on
fixed landscapes (i.e., land, mountains, lakes, etc.), taking into
account relevant factors, such as air pressure, currents, winds, and
temperatures in relation to the discharge of pollutants and their
ambient distribution at distant locations. With improved ambient air
quality dispersion data, air quality impacts can be evaluated more
effectively. BOEM requests comments on the various types of modeling
that could or should be used to more accurately reflect the origin and
dispersion of emissions that are generated by mobile sources, such as
MSCs, and under what circumstance volume source modeling would be
appropriate or inappropriate.
2. State Seaward Boundary (SSB)
In developing this proposed air quality rule, BOEM revisited an
issue it encountered while drafting its 1980 air quality regulations:
Whether air quality impacts should be evaluated starting at the
shoreline or at the SSB, which is typically three nautical miles
offshore, but which may be as much as nine nautical miles offshore
depending on the particular State. On the basis of BOEM's
interpretation of its statutory authority, BOEM has concluded that it
is more appropriate to measure at the SSB than at the shoreline.
[[Page 19739]]
Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA requires DOI to regulate ``for compliance
with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to the extent that activities authorized under
[OCSLA] significantly affect the air quality of any State'' (43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8)). BOEM historically interpreted the phrase ``significantly
affect the air quality of any State'' to limit it to considering those
effects that would occur landward of the shoreline. BOEM thus
historically has evaluated any OCS activity in terms of the effects of
that activity on the concentration of pollutants landward of the
shoreline.
BOEM has re-evaluated this position. BOEM believes the term
``State'' in section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA should be interpreted to include
the entire area of a State's jurisdiction extending to its seaward
boundary (either three or nine nautical miles seaward of its
shoreline). (See 43 U.S.C. 1312.) Moreover, the States are responsible
for attainment of the NAAQS over the entirety of the State including
their submerged lands. The USEPA interprets the CAA consistently with
BOEM's interpretation under this proposed rule. Generally, the USEPA
requires States to regulate their air quality up to their seaward
boundary. For instance, the USEPA does not allow States to permit an
onshore or offshore source that would cause the air quality above State
submerged lands to exceed an applicable AAI. In addition, the secondary
NAAQS are specifically intended to protect public welfare. Impacts to
the air quality above State submerged lands have the potential to
adversely affect a range of natural resources, such as marine mammals,
coral, fish, etc. that are included in the category of resources
protected under the secondary NAAQS. For these reasons, BOEM believes
that its regulations should ensure that OCS facilities not cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in any area of a State up to the
State's seaward boundary.
The USEPA has advised BOEM that a variety of environmental and
scientific studies have shown that changes in air quality have also
caused impacts to human health off the coast in near-shore areas. For
example, these include specific health impact studies for the NAAQS, as
well as port air quality analyses that show the impacts of emissions
from ships and diesel engines, diesel emissions studies (health effects
and ports)),\49\ information regarding environmental justice
populations in coastal areas,\50\ impacts to subsistence fishing on
fishing piers that extend into the near-shore areas,\51\ and the
sensitivity of native Alaskan populations.\52\ There also are studies
that trace the emissions from offshore and onshore sources to near-
shore and onshore areas. Although the available data are not yet
conclusive, BOEM proposes to consider and evaluate the impacts of air
pollution over State submerged lands,\53\ including Alaska.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ``USEPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions
of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines, EPA-420-R-
09-019, December 2009.'' Available at: https://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf.
\50\ See Shell permits for:
(1) Kulluk: https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_Draft_072211_Public_Comment.pdf, and https://www.epa.gov/
region10/pdf/permits/shell/kulluk/
SoB_Environmental_Justice_Analysis_Kulluk_072211_Public_Comment_07-
19-2011.pd\.
(2) Discoverer: https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/shell/discoverer_supplemental_statement_of_basis_chukchi_and_beaufort_air_permits_070111.pdf and https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab_web_docket.nsf/
Filings%20By%20Appeal%20Number/4BB1D10E49B2C0F585257934006FEFB8/
$File/Final%20Attachment%204...11.pdf.
\51\ Wolfe, R.J. 2004. Local traditions and subsistence: A
synopsis of twenty-five years of research in Alaska. Technical Paper
No. 284. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Subsistence, Juneau, Alaska.
\52\ See Wernham, Inupiat Health and Proposed Alaskan Oil
Development: Results of the First Integrated Health Impact
Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Oil
Development on Alaska's North Slope, 2007; and Alaska Native Health
Status Report 2009 https://www.anthc.org/chs/epicenter/upload/ANHSR.pdf.
\53\ Although there are likely no particular studies that deal
with air pollution impacts specifically on the area over State
submerged land, the Statement of Basis (SOB) for the Shell permits
discusses these concepts as part of the air quality impacts analysis
for these permits. These SOBs also have appendices that go into more
detail about the air quality impact analysis.
\54\ Specifically with respect to the Alaskan OCS, the USEPA
prepared the following document on the OCS air quality impacts:
``Technical support document review of Shell's supplemental ambient
air quality impact analysis for the Discoverer OCS permit
applications in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas,'' United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington,
June 24, 2011.
See also, https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_AppA_AQIA_072211_Public_Comment.pdf.
See also, https://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/permits/ocs/shell/kulluk/SoB_AppA_AQIA_072211_Public_Comment.pdf. In addition, similar
analyses have been done by the USEPA's Region 4 in connection with
the issuance of OCS permits there. The SOB's in Region 4 are known
more generally as preliminary determinations and all can be found
at: https://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ocspermits/ocspermits.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the proposed rule would impose stricter requirements than
exist under the current BOEM regulations, BOEM's requirements would
still differ from those of the USEPA. In accordance with section 328 of
the CAA, the USEPA requires, in areas where it has jurisdiction, that
any facility located on the OCS within 25 miles of the State seaward
boundary is subject to all the requirements of 40 CFR part 55. These
include, but are not limited to, the federal requirements as set forth
in 40 CFR part 55.13 (e.g., NSPS, NESHAPs and permitting requirements)
and the federal, State and local requirements of the corresponding
onshore area, and the area that is geographically closest to the source
or another onshore area that the USEPA Administrator designates (40 CFR
55.14).
BOEM welcomes comments and analysis on the potential impacts of
emissions generated from OCS sources on the air quality over State
submerged lands and/or the potential impact of such emissions on the
environment above such lands, as well as any scientific, technical, or
other information that can be provided to measure or evaluate the
impact of OCS-originated air pollutants on the area over State
submerged lands.
3. Point-of-Impact Measurement
Although current BOEM regulations provide that measurements of any
potential impacts of OCS emissions take place along the shoreline, they
do not specify from which point along the shore the emissions should be
evaluated when modeling is required. Because of this, it has generally
been assumed the ambient concentrations should be evaluated at the
point on the shoreline closest to the facility. This interpretation of
the proper approach is reinforced by the formula used for the exemption
threshold analysis, which requires operators to calculate the closest
distance between the facility and the shoreline. BOEM has published
instructions and a guidance document for BOEM forms BOEM-1038 (Gulf of
Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for EPs) and BOEM-1039 (Gulf of
Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs), stating the measurement
point (for the purposes of calculating the distance parameter in the
emission exemption threshold formulas) should generally be the closest
point of land. See BOEM Web site, ``Reporting Instructions,'' available
at https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-0138-instructions/, and ``Tips to Avoid
Common Emissions Spreadsheet Errors,'' available at https://www.boem.gov/Form-0138-and-0139-Tips/. This approach works well in the
GOM, considering wind patterns and other relevant meteorological
conditions.
In evaluating meteorological data within the parts of the Chukchi
Sea OCS bordering Alaska, however, BOEM recognizes prevailing wind
patterns are often not from sea to shore (i.e., from north to south)
but rather move at an
[[Page 19740]]
angle, either from the northwest to southeast or from the northeast to
the southwest. Because of this, the point at which the air emissions
released from a facility would have the greatest effect (i.e., yield
the highest pollutant concentration) may be much farther along the
State's boundary than the closest point on that boundary. In order to
accurately model the potential effects of any given air pollutant on a
State, therefore, it is important that the effects of such air
emissions be evaluated not at the closest point of the State but rather
where the concentrations of emissions would be the highest (i.e., where
the potential impacts would be the greatest).
Because of this, the proposed regulations specify the effects of
emissions, for modeling purposes, would be evaluated at those locations
in the State(s) where the concentration of any given pollutant is
expected to be the highest. Additionally, the effects of emissions
would be evaluated in the non-attainment area where the concentration
of any given pollutant is expected to be the highest among non-
attainment areas for that pollutant (if different from the most
affected area). This location might be on land or over State submerged
lands. That location in the model would likely be the same for many,
but not necessarily all, pollutants. Those air pollutants, such as
O3, that are not directly emitted by a facility, but are
instead created in the atmosphere, are often more heavily affected by
climatological or meteorological conditions, which often cause them to
concentrate at a location different than other air pollutants. Given
technological advances, BOEM does not anticipate that adding additional
hypothetical receptor locations to the modeling should present any
technical difficulty but welcomes comments on how this requirement
could be implemented most effectively.
4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
Monitoring is a general term for on-going collection and use of
measurement data or other information for assessing performance against
a standard or status with respect to a specific requirement. In
general, there are two basic types of monitoring:
Ambient air quality monitoring, which collects and uses
measurement data (or other information) from onshore monitoring
stations or remote sensing); and
Emissions source monitoring, which involves collecting
and using measurement data (or other information) at individual
stationary sources of emissions (i.e., facilities, RUEs, pipeline
ROWs, etc.) to verify actual emissions of such sources, and validate
the effectiveness of ERM.
Thus, ambient air quality monitoring is the systematic, long-term
assessment of pollutant levels by measuring the quantity and types of
certain pollutants in the surrounding, outdoor air, whereas emissions
source monitoring is the process of monitoring particulate and gaseous
emissions from a specific source.
Air quality monitoring is carried out to assess the extent of
pollution, ensure compliance with national legislation, evaluate
control options, and provide data for air quality modeling. There are a
number of different methods to measure any given pollutant, varying in
complexity, reliability, and detail of data. These range from simple
passive sampling techniques to highly sophisticated remote sensing
devices. In general, monitoring strategies should carefully examine the
options to determine which methodology is most appropriate, taking into
account the initial investment costs, operating costs, reliability of
systems, and ease of operation.
Air quality monitoring stations are the most typical means for
obtaining ambient air quality information. The locations for monitoring
stations may depend on the purpose of the monitoring. Most monitoring
networks are designed with human health objectives in mind, and
monitoring stations are therefore established in population centers.
Many governments (local, regional or national) give specific guidelines
on where to monitor within these areas--next to busy roads, in city
center locations, or at a location of particular concern (e.g., a
school, hospital). Background monitoring stations are also established,
to act as a ``control'' when determining source apportionment.
Once data are collected from a monitoring system, they are then
stored in data management systems and databases. Subsequently, the data
must be retrieved and analyzed to see what they reveal about the
effectiveness of regulatory standards, the accuracy of modeling,
impacts on health endpoints, and as an overall way of assessing
potential impacts. In the U.S. these ambient air quality monitoring
data are collected and housed in the Air Quality System (AQS). The AQS
contains ambient air pollution data collected by the USEPA, State,
local, and tribal air pollution control agencies from thousands of
monitoring stations. AQS also contains meteorological data, descriptive
information about each monitoring station (including its geographic
location and its operator), and data quality assurance/quality control
information.
BOEM has relied on the USEPA's AQS data to determine the relevant
ambient air quality on which lessees and operators perform their
analysis of the AAI's and the NAAQS in connection with their submission
of plans and to comply with BOEM's air quality requirements in areas
under BOEM's air quality jurisdiction. BOEM has proposed that it should
evaluate the air quality of States to the State seaward boundary. There
are, however, few monitoring stations in relevant locations on the
coast and no monitoring stations in the ocean along the SSB. To improve
the accuracy of the estimates of the background concentrations of the
relevant pollutants, BOEM is investigating various alternatives for
collecting, utilizing and disseminating this information, including
technologies such as remote sensing and spectral analysis, and is
proposing flexibility to adopt such approaches in the future. The
proposed rule would allow BOEM the flexibility to consider adopting
such approaches that meet the proposed standard for effectiveness.
Otherwise, the relevant background concentrations would be obtained
from the relevant USEPA regional office, as is the case today.
D. Emission Exemption Thresholds (EETs)
Consistent with the current rule, the proposed rule would define
EETs as the maximum allowable rate of projected emissions, calculated
for each air pollutant, above which facilities would be subject to the
requirement to perform modeling. Functionally, these EETs would
establish those levels of projected emissions below which BOEM has
determined they would not cause or contribute to a violation of the
NAAQS or the AAIs. Under the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises a
NAAQS, or any applicable SIL or AAI, BOEM would examine the
appropriateness of its EETs,\55\ and, BOEM, at its discretion, would
periodically revise its exemption formula(s) or its exemption threshold
amount(s) for the corresponding air pollutant(s). Because USEPA has
recently revised many NAAQS, the proposed rule would allow revision of
[[Page 19741]]
the exemption formula(s) to reflect these revisions, without waiting
for further revisions to trigger a review under this update scheme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The purpose of the EETs is to establish thresholds below
which BOEM believes there is no reasonable possibility that BOEM's
approval of a plan would cause a violation of any AAQSB in any
State. The EETs are intended to avoid forcing lessees and operators
to perform unnecessary air quality modeling in situations where no
benefit from such modeling could reasonably be anticipated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current EETs would continue in place under the proposed rule
until the relevant air quality studies have been completed and new
EETs, if necessary, are developed and implemented. At a future point in
time, but no later than 2020, BOEM will propose new exemption
thresholds for the GOM and Alaska OCS Regions by publishing a FR
notice. Subsequently after reviewing comments on the notice, BOEM could
finalize new exemption thresholds with another FR notice.
Consistent with the current rule, the proposed rule provides that,
if the projected emissions associated with a proposed facility are
exempt, then the lessee or operator would not be required to perform
air quality modeling described in proposed Sec. 550.304, or to apply
any emission reduction measure(s) (ERM), as described in proposed
Sec. Sec. 550.305 through 550.307.
New EETs are not being proposed in this proposed rule because the
scientific basis for determining the potential impacts on the States of
OCS emissions have not yet been established. The proposed rule,
however, would set a new policy governing how BOEM establishes emission
exemption thresholds in the future. Specifically, the proposed rule
would provide that BOEM would, sometime after the rule becomes
effective, publish new proposed EETs in the FR and provide the
opportunity for public comment. In the proposed rule, BOEM has included
a range of EETs within which BOEM may establish updated EETs for each
pollutant.
As long as the new thresholds fall within the exemption threshold
ranges proposed in this rule, BOEM would not implement them through a
separate rulemaking, though the new thresholds would not become final
until after BOEM received public comment. If, however, the proposed
thresholds were to fall outside these ranges, BOEM would implement them
through a separate rulemaking. A range would be established for each
criteria or precursor pollutant. The proposed rule would establish both
maximum and minimum emissions formulas for each pollutant, above and
below which, respectively, BOEM would not set new emissions thresholds
without conducting a new rulemaking process. As a result of the new
environmental exemption studies, which have previously been described,
a new set of formulas will be developed to update the EET formulas
currently in place. On an ongoing basis thereafter, BOEM would update
the EETs to reflect changes in the NAAQS, SILs, and AAIs; advances in
measurement and modeling technology; changes in pre-existing pollution
levels in the potentially affected States; and various other factors.
The current exemption threshold formulas take the distance of the
facility from the State into account because dispersion modeling would
indicate the impacts are likely to be lower as the distance involved
becomes greater. The proposed formulas for these minimums represent
emissions levels below which the ambient air impact at the nearest
point in a State would not exceed any SIL, taking distances into
account. However, there may be a more appropriate manner in which to
establish the minimums. For that reason, BOEM requests comments on the
EET formulas and the underlying analysis used in this rulemaking or
whether absolute values may be more appropriate. Until such time as
BOEM has determined new EETs and has published them in the FR (``the
date of the Notice''), the distance component of the emissions
exemption calculation would continue to be the distance of the facility
from shore. After the date of the Notice, each distance formula would
instead utilize the distance of the facility from the SSB.
After the date of the Notice, the lessee or operator would be
required to apply the new set of formulas for the EETs in effect at
that time (i.e., to determine whether projected emissions would be
exempt from further analysis). BOEM would use the following criteria to
determine the EET formulas: The absolute level of projected emissions;
the distance of the proposed facility or facilities from any State or
from critical natural resources, animals, fish and habitats; the
relative need to protect public health and welfare and the existing
amounts of air pollution in potentially affected States; the types,
frequency and duration of any air pollutant emissions and their
formation and/or dispersion characteristics; prevailing meteorological
characteristics; any USEPA AAQSB applied in this proposed rule; other
facilities and vessels located in the vicinity of the proposed
facility; and other necessary and appropriate considerations. Until
BOEM has established new formulas based on these criteria, the proposed
rule would provide that projected emissions are exempt if they are
below the current exemption formulas.
The intent of those provisions that would allow BOEM to modify the
EETs is to ensure that the exemption thresholds accurately reflect the
amounts of potential emissions that could adversely affect a State.
Because the NAAQS are subject to change as scientific knowledge
improves and because modeling techniques and methods may improve over
time, the emission exemption threshold formulas should also be subject
to change. Under the proposed rule, BOEM would revise the EETs on an
ongoing basis either as a result of a change in an applicable standard
or because BOEM's ability to measure and evaluate the impact of
existing EETs has improved.
E. Emissions Reductions Measures (ERM)
1. Emissions Credits and Offsets
Current regulations specify that BACT should be implemented as the
first and primary emissions control mechanism any time that a proposed
facility is estimated to exceeded a SIL. This BACT requirement was
meant to ensure consistency with the USEPA regulations as they existed
when the regulations were issued in 1980.
BOEM's rationale regarding this point has evolved to allow for
greater flexibility, while still protecting the air quality of
neighboring States. Under the proposed rule, if the projected emissions
associated with a proposed OCS facility exceed an AAQSB, operational
controls would be the first option to be considered. Operational
controls, such as limiting the hours of operation or operating at a
higher level of engine efficiency could be both more cost effective and
more successful in reducing incremental emissions, particularly in
those situations where the proposed exceedances are small. As an
alternative, lessees and operators would have the option of replacing
old or inefficient equipment with newer and less polluting equipment.
This could involve, for example, replacing a diesel engine with a
natural gas powered engine. If these options were not sufficient, other
ERM, including BACT and emissions credits, would then be
considered.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The BOEM provision allowing for equipment replacements is
contingent on the lessee or operator complying with all other
applicable federal regulations, as noted in the proposed regulation
in section 550.309(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One change in this regard relates to emissions credits. Under the
current rule, offsets can only be used once the relevant BACT has been
deemed inadequate. Even then, the current rule provides no guidelines
as to how offsets might apply in situations other than to offshore
facilities. Other forms of emissions credits, such as emissions
trading, acquiring of trading program
[[Page 19742]]
allowances and so forth, are not addressed by the current regulation.
Under the proposed rule, emissions credits, which would include
offsets, are defined as: ``Emissions reductions from an emissions
source(s) not associated with the plan that are intended to compensate
for the excessive emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants,
regardless of whether these emissions credits are acquired from an
emissions source(s) located either offshore or onshore, including: (1)
Emissions offsets generated by the lessee or operator directly; or (2)
emissions offsets acquired from a third party; or (3) trading
allowances or other alternative emission reduction method(s) or
system(s) associated with a market-based trading mechanism, such as a
mitigation bank, or through other competitive markets where these
assets are exchanged.'' Essentially this means that emissions credits
consist of any form of emissions reduction, regardless of whether such
reductions consist of physical or operational controls on non-plan
facilities (i.e., facilities other than those covered by the proposed
plan), or whether they consist of the use of market-based mechanisms
that involve reductions achieved through third parties. Under the
proposed rule, emissions offsets could consist of BACT applied by a
lessee or operator to another one of its own, previously approved,
facilities on the OCS.
The proposed rule would therefore considerably increase the
mechanism by which emissions reduction could be achieved. Under the
proposed rule, in cases where operational controls would not be
sufficient to achieve the required emissions reductions lessees and
operators would be able to utilize emissions credits, as opposed to
applying BACT to a facility in the proposed plan. The proposed rule
would also provide that lessees or operators who submit plans that
include emissions credits demonstrate that the operator has notified
the relevant State and that emissions credits be verifiable.
The selection of emissions credits in lieu of BACT would often
result in both a net cost savings and a net environmental benefit. The
savings would result from the greater flexibility afforded lessees and
operators to make the reductions either on their facility, on another
facility (either on the OCS or in waters above State submerged lands),
on some unrelated stationary emissions source onshore, or through
acquiring the emissions credits from a third party. Because older,
higher polluting facilities whose emissions would be easiest to reduce
are most frequently located on or near the shoreline, in most cases the
use of emissions credits would involve a reduction in the emissions
from an onshore stationary source or from an older oil and gas facility
located offshore in waters above State submerged lands.
Under the current regulations, offsets are only permitted if they
would cause a reduction of emissions on the OCS with respect to the
facilities covered by the proposed plan. Under the proposed rule, any
reduction in emissions that is accomplished within the same USEPA air
quality control region (AQCR) \57\ would be an acceptable emissions
credit. Thus, if a facility associated with a proposed plan were
required to reduce its emissions by 100 tons of NOX per
year, such a reduction could be generated from any other source within
the relevant AQCR, whether the source of that reduction is located on
the OCS, over State submerged lands, or onshore, and regardless of
whether the source of the reduction is stationary, such as a facility,
or mobile, such as an MSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ An air quality control region (AQCR) is an area, designated
by the USEPA, that has common air pollution issues and which is
likely to be affected by the same sources of air pollutant
emissions. See 42 U.S.C. 7407. The term AQCR is defined at 40 CFR
51.100(m) and in 40 CFR 60.21(i). The current AQCRs are defined in
the USEPA regulations at 40 CFR part 81 subpart B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As currently defined, the AQCR boundaries do not extend to include
the OCS and, for this reason, it may sometimes be difficult to
determine which AQCR would be most applicable. BOEM also recognizes
that some AQCRs are very large, so it may not be certain that offsets
in one part of the AQCR have a benefit to the area affected by offshore
emissions. BOEM requests comments on how to best to define the relevant
AQCR(s) and on whether there may be more appropriate alternative to
defining the offset-generating areas or how to best refine the approach
of applying AQCRs in this context.
The use of emissions credits in lieu of BACT would provide a net
environmental benefit because the use of emissions credits would
typically involve a reduction in emissions onshore or over State
submerged lands, at that point where the impact to State air quality is
greatest, rather than on the OCS, which might be far away from the
point at which any impact might be felt. For example, if an OCS
facility located 30 miles offshore were to be required to reduce its
emissions of NOX by 200 tpy, under the current regulations
that reduction would have to be achieved primarily by reducing the
emissions from the facility itself. As a result, the 200 TPY reduction
in NOX emissions from an OCS source might avoid the same
amount of ambient NOX at the shoreline that would be avoided
by only 20 TPY reduction in emissions at the shoreline. Given the
greater flexibility provided by the proposed rule, if a lessee or
operator instead decided to instead pay an onshore power plant to
reduce its emissions by the same 200 TPY of NOX, the net
impact to the State would be a reduction in onshore emissions of 200
TPY. Thus, the same reduction in NOX emissions could have a
much greater positive environmental impact. For more details on the
offset requirements, see the section-by-section analysis for section
550.309(e).
Furthermore, because the proposed rule does not prohibit the joint
acquisition of emissions credits, the proposed rule would allow
emissions credits to be obtained and divided among multiple lessees or
operators (presumably located near to one another in the vicinity of a
State) in order to potentially spread the costs of complying with air
quality requirements.
2. Applicability of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Upon an
Exceedance of the Significant Impact Levels (SILs)
BOEM's current regulations require that any proposed plan that
identifies projected emissions of air pollutants that would result in
an exceedance of the SILs onshore is required to implement BACT (30 CFR
550.303(g) and 303(h)). Under existing BOEM regulations, ``Best
available control technology'' or BACT means an emission limitation
based on the maximum degree of reduction for each air pollutant subject
to regulation, taking into account energy, environmental and economic
impacts, and other costs. The BACT is required to be verified on a
case-by-case basis by the Regional Supervisor and may include
reductions achieved through the application of processes, systems, and
techniques for the control of each air pollutant.
Under the proposed rule, the evaluation of the SILs would not
automatically trigger the requirement for BACT. In fact, BACT would
never be the only possible ERM. Under the proposed rule, emissions
credits including offsets would always be available as an alternative.
The proposed rule would generally limit the requirement to apply BACT
and/or offsets (or, more generally, emissions credits) to situations
where the SILs exceedance relates to a non-attainment area. For a long-
term facility whose emissions affect only attainment areas, BACT and/or
offsets would be
[[Page 19743]]
required only if a further analysis indicates that the SIL exceedance,
taken in combination with all other facilities located in the same
general vicinity, would potentially cause an increase in the
concentrations of a relevant air pollutant that would endanger the
attainment status of some area in any State by exceeding the AAIs. In
all other cases, when the AAIs are not exceeded, the proposed rule
would not generally require further ERM.
For long-term facilities whose emissions affect a non-attainment
area, where an exceedance of the relevant SILs would trigger the
requirement for more extensive controls, BOEM expects that lessees and
operators would likely choose emissions credits in all but a few cases
(likely limited to those rare situations where localized control
equipment would be the only effective way to prevent the facility from
adversely affecting the attainment status of an onshore area).
3. ERM Evaluation Criteria
If the modeling results show impacts that are higher than the SILs,
ERM would be required as specified in Sec. 550.306, for a short-term
facility, or as specified in Sec. 550.307, for a long-term facility.
Current BOEM regulations require that any operator subject to controls
(because its emissions are projected to exceed the SILs as defined in
BOEM's regulations) must conduct a BACT analysis, and that BOEM must
evaluate the amount of emissions reductions that each available
emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, as well as
the energy, environmental, economic and other costs associated with
each technology or technique. The current regulations do not, however,
specify explicitly that each lessee or operator evaluate all the
potentially effective forms of BACT and do not therefore require a
consideration of all the feasible alternatives. This section describes
the methodology in this proposed rule for determining what forms of ERM
would be required for any given plan.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator would be required to
identify all of the potentially feasible forms of ERM and rank them
according to their potential effectiveness. Only those situations where
a potentially more effective ERM is infeasible \58\ would such an
operator be allowed to propose less potentially effective forms of ERM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ In the case of BACT, the cost effectiveness of every option
must be considered and any alternative that is not cost effective
(in terms of the emissions reductions achieved) may be excluded as
non-viable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would provide a two-stage procedure for analyzing
and selecting ERM, when required, based on modeling results. First, the
lessee or operator would identify all the alternative control
technologies available and determine their technical feasibility.
Second, the lessee or operator would rank and choose specific control
technologies. Although these two stages are implicit in BOEM's current
regulations, they are stated explicitly for the first time in this
proposed rule.
The purpose of this approach would be to ensure that the types of
ERM considered would be those that would have the greatest potential to
reduce the amount of emissions. The first stage in the process would
require lessees and operators to consider all technically feasible
control technologies (and not submit a plan that fails to mention
feasible options). No lessee or operator could propose only control
technologies that would either be largely ineffective (but inexpensive
to implement) or cost prohibitive (so they could be discarded) to avoid
selecting a cost effective and technologically effective form of ERM.
The second stage would require operators to demonstrate the selected
ERM is the most effective control technology that could be implemented
cost effectively. Under the proposed rule, the most effective
technology would always be considered, so it would be implemented
unless it was found not to be cost effective.
The effectiveness of any given form of ERM would be measured in
terms of the total number of tons of a pollutant that would be reduced
on an annual basis. The cost effectiveness would be the annual tonnage
reduction estimate divided by the cost. Thus, cost effectiveness would
represent the cost per ton of pollutant emissions averted through the
application of ERM. Both the amount of emissions reduced and the cost
effectiveness of any proposed or potential ERM can be evaluated for any
given pollutant or based on the total reduction in all relevant
pollutants, depending on which pollutants need to be reduced.
Determining cost effectiveness would require considering the
benefits to be achieved from emissions reductions against the costs
that would be incurred to achieve those benefits. Accordingly, cost
effectiveness means the absolute effectiveness of the technology (in
terms of tons of emissions avoided), and its emission control
efficiency (ECE) (percentage reduction) compared to the total potential
cost of the technology. All of the costs and benefits of any potential
control would be considered in determining what constitutes a cost
effective emission reduction measure and what would, therefore,
constitute viable ERM.
Although not stated explicitly, the current regulations allow a
lessee or operator to apply no controls whatsoever when its
``proposed'' BACT is claimed to be unfeasible. The proposed rule would
make explicit that technically feasible controls would always be
required but would allow much greater flexibility in how the relevant
ERM are determined and evaluated. Once the required emission reduction
measure(s) (ERM) are identified, a lessee or operator would be required
to thoroughly describe the emissions reduction controls it proposes to
apply. The rule would also provide specific provisions governing the
sufficiency and effectiveness of these measures and require a lessee or
operator to monitor its continual effectiveness over the duration of
the plan under reasonably foreseeable circumstances.
The proposed rule would also explicitly articulate requirements for
ERM that are implicit in the current regulations. The proposed rule
would retain the term BACT, though the definition would be rewritten
for clarity. In maintaining a ``performance-based'' approach to the
proposed rule, BOEM is not proposing specific types of BACT, technical
standards, or ERM. BOEM is seeking comment on whether it should
identify various forms of ERM that have been approved in other
situations, whether by BOEM, the USEPA or another regulator, and
whether BOEM should provide additional specificity on how to determine
the most appropriate form of ERM and/or what cost effectiveness would
be considered presumptively reasonable in making such a determination.
All of these issues could be addressed in the context of establishing
criteria for what may constitute ``presumptive BACT'' or presumptive
ERM. BOEM invites comment on whether BOEM should adopt presumptive ERM
and, if so, what processes it should use for adopting and updating the
various forms of presumptive ERM that are suggested or approved.
Section III of USEPA publication entitled ``PSD \59\ and Title V
Permitting Guidance for Greenhouse Gases,'' [Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Research Triangle
Park, NC, EPA-457/
[[Page 19744]]
B-11-001, March 2011] describes the USEPA's process for determining the
appropriate use of BACT.\60\ BOEM has examined the USEPA approach and
intends to take these guidelines into consideration in developing its
own guidelines for ERM, as well as for making a determination as to the
viability and cost-effectiveness of alternative forms of ERM ``taking
into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other
costs.'' Because BOEM intends to publish its own ERM guidelines, it
solicits comments on the USEPA's approach and the underlying
methodology for making the determination as to what forms of ERM may be
most appropriate under various circumstances, as well as comments on
why or under what circumstances the USEPA approach may or may not be
appropriate to the OCS environment and how the ERM requirements could
be best tailored to the unique conditions of the offshore oil and gas
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ PSD stands for Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
\60\ BOEM and the USEPA differ in their requirements for BACT,
primarily due to the difference in their respective regulatory
frameworks. BOEM reviews the BACT alternatives as part of its AQRP,
under both the current regulation and the proposed rule
prospectively, determining in advance of the facility installation
what form of BACT is appropriate. The USEPA also evaluates BACT
prospectively, but the CAA also specifies, among other requirements,
that BACT cannot be less stringent than any applicable standard of
performance under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (42
U.S.C. 7479(3)). Therefore, although BOEM looks to USEPA practices
when evaluating control technologies, due to the unique nature of
the OCS, BOEM also exercises independent judgment on what
constitutes BACT and how it should be applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Waiver and Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) Waiver
There are situations where the increase in a given precursor
pollutant will not contribute to an increase in the ambient air
concentration of the CP for which it is a precursor. That situation is
particularly important in the case of NOX and VOCs, which
are both precursors for O3. The USEPA has recognized that,
under certain circumstances an increase in NOX or VOC may
have no effect on the formation of O3 in the tropospheric
atmosphere and may, in fact, actually cause a decrease in O3
formation. The degree to which a change in the emissions of
NOX or VOCs would contribute to O3 formation in
the atmosphere is referred to as the O3 efficiency. Because
there are situations where an increase in NOX or VOCs would
have no negative or even a positive effect, BOEM is proposing to exempt
a facility from reducing its emissions of these precursor air
pollutants in such situations. Generally, VOC emissions must be greater
than NOX emissions to trigger O3 formation. A
ratio of VOCs to NOX of 4:1 to 16:1 is within the range
where O3 forms.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ This topic is addressed in more detail in the book
``Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry,'' by Daniel J. Jacob,
Princeton University Press, 1999, available at the following
location: https://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap12.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USEPA allows the issuance of a ``NOX Waiver'' for
areas where limiting NOX emissions does nothing to decrease
O3, and in some cases, can actually increase O3.
A ``VOCs Waiver'' could similarly be issued in the reverse case (i.e.,
where there is already too much VOC in the atmosphere to further
contribute to the production of O3). The proposed rule would
adopt a similar approach and limit the mandate to reduce NOX
and VOC emissions, for the purpose of limiting O3 formation,
to those situations where the limits would be effective. Because
atmospheric conditions change over time, the rule would also propose
that, in the event that a facility is waived from controlling
NOX as a precursor to O3, or from controlling
VOCs for controlling O3, BOEM could re-impose the
requirement to set up ERM at some future date, if BOEM determined that
the waiver was not having the intended effect.
F. Consolidation of Emissions From Multiple Facilities
The proposed rule would require a lessee or operator to combine
projected emissions from its multiple facilities under certain
circumstances in order to evaluate whether the close placement of
multiple facilities operating at the same time could jointly cause or
contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. This proposed requirement would
only apply to facilities that are wholly or partially owned, controlled
or operated by the same entity, and is designed to prevent a single
entity from segmenting its operations into multiple plans to avoid
exceeding EETs. Emissions from nearby facilities that are not wholly or
partially owned, controlled or operated by the same entity would be
reviewed in the context of the relevant NEPA analyses.
BOEM's current practice is to require, in specific circumstances,
the consolidated analysis of facilities covered by multiple plans in
accordance with the following provision of Sec. 550.303(j): ``If,
during the review of a new, modified, or revised Exploration Plan or
Development and Production Plan, the Regional Supervisor determines or
an affected State submits information to the Regional Supervisor which
demonstrates, in the judgment of the Regional Supervisor, that
projected emissions from an otherwise exempt facility will, either
individually or in combination with other facilities in the area,
significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area, then the
Regional Supervisor shall require the lessee to submit additional
information to determine whether emission control measures are
necessary.'' The current regulations do not specify under what
circumstances the Regional Supervisor would make such a determination.
This proposed rule recognizes the fact that the emissions from two
or more OCS facilities located in close proximity to one another may
have an adverse impact on the air quality of a State even if the
individual EETs, considered separately, would indicate that that
facility should not cause an adverse impact to the air quality of a
State. This would generally only be true in the situation where two or
more facilities were operated contemporaneously, however. Closely-
grouped facilities that emit pollutants at the same time can affect the
air quality of a State differently than facilities that are spread
across a larger area because the emissions would be more concentrated
and would, correspondingly, cause a greater concentration of air
pollution within a neighboring State. Accordingly, the proposed rule
would require consolidation to prevent a lessee or operator from
``segmenting'' his operations by describing proximate activities in
separate plans or RUE or pipeline ROW applications in order avoid
modeling or applying controls.
The proposed rule would specify that a lessee or operator would be
required to consolidate projected emissions from multiple facilities
if: (1) The emissions from multiple facilities are generated by
proximate activities (i.e., the same well(s); a common oil, gas, or
sulphur reservoir; the same or adjacent lease block(s); or, by
facilities located within one nautical mile of one another); (2) the
lessee or operator wholly or partially owns, controls or operates those
facilities; (3) the construction, installation, drilling, operation, or
decommissioning of any of the lessee or operator's facilities occurs
within the same 12-month period as the construction, installation,
operation, or decommissioning of another facility that meets conditions
1 and 2; and, (4) such a consolidation of emissions from multiple
facilities would generate emissions sufficient to exceed an applicable
emission exemption threshold. If two or more facilities meet all of
these conditions, under the proposed rule, the lessee or operator
[[Page 19745]]
would be required to calculate the sum of the projected emissions from
those facilities (including its respective attributed emissions).
The proposed rule would specify that, if all of the emissions to be
combined relate to the lessee's or operator's wholly-owned facilities,
the lessee or operator would be required to provide the data and
analysis regarding the complex total emissions. However, where the
lessee or operator only partially owns the facilities whose projected
emissions are to be consolidated, the lessee or operator would need to
gather data from the operator of any facility that it does not wholly
own \62\ or which it does not operate and would need to provide to BOEM
all the data and analysis it gathered. BOEM would make a determination
that the lessee or operator has appropriately considered the relevant
data in its analysis of the complex total emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ All BOEM plan approvals and data are publically available
and can be obtained from the BOEM Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the proposed rule, if any lessee or operator is required to
consolidate projected emissions data from multiple facilities, then
anywhere a requirement applies to projected emissions, the lessee or
operator would instead be required to use complex total emissions
(except with respect to the process by which projected emissions are
determined for any given facility, as specified in Sec. 550.205(d)).
G. Ongoing Monitoring and Review of Projected Emissions
BOEM is proposing mandatory record keeping of fuel usage and
activity data for all emissions sources, and we are proposing that non-
exempt facilities subject to emissions reductions controls or
mitigation and facilities that are exceptionally large be required to
monitor their actual emissions. BOEM expects that most of the
monitoring that would be required to be implemented in connection with
the proposed rule would be of the type known as a Predictive Emissions
Monitoring System (PEMS).\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ For an overview of PEMS as well a general background
discussion of other monitoring systems that may also be appropriate
in certain contexts on the OCS, see citation to this Web site:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/mkb/Basic_Information.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEMS is an air quality monitoring that provides continuous data
recording and generates reports according to the applicable regulatory
requirements. PEMS is used to meet 40 CFR part 60, appendix B,
requirements for audit and performance standards on new stationary
sources. It is also applied in many other contexts, including the PSD
program (40 CFR 51.166 through 51.166), and the approval and
promulgation of implementation plans (under 40 CFR 52.21). The USEPA
generally regards PEMS as a secure and reliable means of collecting,
storing, and reporting compliance data.
PEMS can be used on most combustion sources that fire gaseous or
liquid fuels and for most compliance parameters such as NOX,
SO2, CO, CO2, O2, hydrocarbons,
NH3, hydrogen sulfide, and formaldehyde. BOEM welcomes
comments on the potential application of PEMS and/or the best
approaches for selecting and evaluating monitoring systems.
1. Recordkeeping and Measurement Criteria
In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, the proposed
regulations would authorize BOEM to collect additional information on
activities or plans after they have been approved.
Under the current structure, BOEM approves all plans for facilities
in advance of the construction and installation of such facilities on
the OCS. With respect to air quality, the plans contain estimates of
prospective pollutant emissions based on the information that is
available about the most likely emissions for every emissions source
that is proposed to be used. This process necessarily involves
estimates because it utilizes emissions projections for equipment, much
of which is not yet in use at the particular site. The same principle
applies to proposed ERM. The ERM that are put into the plan are also
prospective; the ERM would not be applied to the facilities, equipment
or MSCs until after a plan has been approved. The effectiveness of any
physical controls that have not yet been installed cannot be measured
but only projected. Based on this approach, it would be difficult to
determine what the actual emissions would be for one facility, on a
stand-alone basis, let alone a range of support vessels, vehicles,
aircraft and ancillary equipment. For this reason, namely, in order to
provide greater confidence that the actual emissions levels are not
exceeding the projected levels, BOEM has proposed a more reasonable
approach to establish basic record-keeping and measurement criteria
that could be applied after a plan has been implemented and the
associated facilities are fully operational.
The proposed rule adds a requirement that all operators (1) keep
fuel logs for all the relevant equipment and (2) maintain operating
records (e.g., operating times by level of capacity) for all key
facilities, MSCs, and equipment described in the proposed plan. The
information would need to be maintained on a month-by-month basis and
would need to be provided to BOEM according a schedule determined by
the respective BOEM region.
In addition to requiring all facilities to keep records as
described above, certain facilities would also be required to measure
actual emissions at specified intervals. The proposed rule outlines
four criteria that would be used to determine which facilities would be
subject to this requirement. First, the proposed rule would require the
measurement of air pollutant emissions for plans which are approved
subject to BACT. Such plans would have to demonstrate their actual
emissions were not significantly above the projected emissions. Second,
the proposed rule would require that any facility or emissions source
that is not certified or compliant with USEPA emissions requirements
applicable to engines or equipment intended or certified for use in the
U.S. should also be required to demonstrate that its levels of actual
emissions nevertheless are consistent with the estimates provided in
the plan. Because the equipment is not certified, it is impossible to
know without actual measurement the extent to which emissions are
similar to emissions from certified equipment. Accordingly, BOEM
believes that a demonstration should be made that the actual emissions
of such equipment complies with the emissions levels which BOEM
approved as part of the plan review.
Third, there are some situations where the accuracy and reliability
of estimates of projected emissions, based on emissions factors, are
unreliable or would be subject to a great range of variation. BOEM
proposes to require measurement and reporting of actual emissions for
plans in which the projected emissions cannot be reliably determined or
in situations where the potential error in the emissions factors could
result in a significant underestimate of the projected emissions
(particularly in situations where the underestimate is of such a
magnitude that not addressing the error could have a significant impact
upon a State's air quality). This requirement is intended to allow BOEM
to require monitoring on facilities with high emissions or a high level
of variability in the accuracy of emissions factors or estimates.
Because projected emissions are based on an activity rate and an
emissions factor and because emissions factors are somewhat uncertain,
the difference between the projected
[[Page 19746]]
emissions and actual emissions will increase with higher activity
rates. So, the range of potential projected emissions for larger
facilities is much greater than those for smaller facilities, and the
potential ramifications for errors are larger than for small
facilities. Although this provision would likely be rarely invoked, it
is important that BOEM can verify the actual emissions of large
facilities in situations where it has evidence to believe that the
actual emissions are under-reported.
Finally, in some areas, particularly those where the background
concentrations of a pollutant are high or where the USEPA has recently
changed a standard, and where there is a greater likelihood of a nearby
facility causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS,
monitoring of actual emissions may also be required. The modeling that
was used to demonstrate that there is, presumptively, no such impact
could only be valid if the assumptions regarding the actual background
concentrations of pollutants are accurate. If a model of potential
emissions were to rely on inaccurate background concentration
estimates, its conclusions would also be suspect. For that reason, BOEM
has proposed that these facilities in these areas may also be required
to verify that their emissions correspond to those estimated in the
plan.
H. Structure of the Proposed Rule
In contrast with the current BOEM regulations, where air quality
data provisions are set forth in many sections, including Sec. Sec.
550.215, 550.218, 550.224, 550.225, 550.245, 550.249, 550.257, 550.258,
and 550.284, the proposed rule would establish one set of data
requirements related to air quality in a new Sec. 550.205. In the
current regulations, plan requirements applicable to EPs are dealt with
in one part of the regulations, and plan requirements applicable to
DPPs and DOCDs are dealt with in another part of the regulations.
Because the air quality requirements applicable to EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs
are largely the same, BOEM proposes to place all the plan requirements
relevant to air quality in one consolidated section.
The majority of the proposed rule consists of two major parts: A
new section on data requirements and collection, Sec. 550.205; and an
air quality analysis control and compliance subpart, 30 CFR part 550
subpart C. The content of the two primary air quality data sections
from the current regulations, Sec. 550.218 and 550.249, would be
covered by proposed Sec. 550.205, and those existing sections would be
eliminated.
The proposed rule would replace the current subpart C, which
includes air quality evaluation and analysis and requirements for the
application of emissions reductions measures. This new proposed subpart
would describe the process for post-approval review of plans and for
addressing compliance with future changes to the AAQSB on the part of
the USEPA. BOEM is proposing to change the title of subpart C from
``Pollution Prevention and Control'' to ``Air Quality Analysis,
Control, and Compliance,'' to better reflect the scope and intent of
this subpart.
To make the regulations more precise and to ensure they remain up-
to-date, BOEM is proposing to add a number of new definitions and to
clarify a number of existing definitions. The proposed rule would
consolidate all the definitions and acronyms specific to air quality in
a single section, replace or update various provisions, and clarify the
regulations in those circumstances where the existing text could be
considered unclear or potentially subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation.
1. Potential Monitoring Alternatives
BOEM solicits comments on various alternatives that could be used
to achieve the Bureau's objective of monitoring large emitters. The
following are examples of alternatives that have been identified. In
addition, there may also be other alternatives that should be
considered.
One alternative would be for BOEM to require measurement of actual
emissions on facilities with emissions above a specific threshold to be
determined in the final rule. BOEM would like comments on what an
appropriate threshold might be.
A second alternative would be for BOEM to establish general
criteria that could be used to determine the potential error in the
emissions estimates. Among the criteria being considered are:
Production volume of the facility, size, type, and efficiency of
engines proposed to be used, the age of equipment, the attainment or
designated non-attainment status of the nearby areas within any State,
the length of time the equipment will be operated, the proximity to
other facilities, and/or the historic reliability and variability of
emissions factors for the equipment being used. Under this alternative,
BOEM would make a determination on a case-by-case basis whether any
given facility would be required to report its actual emissions.
A third alternative would be to require actual emissions measures
for any plan that proposes to use equipment with emissions factors that
BOEM has determined to be particularly unreliable. Under this
alternative BOEM would provide information to lessees and operations as
to what specific types of equipment would be subject to this reporting
requirement.
The fourth alternative would be to establish a monitoring and
reporting formula whereby facilities whose projected emissions exceed a
fixed percentage of the emission exemptions thresholds would be
required to monitor and record their actual emissions. For example,
BOEM could require that any facility with projected emissions for any
CP that exceeds 85 percent of the threshold would have to report its
actual emissions for all criteria and major precursor pollutants. This
is due to the potential margin of error in the emissions factors. BOEM
solicits comments on the appropriate percentage of the emissions
exemptions thresholds for this reporting threshold. A fifth alternative
would be any combination of the previous alternatives.
BOEM is also considering whether it should require measurement of
actual emissions from activities in all plans, but limit the kinds of
sources for which measurement is required, based on the uncertainty in
the emissions factors estimates for specific pieces of equipment and
the potential costs of measuring emissions from the associated
equipment. The section-by-section description of proposed Sec. 550.311
sets forth text for this proposal.
In addition to monitoring requirements, BOEM is also proposing
provisions that clarify the way in which BOEM will ensure that
previously approved plans comply with the statutory requirements. As
noted previously, OCSLA requires ``compliance with the national ambient
air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), to
the extent that activities authorized under [OCSLA] significantly
affect the air quality of any State'' (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). BOEM
believes this provision should properly be interpreted to mean that
BOEM has a continuing obligation to ensure the protection of State air
quality and that such obligation extends to ensuring compliance with
the NAAQS, as they are amended to incorporate new and more accurate
scientific information regarding the potential adverse public health
and welfare impacts of air pollution.
[[Page 19747]]
Because the NAAQS are updated periodically to reflect improved
information, BOEM believes that it would be appropriate to re-evaluate
plans or RUE applications approved many years ago for compliance with
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, even though the facility has not been
modified in such a manner as to require the submission of a revised
plan. For this reason, in addition to the new record-keeping and
emissions measurement requirements, BOEM is also proposing that lessees
and operators be subject to a requirement to resubmit their plans on a
periodic basis for re-evaluation. The current practice, and one that
would be continued under the proposed rule, is to project air emissions
for ten years from the date of plan submission. Under the proposed
rule, if a lessee or operator is operating under an approved plan, it
would be required to resubmit a plan for a periodic air quality review
ten years after BOEM's previous approval of the operator's last plan.
This provision would be added in furtherance of the objective of
section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM to ensure compliance with
the NAAQS, and which makes no provision for any exceptions with respect
to previously approved plans. All of the applicable requirements of
this subpart in effect on the date of resubmission would apply on the
same basis to a resubmitted plan as for an initial plan or RUE
application. BOEM requests comments on this provision, particularly
with respect to the potential impact on lessees and operators.
2. Plan Resubmittals
Once the new EETs have been established, BOEM would conduct
periodic reviews of plans that were approved prior to that time. This
is to ensure the lessee or operator's emissions remain compliant with
OCLSA and are in accordance with the provisions of the OCS leases that
require compliance with subsequent revisions to the regulations. Plans
would be resubmitted according to the schedule in proposed Sec.
550.310(c), no more frequently than ten years after they were approved.
Plans that were revised or modified would also be due for resubmittal
ten years after their most recent revision or modification was
approved.
A plan resubmitted pursuant to this proposed provision would be
required to be updated to comply with the requirements of Sec. 550.205
as they exist at the time of the plan resubmission and to include the
most current data on emissions factors. It would be reevaluated against
the EETs and formulas as they exist at the time of the plan
resubmission. The resubmitted plan must be modified to include any data
collected on actual emissions since the last time the plan was
submitted or resubmitted. Under the proposal, if a plan would indicate
an exceedance of any applicable emission exemption threshold, all of
the other applicable requirements of this subpart would apply as for an
initial plan.
For plans that were approved prior to the effective date of this
rule, the lessee or operator would be required to resubmit the air
quality component of its previously approved plan after the date in
which BOEM has determined new EETs and published them in the FR. The
resubmission would be conducted on a phased basis, beginning in 2020.
For further details, see the section-by-section analysis description of
proposed Sec. 550.310(c)(2).
I. Gulf-Wide Offshore Activities Data System (GOADS)
The proposed rule would include a new provision to support BOEM's
effort to inventory emissions on the OCS. Currently, BOEM maintains
this type of emissions inventory information on air pollutants in the
GOM Region. BOEM collects the information through GOADS, as described
most recently in BOEM NTL No. 2014-G01, and previous NTLs. The major
pollutants for which BOEM has collected data in the GOADS include the
following: CO, sulphur oxides (SOx), NOX, PM
(including both PM10, and PM2.5), and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), including exempted compounds (40 CFR 51.100).
BOEM also has collected information on GHGs, including CO2,
methane (CH4), and N2O through the GOADS.
The proposed rule would codify this current GOM practice, provide
for the expansion of this activity to the North Slope Borough of the
State of Alaska, and facilitate the gathering of information in other
OCS areas to the extent necessary to augment the NEI or for another
purpose such as to obtain relevant NEPA data. The proposed provision
would require all lessees, operators, and holders of rights-of-use and
easements (RUEs) to collect, maintain, and submit information on an
ongoing basis regarding air pollutant emissions from all relevant
emissions sources. BOEM would use this information to maintain a
comprehensive OCS emissions inventory of air pollutants.
The information would assist BOEM in meeting its requirements under
OCSLA to ensure the offshore activities it authorizes do not
significantly affect the air quality of a State. Also, the information
submitted under this provision would allow BOEM to determine OCS-wide
emissions for leased areas and use that data to inform NEPA analysis
and coordinate with the USEPA and coastal States to determine ambient
air quality levels and mitigations of adverse impacts. The inventory
will continue to augment BOEM's NEPA review by providing an accurate
inventory to determine ambient concentrations of air pollutants and by
serving as a basis to compute emission trends and to perform necessary
air quality impact assessments. Separately, the data provided by
lessees, operators, and RUE holders are analyzed and supplemented by
BOEM, and the results are provided to the submitters in order to assist
them in complying with their reporting obligations to the USEPA. Under
the proposed rule, BOEM would continue to make this information
available to OCS lessees, lease operators, and RUE holders to assist
with their mandatory reporting of certain GHGs to the USEPA. See 40 CFR
98.233.
OCSLA requires DOI to make a decision on whether to approve an EP
within 30 days and a DPP within 60 days. Consequently, the air quality
review process for the plan is limited in its ability to provide
extensive analysis of complex plans. Although not mentioned explicitly
in OCSLA, BOEM's regulations require a similar review timeframe for
DOCDs. While there is an opportunity for public comment on plans, there
is limited opportunity for public review of air pollution measures in
EPs, DPPs, or DOCDs. BOEM requests comments on how more opportunity for
public input could be provided, while observing legal constraints on
plan review timeframes.
J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The AAIs established by the USEPA represent ambient concentrations
of CPs in attainment areas that have been established to prevent the
significant deterioration of air quality. Increases in ambient
concentrations of CPs that exceed the AAIs present a risk of causing an
attainment area to become a non-attainment area. BOEM proposes to
evaluate increases in ambient air concentrations to ensure compliance
with the AAIs.
The preamble to the current regulation \64\ stated that the maximum
allowable increases (when added to the baseline concentration) ``are
ceilings which cannot be exceeded within an applicable area. To
calculate the acceptable emission level, a lessee must
[[Page 19748]]
combine the ambient air concentrations resulting from the projected
emissions of total suspended particulates and SO2 from the
proposed OCS facility with those emissions of TSP and SO2
from other onshore and offshore sources which contribute to the
consumption of the maximum allowable increases.'' There is, however, no
provision in the current BOEM regulations that explicitly requires
accounting for ``other onshore and offshore sources which contribute to
the consumption of the maximum allowable increases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 45 Federal Register (FR) 15133 (Mar. 7, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the proposed rule would contain an explicit
requirement that facilities for which BACT is implemented consider
other sources of emissions that contribute to consumption of the AAI
when they compare the impacts of their controlled emissions against the
AAIs.
Through this notice, BOEM is soliciting comments on alternative
ways for how it might effectively ensure that the increments are not
``consumed'' in the relevant attainment areas or what steps it might
take to protect the increments in an operational context without
creating an undue burden on lessees or operators. One alternative for
determining the extent to which the increments have been ``consumed''
would be to separately evaluate the cumulative effects of offshore
development in the context of the NEPA analysis conducted for the Five-
Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program or in connection with the lease sales.
Another alternative might be to conduct periodic cumulative impact
assessments of the air quality in relevant attainment areas. Based on
either the NEPA analysis or a separate cumulative impact assessment,
BOEM might maintain a database of relevant AAIs that have previously
been ``consumed.'' These data could be evaluated in the context of the
plan review process, or separately in some other context.
V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Rule
The following are the changes proposed by this rulemaking in part
550:
A. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart A
Section 550.101--Applicability
The heading of Sec. 550.101 would be revised from ``Authority and
Applicability'' to read ``Applicability.'' This change would make the
section title better reflect the current content of the section.
Section 550.102--What does this part do?
The proposed rule would modify paragraph (a) of this section to
make clarifying amendments. In addition, paragraph (b), which contains
the table entitled ``Where To Find Information For Conducting
Operations,'' would be updated as follows with the following additions:
The acronym for application of permit to drill (APD); a reference to
the subsection on Development and Production Plans (DPP) to include
Development Operations Coordination Documents (DOCD); the acronym for
geological and geophysical (G&G) permits; the acronym from oil spill
financial responsibility, (OSFR); a subsection to cover Rights-of-Use
and Easement; acronyms for Rights-of-Use and Easement (RUE) and
pipeline Rights-of-Way (ROW); and a new subsection referencing the Air
Quality proposed regulations in subpart C.
Section 550.105--Revised Definitions
Note on Definitions
The definitions in Sec. 550.105 are intended to apply to all of
part 550. The definitions proposed to be added or revised in proposed
Sec. 550.302 are meant to apply only to Sec. 550.205 of subpart B and
all of subpart C.
In many cases, the definitions as used in part 550 differ from the
meaning of the same term found in other agencies' regulations, in other
contexts, or as used in common usage. Any word, phrase, or term that is
not defined should be understood in the common and ordinary meaning of
that word, phrase, or term. For example, the term nitrogen oxides is
not defined, and it is not used in a manner that would require the term
to be defined uniquely in this proposed rule, because BOEM uses it in
its common and ordinary meaning. In contrast, the phrase ``Best
Available Control Technology,'' and its corresponding acronym BACT, is
used as defined in proposed Sec. 550.302, and it would not have the
same meaning as used in the USEPA regulation.
Definitions related to air quality terms are currently located in
three places in part 550: Sec. Sec. 550.105, 550.200, and 550.302.
Under the proposed rule, definitions of terms that are related solely
to air quality would be located in Sec. 550.302 as part of subpart C.
Other definitions related to both air quality and other parts of the
regulations are left in Sec. 550.105. Subparts A and B contain some
requirements related to air quality, and proposed sections within these
subparts would use terms that would be defined in subpart C. Under this
organizational framework, the proposed rule would move some of the
definitions from one section to another and some terms would also be
updated.
The proposed rule would revise or add definitions of the following
terms:
Air Pollutant
This definition would be revised to include the following: (1) Any
criteria air pollutant for which the USEPA has established numerical
criteria, referred to as the primary or secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), in 40 CFR part 50 and as may be amended
pursuant to section 109 of the CAA; (2) any major precursor air
pollutant identified by the USEPA that contributes to the formation of
a criteria air pollutant through an atmospheric or photochemical
reaction, including, but not limited to, VOCs, NH3, and
those CPs that are also precursors for other CPs (such as
SO2); and (3) any USEPA-defined GHG, as defined at 40 CFR
98.6 and as may be amended pursuant to section 111 of the CAA; and, (4)
any USEPA-defined Hazardous Air Pollutant, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2
and as may be amended pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. The purpose
of this change is to clarify that, while there are many types of air
pollutants, the focus of BOEM's regulatory efforts in this rulemaking
is on the criteria and major precursor pollutants.
Emissions Source
The current regulations define the term ``source'' in section
550.302 as, ``an emission point. Several sources may be included within
a single facility.'' The proposed rule would replace the term
``source'' with ``emissions source'' and locate the newly defined term
in section 550.105. The proposed rule would define ``emissions source''
as ``a device or substance that emits air pollutant(s) in connection
with any authorized activity described in your plan.'' The proposed
definition would also clarify that several emissions sources may exist
on a single facility, aircraft, vessel, or vehicle. The proposed rule
would further make clear anything that: (1) Produces or results in the
release of one or more air pollutant(s), including the flashing,
flaring, or venting of natural gas; (2) involves burning any oil or
well test fluids; or (3) generates fugitive emissions, is an emissions
source.
BOEM is proposing to use the term ``emissions source'' in place of
the current term, ``source,'' since the term is used only in the air
quality context (although referred to throughout part 550 of the
regulations). The proposed definition of ``emissions source'' would be
broader than the existing definition of ``source.'' It would also
clarify that an
[[Page 19749]]
emissions source need not be part of a single facility. Examples of
equipment that would fall under this proposed definition include, but
not be limited to: Boilers/heaters/burners, diesel engines, drilling
rigs, combustion flares, cold vents, glycol dehydrators, natural gas
engines, natural gas turbines, pneumatic pumps, pressure/level
controllers, amine units, tanks, dual fuel turbines, sources involved
in mud degassing, storage tanks, well testing equipment, vessels
(including support vessels, pipeline lay barges, pipeline bury barges,
derrick barges), and any other equipment that could cause fugitive
emissions, venting, losses from flashing, or loading losses.
Federal Land Manager (FLM)
The proposed rule would add this term to mean the Secretary of the
Department with authority over any federal Class I area or sensitive
Class II area (or the Secretary's designee). This definition is adapted
from USEPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, implementing the
CAA provisions on protecting visibility in Class I areas.
Federally-Recognized Indian Tribe
For the purpose of this proposed rule, a Federally-recognized
Indian tribe refers to a Federally-recognized Indian tribe that has
either a Treatment as State (TAS) status recognized by the USEPA or an
approved Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP).
Flaring
Under the current Sec. 550.105, ``flaring'' is defined as ``the
burning of natural gas as it is released into the atmosphere.'' The
proposed rule would revise this definition to read, ``. . . the burning
of natural gas or other hydrocarbons and the release of the associated
emissions into the atmosphere.'' The proposed definition would also
provide that, because lessees and operators can use flaring to reduce
the emissions of hydrocarbon vapors, it could potentially also be
considered as an air pollutant emission reduction measure. The proposed
definition would further make clear flares can be a mechanism used to
control emissions from storage tanks, loading operations, glycol
dehydration units, vent collection systems, and amine units. In
addition, the proposed definition would note flares usually operate
continuously but some are used only for process upsets, which occur
during the exploration or development process when large amounts of
flammable gases are released suddenly and unexpectedly. Finally, the
proposed definition would provide the term ``flaring'' is equivalent to
combustion flaring (i.e., burning of the gases), but it is distinct
from cold venting, which involves the discharge of raw pollutants into
the air without burning.
BOEM is proposing to revise the definition of flaring and
distinguish it from venting as a result of a response to Report 11-34
by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in ``FEDERAL OIL AND GAS
LEASES: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas,
Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases.''
Minerals
The proposed rule would revise the definition of the term
``minerals'' slightly to align with OCSLA section 2(q), 43 U.S.C.
1331(q). There would be no substantive changes to the definition for
minerals, which continues to include oil, gas, sulphur, geopressured-
geothermal and associated resources, and all other minerals that are
authorized to be produced from public lands.
Mobile Support Craft (MSC)
The proposed rule would add this term to the definitions section to
mean ``any offshore supply vessel (OSV) as defined by the USCG in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 2101, and any ship, tanker, tug or tow boat,
pipeline barge, anchor handling vessel, facility installation vessel,
refueling or ice management vessel, oil-spill response vessel, or any
other offshore vessel, remotely operated vehicle (ROV), or any offshore
vehicle used by, or in the support of, the offshore operations
described in a plan.''
Consistent with the approach currently used by BOEM, for the
purpose of evaluating air emissions, an MSC is considered a facility
while temporarily attached to the seabed or connected to another
facility.
Offshore Supply Vessel
The term ``offshore supply vessel'' is defined in the USCG
regulations. The term ``support vessel'' is used but not defined in the
current BOEM regulations.\65\ BOEM's regulations do specify, however,
that the meaning of the term support vessel includes crew boats, supply
boats, anchor handling vessels, tug boats, barges, ice management
vessels, and other vessels, some of which do not qualify as offshore
supply vessels under the USCG definition. Because of the potential
confusion that could be caused by utilizing a term similar to that used
by the USCG, BOEM proposes to revise its existing regulations and
replace the term ``support vessel'' with a new term, ``Mobile support
craft,'' which would include offshore supply vessels as defined by the
USCG, as well as any other vessel or vehicle used to support OCS
exploration, development, production or transportation operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See 30 CFR 550.224 and 550.257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore Vehicle
Current Sec. 550.200 defines ``offshore vehicle'' as ``a vehicle
that is capable of being driven on ice.'' The proposed definition would
clarify that an offshore vehicle is a type of MSC that is capable of
being driven on ice and would add the phrase ``and which provides
support services or personnel to your facility or facilities.''
Right-of-Use and Easement (RUE)
RUE is not currently defined in 30 CFR part 550. The proposed rule
would define RUE to mean seabed use authorizations that BOEM may grant
at an OCS site, other than an OCS lease, pursuant to sections
Sec. Sec. 550.160 through 550.166 of this part.
State
State is not currently defined in the regulations. The proposed
rule would add this definition in order to clarify that the word
``State'' includes its submerged lands and extends to the federal/State
boundary. Any reference to the word ``State'' in this proposed rule,
unless otherwise specified, is intended to include the area offshore a
State up to the federal/State boundary.
Venting
Venting is currently defined in 30 CFR 250.105. The proposed rule
would modify that definition to read ``the release of gas into the
atmosphere, including though a stack without igniting it, whereby
relief flows of natural gas or other hydrocarbons are directed to an
unignited flare or which is otherwise discharged directly to the
atmosphere. This includes gas that is released underwater and bubbles
to the atmosphere.''
Section 550.141--May I use or be required to use alternate
documentation, procedures or equipment?
The proposed rule changes the title from ``May I ever use alternate
procedures or equipment?'' and would add new paragraph (d) to existing
Sec. 550.141, stating, ``In order to protect public health, you may be
required or allowed to temporarily suspend the use of equipment that
emits air pollutants, or to implement operational control(s) on the use
of such equipment by the Regional Supervisor, when an adjacent
[[Page 19750]]
State or locality declares an air quality episode or emergency,
provided that any such suspension or operational control(s) would not
cause an immediate threat to safety or the environment.'' The purpose
of this provision is to ensure any BOEM-authorized equipment, which
might contribute to air emissions episodes or air quality emergencies,
could be turned off, or operated in a limited capacity, for the
duration of such a declared emergency, as long as it can be done
safely.
Local air quality authorities in States adjacent to the OCS
periodically declare air emissions episodes or air quality emergencies
when the concentration of a pollutant is especially high. BSEE and its
predecessors have historically either required or allowed the
suspension of use and testing of standby equipment during emergency
health episodes declared by local authorities adjacent to the Pacific
OCS (NTL 2000 P-01). Such suspensions have, for example, allowed
Pacific OCS operators the ability to curtail stationary source
emissions according to the measures contained in Episode Avoidance
Plans or Emergency Action Plans, which the operators typically prepare
at the request of either the USEPA or the State. The proposed provision
would apply more generally to any equipment authorized under part 550
and that emits air pollutants. It would also apply anywhere on the OCS
where operations could contribute to an air quality emergency.
A new provision has been added to accommodate situations in which
published documents that are referred to in the regulations of this
part have been updated by the original publisher. This provision would
allow the use of the updated publications under certain circumstances,
as specified in the proposed rule text.
Section 550.160--When will BOEM grant me a right-of-use and easement,
and what requirements must I meet?
The proposed rule would redesignate current paragraphs (f), (g),
(h), and (i) as paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) and add a new
paragraph (f). The new paragraph would specify that facilities
constructed or maintained on RUEs must meet the air quality
requirements of Sec. 550.205 of subpart B of this part and that
subpart C would also apply to that RUE application. The rule clarifies
that any reference to a lessee or operator in those sections would
apply equally to any applicant for a right-of-use and easement.
The new provision of this section is intended to apply to those
situations where an organization is proposing to install a new facility
on a RUE and that facility is not included in an exploration or
development plan. In the event that an existing RUE was approved as
part of an exploration or production plan, no new requirements would be
imposed. Similarly, any application for a new RUE that is included
within the scope of a proposed exploration or development plan would
not be affected by the requirements of this paragraph.
BOEM requests comments on the most appropriate method for
establishing and reporting air quality requirements associated with the
removal of any facility installed pursuant to a RUE in the context of
the AQRP.
Section 550.187--What region-wide offshore air emissions data must I
provide?
The proposed rule would add new Sec. 550.187. The new section
would require a lessee, an operator, or a holder of a RUE to collect,
maintain, retain for a period of no less than 10 years, and submit to
the appropriate regional office on an ongoing basis according to a
schedule established by BOEM, information regarding all air pollutant
emissions from all emissions sources associated with its operations.
The primary means by which this requirement would be implemented is by
requiring the lessees and operators to maintain records of the type and
amount of fuel consumed (i.e., fuel logs) by all relevant sources. BOEM
would use this information to maintain a comprehensive OCS emissions
inventory of air pollutants. Currently, BOEM maintains this type of
emissions inventory information on air pollutants in the GOM Region
with the GOADS. The proposed rule would replace the name ``GOADS'' with
the name ``OCS emissions inventory'' because the proposed rule
anticipates the data collection would not be limited to the GOM in the
future.
The current BOEM practice is to require the submission of this
information every three years, and BOEM intends to maintain this
practice for the foreseeable future. The three-year timeframe is
consistent with USEPA regulations regarding the timeframes for
submitting this information. However, given that the USEPA may change
its regulations and given that, in some cases, current USEPA
regulations require more frequent reporting from some sources, the
proposed regulations cross-reference USEPA regulations with respect to
the timing of the information submittal. That way, the rule would
propose to automatically reflect any changes made by the USEPA with
respect to the NEI timing requirements. Accordingly, the proposed rule
would specify that the reporting timeframes will be determined by the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.30(a), as it may be amended.
The proposed rule would require that the submitted information
include air emissions or the activity data necessary to calculate the
emissions of stationary emissions sources, including all facilities,
and all non-stationary sources, including MSC(s) and any other non-
stationary emissions source(s) of air pollutants above the OCS or above
State submerged lands that operate in support of an OCS facility, as
determined by the Regional Supervisor. GOM has historically obtained
the MSC data from independent sources and intends to continue this
process for the foreseeable future. BOEM would likely only change this
practice if the data collection became impractical.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator may request that the
owner of such non-stationary emissions source(s) provide the
information to BOEM or a BOEM-designated agent, but the lessee or
operator would still be responsible for submitting the required
information if the owner does not submit it.
Currently, the GOM Region prepares its emissions inventory by
allowing lessees and operators to directly input data either on fuel
use or on equipment usage and operating time. BOEM then uses this data
to calculate the resulting emissions. This proposed rule would allow
for the continuation of that practice in the GOM Region, and the
expansion of that practice to other OCS regions. Accordingly, the
proposed rule requires the submission of (1) facility and equipment
usage, including hours of operation at each percent of capacity for
each emissions source; and/or (2) fuel logs containing monthly and
annual fuel consumption data showing the quantity, type, and sulphur
content of fuel used for each emissions source. The proposed rule would
require the information provided under this proposed section should be
at a sufficient level of detail so as to facilitate BOEM's compilation
of a comprehensive OCS emissions inventory of air pollutants. BOEM
solicits comments on various alternative methods for ensuring the
accurate reporting of emissions and the appropriate methods that might
be used to ensure the accuracy of the data and information it collects.
Consistent with the approach taken by the USEPA in the development
of the NEI, the proposed rule specifies that lessees and operators
would be required to classify the emissions according to
[[Page 19751]]
the appropriate SCCs as defined by the USEPA in their Source
Classification Codes listing, incorporated by reference in section
198(b)(1)(iv) of this chapter. The purpose of this requirement is to
distinguish the various emissions processes including mobile source
processes. The USEPA also estimates mobile source emissions of
commercial marine vessels and without this distinction there would be a
risk that either BOEM or the USEPA could double count the emissions
that are reported.
Finally, the proposed rule would allow the Regional Director to
waive or allow a delay in compliance with the requirements of this
section on a region-wide basis. The reason for this waiver provision is
to allow regions to avoid duplicating the effort already undertaken by
the USEPA in this regard, particularly in areas where BOEM does not
have air quality jurisdiction and does not, therefore, have any unique
or separate data or IC requirements.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee, an operator, or a holder of a
RUE would be required to submit the required information upon request
or on an ongoing basis as determined by BOEM starting in 2017 or in the
next reporting period if the rule is not effective by 2017 and
continuing according to the timeframe established by the USEPA in its
regulations governing the NEI to the appropriate regional OCS office.
Leases and RUEs acquired after 2017 would be subject to the reporting
requirement at the end of the next reporting period. The proposed rule
would also require submission of this information more frequently if
the lessee, operator, or holder of a RUE has an emissions source that
generates facility emissions that have a PTE \66\ such that it would
qualify as a Type A source according to the USEPA's regulations in
table 1 of appendix A of subpart A.--Emission Thresholds by Pollutant
for Treatment as Point Source of 40 CFR 51.50. These regulations
contain thresholds set by the USEPA to determine which emissions
sources within States require annual reporting to States for the NEI
that the USEPA conducts for other sources every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The USEPA concept of PTE, which it defines at 40 CFR
51.301, is similar to the BOEM concept of facility emissions, in
that both PTE and facility emissions refer to the maximum aggregate
capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its
physical and operational design. This concept includes all emissions
sources attached to a facility but excludes the attributed emissions
of non-stationary sources, such as MSCs. For further details on the
concept and use of PTE in the USEPA context, see ``Potential to
Emit: A Guide for Small Business,'' USEPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-456/B-98-
003, October 1998, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/1998sbapptebroc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the current GOADS in the GOM OCS region, the information
obtained under this proposed provision is necessary to allow BOEM to
determine more accurately air emissions from the activities it has
authorized on the OCS and fulfill its statutory obligations under OCSLA
section 5(a)(8). BOEM also uses that data to inform NEPA reviews and
analysis and coordinate with the USEPA and coastal States. The
inventory would provide data to augment BOEM's NEPA review by providing
an accurate basis from which to compute emission trends and to perform
necessary air quality impact assessments. In addition, the emissions
data derived from information provided under this program would
continue to be made available from BOEM to OCS lessees, operators, and
RUE holders to assist with their mandatory reporting of GHGs to the
USEPA. BOEM would also continue to use the inventory to meet
information requests from the general public.
BOEM currently collects emissions data related to GHGs on a regular
basis in the GOM OCS Region as part of the GOADS program. BOEM
recognizes the impacts of GHG emissions on the air and water overlying
the OCS, primarily associated with ocean acidification, and the States,
in connection with climate change, and the importance and sensitivity
of this issue. For this reason, BOEM is researching the implications of
GHG emissions generated by OCS facilities and MSCs and evaluating
various alternatives for potentially limiting these GHG emissions.
Section 550.198--Documents Incorporated by Reference
The proposed rule would incorporate by reference certain material
into part 550 with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The proposed rule would
provide for the process BOEM may use to amend its regulations to
incorporate different versions of these documents.
For all material incorporated by reference, the applicable document
would be the specific edition or specific edition and supplement or
addendum cited in this section. Lessees and operators would be allowed
to comply with a later edition of a specific document incorporated by
reference, provided they show that complying with the later edition
provides a degree of scientific or technical accuracy, environmental
protection, or performance equal to or better than would be achieved by
compliance with the listed edition; and they obtain the prior written
approval for alternative compliance from the authorized BOEM official.
The proposed rule would explain that the effect of incorporation by
reference of a document into the regulations in this part is that the
incorporated document is a requirement. The proposed rule states that
when a section in this part incorporates all of a document, the lessee
or operator would be responsible for complying with the provisions of
that entire document, except to the extent that the section which
incorporates the document by reference provides otherwise. Further it
states that when a section in this part incorporates part of a
document, the lessee or operator would be responsible for complying
with that part of the document as specified in that section.
BOEM may issue the a future rule(s) amending the documents
incorporated by reference effective without opportunity for public
comment when BOEM determines the revisions to a document represent new
industry standard technology and do not impose undue costs on the
affected parties; and BOEM meets the requirements for making a rule
immediately effective under 5 U.S.C. 553.
The specific documents proposed to be incorporated by reference
include: From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air
and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., MS6101A, Washington, DC
20460.
(1) AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, January 1995,
incorporated by reference at proposed Sec. 550.205(b)(2). AP-42,
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, has been published since
1972 as the primary compilation of the USEPA's emission factor
information. It contains emission factors and process information for
more than 200 air pollution source categories. A source category is a
specific industry sector or group of similar emitting sources. The
emission factors have been developed and compiled from source test
data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates. The Fifth
Edition of AP-42 was published in January 1995. Since then the USEPA
has published supplements and updates to the fifteen chapters available
in Volume I, Stationary Point and Area Sources. The latest emissions
factors are available on their Web site at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
(2) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), User Guide,
Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, EPA-
[[Page 19752]]
420-B-14-055, July 2014, incorporated by reference at proposed Sec.
550.205(b)(2)(iii)(B). The USEPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) is a state-of-the-science emission modeling system that
estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national, county, and
project level for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air
toxics. MOVES2014 is the latest version of MOVES. It incorporates
significant improvements in calculating onroad and nonroad equipment
emissions. MOVES201a does not significantly change the criteria
pollutant emissions results of MOVES2014 and therefore is not
considered a new model for SIP and transportation conformity purposes.
The User Guide is available from the USEPA at: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b12001b.pdf.
(3) User's Guide for the Final NONROAD2005, EPA420-R-05-013,
December 2005. This publication is applicable to the NONROAD2008 model,
incorporated by reference at proposed Sec. 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(B). The
NONROAD model is intended for estimation of air pollution inventories
by professional mobile source modelers, such as state air quality
officials and consultants. The User Guide is available from the USEPA
at: https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2005/420r05013.pdf.
(4) FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval System) Version 5.0: Source
Classification Codes and Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air
Pollutants, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air
and Radiation, EPA 454/R-95-012, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
August 1995, incorporated by reference at Sec. 550.187(c)(4). This
document provides emissions factors and Source Classification Codes
(SCCs) from the USEPA's Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) system,
version 5.0, for use in the estimation, storage and retrieval of point
source air pollutant emissions. Calculation of emission estimates is
discussed as well as the SCC system of associating air pollution
estimates with identifiable emitting process types or unit
applications. This document is available from the USEPA at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/old/efdocs/454r95012.pdf.
From the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of
Environment and Energy (AEE-100), 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591:
(1) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) User's Guide, Version
2B, prepared for the FAA Office of Environment and Energy (AEE-100),
Washington, DC prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation and Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, July 2015 (as
amended) incorporated by reference at Sec. 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). AEDT
is a software system that models aircraft performance in space and time
to estimate fuel consumption, emissions, noise, and air quality
consequences. AEDT is a comprehensive tool that provides information to
FAA stakeholders on each of these specific environmental impacts. AEDT
facilitates environmental review activities, such as those required
under NEPA, by consolidating the modeling of these environmental
impacts in a single tool. AEDT is designed to model individual studies
ranging in scope from a single flight at an airport to scenarios at the
regional, national, and global levels. AEDT leverages geographic
information system (GIS) and relational database technology to achieve
this scalability and offers rich opportunities for exploring and
presenting results. Versions of AEDT are actively used by the U.S.
government for domestic aviation system planning as well as domestic
and international aviation environmental policy analysis. The User
Guide is available from the FAA at: https://aedt.faa.gov/Documents/UserGuide.pdf.
(2) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), Version 2B, AEDT
Standard Input File (ASIF) Reference Guide, prepared for the FAA of
Environment and Energy (AEE-100), Washington, DC prepared by U.S.
Department of Transportation and Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, Cambridge, MA, May 2015 (as amended) incorporated by reference
at Sec. 550.205(b)(2)(iii)(D). This Reference Guide provides a
description of the AEDT Standard Input File (ASIF) file format. It is
intended for analysts and programmers who wish to create or modify an
ASIF to import data into an AEDT study. The Reference Guide is
available from the FAA at: https://aedt.faa.gov/Documents/ASIFReferenceGuide.pdf.
From the International Maritime Organization, 4 Albert Embankment,
London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, or https://www.imo.org, or 44-(0)20-
7735-7611:
(1) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution from Ships, and NOX Technical Code [NTC] 2008,
2009 edition, incorporated by reference at proposed section
550.205(b)(2)(v). This publication presents the revised MARPOL Annex
VI, Regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships, and the
updated NOX Technical Code 2008, including amendments
adopted by resolutions MEPC.202(62), MEPC.203(62) and MEPC.217(63), as
well as Guidelines and other information relevant to improved energy
efficiency for ships and the prevention of air pollution. MARPOL Annex
VI includes requirements for control of emissions from ships (chapter
3) and new regulations on energy efficiency for ships (chapter 4) that
entered into force on 1 January 2013. These make mandatory the Energy
Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships and the Ship Energy
Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. The publication is
available from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) at: https://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/IB664E.pdf.
This, and the other IMO publications, may also be ordered directly
from the IMO at: https://www.imo.org/en/Publications/Documents/Catalogue%20and%20Book%20Code%20Lists/English/Catalogue.pdf.
(2) Revised MARPOL Annex VI, Regulations for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (``2008 Annex VI''), incorporated by reference at
proposed Sec. 550.205(b)(2)(v). This adds various amendments to the
annex of the protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. It is available from a USEPA
Web site at: https://www3.epa.gov/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc58-23-annexes13-14.pdf.
(3) NOX Technical Code 2008, incorporated by reference
at proposed Sec. 550.205(b)(2)(v). This document amends the technical
code on the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel
engines. It is available from the IMO Web site at: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/Air%20pollution/Resolution%20MEPC.177(58)%20NOx%20Technical%20Code%202008.pdf.
B. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart B
The following are the changes proposed by this rulemaking in part
550:
Section 550.200--Definitions
Offshore Vehicle
The proposed rule would move the definition of this term into Sec.
550.105 because it is used more often outside the air quality context
and is referred to throughout the regulations in part 550.
[[Page 19753]]
Section 550.205--What air emissions information must be submitted with
my plan (EP, DPP, DOCD, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or
lease term pipeline)?
In the current regulations, plan requirements related to air
quality are widely dispersed. Air quality requirements are discussed
throughout part 550, particularly in Sec. Sec. 550.207, 550.212,
550.218, 550.224, 550.225, 550.227, 550.242, 550.249, 550.257, 550.258
and 550.261. In order to provide a consistent, comprehensive listing of
all of the data requirements related to air quality, these existing air
quality regulations would be consolidated in one new section, ``Sec.
550.205 What air emissions information must be submitted with my plan
(EP, DPP, DOCD, or an application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease
term pipeline)?'' Most references to air quality requirements in the
other sections of part 550 would be deleted and replaced with a cross-
reference to the single new Sec. 550.205. In addition, the proposed
rule would specify that this section would apply to RUE, pipeline ROW,
and lease term pipeline applications.
Paragraph 550.205(a)--Emissions Sources
The proposed rule would make clear that all lessees or operators
must list and describe every emissions source on or associated with any
facility or facilities and MSC(s) described in a plan. In contrast to
the current regulations, the proposed rule describes in detail what
should be considered an emissions source and what should or should not
be included in that category. The proposed rule adds specificity to the
requirements to ensure plans and RUE, pipeline ROW, and lease term
pipeline applications are prepared consistently and evaluated according
to a standard set of criteria. This would include each emissions source
used during the construction, installation (including well protection
structure installation), and operation of any exploration, testing,
drilling (including well test flaring), development, or production
equipment or facility or facilities (including every platform or
manmade island included in their plan). The proposed rule would specify
lessees or operators must account for the air pollutant emissions
sources associated with all drilling operations, including workovers
and recompletions, sidetracking, and pipeline construction, and
reported emissions sources must include those associated with any oil
or gas produced on a lease that is used during the course of lease
operations (i.e., any beneficial use of produced oil or gas). The
proposed rule would require the list of emissions sources to cover the
duration of the proposed plan's activities.
The proposed rule would require lessees or operators to specify the
equipment type and number, manufacturer, make and model, location,
purpose (i.e., the intended function of the equipment and how it would
be used in connection with the proposed activities covered by the plan)
and physical characteristics of each emissions source. It would also
require reporting of the type and sulphur content of fuel stored and/or
used to power each emissions source and the frequency and duration of
the proposed use.
The proposed rule would contain additional provisions for engines
on facilities and MSCs. For all engines on each facility, including
non-road engines, marine propulsion engines (in the case of MODUs when
attached to the seabed), or marine auxiliary engines (i.e., a nonroad
or highway engine on a vessel that is used to power a crane, a drill,
or an auxiliary power unit, but it is not installed on a marine vessel,
as defined at 40 CFR 1042.901), the lessee or operator would be
required to identify and provide the engine manufacturer, engine type,
fuel type, engine identification, and maximum rated capacity of the
engine, to be expressed in kilowatts (kW), if available. If a lessee or
operator has not yet determined what specific engine would be used, it
would be allowed to provide analogous data for a comparable engine with
the greatest maximum rated capacity for the type of engine that it will
use. For this purpose, BOEM would consider a comparable engine to be
one having similar operational and emissions characteristics and
similar operational and physical limitations. Under the proposal, if
the engine for which the lessee or operator provides documentation has
physical design and operational limitations and these limitations are
the basis of its emissions calculations, then the lessee or operator
must provide documentation of such limitations.
For engines on MSCs, including marine propulsion and marine
auxiliary engines, the proposed rule would require lessees or operators
provide information regarding the engine displacement in liters/
cylinder, and maximum speed in revolutions per minute (rpm). If the
specific rpm information is not available, the proposed rule would
require the lessee or operator to indicate whether the rpm would be
less than 130 rpm, equal to or greater than 130 rpm but less than 2,000
rpm, or equal to or greater than 2,000 rpm, based on best available
information.
For offshore vehicles and MSCs, the proposed section would provide
that when a lessee or operator does not know which specific engines
will be used or the information about them cannot be verified, it may
estimate maximum potential emissions based on the maximum potential
emissions of the type of MSC typically used in the planned operations.
Finally, for any emissions source that does not fall into one of
these categories, the proposed rule would require lessees or operators
to provide all information needed to calculate and verify the
associated emissions, such as volumes vented, volumes flared, size of
tank, number of components, etc.
Paragraph 550.205(b)--Emissions Factors
The purpose of this section is to provide information regarding how
a lessee or operator would determine the level of air emissions for
each emissions source described in its plan. The proposed rule would
provide a considerable amount of detail regarding what emissions
factors should be used. Emissions factors are the values that allow
lessees or operators to calculate how much of a pollutant will be
emitted based on the operation of the source. The proposed rule would
retain the current requirement that, for each emissions source, for
every criteria and major precursor air pollutant, the lessee or
operator must identify the most appropriate emissions factor(s) for
calculating its projected emissions. The proposed rule would specify
the acceptable methods to be used for determining the appropriate
emissions factors. In general, a lessee or operator would be allowed to
use actual emissions amounts derived from emission testing done for a
specific emissions source in lieu of one of the approaches to estimate
emission factors set out below. When determining the emissions factors
through testing, the lessee or operator must consider test points and
fuel. In general, unless the unique circumstances of the proposed plan
make it clearly impractical to do so, test points should be devised
based on actual operations as opposed to using the test points and
engine loads contained in one of the various marine or non-road duty
cycles. It cannot be assumed that emissions per hour or emissions per
kW or per hp hour from large main engines on drill ships and platforms
are highest during full load or
[[Page 19754]]
near-full load operation. Large main engines on drill ships and
platforms typically operate at less than half full power, and emissions
factors for some pollutants during this operation may be significantly
higher than at full load or near-full load. Specifically, actual
maximum emissions per hour or emissions per kW or horse-power hour may
not be properly estimated by assuming 90% load, since emissions factors
for different pollutants can have different variation with load. Under
the proposed rule, the emissions factor and emission per hour or
emissions per kW or per horse-power hour for the operation that is
actually expected should be determined, and the emissions under 90%
load should be used only if emissions at this load are the highest and
thus conservative.
The proposed rule would further specify that the lessee or operator
must ensure that the fuel used in the testing to generate the emission
factors reflect the type of fuel that will be used by the engine in
actual operation. The sulphur content is especially important with
respect to measuring PM and SOX emissions.
The proposed rule would specify that in the event that the lessee
or operator were to elect not to measure the actual emissions for any
given emissions source, it would need to select an emissions factor
from the list of sources provided in the proposed rule. These are
described below, in the order of preference.
First, the proposed rule would provide that the lessee or operator
use the emissions factor(s) that are vendor-guaranteed or provided by
the manufacturer of the specific emissions source, if available. If the
lessee or operator were to use vendor-guaranteed or manufacturer data,
it would need to demonstrate (1) that the fuel used by the manufacturer
to generate the emission factors reflects the type of fuel that will be
used by the engine in actual operation and (2) that the actual engine
has not been modified outside the configuration used to generate the
emission factors; thus, the emission factors used in the plan must
represent the actual pattern of use for that equipment in operations.
The proposed rule would specify that where a manufacturer has not
provided an emissions factor for the emissions source the lessee or
operator proposes to use, the lessee or operator may use a
manufacturer's emissions factor for a similar source only if the lessee
or operator could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional
Supervisor that the emissions generated by the lessee or operator's
emissions source are the same as or lower than that for which a
manufacturer's emissions factor is available.
Second, the proposed rule would state that emissions factors
generated from source tests required by USEPA Outer Continental Shelf
permits would be allowed as BOEM emission estimates for a specific rig
since these emissions factors are based on prior emissions tests. These
emissions tests are required across the range of actual load operations
for engines on Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU). The proposed rule
would further specify that if emissions factors were not generated
through testing for a particular engine, emissions factors generated
from a recent and similar permitted engine may be used.\67\ Data from a
rig from the same manufacturer, having an engine of the same model and
year would generally be allowed, unless the Regional Supervisor has a
reason to believe that such data may not be accurate or reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ I.e., the same make, model and year engine would be
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, if emission factors, based on models or an emission model
guidance document developed by the USEPA or FAA is available and
appropriate to the emissions source, the lessee or operator may use the
relevant emission factors from that model or guidance document. The
proposed rule would provide a list of emission models that may be used
to obtain emission factors for certain types of emissions sources. In
particular, two referenced documents from the USEPA provide in-use
emission factors for a variety of engines including ``Category 3'' main
propulsion engines on vessels and engines used in equipment on vessels,
covering both engines certified to USEPA emission standards and engines
certified by other nations and international organizations.
Fourth, the lessee or operator would use emission factors from
published studies conducted by a reputable source, such as the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, California Air Resources Board,
a university, or research agency, to the extent they may yield reliable
emission factors or formula to calculate emissions factors for certain
types of engines and equipment other than for the large main engines on
drilling ships and drill platforms and for locomotive-sized engines
powering cranes. These studies may be helpful to generate emission
factors for marine coating operations, flares, emissions from drilling
muds, etc. If an emission study is used, the study must cover
representative engines, fuels, and duty cycles.
Fifth, in certain situations, the MARPOL Annex VI engine emission
standards may be used as proxies for emission factors. This option
would be available only for an engine installed on a non-U.S. flagged
vessel that is not part of an engine family that is covered by a USEPA
certificate of conformity but that is MARPOL certified. In this case,
the lessee or operator must indicate the vessel flag as well as engine
size used to determine the standards to use as the proxy emission
factor for that engine. If this approach is used, the plan would also
be required to account for any differences in fuel sulphur limits.\68\
If all fuel used by the subject drilling ships and offshore platforms
is purchased in the U.S., the CAA fuel requirements would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Under Annex VI, the NOX engine type
certification is separate and not related to the fuel sulphur
limits. The technical code for certifying Annex VI Regulation 13
engines requires ``suitable'' testing fuel be used and that the
characteristics of the testing fuel be noted for the certification.
Vessels operating in North American/Caribbean Emissions Control Area
(ECA) are all required to use 0.1% sulfur fuel, regardless of the
flag of the vessel and regardless of where the fuel was purchased.
Vessels may also achieve compliance within the ECA by receiving an
Annex VI Regulation 3 trial permit or Regulation 4 equivalency
determination, in lieu of using the 0.1% sulphur fuel. If the MSC
operations associated with the facility are all within the ECA and
the Annex VI Reg13 engine was tested using 0.1% sulfur fuel, there
would be no differences in fuel sulphur limits to account for.
However, it is recognized that the ECA is smaller than the OCS area
impacted by this regulation so vessels may not be using 0.1% sulfur
fuel, and that the Annex Regulation 13 engine may have been
certified using a fuel different from the fuel used during
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM seeks comment on: (1) Whether this fifth alternative would be
appropriate or is needed, particularly given that the emission factors
used in USEPA's marine and nonroad emission models apply regardless of
flag (i.e., emissions from similar engines in similar use regardless of
whether the engine is on a US or a foreign-flag vessel); (2) how such
an approach would be applied to engines that use Heavy Fuel Oil, since
the NOX Technical Code (NTC) allows engines to be certified
on diesel fuel (which can have relatively high sulfur content); and,
(3) what approach could be taken to estimate pollutants other than
NOX (since there are no MARPOL standards for the majority of
criteria and precursor pollutants) and, if using one of the other
approaches is preferred, whether the NOX emission factors
from those other approaches should be used and this fifth alternative
be not adopted.
Sixth, under the proposed rule, if none of the methods provided in
the first five options above are applicable, for a natural gas-powered
engine of any
[[Page 19755]]
rated capacity, or for a non-road diesel-powered engine with a maximum
rated capacity less than 900 kW, or for a non-engine emissions source,
the lessee or operator could use the appropriate emissions factor from
the USEPA AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Emissions sources, or any
update thereto, as incorporated by reference at Sec. 550.198(b)(1)(i).
Seventh, if none of the above options are applicable,\69\ the
lessee or operator would be required to conduct stack testing on the
emissions source to determine the appropriate emissions factor. The
data from stack testing could be used only for the engine for which the
stack testing was conducted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ This option is not required as the first alternative
because stack testing is generally very expensive and limits the
flexibility of operators in preparing their plan(s) (because stack
testing is engine-specific).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a lessee or operator elects to apply an emissions factor based
on a standard, as allowed under the 5th and 6th alternatives, it must
take appropriate account of the deterioration in performance based on
the age of the equipment and the potential variation of the actual
emissions from the standard to account for the maximum potential
emissions that the emissions source may emit. Given that equipment
tends to operate less efficiently over time, the lessee or operator
should make an appropriate upward adjustment in the emissions estimates
for older equipment (e.g., to reflect emission deterioration over
time). BOEM solicits comments and suggestions on how this might most
appropriately be conducted and the extent to which there are
appropriate, documented, methodologies for making these kinds of
adjustments.
The proposed rule would also require that any time a lessee or
operator revises a plan, including as a part of its resubmissions every
ten years, it must consider the age of the equipment, adjust for any
change in operating efficiency, and provide the associated emissions
factors in its revised or resubmitted plan, as applicable. Also, under
the proposed rule the Regional Supervisor may require a lessee or
operator to use a different emissions factor for any emissions source
or air pollutant if the Regional Supervisor has reason to believe the
selected emissions factor is inaccurate to a material degree or new
information on emissions factors becomes available. The proposed rule
would also provide the Regional Supervisor may require stack testing or
another form of validation to verify the accuracy of an emissions
factor.
Various U.S. manufacturers of non-road and marine diesel engines
produce both domestic and export-only versions of each piece of
equipment. The domestic version is manufactured to comply with USEPA
emissions requirements whereas the export-only version may or may not
comply with USEPA requirements. Domestic versions may, in some cases,
be exported. Manufacturers in other countries also produce, or may in
the future produce, both engines that are certified by the USEPA as
legal for sale in the U.S. and engines that are not. The USEPA provides
emissions factors for such equipment that is certified to be legal for
use in the U.S., and these emission factors apply to an originally-
configured U.S.-certified engine regardless of its marketing path. It
does not test or evaluate the emissions of U.S.-manufactured equipment
intended only for export or foreign-manufactured equipment not intended
for sale in the U.S. For this reason, under the proposed rule, if a
lessee or operator proposes to utilize an engine or equipment that is
manufactured in the U.S. or any other country, but which is not
certified by the USEPA for use in the U.S., the lessee or operator may
not use a USEPA emissions factor intended to apply to the domestic
version of such engine or equipment of the same vintage. Under the
proposed rule, if a lessee or operator proposes to utilize an engine or
equipment on a U.S.-flagged vessel that is not USEPA-certified for use
in the U.S., then that lessee or operator must test the actual
emissions of the proposed engine or equipment and submit data on its
actual emissions. If the lessee or operator claims to use a USEPA
certified engine or equipment, it must submit documentation of that
engine or equipment's certification.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator's projected
emissions include emissions for a U.S. flagged vessel, then it must
submit documentation of the USEPA-issued Certificate of Conformity for
each mobile source engine.\70\ For MARPOL-compliant foreign-flag
equipment for which no other emissions factor data are available,
MARPOL emissions standards may be used to determine proxy emission
factors where such emissions standards are available (see 5th option,
above).\71\ However, if this source is used, the plan must account for
any differences in the fuel sulphur limits applicable to the fuel being
used for operations and the sulphur limit of the fuel used for emission
testing. All fuel used by the subject drilling ships and offshore
platforms would be required to either be purchased in the U.S. or
comply with applicable CAA fuel emissions requirements, unless the
lessee or operator could demonstrate that it has properly accounted for
any differences in emissions that may result from the use of non-U.S.
fuel. If a lessee or operator proposes to use any engine or equipment
that is neither USEPA-certified nor MARPOL-compliant, then it may not
use an emissions factor intended to apply to a MARPOL compliant engine
or equipment. In that case, the lessee or operator would be generally
required to provide actual emissions test results for the engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The USEPA requires that all U.S.-flagged vessels must have
engines certified by the USEPA.
\71\ MARPOL emission standards and certification requirements
for Category 3 propulsion engines are similar to those of the USEPA,
and USEPA emission factors appropriately matched to the vintage and
type of engine may be used for such engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 550.205(c)--Facility Emissions
This paragraph is intended to provide a consistent set of criteria
to determine what should be included in each plan with respect to
facilities and their corresponding emissions.
This paragraph would require facility emissions to be reported for
each criteria and major precursor air pollutant in three separate ways.
First, paragraph (c)(1) would require the lessee or operator to
calculate and report the projected annual emissions for each facility
in its plan, itemized by all of the emissions of each emissions source
on or physically connected to each facility. Such calculations should
be done for each year that the plan is proposed to engage in operating
activities, for a period of ten years. Emissions reported under this
subparagraph would include those associated with any emissions source
involved in the construction, installation, operation, or
decommissioning of the facility, based on the maximum rated capacity of
each emission source associated with the facility and using the methods
and procedures specified under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Second, paragraph (c)(2), would require the lessee or operator to
calculate and report the maximum 12-month rolling sum \72\ of emissions
from each emissions source on or connected to each facility and the
maximum 12-month rolling sum of the emissions from each facility. The
purpose of this latter requirement is to
[[Page 19756]]
identify the peak emissions that would be expected to occur during any
12-month period within the duration of the plan. Third, in paragraph
(c)(3), the proposed rule would require lessees or operators calculate
the maximum projected peak hourly emissions from each emissions source
on or physically connected to each facility and the maximum projected
peak hourly emissions from each facility that would result from the
construction, installation, operation, or decommissioning of the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ The plan must include the emissions for the 12 consecutive
month period in which the emissions are projected to be the
greatest, regardless of the calendar year in which those months
occur. All references to 12-month rolling sum are intended to refer
to 12 consecutive month intervals without any overlap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would specify the lessee or operator must
calculate its projected emissions from each emission source, based on
the maximum rated capacity of each engine it proposes to use, or the
capacity that generates the highest rate of emissions. Emissions
information would be required for emissions sources individually and
for the entire facility or facilities. BOEM expects it would implement
this proposed requirement by continuing its current practice whereby
lessees and operators provide information on their emissions in a table
that they submit with their plan.
BOEM intends this requirement to be broad, and accordingly, the
proposed rule also defines ``emissions sources'' and ``facilities''
broadly. (See discussion of definitions of those terms at Sec. Sec.
550.105 and 550.302). The requirement to report facility emissions
exists in the current regulations, but the proposed rule would refine
the requirement. The result of these broad definitions in the context
of this proposed section would be that all sources of emissions
connected to a facility should be accounted for in a plan. Examples of
emissions sources on platforms that a lessee or operator would be
required to report under this proposed section include, but are not
limited to, boilers/heaters/burners, diesel engines, drilling rigs
attached to the seabed, combustion flares, cold vents, fugitives,
glycol dehydrators, losses from flashing, natural gas engines, natural
gas turbines, pneumatic pumps, pressure/level controllers, amine units,
loading losses, tanks, dual fuel turbines, and sources involved in mud
degassing or storage tanks. Examples of sources that would also be
accounted for under this proposed section that normally are not on a
platform include, but are not limited to, drilling rigs, and any other
equipment that is temporarily or permanently connected to any planned
facility. This would include any support vessel (crew, supply, tugs),
pipeline lay barges, pipeline bury barges, derrick barges (installation
of structure), and well testing equipment, while connected or moored to
the facility.
The USEPA concept of PTE, which it defines at 40 CFR 51.301, is
similar to the BOEM concept of facility emissions, in that both PTE and
facility emissions refer to the maximum aggregate capacity of a
stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and
operational design. In both cases, this concept includes all emissions
sources attached to a facility but excludes the attributed emissions of
unattached non-stationary sources.\73\ For further details on the
concept and use of PTE in the USEPA context, see ``Potential to Emit: A
Guide for Small Business,'' USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-456/B-98-003, October 1998,
available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/1998sbapptebroc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ However, as defined by BOEM, a non-stationary source, such
as a vessel, vehicle or aircraft could also have a potential to
emit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOEM is considering whether to use the term PTE instead of facility
emissions, and BOEM invites comment on this question.
Paragraph 550.205(d)--Attributed Emissions (i.e., Non-Facility
Emissions)
Proposed Sec. 550.205(d) specifies how emissions from MSCs
described in a plan would be attributed to a facility described in that
plan. The proposed section provides the procedures by which operators
would account for emissions from these MSCs while they are supporting
the operations in the plan. Under the proposed rule, lessees and
operators would be required to calculate both the total emissions that
every MSC in its plan generates and then to calculate the portion of
that total that should be attributed to their facility.
First, for each facility described in a plan, a lessee or operator
would be required to identify the MSCs that would be used to support
that facility. The lessee or operator, to the extent practicable, would
also be required to identify the other facilities each MSC would
support.
Second, for each such MSC, the lessee or operator would calculate
its emissions per trip, from when the MSC leaves its home port until it
returns (i.e., support emissions per trip), irrespective of what other
facilities the MSC may also service. The lessee or operator would be
required to base such calculations on the maximum rated capacity or the
capacity that generates the highest rate of emissions for each
emissions source on the MSC. Having done this, the lessee or operator
would multiply this result by the number of trips the MSC would take in
support of the facility during the 12 consecutive-month rolling maximum
period over which the corresponding facility emissions would be
measured. In addition, each lessee or operator would also have to
determine and report the maximum projected peak hourly emission for
each MSC. If an MSC does not support any other facilities, the proposed
rule would require the lessee or operator to attribute all of these
emissions to the facility the MSC supports. However, if an MSC supports
multiple facilities, the proposed rule would then provide three
alternative methods for calculating the portion of total MSC emissions
that lessees and operators would be required to attribute to their
facility. First, a lessee or operator could, to the extent practicable,
calculate and report the difference between the total support emissions
and the emissions it can document should be reasonably allocated to
another facility. This option would be available to lessees or
operators who know detailed information about the routes of the MSCs in
their plans and what other facilities each MSC would support. Second,
if the first method is impracticable but the lessee or operator knows
the number of facilities supported by any given MSC (but not their
locations or the routes of the MSC), the operator could divide the
total support emissions by the lowest number of the facilities the
operator reasonably determines the MSC will serve on a typical trip,
including the facilities described in its plan. If neither of these two
methods is practicable, the rule would allow operators to calculate and
report the greater of either (1) the emissions that would be generated
by the MSC traveling round trip between its port or home base and the
facility, or (2) the emissions from the MSC operating within 25 statute
miles of the facility. Finally, the proposed rule would allow lessees
or operators the ability to elect to attribute the total support
emissions of any vessel or vehicle to their facility if they decide not
to allocate the emissions among facilities.
The proposed rule includes the options described above because a
lessee or operator may not know, at the time of plan submittal, which
facilities an MSC will support. The intent is to provide these
alternatives for allocating support vessel emissions in situations
where it would otherwise be impracticable to do so. The options in the
proposed rule are intended to account for the variety of practices that
[[Page 19757]]
could occur on the OCS and the ability to know the particular operation
of an MSC at the time of plan submittal.
With respect to proposed Sec. 550.205(d)(7), although that
requirement is only one of the assumptions that are to be used in
calculating the MSC emissions, the provision is intended to clarify it
would not be appropriate to calculate the emissions only for one
source, in the event an MSC had multiple sources of relevant emissions.
The rule is intended to clarify the maximum rated capacity requirement
applies to each source on every MSC, in any situation where an MSC has
multiple emissions sources.
Further, the proposed rule would provide that if BOEM questions the
lessee or operator's determination of the attributed emissions, the
Regional Supervisor may require additional documentation to support
their findings and may direct them to make changes, as appropriate.
Finally, just as BOEM is considering using the term PTE in place of
the term facility emissions, BOEM is also considering using USEPA's
term secondary emissions (as defined in 40 CFR 51.301) in place of
attributed emissions. BOEM welcomes comment on this question.
Paragraph 550.205(e)--Projected Emissions (i.e., Combined Facility and
Attributed Emissions)
This paragraph is intended to provide a detailed, consistent set of
criteria to determine what should be included in each plan with respect
to projected emissions of facilities and MSCs.
Proposed Sec. 550.205(e) would require a lessee or operator to
calculate the maximum 12 month rolling sum of projected emissions of
each criteria and major precursor air pollutant for each of its
facilities. This would represent the sum of the facility emissions for
the 12-month rolling maximum period reported under (c)(2) of this
section and attributed emissions reported under (d)(6) of this section
for the same period. Pursuant to the criteria set forth in proposed
Sec. 550.303(d), the lessee or operator would also be required to
determine whether the projected air emissions from each facility would
need to be consolidated with those of other facilities.
If any of a lessee's or operator's proposed facilities would be
located in such a manner (as defined in Sec. 505.303) as to
potentially constitute proximate activities with a pre-existing
facility, or a facility that was previously approved but not yet
constructed, the proposed rule would require any such facility to be
identified in the plan. If the lessee or operator would be required to
consolidate emissions from multiple facilities, then it would need to
provide projected emissions information for each facility as well as
the complex total emissions for all of consolidated activities.
In addition, the proposed rule would also require every lessee or
operator to calculate and report the projected annual emissions for its
facilities for each year in which it intends to operate, as well as the
maximum peak hourly emissions for each facility and the corresponding
attributed emissions.
Paragraph 550.205(f)--Emission Reduction Measures (ERM)
The purpose of this paragraph is to describe in general terms the
information that must be included in a plan regarding the types and
purpose of various emission reduction measures that are proposed in a
plan and what reductions the lessee or operator expects to achieve from
these proposed measures.
Under the proposed rule, a lessee or operator may elect to propose
ERM in its plan to ensure that its projected emissions are under the
EETs described in proposed Sec. 550.303. Whether an operator elects to
propose ERM or whether the proposed rule would require it, this section
would require that such proposed measures be reported in the plan. This
element of the proposed rule is consistent with current GOM Region
practice. It would specify that the lessee or operator must provide a
description of all proposed ERM, including the affected emissions
source(s); the emissions reduction control technologies, procedures,
and/or operational limits; the emission control efficiencies; the
projected quantity of reductions to be achieved; and, any monitoring or
monitoring system the submitter proposes to use to measure or evaluate
the associated emissions. The rule would further clarify the lessee or
operator must be able to demonstrate that all of the ERM described in
the plan meet the applicable substantive requirements in proposed Sec.
550.309.
BOEM expects lessees or operators are likely to consider
operational controls to reduce emissions for many sources, for example
limiting the hours of operation, reducing engine power, etc., in order
to bring their projected emissions within the EETs. This proposed
section would require the application of such operational controls to
be documented in the plan, which would require review by the Regional
Supervisor, and approval only when the ERMs are demonstrated to
maintain and not compromise the safety of operations. Other sections of
the proposed rule, such as proposed Sec. Sec. 550.309 and 550.311,
would subject each proposed emission reduction measure to monitoring,
reporting, and verification.
Geological sequestration of pollutants under the seabed is another
potential emission reduction measure that has not yet been considered.
BOEM would welcome feedback on the extent to which stakeholders
consider this to be a potentially viable and effective control
mechanism, either in conjunction with or as an alternative to other
measures.
Paragraph 550.205(g)--Modeling Information
This paragraph is intended to provide a detailed, consistent set of
information and criteria to determine what should be included in each
plan submitted to BOEM with respect to the proposed modeling of air
emissions associated with a plan's projected operations.
If a lessee or operator conducts modeling in support of its plan,
then the proposed rule would require the lessee or operator to provide:
A table(s) of the appropriate and relevant maximum projected air
pollutant concentrations over any area(s) of any State(s) and Class I
area(s) including the most affected attainment area(s) and the most
affected non-attainment area(s), as applicable; the maximum projected
concentrations resulting from the projected emissions for each of the
facilities, by criteria air pollutant and major precursor air
pollutant, for the corresponding averaging time(s) (e.g., 1-hour, 3-
hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, annual, etc.) specified in the tables in 40 CFR
51.165(b)(2), 40 CFR 52.21(c), and 40 CFR part 50; a list of the
inputs, assumptions and default values used for modeling, including the
source and justification for meteorological information; the name and
version of the model(s) used; a modeling report, including the modeling
results (unless already provided and the projected emissions are the
same or lower); and, for each MSC, the distance from the facility or
facilities in the plan to the relevant home port or base. All of this
information is necessary so BOEM can properly evaluate and validate the
results of the modeling.
Under the proposed rule, if a lessee or operator would be required
to model projected emissions, and the lessee or operator has previously
submitted a modeling report and/or modeling results to the Regional
Supervisor, then the lessee or operator may provide a reference to such
report and/or results, rather than resubmit a modeling report and/or
modeling results, provided the projected emissions are the same or
[[Page 19758]]
lower than in the previously submitted report(s) or results.
Paragraph 550.205(h)--Requirements Applicable to Specific Air
Pollutants
550.205(h)(1)--Nitrogen and Sulphur Oxides (NOX and
SOX)
Because the intent of the proposed rule is to evaluate the maximum
potential effect that could occur with respect to the implementation of
any given plan, the proposed rule would clarify a lessee or operator
must utilize data for NOX and SOX whenever
possible or reasonable estimates thereof. Projected emissions of
NOX would need to include emissions of nitrogen oxide and
NO2, as well as any other oxides of nitrogen for which data
are available. Similarly, any projected emissions of SOX
would need to be reported, including but not limited to the emissions
of SO2. Only in the event that data on the broader emissions
of NOX or SOX are not available, would the
proposed rule specify a lessee or operator could utilize data on the
sum of nitrogen oxide and NO2 emissions as a substitute for
NOX and data on SO2 emissions as a substitute for
SOX.
550.205(h)(2)--PM10 and PM2.5
Because the USEPA has replaced ``total suspended particulates''
with two separate kinds of pollutants, a lessee or operator would be
required to provide data and information on both PM10 and
PM2.5, whenever such information is available for any given
emissions source, and to evaluate each separately under every
applicable standard in all cases where it is possible to do so. This
should not present an issue, since the split in the PM classification
has existed for quite a few years. Only in the rare event that
available data for PM are not separately reported for both
PM10 and PM2.5 for any given emissions source,
would the proposed rule require lessees and operators to perform their
analysis of PM2.5 emissions utilizing PM10 data
for the emissions threshold analysis and for modeling purposes.
However, the proposed rule specifies a lessee or operator must
separately identify all PM2.5 and PM10 emissions
in its plan and a plan that fails to contain separate emission
exemption threshold and modeling data for each pollutant will not be
considered complete. Because there are separate SILs, AAIs and NAAQS
for PM10 and PM2.5, and also because the
PM2.5 evaluations require an evaluation of the ambient
impacts of both direct and secondary PM2.5, a plan may not
be submitted that includes and addresses only PM10
emissions. If the separate data are not available, the lessee or
operator must utilize the data for PM10 for its analysis of
PM2.5, (assuming the PM2.5 is as high as the
PM10).
Finally, the proposed rule clarifies that all reporting of
PM2.5 must include the sum of filterable and condensable PM,
if such information is available, in order to be complete.
550.205(h)(3)--Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
To properly estimate the potential emissions of SOX
under this proposed paragraph, all emissions of SOX that
result from the flaring of H2S would need to be included in
the projected emissions of SOX reported and analyzed as part
of each plan. Under the proposed rule, if projected emissions of
H2S will potentially exceed the USEPA's Significant
Emissions Rate for H2S, as defined in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i), the lessee or operator must report the nature and
extent of these emissions and their likely impact as part of its plan.
The proposed rule would specify that reporting of H2S
would be required to follow the USEPA's Oil and Natural Gas Sector New
Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews. These are described more specifically
in ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,'' 77
FR 49489, RIN 2060-AP76, October 2012.
Aside from the proposed Sec. 550.205, BOEM is also proposing to
modify Sec. Sec. 550.215 and 550.245 regarding H2S such
that if a lessee or operator proposes to flare gasses containing a
potentially significant amount of H2S, it must separately
identify this activity in the plan and separately identify the
resulting emissions of SOX.
550.205(h)(4)--Methane (CH4)
This rule implements BOEM's statutory authority under OCSLA section
5(a)(8) to regulate OCS air pollutant emissions from oil and gas
operations in order to prevent adverse, localized air quality effects
to adjacent States; since there are no significant localized air
quality effects on the States associated with the emissions of methane
from OCS facilities, BOEM is not proposing to regulate methane
emissions in this context.
Under the proposed rule, the analysis or reporting of methane
emissions would not be required unless specifically directed to the
contrary. Consistent with current BOEM policy, any reference in these
proposed regulations to major precursor air pollutants would exclude
methane, because the USEPA does not include methane in the definition
of VOCs and does not require a methane analysis of ground level ozone
formation for offshore facilities; both because methane has not
historically been considered a significant precursor air pollutant with
respect to distances and transport times relevant to BOEM regulation of
offshore activities; and because the USEPA has not elected to formally
classify methane as a precursor pollutant for O3. BOEM
solicits comments on this proposed exclusion and on how BOEM should
address the effects of methane emissions on secondary O3
formation and under what circumstances it would be appropriate, in the
event it decides to do so.
550.205(h)(5)--Ozone (O3)
Over the past 35 years, extensive scientific evidence has
increasingly demonstrated the importance of controlling O3,
and the significant potential harm this pollutant can cause.
Additionally, as a result of improvements to single source
photochemical modeling capabilities, it is now possible to evaluate
much more accurately how the emissions of O3 precursors may
contribute to O3 formation and how this may affect the air
quality of the States. Reflecting the changes in the NAAQS and the
improvement in modeling capabilities that have occurred over the past
35 years, BOEM is now proposing to evaluate O3 directly for
compliance with the NAAQS.
The proposed rule would not immediately require analysis or
reporting of O3. Rather, once the new emissions exemption
studies have been completed, new EETs would likely be established to
address O3 impacts to the State. Proposed paragraph
550.304(b) details the circumstances when O3 modeling would
be required. Comments may be submitted as to how this would best be
accomplished and at what point in time the implementation of these new
standards would be most appropriate.
550.205(h)(6)--Lead (Pb) and Ammonia (NH3)
Ammonia (NH3) has been identified as a potentially
significant precursor air pollutant for PM2.5. The proposed
rule would require reporting of NH3 emissions, for any given
source, if that information is available. Such a determination would be
based on whether there are published manufacturer specifications of
emissions factors for NH3, whether such information could be
obtained from the USEPA, or whether it could be obtained or could be
derived from another
[[Page 19759]]
recognized source, such as utilizing a mass balance approach.
Lead (Pb) is a CP for which NAAQS have been established. For this
reason, consistent with the OCSLA mandate, like NH3,
reporting of Pb emissions would be required to the extent relevant
information is available or could be derived from another recognized
source, such as utilizing a mass balance approach.
Because of BOEM's obligation under OCSLA to ensure compliance with
the NAAQS, BOEM is proposing that all emissions of NAAQS pollutants
should normally be reported. If the lessee or operator intends to use a
source known to emit a potentially significant amount of Pb or
NH3, then it must obtain a reasonable estimate of the
associated Pb or NH3 emissions. For that reason, the
proposed rule specifies that zero emissions for Pb and NH3
may be assumed only in the situation where relevant data are not
available and neither the lessee or operator nor BOEM have a reason to
anticipate that the emissions could be potentially significant.
Paragraph 550.205(i)--Distance Calculations
To determine the appropriate EET for each facility in a plan, the
proposed rule would retain the requirement that the lessee or operator
provide the distance in statute miles, from the shoreline, until such
time as the new thresholds are established in 2020. Because the
proposed rule intends to retain the current exemption methodology for a
period of time and then replace that methodology,\74\ two distance
measures would be proposed in this rule. As is currently required by
BOEM regulations, the first would be the distance from shore, as
measured in a straight line from the site of each facility to the
closer of the mean high water mark of a State or, on the Pacific coast,
the mean higher high water mark, or the nearest Class I area of any
State. The second would be the distance from a State's seaward
boundary. For each facility described in the plan, the lessee or
operator would be required to calculate and provide the distance in
statute miles, as measured in a straight line from the site of the
facility to the closest point at which the OCS borders any State, at
the seaward boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As discussed in the context of proposed Sec. 550.303(c),
the proposed rule would continue to retain the shoreline as the
point at which emissions are evaluated until such time as the new
scientific studies have been completed and new exemption thresholds
have been defined. At that time, BOEM would evaluate all emissions
at the SSB and any facility that generates emissions in excess of a
SIL at the SSB would have to apply ERM. For this reason, the
distance calculation used by the exemption formulas would be the
distance to shore, in the first instance, and the distance would be
the distance to the SSB, in the second instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 550.205(j)--Documentation
Unlike the current regulations, which do not specify any
documentation or data retention requirements, the proposed rule
outlines the data and recordkeeping requirements BOEM proposes to
require to facilitate BOEM's evaluation and review of each plan and the
corresponding operational activities that result from each plan. This
information would be used to verify compliance with BOEM regulatory
requirements and to ensure that compliance with such requirements
continues on an ongoing basis.
The proposed rule would require lessees or operators to collect,
create, and maintain records or any data or information establishing,
substantiating, and verifying the basis for all information, data, and
resources used to calculate their projected emissions under proposed
section 550.205. The proposed rule would require documentation of the
emissions factors used and retention of any appropriate certifications,
citations, methods, and procedures used to obtain or develop emission
factors. The proposed rule would require collection and maintenance of
all documentation pertaining to the modeling analysis, if applicable,
including all references and copies of any referenced materials, as
well as any data or information related to any ERM lessees or operators
propose or implement. Under the proposed rule, all such information
would need to be provided to BOEM, though the Regional Supervisor would
be able to waive this requirement for good cause or if BOEM is able to
obtain the necessary information from an independent source.
Paragraph 550.205(k)--Compliance With Subpart C
The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to provide a
description of how they will comply with proposed section 550.303 when
the projected emissions generated by the proposed plan activities
exceed the respective EETs. The proposed rule would require lessees and
operators to make this determination using the formulas in proposed
paragraph 550.303(c). If the lessee or operator would be subject to the
requirement to monitor and report its actual emissions in accordance
with section 550.311, then the description must address how it proposes
to monitor its emissions.
Paragraph 550.205(l)--Reporting
The proposed rule would require lessees and operators to submit
data and information in a format and using the forms specified by BOEM.
They would be required to submit information in an electronically-
readable spreadsheet, such as a Microsoft Excel file on a compact disc,
unless otherwise directed by the Regional Supervisor. The purpose of
this requirement is to facilitate the evaluation of data by automated
processes and systems. Under the current arrangement, data are
submitted to BOEM in approved Excel spreadsheets. Although the proposed
rule does not specify a specific format for electronic forms, it is
likely the current spreadsheets will continue to be used for the
foreseeable future.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Currently, BOEM utilizes OMB-approved forms BOEM-0134 and
BOEM-0135 for this purpose. The forms are being revised in
connection with this rulemaking. BOEM also solicits comments on the
proposed new forms, in terms of their usefulness, readability,
complexity and completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USEPA is currently working on an E-Enterprise solution for
emissions data collection, whereby facilities (or companies) would
report emissions data through a central place for distribution to
USEPA, the States, and others. Since BOEM is proposing direct facility
reporting as well, BOEM may elect to partner on this E-Enterprise
solution for supporting BOEM's needs alongside those of the USEPA. This
approach may be more efficient both for the regulated entities as well
as for USEPA and BOEM to use and share the data. BOEM welcomes comment
on this alternative and whether there may be any impediments or
complications should BOEM wish to move in this direction.
If lessees and operators elect to transmit the information to BOEM
electronically, such as by email, then they would be required to use a
delivery medium or transmission method authorized by BOEM. The purpose
of this requirement is to ensure any data or information provided to
BOEM is provided in a secure and safe manner and such information is
not submitted in a way (e.g., email) that could be intercepted or
manipulated by third parties. DOI has established standards and
requirements for the secure transmission of data on an approved
technology platform and BOEM intends to adhere to DOI requirements
(although it may do so using a BOEM-specific transmission mechanism,
such as the Technical Information Management System Web-based
application, abbreviated TIMS-Web).
[[Page 19760]]
Paragraph 550.205(m)--Additional Information
Proposed Sec. 550.205(m) would set out the circumstances under
which a lessee or operator would be required to include information
about emissions from aircraft and from those onshore support facilities
for which the lessee or operator does not have an USEPA or State agency
air quality permit (i.e., ``a non-permitted onshore facility''). The
proposed requirement would be triggered when the modeling of air
emissions indicates that a plan's proposed emissions would cause an
increase in the ambient air quality at any receptor location that
exceeds 95% of a SIL. If an operator or lessee would be required to
report emissions from any aircraft or non-permitted onshore support
facilities and they support multiple OCS facilities, the lessee or
operator would be required to allocate their emissions in an
appropriate manner similar to that described for MSCs. Under such
circumstances, a lessee or operator would be required to include such
emissions in the information required under proposed section 550.205
and proposed subpart C. The proposed rule would also permit the
Regional Supervisor to require such additional data or information
related to these sources as is necessary to demonstrate the plan's
compliance with subpart C of this part, and/or applicable federal laws
related to the protection of air quality within BOEM jurisdiction.
Paragraph 550.205(n)--Requirements for Plans To Be Deemed Submitted
In order for a plan to be deemed submitted, all of the required air
quality data and information would be required to be submitted to BOEM
in accordance with the requirements of this part. BOEM would not
initiate its review of the air quality component of any plan until all
of the necessary information and documentation is complete. To
facilitate this, the proposed rule would specify that a plan would not
be deemed submitted in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
550.231 or 550.266 of this part until:
(1) All of the requirements of this section have been completed;
(2) The lessee, or operator, has completed the AAI analysis as
specified in Sec. 550.307(b) of this part, if it is required; and
(3) The lessee, or operator, has completed any other analysis
required by subpart C of this part.
Section 550.211--What must the EP include?
Paragraph 550.211(c)--Drilling Unit
The current regulation at Sec. 550.211(c) includes a provision
that requires a description of the ``fuels, oil and lubricants that
will be stored on the facility.'' The regulations state the word
``facility'' is defined in Sec. 550.105. However, the section to which
the current regulations refer no longer exists in BOEM's regulations.
That provision was originally in the regulations administered by BOEM's
predecessor before it was divided into BOEM and BSEE, and was
subsequently moved into the BSEE regulations at Sec. 250.105.
The original definition of the term ``facility,'' to which the
references in Sec. Sec. 550.211 and 550.241 refer, was: ``a vessel, a
structure, or an artificial island used for drilling, well completion,
well-workover, or production operations.'' Because this definition of
facility no longer exists, BOEM is proposing to add this definition
back into Sec. Sec. 550.211 and 550.241 where its use remains
applicable, with minor modifications for clarity. No substantive change
to Sec. 550.211 or 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the term facility would mean any
installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or device that is
temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including
an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover,
or other operations.
Section 550.212--What information must accompany the EP?
This section describes the information that must be included in an
EP. The change to the proposed rule for this section would update the
cross-reference in Sec. 550.212(f) from Sec. Sec. 550.218 to 550.205,
since the air quality requirements of Sec. 550.218 are proposed to be
relocated there.
Section 550.215--What hydrogen sulfide (H2S) information
must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.215(d)(2)--Hydrogen Sulfide
Under the proposed rule, if the H2S emissions are
projected to affect any location within a State in a concentration
greater than 10 parts per million, the modeling analysis would need to
be consistent with the USEPA risk management plan methodologies
outlined in 40 CFR part 68. The only change made with this revision
would be that the concentration of 10 parts per million would be
measured at any point within the State including any point landward of
the SSB, not only onshore, as is currently the case.
Paragraph 550.215(e)--Hydrogen Sulfide
As explained above in the discussion of Sec. 550.205, the proposed
rule would amend this section and section 245 by adding a paragraph in
each to specify flaring of any gasses containing a potentially
significant amount of H2S would be required to be separately
identified in the plan, along with the resulting emissions of
SOX.
Section 550.218--What air emissions reporting must accompany the
plan?--Removed and Reserved
Sections 550.218 and 550.249 in the current regulations set forth
the air quality reporting requirements of subpart B for exploration
plans and development plans, respectively. All of the substantive
requirements from these two sections would be consolidated into the new
proposed section 550.205 and modified as discussed above. Accordingly,
Sec. Sec. 550.218 and 550.249 would become reserved.
Section 550.224--What information on support vessels, offshore
vehicles, and aircraft must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.224(a)--General
Current regulations require plans to include a description of the
vessels, offshore vehicles, and aircraft lessees and operators would
use to support their exploration activities (Sec. 550.224(a)) or their
development and production activities (Sec. 550.257(a)). The proposed
rule would reword paragraph (a) of the proposed sections for clarity
and to incorporate the term MSC, proposed for definition in this rule,
but the meaning and intent of these paragraphs would not be changed.
The proposed rule would retain the current requirement to include in
the description an estimate of the storage capacity of the fuel tanks
and the frequency of visits to the facilities in connection with any
proposed activities.
Paragraph 550.224(b)--Air Emissions
Paragraph (b) of both the current paragraphs (Sec. Sec. 550.224(b)
and 550.257(b)) requires plans to include information regarding air
emissions from vessels, vehicles, and aircraft described in the plan.
The proposed rule would replace this paragraph with a cross-reference
to proposed Sec. 550.205. That proposed section, described above,
would provide details about what emissions information for MSCs must be
included in a plan. However, that proposed section would not generally
require information on aircraft
[[Page 19761]]
emissions. As explained above, aircraft emissions contribute only a
small fraction of emissions, and aircraft emissions information is
especially burdensome to collect. Accordingly, BOEM believes it is not
prudent to require lessees and operators report aircraft emissions in
most cases. The proposed rule would normally only require general
information about aircraft used in a plan under proposed paragraph (a),
since it is necessary for the Regional Supervisor to verify whether
emissions from these sources may contribute to exceeding an emission
exemption threshold or an AAQBS. In some limited circumstances, where
the emissions of aircraft may be determinative of whether the plan does
or does not cause a significant impact to any State or tribe, the
reporting of aircraft emissions may be required, as described in
proposed Sec. 550.205(m).
Section 550.225--What information on the onshore support facilities
must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.225(b)--Air Emissions
The current paragraph (b) of both Sec. Sec. 550.225 and 550.258
requires lessees and operators to provide in their plans a description
of the source, composition, frequency, and duration of the air
emissions likely to be generated by the relevant onshore support
facilities. The proposed rule would not substantively change this
requirement, but the proposed rule would revise it for clarity. The
proposed rule would delete the parenthetical text in the current
paragraphs--``attributable to your proposed exploration activities''
and ``attributable to your proposed development and production
activities''--in order to avoid confusion with the use of the term
``attributed emissions'' in proposed Sec. 550.205.
The proposed rule would limit the current requirement for onshore
emissions sources in order to reduce unnecessary reporting and focus
reporting requirements on areas with the greatest potential impact.
BOEM currently requires reporting of onshore support facility emissions
as may be necessary for the Regional Supervisor to determine whether
emissions from these sources may contribute to exceeding an EET or an
AAQSB, as described in the preamble section on proposed Sec.
550.205(m). This requirement in the current regulations is based on the
premise that there may be some circumstances where the amount of air
pollution generated by onshore support facilities, taken in conjunction
with the offshore emissions associated with OCS operations, could have
a potentially significant impact to the air quality of the States.
However, BOEM believes that the requirement can be made more
appropriately tailored to limit unnecessary reporting, while still
incorporating select onshore emissions information in appropriate
circumstances. As described more fully in the preamble discussion of
proposed Sec. 550.205(m), the proposed rule would collect information
on onshore support emissions if two specific criteria are both met: (1)
If a plan which is already required to conduct modeling results in
incremental increases in concentration of a pollutant that are greater
than 95 percent of the value of a SIL (this is the same criteria that
applies to the inclusion of aircraft); and (2) if the relevant onshore
support facilities are not already permitted by the USEPA or a relevant
State authority. The goal of this proposed provision is to incorporate
significant data that may contribute to OCS permitted activity
affecting the air quality of the states but to avoid collecting
unnecessary information. BOEM solicits comments on this proposal, both
with respect to whether gathering data on onshore support facilities is
necessary and/or appropriate and what criteria should be used to
determine the circumstances under which data about onshore support
facility emissions should be collected.
BOEM uses the information that would be required in this paragraph
for the analysis of cumulative impacts it performs under NEPA. The
proposed rule would also provide that the information regarding onshore
support facilities would only be required by BOEM if it is not
available from another agency. BOEM can obtain some of the information
for proposed and existing onshore support facilities for use in its
NEPA or other environmental analyses through the USEPA or other air
quality agencies.
BOEM solicits comments on what types of onshore facilities should
be identified and reported with respect to their air emissions and how
best to evaluate their emissions in the context of the AQRP.
Section 550.241--What must the DPP or DOCD include?
Paragraph 550.241(c)--Drilling Unit and Paragraph 550.241(d)--
Production Facilities
The change proposed here is analogous to the change proposed at
Sec. 550.211. The current regulations at Sec. 550.241(c) and (d)
include provisions that require a description of drilling units and
production facilities in a DPP or DOCD. This description includes
``fuels, oil and lubricants that will be stored on the facility'' or
``the estimated maximum quantity of fuels and oil that will be stored
on the facility,'' respectively. The current regulations state the word
``facility'' is defined in Sec. 550.105(3). However, the section to
which the current regulation refers no longer exists in BOEM's
regulations. That provision was originally in BOEM's predecessor's
regulations before it was divided into BOEM and BSEE and was
subsequently moved into the BSEE regulations at Sec. 250.105.
The original definition of the term facility, to which the
reference in Sec. 550.241 refers, was: ``a vessel, a structure, or an
artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover, or
production operations.'' Because this definition of facility no longer
exists, BOEM is proposing to add this definition back into Sec.
550.211(c) and in Sec. 550.241, with minor modifications for clarity.
No substantive change to Sec. 550.241 is being proposed.
For the purpose of this section, the term facility would mean any
installation, structure, vessel, vehicle, equipment or device that is
temporarily or permanently attached to the seabed of the OCS, including
an artificial island used for drilling, well completion, well-workover,
or other operations.
Section 550.242--What information must accompany the DPP or DOCD?
This section describes the information that would be required to be
included in a DPP or DOCD. The change to the proposed rule for this
section would update the cross-reference in Sec. 550.212(g) from
Sec. Sec. 550.249 to 550.205, since the air quality requirements of
Sec. 550.249 are proposed to be relocated there.
Section 550.245--What hydrogen sulfide (H2S) information
must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.245(d)(3)--Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
See the discussion for Sec. 550.215(d)(2).
Paragraph 550.245(e)--Hydrogen Sulfide
See the discussion for Sec. 550.215(e).
Section 550.249--What air emissions reporting must accompany the plan?
See the discussion for Sec. 550.218.
Section 550.257--What information on support vessels, offshore
vehicles, and aircraft must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.257(a)--General and Paragraph 550.257(b)--Air Emissions
See the discussion for Sec. 550.224.
[[Page 19762]]
Section 550.258--What information on the onshore support facilities
must accompany the plan?
Paragraph 550.258(b)--Air Emissions
See the discussion for Sec. 550.225.
Section 550.280--How must I conduct activities under the approved EP,
DPP, DOCD, RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline application?
The proposed rule would modify the title of this proposed section
from ``How must I conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP, or
DOCD?'' to ``How must I conduct activities under the approved EP, DPP,
DOCD or RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline application?'' In
addition, the proposed rule would modify paragraph (a) of the current
regulations, which specifies that a lessee or operator must conduct all
of its activities in accordance with an approved EP, DPP, or DOCD and
any approval conditions. This provision would be modified to clarify
that a lessee or operator may not install or use any facility,
equipment, vessel, vehicle, or other emissions source not described in
the approved EP, DPP, DOCD, or application for RUE, pipeline ROW, or
lease term pipeline and that a lessee or operator may not install or
use a substitute for any emissions source described in an EP, DPP,
DOCD, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline
without prior BOEM approval.
Section 550.284--How will BOEM require revisions to the approved EP,
DPP, DOCD, or application for a RUE?
Paragraph 550.284(a)--Periodic Review
The proposed rule would modify the title of the section from ``How
will BOEM require revisions to the approved EP, DPP, or DOCD'' to ``How
will BOEM require revisions to the approved EP, DPP, DOCD or
application for a RUE?''
Paragraph (a) of the current section specifies the Regional
Supervisor will periodically review the activities conducted under an
approved EP, DPP, or DOCD and the frequency and extent of this review
is based upon changes to ``available information and onshore or
offshore conditions.'' The proposal would modify this paragraph to
clarify that the frequency and extent of the review may be based on any
changes in applicable law or regulation as well. Existing Sec.
550.284(b) allows the Regional Supervisor to require modifications to
plans based on such a review. The proposed rule would not change this
paragraph. As discussed below, proposed Sec. 550.310(c) would
complement the proposed change to Sec. 550.284(a) by making explicit
that the Regional Supervisor may require a lessee or operator to submit
a revised plan when an applicable AAQSB changes. BOEM does not
anticipate that it would invoke this provision except in extraordinary
circumstances and, even under those extraordinary circumstances, it
would rarely, if ever, require the resubmission of a plan under this
provision more frequently than every ten years.
C. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart C
Subpart C is being replaced in its entirety with a new subpart C
dedicated to air pollution prevention and control.
Section 550.301--Under what circumstances does this subpart apply to
operations in my plan?
This section would specify that the proposed subpart applies to
those areas of the OCS where DOI has authority to regulate air
emissions pursuant to section 5(a)(8) of the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C.
1334(a)(8), as amended, and jurisdiction pursuant to section 328(b) of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7627(b), as amended. This section explains the
proposed subpart would apply to all plans related to facilities on the
relevant areas of the OCS, regardless of the type of plan (EP, DPP, or
DOCD or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline).
The section would also state that the subpart covers existing
facilities in the relevant areas.
Section 550.302--Acronyms and Definitions Concerning Air Quality
Paragraph (a) of the proposed rule would update the acronym list
used to identify those acronyms that are relevant to the proposed rule.
In addition, the proposed rule would clarify that the definitions
proposed to be added or revised in proposed Sec. 550.302 are meant to
apply only to Sec. 550.205 of subpart B and all of subpart C.
Deleted Definitions
The following three terms in the current definitions Sec. 550.302
would be removed from the list of definitions in proposed Sec.
550.302: ``source,'' ``temporary facility,'' and ``volatile organic
compound.'' The proposed rule would move the term ``source,'' renamed
``emissions source,'' from Sec. 550.302 into proposed Sec. 550.105,
because it would be used in portions of part 550 outside of subpart C.
The term ``temporary facility'' would be replaced with a new term
``short-term facility'' (although the meaning and purpose of the term
would be similar). The proposed rule would not define the term
``volatile organic compound,'' since other CPs and precursor pollutants
would also not be defined in the regulations and because BOEM applies
the common meaning of this term, as used by the USEPA and other federal
agencies.
New or Revised Definitions
Paragraph (b) would list the definitions used in subpart C, as
follows.
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR)
AQCR would be newly defined to mean ``an interstate area or major
intrastate area, which the USEPA deems appropriate for assessing the
regional attainment and maintenance of the primary or secondary
national ambient air quality standards described in 42 U.S.C. 7409, as
identified under 40 CFR part 81, subparts A and B, Designation of Air
Quality Control Regions.''
Ambient Air Increments (AAIs)
AAIs would be newly defined to mean ``the national standards for
Ambient Air Increments set out in the table in 40 CFR 52.21(c), as
amended.'' These are national ambient air benchmarks that represent the
maximum increase in pollutant concentrations allowed for an onshore
area of a State designated by the USEPA as a Class I, Class II, or
Class III area. Depending on the level of the AAIs, various ERM may be
required by BOEM under subpart C. In the current BOEM regulations, the
AAIs are referred to as the MACIs, as set out in the table in the
current regulation at 30 CFR 550.302.
Ambient Air Standards and Benchmarks (AAQSB)
AAQSB would be newly defined to refer collectively to all of the
standards and benchmarks referenced in this proposed subpart. These
would include the SILs, in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) (pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.); the AAIs, as set out in the table in 40 CFR 52.21(c)
(pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7473); and the primary and secondary NAAQS
defined in 40 CFR part 50 (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7409).
Attainment Area
The current regulations define this term in Sec. 550.302, and the
proposed rule would revise the definition. The proposed rule would
modify the definition of attainment area to mean ``for any given
criteria air pollutant, a geographic area, which is not designated by
the USEPA as being a designated non-attainment area, as codified at 40
CFR part 81 subpart C.'' Thus, any area not specifically listed by the
USEPA as a designated non-attainment area would
[[Page 19763]]
be classified as an attainment area under this proposed rule, including
areas that the USEPA's regulations refer to as attainment, maintenance,
unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment as well as areas that have
not yet been designated because the two-year period to complete such
designations after revision of a NAAQS has not yet passed. The proposed
definition would also clarify that the same area may constitute an
attainment area for one criteria air pollutant and a designated non-
attainment area for another criteria air pollutant (see definition of
non-attainment area). Second, because there may be multiple NAAQS
averaging times for each CP, any given area may be attainment for one
pollutant for one averaging time and non-attainment for the same
pollutant over a different averaging time. Third, this definition would
clarify that the term attainment area, as used by BOEM, is intended to
include onshore unclassifiable areas (i.e., areas that cannot be
classified as attainment or designated non-attainment areas) or any
other areas that the USEPA has not explicitly classified as designated
non-attainment.
Attributed Emissions
This new term would be defined to mean ``for any given criteria or
precursor air pollutant the emissions from MSCs, operating above the
OCS or State submerged lands, that are attributed to a facility
pursuant to the methodology set forth in Sec. 550.205(d), for the
period over which the corresponding facility emissions are measured.''
BOEM intends for this proposed definition to encompass the emissions
that are generated from non-stationary sources that support a plan-
related facility and must be evaluated in connection with the air
quality component of the plan review. The specific requirements for
calculating attributed emissions are set out in proposed Sec.
550.205(d).
Given that BOEM is proposing to provide various alternative methods
to calculate attributed emissions, it may be possible these
alternatives could yield slightly different overall results and the
option chosen may not result in the highest potential calculation of
attributed emissions that might be derived. Providing for these
alternative methods reflects the reality that all relevant or necessary
data may not be available to a lessee or operator at the time its plan
is prepared and submitted to BOEM. Regardless of the ultimate method
used to allocate MSC emissions and derive attributed emissions,
however, no lessee or operator will be allowed to emit air pollutants
in an amount that exceeds what was approved in its plan and a lessee or
operator generating emissions in excess of its plan approval could be
subject to sanctions, including potential shut-in for a violation. In
addition, under this proposed rule, there are specific monitoring and
record-keeping provisions that would be added to ensure ongoing
compliance with the proposed regulations. For this reason, BOEM
anticipates that lessees or operators will be conservative in emissions
allocations.
Background Concentration
This new term would be defined to mean ``the ambient air
concentration of any given criteria air pollutant that arises both from
local natural processes and from the transport into the airshed of
natural or anthropogenic pollutants originating locally or from another
location, either as measured from an USEPA-approved air monitoring
system or as determined on some other appropriate scientifically
justified basis, as approved by BOEM.'' The background concentration of
a pollutant represents the concentration of any given pollutant that is
present prior to the establishment of operations related to a proposed
facility.
Evaluating compliance with the NAAQS requires the consideration of
two factors, (1) the background concentration of any given pollutant at
the point of measurement, and (2) the contribution to the concentration
that would be generated as a result of the facility being proposed. The
incremental amount of the pollutant that is contributed by the
operations associated with a plan is added to the background
concentration of that pollutant in order to determine the amount of
pollution that would exist as a result of the implementation of the
proposed plan. The sum of the background concentration for any given
pollutant and the incremental amount of the pollutant resulting from
the implementation of the proposed plan is referred to as the design
concentration of that pollutant. That design concentration represents
the value that is compared to the NAAQS in order to determine whether
or not the plan, if implemented as proposed, would cause an exceedance.
Baseline Concentration
The term baseline concentration would be defined as the ambient
background concentration of any given air pollutant which exists or
existed at the time of the first application for a USEPA PSD permit in
an area subject to sec. 169 of the CAA, based on air quality data
available to the USEPA or a State air pollution control agency and on
the monitoring data provided in the permit application. The proposed
definition would also state that the baseline concentration is
distinguished from the background concentration in that the background
concentration changes continually over time to reflect the current
ambient air concentration for any given air pollutant, whereas the
baseline concentration remains fixed until such time as a new AAI is
established for an attainment area. The difference between the current
background concentration and the baseline concentration represents the
change in actual concentration of a given pollutant in a relevant area
caused by natural and/or anthropogenic (i.e., other stationary and non-
stationary) sources that began operations after the date the baseline
concentration was established.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
This term would be revised from the definition that exists in the
current regulation. The proposed rule would define BACT to mean ``a
physical or mechanical system or device that reduces emissions of air
pollutants subject to regulation to the maximum extent practicable,
taking into account (1) the amount of emissions reductions necessary to
meet specific regulatory provisions; (2) energy, environmental, and
economic impacts; and (3) costs.'' This proposed definition and usage
of the term would differ from that of the USEPA, because the USEPA's
use of BACT refers to changes made in connection with the USEPA's
permit process under the CAA, and BOEM does not issue air quality
permits, nor does it make determinations of BACT pursuant to the CAA.
Rather, BOEM requires (and is proposing to continue requiring) BACT in
its review and approval of plans for which modeling has demonstrated
that projected emissions may cause or contribute to an exceedance of an
applicable AAQSB or a violation of the NAAQS.
In addition, BOEM and the USEPA differ in their requirements for
BACT, primarily due to the difference in their respective regulatory
frameworks. BOEM reviews the BACT alternatives as part of its AQRP,
under both the current regulation and the proposed rule prospectively,
determining in advance of the facility installation what form of BACT
is appropriate. The USEPA also evaluates BACT prospectively, but the
CAA also specifies, among other requirements, that BACT cannot be less
stringent than any applicable standard
[[Page 19764]]
of performance under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (42
U.S.C. 7479(3)). Therefore, although BOEM looks to USEPA practices when
evaluating control technologies, due to the unique nature of the OCS,
BOEM also exercises independent judgment on what constitutes BACT and
how it should be applied. This definition also clarifies that BACT, as
used in this rule, is intended to refer to physical or mechanical
controls (i.e., changes to the equipment and technology), in contrast
to operational controls that would primarily involve changes in the
ways that equipment is operated (rather than changes to the equipment
itself).
With reference to ``the maximum extent practicable,'' under certain
circumstances, VOCs must be fully reduced to a rate at or below the
EETs (including through the use of BACT) whether or not such a
reduction would be considered practicable, unless emissions credits can
be applied (see Sec. 550.303(f)). In other words, under some
circumstances a plan could not be approved because the level of VOC
emissions would be too high, regardless of whether some ``practical''
method were available and if available was proposed to be applied to
mitigate or reduce the emissions. In that rare instance, the only
acceptable means to obtain approval of the plan would be for the lessee
or operator to obtain emissions credits to offset the effects of the
excessive VOC emissions.
Class I Area
The current regulations use this term but do not define it. Because
it is used more broadly in the proposed rule, BOEM proposes to define
it in the regulations. The proposed rule would define this term to mean
``an area designated by the USEPA, a State, or a Federally-recognized
Indian tribe, where visibility and air emissions are protected by a
Federal Land Manager, and protected to standards more stringent than
the NAAQS pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7472(a) or 7474, as amended; \76\ Class
I areas include international parks and certain national parks,
wilderness areas, national monuments, and areas of special national or
regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value.'' Congress
has established a program to designate specific areas of the country as
Class I areas, and the USEPA defines these areas in its regulations at
40 CFR part 81 subpart D. Several tribes have also requested USEPA to
redesignate their lands from Class II to Class I to provide additional
air quality protection.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The USEPA's guidance to tribes on Class I re-designations
is available here: https://www3.epa.gov/air/tribal/pdfs/GuidanceTribesClassIRedesignationCAA.pdf.
\77\ For example, the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, the
Flathead Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the
Spokane Indian Reservation and the Forest County Potawatomi
Community Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.1382(c), 52.2497(c) and
52.2581(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class II Area
Like the term ``Class I area,'' the current regulations use ``Class
II areas'' but do not define the term. The proposed rule would define
Class II area to mean ``an attainment area designated by the USEPA, a
State, or a Federally-recognized Indian tribe, that is protected less
stringently than a Class I area.'' A Sensitive Class II area
classification indicates a place the Clean Air Act would allow a
moderate change in the air quality, but where stringent air quality
constraints are nevertheless desired. This classification is less
stringent than for a Class I area, which describes a place where
minimal air quality degradation would be allowed, and more stringent
than that of a Class III area, which indicates a place where
substantial industrial or other growth would be allowed. Sensitive
Class II areas (see definition of this term, below) represent a subset
or sub-classification of Class II areas that are defined by federal
land management agencies as federal lands where the protection of air
resources has been prioritized, as specified in acts, regulations,
planning documents, or by policy.
Complex Total Emissions
The proposed rule would define this new term to mean ``the sum of
the facility emissions that would result from all of the facilities
that have been aggregated for the purposes of evaluating their
potential consolidated impact on air quality, pursuant to the
methodology set forth in Sec. 550.303(d), and the sum of all
corresponding attributed emissions for those facilities.'' For the
purposes of calculating