Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 26361-26364 [2020-08518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent
with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements
described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or
more in any one year. Though this rule
will not result in such an expenditure,
we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated
implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST
5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety
zone that will prohibit entry within 20
feet of a work barge being used by
personnel to construct a raw water
intake. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01,
Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket,
see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
Protesters are asked to call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places or vessels.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
26361
will inform the public of the
enforcement period for the safety zone
as well as any changes in the schedule
through Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners
(LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as
appropriate.
Dated: April 23, 2020.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of
the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2020–08975 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 52
■
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T08–0223 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T08–0223 Safety Zone; Monongahela
River, mile 76.6 Pittsburgh, PA.
(a) Location. The following area is a
temporary safety zone: 20 foot radius of
the Garney Construction barge,
Monongahela River at mile marker 76.6.
(b) Effective period. This rule is
effective from April 27, 2020 through
May 8, 2020.
(c) Enforcement period. This section
will be enforced at all times. The
Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated
representative will provide notice of
breaks as appropriate under paragraph
(e) of this section.
(d) Regulations. (1) In accordance
with the general regulations in § 165.23,
entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or
a designated representative. A
designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to
units under the operational control of
USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
(2) Persons and vessels seeking entry
into this safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF–FM Channel 16 or by
telephone at (412) 221–0807.
(3) Persons and vessels permitted to
enter this safety zone must transit at
their slowest safe speed and comply
with all lawful instructions of the COTP
or a designated representative.
(e) Informational broadcasts. The
COTP or a designated representative
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
[EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0705; FRL–10007–
85–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; New Mexico;
Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act,
(CAA or Act), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
State Implementations Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of New
Mexico and the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County that address interstate
transport for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The EPA is approving the
submissions as meeting the requirement
that the New Mexico SIP contain
adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 3,
2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2018–0705. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sherry Fuerst, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214–
665–6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Out of
an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region
6 office will be closed to the public to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26362
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–
19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in EPA’s December
3, 2019 proposal (84 FR 66098). In that
document, we proposed approval of SIP
revisions that address the interstate
transport of air pollution requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. The SIP revisions
were submitted by the state of New
Mexico and the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County on October 10, 2018
and October 4, 2018, respectively. In
today’s action, we are approving the
transport SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment on the
proposed rulemaking. The full text of
the comment is available for review in
the docket for this rulemaking. The
comment was submitted by the Sierra
Club (on behalf of itself and the Center
for Biological Diversity). To best address
the comment, we have broken the
comment down into two parts
(Comment 1 and Comment 2). We have
responded to both parts of the comment
below and provided a more detailed
response in the Response to Comment
Technical Support Document included
in our docket.
Comment #1: The commenters assert
that oil and gas emissions in New
Mexico are not fairly represented in
EPA modeling and therefore both air
quality at downwind receptors and the
impact of New Mexico’s contribution to
projected nonattainment and
maintenance areas in other states are
underestimated. The commenter points
to increased production particularly in
the Permian Basin as evidence that
EPA’s emissions estimates are too low.
Response #1: EPA disagrees with the
claims made by the commenters that the
oil and gas exploration and production
sector (Oil and Gas E&P) emissions in
New Mexico are not adequately
represented in EPA modeling. EPA and
states go to great lengths to ensure that
emission inventories and emission
projections are of the highest quality.
The efforts to provide for quality
assurance, quality control and public
input for the emission inventories that
were utilized in the modeling for these
SIP revisions are described in detail in
the Response to Comments Technical
Support Document for this action. Our
review of the total 2017 projected Oil
and Gas E&P emissions utilized in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
2017 Future Year modeling, more recent
Oil and Gas E&P emissions projections,
and the 2014 National Emission
Inventory (NEI) of Oil and Gas E&P
emissions in New Mexico indicate that
the 2017 projected emissions used in
the 2017 Future Year modeling were
overstated rather than understated as
characterized by the reviewer. This
overestimation of the projected
emissions inventory could have also
resulted in an overestimation by the air
quality model of the downwind impact
of emissions from New Mexico’s Oil and
Gas E&P to other states in the 2017
Future Year modeling. Thus, contrary to
the commenters’ concern, EPA’s
estimate of New Mexico’s 2017 modeled
impacts on other states is likely
conservative and supports EPA’s
conclusion that impacts from emissions
originating in New Mexico on other
states are below 0.75 parts per billion
(ppb) in 2019–2020.
EPA agrees that there has been
increase in Oil and Gas E&P activity in
New Mexico since 2011. Emissions
associated with the sector, however, do
not have a linear relationship with
exploration and production related
activities. As Oil and Gas E&P have
grown in New Mexico, there have been,
and continue to be, simultaneous
improvements in emission reduction
technology and new regulatory control
requirements. These two competing
factors were considered in emissions
projection used in EPA’s 2017 and 2023
modeling pertaining to interstate
transport. Selected source categories
reflect reductions in volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that occur at reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) due
to controls from both the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). The
upgrades in emissions technology
necessary to comply with these rules
generally bring co-benefits of reductions
in VOCs and NOX emissions. The areas
in New Mexico which experienced a
growth in the Oil and Gas E&P such as
the Permian Basin tend to use newer
equipment that meets the lower RICE
NESHAP and RICE NSPS requirements.
Other NOX emitters in Oil and Gas E&P
are also subject to regulations and
emission control technologies which are
being installed over time. See Response
to Comment Technical Support
Document for this action for further
explanation.
Projection of emissions is a stepwise
process starting with a base year
emissions level, followed by application
of factors for retirement, growth and
controls. EPA developed the 2017
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
emission projections of Oil and Gas E&P
based on information available in 2014–
2015. The emission projection from
2011 to 2017 used in the modeling for
the SIP revision shows that if the
emissions were not subject to controls,
the emissions from Oil and Gas E&P in
New Mexico would have increased
28.5%. However, emission control
technologies implemented between
2011 and 2017 reduced projected 2017
emissions by 21.4%. As a result, the net
projected NOX emission rate from Oil
and Gas E&P for 2017 increased only
7.1% despite the activity growth in the
sector.
A stepwise emission projections
process was also completed in 2016–
2017 when developing the 2023
modeling emissions for Oil and Gas E&P
inventory. Like when developing the
2017 emission projections, EPA used
the most recent data in development of
the 2023 modeling emission inventory,
therefore there were differences in
growth projections between the 2017
model inventory and 2023 model
emission inventories, (like updated
growth projections for 2023 model
emission inventory). The emission
projection from 2011 to 2023 used in
EPA’s modeling shows that if the
emissions were not subject to controls,
the emissions from Oil and Gas E&P
operations in New Mexico would have
increased 27.8%. However, closures in
New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P reduced
the 2023 projected emissions increase
by 2.8%. Emission control technologies
implemented between 2011 and 2023
also reduced projected 2023 emissions
by 23.2%. As a result, the net projected
New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P NOX
emissions for 2023 were projected to
increase only 1.8% (27.8%–2.8%–
23.2%) from 2011 emission levels
despite the projected activity growth in
the sector.
EPA used appropriate techniques and
the most recently available data to
estimate both base and projection year
inventories for the Oil and Gas E&P
sector in the 2017 and 2023 modeling.
This supports the conclusion that it is
appropriate to rely on EPA’s assessment
of the 2017 and 2023 modeling to
conclude that New Mexico’s impact on
all identified downwind receptors is
below the 1 percent threshold of 0.75
ppb in 2019–2020 and therefore that
New Mexico will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS in other states. A complete
discussion of our evaluation is included
in the Response to Comment Technical
Support Document, which can be found
in the docket for this action.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Comment #2: The commenters state
that they have not reviewed other
inventory contributions but that the
2017 and 2023 emission projections
from 2011 for other source categories
(non-Oil and Gas E&P emissions) are
likely not correct. The commenters then
state that EPA should update its
inventory using 2017 actual emissions
data and use 2017 actuals to project
2023 air quality, including a potential
range of emissions scenarios for 2023.
Response #2: EPA disagrees with the
commenters’ claim that the 2017 and
2023 future year emission projections
for other source categories are also
incorrect. The commenters have not
provided a reason to doubt the accuracy
of the inventories and projections for
these other sectors, nor have they
provided information to support the
claim. Therefore, EPA continues to
believe that the methodologies used by
EPA to calculate 2017 and 2023 future
year projections are appropriate. For
further explanation on how these
inventories and projections are assessed,
please see the more detailed response
for Comment #1 in the Response to
Comment Technical Support Document,
which can be found in the docket for
this action.
In response to the commenters’
suggestion that EPA should update its
2017 inventory with actual emissions,
and include a range of emissions
projections for 2023, EPA again
disagrees. The 2017 NEI emissions for
non-point Oil and Gas E&P emission
sources were not yet available at the
time EPA conducted the 2023 modeling,
but nonetheless the commenter has not
indicated how or whether the use of the
2017 data would be likely to change
EPA’s assessment of New Mexico’s
impact on downwind receptors.
We do note, as explained in further
detail below, it is also not reasonable to
redo projections to 2023 and remodel
impacts as part of the review of the New
Mexico SIP. Redevelopment of emission
inventories and performing
photochemical grid modeling with
source apportionment would take at
least one to two years and significant
resources. Such an effort is not a
reasonable expectation without any
indication that the use of 2017 data in
its modeling is likely to lead to a
different conclusion with respect to
New Mexico’s SIP. New Mexico utilized
recent EPA modeling in developing its
SIP submittals and we utilized even
more recent analyses that were released
in 2017 and 2018 to support our
proposed approval action. As discussed
above we used the most recent EIA AEO
data at the time the emission inventories
were generated. The commenter has not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
provided any information to support its
conclusion that EPA would need to
perform new modeling to support its
approval of New Mexico’s SIP, nor have
the commenters provided any such
updated modeling data. Therefore, EPA
continues to believe that its analysis of
the available data indicates that New
Mexico will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in other states.
III. Final Action
We are (1) determining that New
Mexico and the City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County have met their
obligation under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because New Mexico
will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state and (2) approving the
October 10, 2018 New Mexico and
October 4, 2018 City of AlbuquerqueBernalillo County SIP revisions for the
2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, described in
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
26363
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by July 6, 2020.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
26364
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 86 / Monday, May 4, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG—New Mexico
Dated: April 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
SIP’’ is amended by adding an entry at
the end of the table for ‘‘Interstate
Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS’’
to read as follows:
§ 52.1620
*
Identification of plan
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
2. In § 52.1620, the table in paragraph
(e) entitled ‘‘EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the New Mexico
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP
Name of SIP provision
*
Interstate Transport for
the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
Applicable geographic
or nonattainment area
*
*
Statewide .....................
[FR Doc. 2020–08518 Filed 5–1–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket No. 12–217; FCC 17–120; FRS
16639]
Cable Television Technical and
Operational Standards
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
AGENCY:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:47 May 01, 2020
Jkt 250001
10/10/2018
10/4/2018
EPA approval
date
Explanation
*
*
5/4/2020, [Insert Federal Register citation].
*
*
SIPs adopted by: NMED and City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County. Addresses CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Williams, Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, (202)
418–2918.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document announces that, on March 31,
2020, OMB approved the information
collection requirements contained in the
Commission’s Report and Order, FCC
17–120, published at 83 FR 7619,
February 22, 2018. The OMB Control
Numbers are 3060–0289, 3060–0331,
3060–0419 and 3060–1045. The
Commission publishes this document as
an announcement of the effective date of
the information collection requirements.
Synopsis
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) announces that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved, for a period of three years, the
information collection requirements
associated with the Cable Television
Technical and Operational Standards
Report and Order. This document is
consistent with the Report and Order,
which stated that the Commission
would publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing OMB
approval and the effective date of the
information collection requirements.
DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR
76.105(b) introductory text, 76.601(b)(1),
76.1610(f) and (g), and 76.1804
introductory text, published at 83 FR
7619, February 22, 2018, are effective on
May 4, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
additional information, contact Cathy
SUMMARY:
State submittal
date
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received OMB approval on March 31,
2020, for the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s rules.
No person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act that does not
display a current, valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Numbers are
3060–0289, 3060–0331, 3060–0419 and
3060–1045.
The foregoing notice is required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995,
and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens
and costs for the respondents are as
follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060–0289.
OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.
OMB Expiration Date: March 31,
2023.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
OMB Control Number: 3060–0289.
Title: Section 76.601, Performance
Tests; Section 76.1704, Proof of
Performance Test Data; Section 76.1717,
Compliance with Technical Standards.
Form Number: N/A.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities, and state, local, or tribal
government.
Number of Respondents: 4,085
respondents, 6,433 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to
70 hours.
Frequency of Response:
Recordkeeping requirement, Semiannual and Triennial reporting
requirements; Third party disclosure
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for this collection of
information is contained in Sections 4(i)
and 624(e) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended.
Total Annual Burden: 166,405 hours.
Total Annual Cost: None.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality with
this collection of information.
Needs and Uses: The Commission
modified this submission to reflect that
the testing required under Section
76.601(b) applies only to cable systems
that deliver analog signals, and the cable
operator must only test analog channels
(see FCC 17–120). We expect that this
change will reduce the number of filers
associated with this information
collection.
OMB Control Number: 3060–0331.
OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\04MYR1.SGM
04MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26361-26364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08518]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0705; FRL-10007-85-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act, (CAA or Act), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementations Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of New Mexico and the City of
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County that address interstate transport for the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is
approving the submissions as meeting the requirement that the New
Mexico SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions which will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 3, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0705. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size restrictions or content
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 214-665-6454, [email protected].
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the public to
[[Page 26362]]
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's
December 3, 2019 proposal (84 FR 66098). In that document, we proposed
approval of SIP revisions that address the interstate transport of air
pollution requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The SIP revisions were submitted by the state of New
Mexico and the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County on October 10,
2018 and October 4, 2018, respectively. In today's action, we are
approving the transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment on the proposed rulemaking. The full text
of the comment is available for review in the docket for this
rulemaking. The comment was submitted by the Sierra Club (on behalf of
itself and the Center for Biological Diversity). To best address the
comment, we have broken the comment down into two parts (Comment 1 and
Comment 2). We have responded to both parts of the comment below and
provided a more detailed response in the Response to Comment Technical
Support Document included in our docket.
Comment #1: The commenters assert that oil and gas emissions in New
Mexico are not fairly represented in EPA modeling and therefore both
air quality at downwind receptors and the impact of New Mexico's
contribution to projected nonattainment and maintenance areas in other
states are underestimated. The commenter points to increased production
particularly in the Permian Basin as evidence that EPA's emissions
estimates are too low.
Response #1: EPA disagrees with the claims made by the commenters
that the oil and gas exploration and production sector (Oil and Gas
E&P) emissions in New Mexico are not adequately represented in EPA
modeling. EPA and states go to great lengths to ensure that emission
inventories and emission projections are of the highest quality. The
efforts to provide for quality assurance, quality control and public
input for the emission inventories that were utilized in the modeling
for these SIP revisions are described in detail in the Response to
Comments Technical Support Document for this action. Our review of the
total 2017 projected Oil and Gas E&P emissions utilized in the 2017
Future Year modeling, more recent Oil and Gas E&P emissions
projections, and the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI) of Oil and
Gas E&P emissions in New Mexico indicate that the 2017 projected
emissions used in the 2017 Future Year modeling were overstated rather
than understated as characterized by the reviewer. This overestimation
of the projected emissions inventory could have also resulted in an
overestimation by the air quality model of the downwind impact of
emissions from New Mexico's Oil and Gas E&P to other states in the 2017
Future Year modeling. Thus, contrary to the commenters' concern, EPA's
estimate of New Mexico's 2017 modeled impacts on other states is likely
conservative and supports EPA's conclusion that impacts from emissions
originating in New Mexico on other states are below 0.75 parts per
billion (ppb) in 2019-2020.
EPA agrees that there has been increase in Oil and Gas E&P activity
in New Mexico since 2011. Emissions associated with the sector,
however, do not have a linear relationship with exploration and
production related activities. As Oil and Gas E&P have grown in New
Mexico, there have been, and continue to be, simultaneous improvements
in emission reduction technology and new regulatory control
requirements. These two competing factors were considered in emissions
projection used in EPA's 2017 and 2023 modeling pertaining to
interstate transport. Selected source categories reflect reductions in
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
that occur at reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) due to
controls from both the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The
upgrades in emissions technology necessary to comply with these rules
generally bring co-benefits of reductions in VOCs and NOX
emissions. The areas in New Mexico which experienced a growth in the
Oil and Gas E&P such as the Permian Basin tend to use newer equipment
that meets the lower RICE NESHAP and RICE NSPS requirements. Other
NOX emitters in Oil and Gas E&P are also subject to
regulations and emission control technologies which are being installed
over time. See Response to Comment Technical Support Document for this
action for further explanation.
Projection of emissions is a stepwise process starting with a base
year emissions level, followed by application of factors for
retirement, growth and controls. EPA developed the 2017 emission
projections of Oil and Gas E&P based on information available in 2014-
2015. The emission projection from 2011 to 2017 used in the modeling
for the SIP revision shows that if the emissions were not subject to
controls, the emissions from Oil and Gas E&P in New Mexico would have
increased 28.5%. However, emission control technologies implemented
between 2011 and 2017 reduced projected 2017 emissions by 21.4%. As a
result, the net projected NOX emission rate from Oil and Gas
E&P for 2017 increased only 7.1% despite the activity growth in the
sector.
A stepwise emission projections process was also completed in 2016-
2017 when developing the 2023 modeling emissions for Oil and Gas E&P
inventory. Like when developing the 2017 emission projections, EPA used
the most recent data in development of the 2023 modeling emission
inventory, therefore there were differences in growth projections
between the 2017 model inventory and 2023 model emission inventories,
(like updated growth projections for 2023 model emission inventory).
The emission projection from 2011 to 2023 used in EPA's modeling shows
that if the emissions were not subject to controls, the emissions from
Oil and Gas E&P operations in New Mexico would have increased 27.8%.
However, closures in New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P reduced the 2023
projected emissions increase by 2.8%. Emission control technologies
implemented between 2011 and 2023 also reduced projected 2023 emissions
by 23.2%. As a result, the net projected New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P
NOX emissions for 2023 were projected to increase only 1.8%
(27.8%-2.8%-23.2%) from 2011 emission levels despite the projected
activity growth in the sector.
EPA used appropriate techniques and the most recently available
data to estimate both base and projection year inventories for the Oil
and Gas E&P sector in the 2017 and 2023 modeling. This supports the
conclusion that it is appropriate to rely on EPA's assessment of the
2017 and 2023 modeling to conclude that New Mexico's impact on all
identified downwind receptors is below the 1 percent threshold of 0.75
ppb in 2019-2020 and therefore that New Mexico will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states. A complete discussion of our evaluation is
included in the Response to Comment Technical Support Document, which
can be found in the docket for this action.
[[Page 26363]]
Comment #2: The commenters state that they have not reviewed other
inventory contributions but that the 2017 and 2023 emission projections
from 2011 for other source categories (non-Oil and Gas E&P emissions)
are likely not correct. The commenters then state that EPA should
update its inventory using 2017 actual emissions data and use 2017
actuals to project 2023 air quality, including a potential range of
emissions scenarios for 2023.
Response #2: EPA disagrees with the commenters' claim that the 2017
and 2023 future year emission projections for other source categories
are also incorrect. The commenters have not provided a reason to doubt
the accuracy of the inventories and projections for these other
sectors, nor have they provided information to support the claim.
Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the methodologies used by EPA
to calculate 2017 and 2023 future year projections are appropriate. For
further explanation on how these inventories and projections are
assessed, please see the more detailed response for Comment #1 in the
Response to Comment Technical Support Document, which can be found in
the docket for this action.
In response to the commenters' suggestion that EPA should update
its 2017 inventory with actual emissions, and include a range of
emissions projections for 2023, EPA again disagrees. The 2017 NEI
emissions for non-point Oil and Gas E&P emission sources were not yet
available at the time EPA conducted the 2023 modeling, but nonetheless
the commenter has not indicated how or whether the use of the 2017 data
would be likely to change EPA's assessment of New Mexico's impact on
downwind receptors.
We do note, as explained in further detail below, it is also not
reasonable to redo projections to 2023 and remodel impacts as part of
the review of the New Mexico SIP. Redevelopment of emission inventories
and performing photochemical grid modeling with source apportionment
would take at least one to two years and significant resources. Such an
effort is not a reasonable expectation without any indication that the
use of 2017 data in its modeling is likely to lead to a different
conclusion with respect to New Mexico's SIP. New Mexico utilized recent
EPA modeling in developing its SIP submittals and we utilized even more
recent analyses that were released in 2017 and 2018 to support our
proposed approval action. As discussed above we used the most recent
EIA AEO data at the time the emission inventories were generated. The
commenter has not provided any information to support its conclusion
that EPA would need to perform new modeling to support its approval of
New Mexico's SIP, nor have the commenters provided any such updated
modeling data. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that its analysis of
the available data indicates that New Mexico will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states.
III. Final Action
We are (1) determining that New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County have met their obligation under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because New Mexico will not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state and (2) approving the October 10, 2018 New Mexico
and October 4, 2018 City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP revisions
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport requirements of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 6, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
[[Page 26364]]
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone.
Dated: April 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
0
2. In Sec. 52.1620, the table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for
``Interstate Transport for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1620 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State EPA approval date Explanation
nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Interstate Transport for the Statewide......... 10/10/2018 5/4/2020, [Insert SIPs adopted by: NMED
2008 ozone NAAQS. 10/4/2018 Federal Register and City of
citation]. Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County. Addresses CAA
section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-08518 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
