Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance, 34912-34938 [2020-11573]

Download as PDF 34912 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Preamble Table of Contents DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 30 CFR Part 550 [Docket ID: BOEM–2018–0038] RIN 1010–AE02 Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: On April 5, 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule that would amend the regulations related to air quality measurement, evaluation, and control for oil, gas, and sulfur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The rule proposed significant revisions to existing regulations. This final rule amends the air quality management regulations applicable to activities that BOEM authorizes on the OCS of the United States in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) west of 87.5 degrees longitude and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. The air quality regulatory program (AQRP) is a component of the review and approval of plans for the exploration, development, and production of oil, gas, and sulfur on the OCS to comport with the Secretary of the Interior’s separate and distinct statutory authority governing air quality. This final rule implements the Secretary of the Interior’s statutory responsibility to ensure that conventional energy activities authorized under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) do not preclude compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to the extent those activities significantly affect the air quality of any State. DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2020. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at Peter.Meffert@boem.gov or by mail to 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166 or by calling (703) 787–1610. You may also contact Deanna MeyerPietruszka, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Chief, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at Deanna.Meyer-Pietruszka@boem.gov or by mail to 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 5238, Washington, DC 20240 or by calling (202) 208–6352. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 I. Preamble Acronyms and Terms II. Background and Legal Authority A. Background B. Key Provisions of the Final Rule C. BOEM’s Air Quality Modeling Studies D. Summary of Key Changes Since the Proposed Rule III. Summary of Public Comments A. Overview of Comments B. Why does BOEM need to update the air quality regulations? C. Why issue a rule before the regional air quality studies are complete? D. Responses to General Comments Made About the Proposed Rule E. Comments on the Regulatory Impact and Information Collection Analyses IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule V. Key Statutes and Executive Orders A. Statutes 1. Congressional Review Act 2. Data Quality Act 3. National Environmental Policy Act 4. Paperwork Reduction Act 5. Regulatory Flexibility Act 6. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act B. Executive Orders 1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630) 2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) 3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 4. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045) 5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) 6. Consultation With Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Related Authorities) 7. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) 8. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563) 9. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 13689) 10. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771) 11. Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (E.O. 13783) 12. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (E.O. 13795) I. Preamble Acronyms and Terms To ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the following acronyms and terms are used in the preamble: AKOCSR Alaska OCS Region ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act AQRP Air Quality Regulatory Program ASLM Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management ASRC Arctic Slope Regional Corporation BACT Best Available Control Technology BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 CAA Clean Air Act DOI Department of the Interior DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document DPP Development and Production Plan EA Environmental Assessment EET Emission Exemption Threshold EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order EP Exploration Plan FR Federal Register GOM Gulf of Mexico GOMR Gulf of Mexico Region IC Information Collection IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis MACI Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases MMS Minerals Management Service NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NASEM National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine NGO Non-governmental Organization NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators OCS Outer Continental Shelf OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a sub agency within OMB) OMB Office of Management and Budget PM Particulate Matter PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns diameter (i.e., fine PM) PM10 Particulate Matter less than or equal to 10 microns diameter PRA Paperwork Reduction Act ROW Right-of-Way RUE Right-of-Use-and-Easement SBA Small Business Administration Secretary Secretary of the Interior S.O. Secretary’s Order SILs Significant Impact Levels SLs Significance Levels TSP Total Suspended Particulates USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency VOC Volatile Organic Compound II. Background and Legal Authority A. Background The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provides the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), with the authority to ‘‘prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he determines to be necessary and proper in order to provide for the prevention of waste and conservation of resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and the protection of correlative rights therein’’ and that ‘‘notwithstanding any other provisions herein, such rules and regulations shall, as of their effective date, apply to all operations conducted under a lease issued or maintained under the provisions of this subchapter.’’ 43 U.S.C. 1334(a). OCSLA is clear on the Secretary’s responsibilities to ensure ‘‘compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards [(NAAQS)]’’, however the plain language also states that his E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 authority to regulate is limited to ‘‘activities authorized under this [Act]’’ that ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State.’’ For instance, OCSLA itself does not require or permit the operation of vessels in support of activities under a lease. OCSLA’s provisions on air quality provide the Secretary a much narrower authority to regulate when compared with the breadth of those authorities granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under later amendment to the CAA, the CAA Amendments of 1990, section 328 of the CAA clearly outlines the separate and distinct jurisdictional authority of the USEPA, limiting the applicability of USEPA’s regulatory authority only to specific areas of the OCS in consultation with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 7627. Congress further curtailed the geographic extent of USEPA’s jurisdiction on the OCS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–74), which transferred regulatory authority for air quality for operations in the Arctic OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska from the USEPA to DOI. Unlike the USEPA, whose regulatory mandate is much broader and applicable to many types of air pollutants, DOI’s regulatory authority under section 5(a) of OCSLA is focused on the six criteria air pollutants for which the USEPA has defined National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). These pollutants are Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Ozone, and Particulate Matter, of which there are several forms, two of which, PM2.5, and PM10, have defined NAAQS.1 The amount of any given criteria pollutant that may affect any State is influenced by two factors, the direct emission and dispersion of the criteria pollutant and the formation of a criteria pollutant caused by the emissions of other pollutants. Those air pollutants that contribute to the formation of a criteria air pollutant are known as precursor air pollutants. Historically, the precursor air pollutant that BOEM has regulated (in addition to those precursor air pollutants that are 1 The existing BOEM regulations refer to total suspended particulates (TSP), which was a criteria air pollutant at the time the regulations were originally published. Total suspended particulates means any form of particulate matter (i.e., solid particles or droplets) suspended in the air that has a diameter of 100 microns or less. PM10 and PM2.5 are subsets of TSP because they represent forms of particulate matter having a diameter of 10 or 2.5 microns or less, respectively. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 themselves also criteria air pollutants) is Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The legislative history of section 5(a) of OCSLA provides more insight into Congressional intent. The 1978 Conference Report notes that while one version of the original legislation included ‘‘very broad authority, with few guidelines, to promulgate regulations’’ it was ultimately the final, adopted language known to us in the statute that ‘‘does provide statutory guidelines and requirements for certain types of regulations’’ in order to provide ‘‘a mechanism for coordinated bureaucratic action.’’ S. Rep. 95–1091 at 82–83 (1978). Furthermore, this same report notes that conferees intended that regulations promulgated by the Secretary would, ‘‘. . . not generally require that the air mass above the OCS itself be brought into compliance . . .’’ but instead would control emissions from seaward sources ‘‘. . . to prevent a significant effect on the air quality of an adjacent onshore area.’’ Id. at 85–86. It is apparent from this Conference Report that Congress contemplated greater authorities, but instead chose statutory direction that sought to both de-conflict and define a separate and distinct regulatory regimen for the Secretary, expecting that some authorized activities on the OCS may not have significant effects due to their being located ‘‘many miles’’ from an adjacent onshore area. Id. at 86. Subsequent to the passage of this statutory direction provided by the OCSLA Amendments of 1978, the Department of the Interior (DOI) promulgated air quality regulations for the OCS in 1980, which incorporated the NAAQS, as established at that time. On April 5, 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule (81 FR 19718, April 5, 2016) to update the current air quality regulations that were promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) over 39 years ago (45 FR 15128, March 7, 1980). While the existing regulatory process is adequate, the regulations copied USEPA’s significance levels (SLs) and Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACIs) at the time of promulgation (1980). The corresponding values in the USEPA regulations have been updated since DOI’s regulations were adopted. On May 23, 2016, BOEM provided a 14-day comment period extension to the original 60-day public comment period, thus extending the public comment period to June 20, 2016 (81 FR 32259). On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13783, ‘‘Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.’’ In section 2 of that PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34913 Executive order, the President directed that: ‘‘The heads of agencies shall review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources . . .’’ and directed the head of each agency to finalize a report detailing the aforementioned agency actions that potentially burden domestic energy development. On October 24, 2017, the DOI finalized and published in the Federal Register the ‘‘Review of the Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy.’’ 82 FR 5052, Nov. 1, 2017. This report identified BOEM’s review of the proposed air quality rule. Separately, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13795, ‘‘Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.’’ In section 8 of that Executive order, the President directed that: ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall take all steps necessary to review BOEM’s Proposed Rule entitled ‘Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance,’ 81 FR 19718 (April 5, 2016), along with any related rules and guidance, and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable and consistent with law, consider whether the proposed rule, and any related rules and guidance, should be revised or withdrawn.’’ Notably, both Executive orders only directed the review of agency actions and did not direct specific outcomes for rulemakings, leaving decisions to the discretion of the Secretary, consistent with applicable laws. BOEM has carefully reviewed the available alternatives to ensure compliance with all relevant subsequent Executive and Secretary’s orders, including those related to energy independence and regulatory reform. Moreover, BOEM reviewed all comments received during the public comment period for the proposed rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Reexamination of the public comments from the 2016 proposed rule was necessary since it is questionable whether all provisions of the 2016 proposed rule would survive judicial review. This final rule revises the regulations so that they adequately reflect current SLs while ensuring that the regulatory administration of the Secretary’s distinct statutory authorities does not go beyond the authorities granted to the Secretary in OCSLA. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34914 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations B. Key Provisions of the Final Rule lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 BOEM is adopting the following key provisions from the proposed rule in this final rule: • Compliance with the NAAQS. The values for primary and secondary NAAQS are currently set forth in USEPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50.2 Consistent with the proposed rule, this final rule defines the term ‘‘NAAQS,’’ deletes the outdated lists of specific criteria air pollutants, and retains the existing regulation that requires compliance with the NAAQS. Currently, § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) provides that 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. BOEM and its predecessor agencies 3 have required compliance with both primary and secondary standards because OCSLA’s mandate makes no distinction between them. This final rule also clarifies that DOI’s reporting and compliance requirements apply to the emissions of all pollutants on the OCS for which a national ambient air quality standard has been defined.4 • Updating the Significance Levels (SLs) Table. The term ‘‘Significance Level’’ is defined to reference the values in the table at § 550.303(e), which are based on the values currently set forth in USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). These updated values and their updated criteria air pollutants replace the outdated table of SLs in the existing §§ 550.303(e) and 550.304(c), dating from 1980. BOEM may update these SLs as warranted through future rulemaking. In contrast to the proposed rule’s approach of merely crossreferencing to the USEPA’s regulations, the final rule provides a table of SLs for lessees and operators as a quick reference. Instead of searching for relevant SLs in another agency’s regulations, and given that USEPA’s regulations are different from DOI’s, the 2 Primary NAAQS standards provide for public health protection, including that of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary NAAQS standards provide for public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 3 BOEM’s predecessor agencies are the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service (MMS), and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement. 4 See 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8), which requires ‘‘compliance with the national ambient air quality standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 numbers are appropriately placed and readily accessible here. • Clarifying the Emission Exemption Threshold (EET) Terminology. The existing regulations use several different terms interchangeably, as they relate to the ‘‘Emissions Exemption Amount.’’ These include ‘‘exemption amount’’ and ‘‘exempt emissions.’’ BOEM is adding a definition of the term ‘‘emissions exemption threshold,’’ which replaces the term ‘‘exemption amount’’ used in the existing regulations. The existing references to the term ‘‘exempt emissions’’ are also being clarified by reference to the new defined term. These changes merely clarify terminology. • Replacing the Term Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). This final rule replaces the former criteria air pollutant ‘‘total suspended particulates’’ 5 with the new criteria pollutants ‘‘particulate matter 10’’ (PM10) and ‘‘particulate matter 2.5’’ (PM2.5) in the list of air pollutants in the tables at §§ 550.303(e) and 550.304(c). BOEM is aware that the USEPA has determined that PM10 and PM2.5 are more relevant indicators of particle pollution impact on human health and public welfare than TSP. Nevertheless, for the time being, TSP has been retained in the EET formulas at §§ 550.303(d) and 550.304(b). Although the USEPA replaced TSP as a NAAQS pollutant in 1987 and has discontinued the use of TSP in most of its air quality regulations, BOEM does not believe that the bureau has an adequate scientific basis for replacing the EET formula for TSP at this time. Hence, BOEM is continuing the use of TSP in the EET formulas. BOEM’s recent GOM and Alaska air quality studies provide insights into the EET formulas, informing potential future regulatory changes. At the same time, BOEM believes that it is important for operators to evaluate the impacts of criteria air pollutants PM10 and PM2.5. For this reason, this rulemaking replaces the TSP significance level values with those of PM10 and PM2.5 in the table of Significance Levels—Air Pollution Concentrations at §§ 550.303(e) and 550.304(c). Going forward, the SLs table will no longer contain any values for TSP. Because the SLs for PM10 and PM2.5 are a more appropriate basis for evaluating PM pollution, this final rule will require operators, whose emissions 5 TSP represents PM having a diameter of 100 microns or less; in contrast, PM10 represents PM have a diameter of 10 microns or less. PM2.5 represents PM having a diameter of two and onehalf microns or less. Thus, PM2.5 is a subset of PM10 and PM10 is a subset of TSP. PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 exceed the EET for TSP,6 to use modeling to determine whether their facility would cause an exceedance of the SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, not TSP.7 • Application to Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCDs). This final rule clarifies that the EET formulas in current §§ 550.303 and 550.304 apply to Development and Production Plans (DPPs) and DOCDs. This clarification will not lead to a change in practice because BOEM has always applied the existing air quality regulations to DPPs and DOCDs. The proposed rule included this clarification. Conforming changes are made in other provisions of the final rule as described in the Section-bySection analysis. • Criteria Air Pollutants. The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant.’’ Criteria air pollutants include Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Ozone, Particulate Matter, for which two forms, PM2.5, and PM10, have been defined. Under OCSLA, the Secretary’s authority is to ensure compliance with the NAAQS to the extent that authorized activities significantly affect the air quality of any State. As noted above, USEPA has defined NAAQS for six common air pollutants, known as ‘‘criteria air pollutants.’’ In addition to the criteria air pollutants, DOI regulates VOCs, which can affect the formation of criteria pollutants. Many other ‘‘air pollutants’’ are not within the scope of OCSLA’s statutory mandate, as they are not covered under the NAAQS.8 As discussed in the proposed rule, BOEM has clarified throughout the final rule what was meant by the use of the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ in the existing regulations. Before this change, BOEM used the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with differing meanings.9 • Dispersion Modeling. As noted previously, this final rule does not incorporate any of the provisions from 6 Because TSP is no longer a criteria pollutant, the USEPA has deleted SLs for TSP from its SLs table; similarly, this rule’s new SLs table no longer contains an SL value for TSP. 7 Although the final rule requires operators, whose emissions exceed the EET for TSP, to use modeling to determine whether their facility would cause an exceedance of the SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, not TSP, where modeling indicates an exceedance of the SL for either PM10 or PM2.5, TSP evaluation in relation to the values in the table listing the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACI) might be necessary. 8 For example, hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases have no NAAQS and therefore fall outside the scope of BOEM’s AQRP. 9 The section by section discussion of 30 CFR 550.105 provides details on where each of these uses of ‘‘air pollutant’’ are found in the existing regulations. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the proposed rule regarding the use of photochemical models to evaluate the formation of ozone or fine PM. Because the existing regulations cross-reference the recently updated USEPA modeling guidelines, which include guidelines on photochemical modeling, this final rule clarifies that those cross-references are applicable only to the portions of USEPA’s modeling guidelines that deal with dispersion modeling. BOEM will not require photochemical modeling under any circumstances at this time. Once the ongoing air quality studies are completed and evaluated, BOEM may reevaluate this position if it determines that OCS sources significantly contribute to the formation of ozone or fine PM. • Air Quality Spreadsheets. Along with this rulemaking, BOEM is updating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved air quality spreadsheets BOEM–0138 and BOEM– 0139, which are applicable to Exploration Plans (EPs), DOCDs, and DPPs, respectively.10 These are forms (not part of the regulations themselves) that operators use to report the information on air emissions required in the regulations, primarily the emissions associated with their proposed plans. These spreadsheets require the operator to identify the relevant types of equipment that will be used in connection with its OCS operations. The air quality spreadsheets provide emissions factors that correspond to each of the equipment types and that BOEM uses to determine the amount of emissions generated for every relevant criteria air pollutant, TSP, or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) under the plan. The spreadsheets enable the operator to quantify the total emissions by type of air pollutant for all equipment included in the EP, DPP, or DOCD, and then determine whether such emissions would or would not exceed the relevant EETs. In particular, BOEM is updating the spreadsheets with emissions factors for new types of equipment that are not currently listed (particularly those relevant to operations on the Alaska OCS). BOEM is also modifying the spreadsheet data requirements consistent with the regulations as amended. A detailed description of the spreadsheet changes is included in the section of this preamble under the heading ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act.’’ As part of this rulemaking, the air quality spreadsheets are being updated with newer, more up-to-date emissions 10 Available at: https://www.boem.gov/AirQuality-Reporting/ or at https://www.boem.gov/ BOEM-OCS-Operation-Forms/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 factors to more accurately assess the emissions being emitted by equipment used by OCS lessees and operators and to evaluate the emissions for lead, PM2.5, PM10, TSP, and ammonia. C. BOEM’s Air Quality Modeling Studies This final rule updates outdated standards and benchmarks, but defers consideration for further regulatory changes until the BOEM studies discussed below can all be completed and evaluated. In 2013 and 2014, BOEM initiated two air quality modeling studies to evaluate the impact of OCS operations on the air quality of the neighboring States. The first of these studies was focused on air quality adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska; the second addressed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) air quality. In 2018, BOEM completed its Alaska study, the ‘‘Arctic Air Quality Impact Assessment Modeling Study,’’ conducted by the Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), Ramboll Group A/S, and the University of Alaska Fairbanks.11 This study assessed BOEM’s current EETs, and proposed neither new EETs nor changes to the existing EETs. BOEM has proposed a follow-up study entitled ‘‘Updating the Emissions Exemption Thresholds (EETs) Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) Analysis Study’’ for BOEM’s Studies Development Plan.12 This follow-on study also would evaluate the consistency in the EETs between the Alaska and GOM regions, develop separate EETs for Alaska if appropriate, and address any comments on the methods used to formulate new EETs that are received from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). The second referenced air quality modeling study is entitled, ‘‘Air Quality Modeling in the Gulf of Mexico’’ (GM– 14–01), conducted by the ERG, Ramboll Group A/S, and Alpine Geophysics. The study was completed in September 2019, has undergone an independent peer review, and is posted on BOEM’s website at https://espis.boem.gov/ final%20reports/BOEM_2019-057.PDF. BOEM is currently reviewing the results of the NASEM peer review and intends to evaluate the NASEM recommendations in the near future. 11 Paula Fields Simma, Bebhinn Do, Bart Brashers, Till Stoeckius & Ralph Morris, Arctic Air Quality Impact Assessment Modeling Study: Final Project Report (2018) (report prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Ramboll under BOEM contract M12PC00014), available at https:// www.boem.gov/BOEM-2018-020/. 12 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Studies Development Plan 2020–2022 (2019), available at https://www.boem.gov/FY-2020-2022-SDP/. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34915 D. Summary of Key Changes Since the Proposed Rule This final rule amends regulations implementing section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)), which requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations ‘‘for 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.’’ BOEM administers these existing regulations, which have been fundamentally the same since their publication in 1980. This final rule adopts some provisions of the proposed rule. Over the past 40 years, the existing regulations have required lessees and operators to: 13 1. Submit information on air emissions from their OCS oil, gas, and sulfur activities projected to occur under any proposed EP, DPP, or DOCD (collectively referred to in this final rule as ‘‘plans’’).14 2. Determine whether projected emissions of certain air pollutants exceed the applicable EET. 3. Model the potential impacts of certain air pollutants when projected emissions exceed an applicable EET that could potentially cause significant air quality impacts to a State. As part of this review, BOEM first analyzes whether the modeled emissions would cause an increase in the ambient concentration of any criteria air pollutant in any State to exceed an SL. If no SL is exceeded, no 13 You can find an explanation of the process that BOEM and its predecessor agency, the MMS, used to develop these requirements in the preamble to the proposed rule (44 FR 27449 (May 10, 1979)) and the final existing air quality rule (45 FR 15128 (March 7, 1980)). Although BOEM presently manages the air quality regulatory program (AQRP), the U.S. Geological Survey largely wrote the original air quality regulations, which the Secretary approved. Since that time, MMS and then the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement administered this program, before BOEM took responsibility for the AQRP in October 2011. 14 In its evaluation of emissions through the use of the air quality spreadsheets, BOEM has historically and continues to require operators to report emissions based on the maximum rated capacity or maximum emissions estimate for their proposed type of equipment. Because any piece of equipment may emit more or less of any given air pollutant at any given time, depending on factors such as the type of fuel used, the length of time a piece of equipment is operated, the capacity utilization of the equipment, the workloads applied, the level of maintenance, etc., BOEM’s spreadsheets calculate the highest level of emissions for each type of air pollutant that any piece of equipment is capable of emitting over any given period of time. The existing air quality spreadsheets calculate the highest annual and peak hour emissions for each type of equipment and those numbers are the ones used to evaluate whether the emissions exemption threshold has or has not been exceeded. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 34916 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations further analysis is required. In the event that an SL is exceeded, if that exceedance occurs in an attainment area (i.e., an area where the NAAQS are not exceeded), a further analysis is required to determine if the increase would exceed the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increase (MACI) for that air pollutant. If not, no further analysis is required and the plan would be approved. If the MACI is exceeded, appropriate mitigations or controls would be required. 4. Control any emissions source proposed for or on any facility that modeling indicates could cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. The proposed rule would have significantly revised the existing regulations and would have more closely aligned DOI’s regulations with those of the USEPA. The proposed rule sought to require operators to include in their regulated emissions, the emissions from activities that are not expressly authorized under OCSLA. However, the Secretary’s statutory requirements differ substantially from those of the USEPA and so, based on BOEM’s reassessment of the proposed rule in light of the public comments, such alignment is not appropriate. For example, compared to the time periods for plan review under OCSLA, the CAA and USEPA regulations provide for a very different process and timeframes for evaluating air quality permits. Congress, in providing the Secretary with this distinct statutory authority, specifically noted in the Conference Report that it did not intend the ‘‘. . . application of section 5(a)(8) regulations [to] interfere with the time periods provided in the conference report for review and approval of exploration plans, and development and production plans.’’ S. Rept. 95–1091, p. 86. Based largely on the extensive public comments received to the proposed rule, BOEM has determined that such an extensive alignment could: (1) Unduly burden the industry; (2) potentially complicate and duplicate other Federal agency requirements; (3) possibly raise legal questions regarding DOI’s authority to adopt some of the proposed changes; and (4) potentially prevent BOEM from complying with the statutorily mandated timeframes for completing exploration and development plan reviews. For these reasons, BOEM has determined that the extensive revisions in the proposed rule are unnecessary. This final rule incorporates a limited number of the changes in the proposed rule and retains the fundamental structure of the existing regulations. Because of this, it would not be VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 practical to cite in this preamble every provision in the proposed rule that BOEM is not adopting in this final rule. However, several of the more significant proposed revisions that BOEM has not included in this final rule are discussed in the parts of the preamble responding to general comments and the Sectionby-Section analysis. Among those proposed changes that BOEM is not adopting in the final rule are those that would have: • Required the consideration of emissions from transiting support vessels, vehicles, or aircraft in the EET analysis.15 • Required BOEM’s evaluation of air quality impacts arising from all right-ofuse and easement grants (RUEs) and right-of-way grants (ROWs).16 • Required re-certification of existing facilities for compliance with existing air quality standards on a periodic basis. • Changed the location at which BOEM evaluates air quality impacts from the coastal point nearest the offshore facility’s most significant impact on a State’s air quality based on prevailing winds to such a point on the seaward boundary of a State’s submerged lands.17 • Specified how emissions should be determined and evaluated by equipment type and various usage rates (i.e., emissions factors).18 • Added new criteria for aggregating emissions from multiple facilities to evaluate air quality impacts.19 • Added a detailed methodology for implementing emission reduction credits in lieu of emission reductions from controls applied to facilities, expanding on treatment of the matter in the existing regulations. 15 BOEM is not reducing the reporting requirements, themselves, as the emissions of all support vessels will still be reported in accordance in with the requirements of subpart B. In addition, support vessels that are temporarily connected either to the seabed or to a facility (such as well reworking vessels) will continue to be treated as facility emissions, in accordance with existing requirements for facilities, and will continue to be considered as part of the EET analysis. For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart B. Plans and Information (§ 550.218—What Air Emissions Information Must Accompany the EP?). 16 For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control. 17 For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control (Paragraph (e)(1)—Significance Levels). 18 For a more detailed summary, see Part II. Background and Legal Authority, Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Air Quality Spreadsheets). 19 For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control (Paragraph (j)—Review of Facilities with Emissions Below the Exemption Amount). PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 • Extended to Indian tribes the same opportunity afforded to States to comment on BOEM’s consideration of a plan.20 When the CAA was amended in 1990 to change the status of the Tribes with respect to air quality, Congress made no mention of extending analogous authority more broadly to other agencies. OCSLA was not mentioned in the discussion of these CAA amendments and no efforts were made on the part of Congress to extend this authority more broadly. • Set criteria for adopting future EET changes without additional rulemaking.21 • Established new single source photochemical modeling requirements for ozone and PM2.5 22 that may be formed in the atmosphere from OCS facilities’ emissions.23 • Replaced the table of MACI in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(A) 24 with a crossreference to the codified USEPA Ambient Air Increments.25 • Established new requirements for how and when lessees and operators should measure and report emissions on an ongoing basis. • Added various provisions intended to make the AQRP similar to that of USEPA’s. • Used the term ‘‘significant impact level’’ (SIL) in lieu of the term ‘‘significance level’’ (SL).26 20 For a more detailed summary, see Part V. Key Statutes and Executive Orders, Subpart B. Executive Orders, section 5. Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Other Authorities). 21 For more detailed summaries, see Part II. Background and Legal Authority, Subpart C. BOEM’s Air Quality Modeling Studies and Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Replacing the Term TSP). Also see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart B. Plans and Information (§ 550.218—What Air Emissions Information Must Accompany the EP?). 22 PM , or fine PM, is an airborne contaminant 2.5 composed of particles having a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. 23 BOEM is using the USEPA’s latest modeling guidance in Appendix W in a prudent manner consistent with BOEM’s authorities and is working with the USEPA through the Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). For more detailed summaries of the modeling processes, see Part II. Background and Legal Authority, Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Dispersion Modeling), and Part IV. Sectionby-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart B. Plans and Information (§ 550.218—What Air Emissions Information Must Accompany the EP?). 24 To improve readability and avoid any confusion, all further regulatory section references in the main body of this notice are to 30 CFR part 550 unless otherwise specified. Footnotes will contain the complete citation. 25 For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control. 26 For more details, see Part IV. Section-bySection Analysis of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations • Adopted a cross-reference to the regulations of the USEPA; instead, a table of updated relevant and applicable SLs applied by BOEM is included in this final rule, as described above. • In addition, the proposed rule raised the issue of whether the SLs used by states should be incorporated into the table of SLs.27 Upon further review of the comments received, BOEM has determined to continue to use the values reflected in USEPA regulations 28 in implementing the NAAQS. The existing regulation at § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) provides that 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. This section from the existing regulations will continue to be applied to ensure that no plan for an OCS facility will be approved if it would cause an exceedance of the NAAQS in any State. III. Summary of Public Comments lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 A. Overview of Comments BOEM received 81 written comments, consisting of several thousand pages of text, to the proposed rule. Only three comments were submitted by individuals. The remaining comments were submitted on behalf of organizations. Many comments were submitted on behalf of multiple parties; therefore, the number of organizations that submitted comments is significantly larger than the number of comments BOEM received. The following industry and trade groups submitted comments: Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA); American Petroleum Institute (API); Offshore Operators Committee (OOC); National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA); Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA); International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC); Offshore Marine Services Association (OMSA); Jackson Offshore Operators; International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA); Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (TEMA); and Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Additionally, the following companies submitted individual 27 While BOEM discussed this proposal in the preamble to the proposed rule and solicited comment on it, BOEM did not include this proposal in the proposed regulatory text. 28 For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 comments: Arena Offshore; Anadarko Petroleum; ASRC Exploration; Barry Graham Oil Service LLC; British Petroleum; BR Petrobras; Chevron Corporation; Diamond Offshore; Edison Chouest Offshore; Fieldwood Energy; Gulfmark Americas Inc.; Hornbeck Offshore Services; Murphy Oil; LLOG Exploration; Odyssea Marine; Otto Candies LLC; Rowan Companies; Seacor Marine LLC; Sea Support Ventures LLC; Shell Oil; Tidewater Marine; Transocean; Walter Oil; and W&T Offshore. The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) submitted comments: Alaska Inter-Tribal Council; Alaska Wilderness League; Center for American Progress; Center for Biological Diversity; Clean Air Task Force; Earthjustice; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace USA; and the Gulf Restoration Network. Various Federal, State, local, quasigovernmental, and tribal organizations also provided comments, including the following: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Arctic Inupiat Offshore; North Slope Borough; the State of Alaska; the State of Louisiana; the State of Texas; USEPA; the National Park Service; the U.S. Forest Service; the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, BOEM held meetings with a number of tribal groups, as discussed more fully in Part V. Key Statutes, Subpart B. Executive Orders, section 5. Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Related Authorities). In general, industry and industry trade groups took the position that the emissions generated from OCS sources do not represent a significant source of air pollution to the States and that the existing regulatory approach is adequate. They also raised the concern that some of the proposed changes would force them to incur high costs that would negatively impact exploration and development. Environmental NGOs generally took the opposite view, arguing that the regulations are outdated and inadequate to ensure that OCS facilities do not adversely impact the air quality of the States. The following includes more detailed description of certain comments received on the proposed rulemaking. BOEM addresses comments relevant to specific regulatory provisions in the Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule in Part IV. of the preamble, to the extent that those comments are relevant to the changes BOEM is making in this final rule. In most cases BOEM is not specifically addressing comments related to the PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34917 proposed regulatory provisions that BOEM is not adopting from the proposed rule; however, some such comments have been addressed when necessary to clarify BOEM’s action on specific rule sections. B. Why does BOEM need to update the air quality regulations? Comment: Some comments stated that in various environmental analyses BOEM concluded that the OCS facilities it regulates do not significantly impact State air quality. Those commenters questioned why BOEM proposed extensive revisions to its air quality regulations despite the fact that the existing AQRP seems to be doing an adequate job of protecting State air quality. Some commenters also asserted that BOEM’s 2012–2017 GOM lease sale environmental impact statement (EIS) 29 as well as various other BOEM documents specifically stated that the existing regulations have prevented adverse onshore air quality impacts. Those commenters argued, for that reason, that no changes are necessary for the air quality regulations. Response: This final rule maintains the BOEM air quality existing regulations with only a few changes and retains the regulatory framework that has been in place since March 1980. This final rule is intended primarily to update obsolete or irrelevant provisions in the regulations that no longer reflect NAAQS standards and benchmarks. For example, USEPA’s current list of criteria air pollutants no longer includes TSP, but does include PM10 and PM2.5. This final rule adds SLs for PM10 and PM2.5 and updates criteria air pollutants and SLs that the USEPA has revised since 1980. C. Why issue a rule before the regional air quality studies are complete? Comment: Some comments questioned proceeding with a final air quality rule while a study of air quality in the GOM region (GOMR) is ongoing. Response: Partly based on these comments, the final rule does not adopt the provisions to which the commenters were objecting. Although the GOM region study is complete, it is being peer reviewed and BOEM plans to consider and respond to that peer review once completed. This final rule adopts the values that the USEPA currently lists in 40 CFR 29 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012–2017, Western Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248, Central Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2012) (OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012–019). E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34918 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 51.165(b)(2) as SLs to be used by BOEM. The final rule also replaces outdated SLs for the former criteria air pollutant TSP in §§ 550.303(e) and 550.304(c) with PM10 and PM2.5 SLs. The GOMR study is not relevant to these revisions. BOEM intends to use the information from its GOMR and Alaska studies to inform future policy determinations and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. The studies also will provide information on the cumulative effects of activities that BOEM authorizes. BOEM is evaluating the results of a peer-review process of the GOM study which BOEM conducted in accordance with the OMB’s ‘‘Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,’’ under which agencies must undertake a peer review of influential scientific information by specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft, before they disseminate the information to the public. This Bulletin also imposes minimum requirements for the peer review of highly influential scientific assessments. BOEM has determined that the GOMR study is a highly influential assessment and is complying with OMB peer review requirements as outlined in the OMB Bulletin for Peer Review. D. Responses to Other Comments Made About the Proposed Rule Comment: Some comments suggested that BOEM simplify the explanation of the term NAAQS found in existing § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) by referring to the list of NAAQS in 40 CFR part 50. Response: BOEM finds it unnecessary to reference 40 CFR part 50 and believes that the existing reference to NAAQS in the referenced paragraph is sufficient. However, this final rule provides definitions for ‘‘NAAQS’’ and ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ (which refers to the NAAQS) in §§ 550.105 and 550.302. The final rule makes corresponding changes to add ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ where ‘‘NAAQS’’ are discussed. The APA specifically states that ‘‘a sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.’’ 5 U.S.C. 558. Adopting by reference a separate and distinct regulatory agency’s regulations could lead to a future scenario in which an agency may promulgate a rulemaking, as defined in the APA as a ‘‘statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,’’ that may have a significant impact on states, localities, or a regulated community over which that agency has no statutory jurisdiction or expertise. In such cases, the agency with VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 jurisdiction may have little recourse to provide meaningful input aside from those provided in the formal rulemaking process unless a complete exemption is granted. Given the separate and distinct legal authorities of the USEPA and BOEM, BOEM believes that updating the NAAQS through the rulemaking process best affords ‘‘interested persons an opportunity to participate’’ through notice and comment while also adhering to the principles outlined in section 1 of E.O. 13771 ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ which include: designing regulations ‘‘in the most costeffective manner to achieve the regulatory objective;’’ tailoring regulations ‘‘to impose the least burden on society . . .;’’ and drafting regulations to be ‘‘simple and easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.’’ Comment: Some comments suggested that BOEM should utilize two sets of SLs, one for attainment areas and one for non-attainment areas. These commenters argued that the proposed SLs were too stringent for attainment areas. Other comments suggested that the regulations should include interim SILs, recommended in USEPA guidance. Some comments suggested that DOI establish its own SL valuations for each criteria air pollutant—perhaps with a ‘‘default’’ level at 5 percent of the NAAQS—independent of the USEPA SIL valuations.’’ Response: BOEM is updating the SL values to those the USEPA has established and applying these values to both attainment and non-attainment areas. BOEM has not established separate SLs for attainment and nonattainment areas in the final rule. The USEPA values set forth at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) apply in both areas; States also generally have one set of SLs for both areas in their permitting programs. Comment: Various comments requested that BOEM interpret what it means by the phrase ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State.’’ 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8). Several commenters suggested that BOEM define this phrase in terms of causing an exceedance of the NAAQS; others, in terms of contributing to an exceedance. One commenter asserted that an exceedance of a SL and the corresponding NAAQS should both be required to qualify as significantly affecting the air quality of a State. Response: The existing § 550.303(f)(1) defines that phrase as the projected emissions of any air pollutant other than VOC from any facility which result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the SL determined under PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 paragraph (e), which lists the USEPA’s SLs for criteria pollutants from 1980, for that air pollutant, shall be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that air pollutant. Additionally, the existing § 550.303(f)(2) defines ‘‘significantly affect’’ with respect to VOC emissions as the projected emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph (d), which lists the exemption threshold equations, for that air pollutant [i.e., referring to an EET for VOC] shall be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC. This final rule continues using SLs as the indicator of whether emissions significantly affect the air quality of any State and updates the SL values to conform with the NAAQS as updated by the USEPA. In the regulation as amended by this final rule, there are two exceptions to the use of the SLs to determine whether emissions significantly affect the air quality of any State. First, with respect to VOCs, BOEM has retained the existing policy whereby an exceedance of the EET for VOCs is the criteria for determining whether emissions of VOCs significantly affect the air quality of any State. Second, BOEM recognizes that an air pollutant concentration could exceed the relevant NAAQS in rare circumstances when OCS emissions of criteria air pollutants from a facility that has an impact below the SLs are considered with the background concentrations of a relevant onshore area. In either of these two situations, BOEM would treat the plan in the same manner as it would handle a situation where the SLs had been exceeded. Comment: Some comments questioned the proposed rule’s definitions of ‘‘attainment area’’ and ‘‘non-attainment area’’ because none closely align with USEPA’s usages. In particular, some commenters noted that BOEM’s use of ‘‘non-attainment area’’ is narrower than that of the USEPA’s because BOEM does not consider whether an area that is itself in attainment with the NAAQS may nevertheless be considered nonattainment, as USEPA may do, because it may cause a nearby area to fall into non-attainment. Response: The existing regulations use the terms ‘‘attainment area’’ and ‘‘non-attainment area’’ differently than the USEPA. The USEPA’s regulations provide for multiple categories of areas beyond these two categories (e.g., attainment areas, maintenance areas, unclassifiable areas) whereas DOI’s regulations treat all areas outside ‘‘nonattainment’’ as attainment areas. The existing regulations deliberately use this E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations simplified nomenclature to streamline the regulations, because the USEPA’s categories are not relevant to implementing the Secretary’s statutory authority. BOEM also left the definition more limited because OCSLA’s statutory mandate is more limited than USEPA’s under the CAA; considering the impact of OCS emissions on an area whose nonOCS emissions might impact a third area is outside the scope of OCSLA’s statutory mandate. BOEM is not making any substantive change to the definition of either attainment or non-attainment areas. Comment: Generally, industry commenters objected to the proposal to add photochemical modeling requirements when the EETs for PM or ozone precursors are exceeded. These commenters argued that BOEM has not determined that OCS operations are responsible for any State exceedance of PM or ozone NAAQS. They asserted that the contrary has always been true: OCS operations have never significantly affected any State with respect to PM or ozone. Next, these commenters pointed out that BOEM has not approved a photochemical model for secondary formation of PM or ozone. They state that the USEPA had not established any photochemical modeling guidelines. Finally, they pointed out that the proposed rule did not contain criteria for determining when to model ozone formation and argued that including such criteria in the final rule would likely be arbitrary. Response: BOEM does not intend to require photochemical modeling under this final rule. The regulations do not currently require photochemical modeling. The existing §§ 550.218 and 550.249, however, require lessees and operators to follow the modeling guidelines in USEPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. This crossreference introduces ambiguity because the USEPA updated appendix W after the proposed rule was published and established guidelines for evaluating ozone and secondary PM formation, which may in some cases result in photochemical modeling for these pollutants. BOEM has determined that incorporating photochemical modeling into this final rule is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the existing regulations do not contain EETs addressing secondary criteria air pollutant formation except for the VOC EET and regulations do not provide a SL for ozone. Without these, BOEM lacks a basis for determining when ozone modeling should be required and what the results should be measured against. In the case of PM, the SL for PM2.5 was based on dispersion modeling and was VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 not intended to identify when photochemical modeling should be employed. Second, BOEM has not determined that an appropriate singlesource photochemical model relevant to OCS operations exists; thus, there is no BOEM-approved photochemical model. Third, BOEM must wait until its air quality studies are completed and fully evaluated before it can determine whether OCS operations cause sufficient emissions of precursors to PM2.5 and ozone to significantly affect the air quality of any State. In order to avoid confusion, the final rule clarifies that the cross-reference to the USEPA’s appendix W applies only to dispersion modeling. Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would have impaired BOEM’s ability to timely process applications for plan approvals. Response: BOEM agrees that many of the proposed provisions would have added substantial burdens to both BOEM staff in reviewing plans and to operators’ ability to fully conform to the proposed rule’s provisions. OCSLA mandates particular timeframes for approval of EPs and DPPs (43 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1) and 1351(h)(1)) and the regulations similarly provide a timeframe for review of DOCDs (30 CFR 550.267). The proposed rule would have made meeting these deadlines difficult. Congress specifically noted in the 1978 Conference Report that the regulations under section 5(a)(8) should not ‘‘interfere with the time periods provided . . . for review and approval’’ of plans. Moreover, BOEM is aware that the procedure and the associated timeframes for making and appealing permitting decisions under the CAA are very different from those under its authorities. Congress too was aware of these differences when they passed legislation to transfer authority to regulate air quality on the Arctic OCS in 2011. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law 112–74, section 432, December 23, 2011; see also, The American Energy Initiative, Part 4: H.R. ll, The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 112th Cong. 37 (2011). In any case, BOEM is not finalizing the proposed provisions that gave rise to these comments. Comment: Some commenters voiced opposition to the proposed provision on ‘‘Mobile Support Craft.’’ Others complained that the proposed requirement was unclear as to whether sources on support vessels would be subject to control requirements. Other PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34919 commenters urged that BOEM must regulate such sources directly. Response: BOEM is not adopting these proposed provisions. As explained in more detail later, the proposed provisions were legally questionable and raised numerous practical problems. Comment: Some commenters expressed support for BOEM regulating pollutants for which there is no NAAQS, including greenhouse gasses. Response: BOEM requested comment on this issue but did not propose any particular regulatory provisions. BOEM’s ability to regulate air quality is limited to the authority provided to the Secretary in section 5(a)(8). The authority granted in section 5(a)(8) is limited to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and therefore that provision does not grant authority to regulate emissions that have no relation to attaining a NAAQS. Comment: BOEM received comments opposed to the proposed provisions requiring that in certain circumstances emissions from multiple facilities be combined. Commenters expressed concerns about the practical difficulties in complying with these provisions and pointed out that BOEM failed to provide sufficient reasons why such provisions were necessary. Response: BOEM is not adopting the proposed provisions. BOEM agrees that the proposed provisions were unnecessary, and BOEM believes that these proposed provisions were unduly burdensome. Comment: Some commenters raised both legal and practical problems with the proposal to evaluate impacts at the State’s seaward boundary. The commenters assert that there is a lack of reliable information about the background concentrations at the state seaward boundary because of a lack of offshore monitors. Moreover, they pointed out that different states have different seaward boundaries under the Submerged Lands Act. These commenters noted that it is appropriate to consider NAAQS compliance and associated onshore impacts at the shoreline and inland where public exposure and protection is the primary focus. Other commenters expressed support for this aspect of the proposal. Response: As discussed in more detail below, BOEM is not adopting this aspect of the proposal. BOEM generally agrees with the practical difficulties over which commenters expressed concerns. The clearly expressed intent of Congress in the 1978 Conference Report was that the regulations under section 5(a)(8) regulate the onshore impacts to State air quality. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34920 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Comment: Proposed § 550.310(c) would have required lessees to resubmit previously approved plans at least every 10 years to verify compliance with the existing air quality regulations, including those provisions relating to new information gathering and reporting requirements. Some commenters suggested that the proposed requirement to re-submit plans every 10 years could be inconsistent with section 25(h)(3) of OCSLA, which indicates that BOEM should review existing plans ‘‘based upon changes in available information and other onshore or offshore conditions affecting or impacted by development and production pursuant to such plan.’’ Current § 550.303(j) authorizes the Regional Supervisor to require submittal of additional information when he or she judges an individual facility alone or in combination with others may significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area. These same commenters have asserted that this existing regulatory provision should be sufficient for BOEM to address any isolated situation where one or more facilities may be causing harm to any State(s). For these reasons, commenters assert that BOEM should not require the routine resubmission and additional approval of existing plans. Response: BOEM has decided not to adopt these proposed provisions. Based on its review of the public comments received, BOEM has determined that requiring a periodic re-review of all plans would be inappropriate. BOEM believes that reconsideration of previous approvals should not be undertaken lightly and is not warranted based on the mere passage of time. Operators depend on BOEM’s approval of their plans, and BOEM should not upset these expectations without good cause. For these reasons, the proposal to periodically re-review and re-approve existing plans is not being adopted with this final rule. BOEM’s responses to other stakeholder commenters are available in Part III. Summary of Public Comments, Subpart E. Comments on the Regulatory Impact and Information Collection Analyses, and Part IV. Section-bySection Analysis of the Final Rule of this preamble below. E. Comments on the Regulatory Impact and Information Collection Analyses Comments: Ten comments addressed both BOEM’s initial regulatory impact analysis (IRIA) and information collection (IC) analysis; an additional 12 comments focused solely on the IRIA. Overall, the commenters addressed the VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 benefits of the rule (in terms of emissions reductions) compared to the burdens (i.e., costs), necessity, practical utility, burden reduction, and accuracy of the proposed collections. The comments raised a number of questions regarding the calculations and estimates provided by BOEM with the proposed rule. Response: Commenters questioned the estimated IC costs under the proposed rule. Partly in response to those comments, the final rule does not appreciably impact the annual burden hours or non-hour costs currently authorized under OMB control numbers 1010–0114 (30 CFR part 550, subpart A, ‘‘General’’), 1010–0151 (30 CFR part 550, subpart B, ‘‘Plans and Information’’), and 1010–0057 (30 CFR part 550, subpart C, ‘‘Pollution Prevention and Control’’). Therefore, BOEM is not seeking OMB approval for any new annual burden hours or nonhour cost burdens. Because the final rule does not change overall IC burdens, BOEM only will seek OMB approval for revising the air quality spreadsheets, BOEM–0138 and BOEM–0139. IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule This part of the preamble provides a section-by-section analysis of the regulations promulgated in this final rule. Part 550—Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf Subpart A—General § 550.105 Definitions The existing regulations define ‘‘air pollutant’’ as any combination of agents’ for which the USEPA has established primary or secondary NAAQS. 30 CFR 550.302. Under the CAA, such combinations of agents are defined as ‘‘criteria air pollutants.’’ However, the regulations use the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ inconsistently and, in some instances, contrary to its definition. For example, § 550.303(e) discusses ‘‘air pollutants other than VOCs,’’ suggesting that VOCs meet the definition of an air pollutant; and § 550.303(d) implies that VOCs meet the definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ because the referenced exemption formulas for ‘‘emissions from the facility for each air pollutant’’ include a formula for VOCs. However, VOCs fall outside the stated definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ because NAAQS have not been established for them. The proposed rule would have added a definition for ‘‘criteria air pollutant,’’ PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 would have redefined ‘‘air pollutant,’’ and would have used those terms consistent with their definitions throughout the regulations. The proposed definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ was very broad and included categories of emissions (i.e., hazardous air pollutants) that fell outside the Secretary’s statutory authority to regulate because NAAQS have not been established for them. The final rule completely eliminates a regulatory definition for ‘‘air pollutant’’ 30 and adds a definition for ‘‘criteria air pollutant.’’ The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in §§ 550.105, 550.302, and 550.303(f)(1) and (g)(2)(i)(B), and in the definitions of ‘‘attainment area’’ and ‘‘nonattainment area.’’ The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant and VOC’’ in §§ 550.105 and 550.302 definitions of ‘‘best available control technology (BACT).’’ The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant or VOC’’ in § 550.303(h). The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP’’ in §§ 550.249(a)(2) and 550.283(a)(4). The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP’’ in §§ 550.303(d) and 550.304(b). The final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in §§ 550.303(g)(1) and (2) and 550.304(d)(1). Finally, the final rule deletes the phrase ‘‘for that air pollutant’’ in § 550.303(f)(2) because the existing provision only relates to VOCs. These changes clarify the existing regulations to address perceived inconsistency.31 The definition set out in the regulatory text below is essentially the same as that in the proposed rule. However, the proposed rule also included a reference to 40 CFR part 50, which BOEM has not adopted for the reasons previously described. This aspect of the final rule (i.e., eliminating the ‘‘air pollutant’’ definition, but adding a similar one for ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’) is not substantively different from the existing regulations and will have no effect on the administration of the AQRP. Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout this 30 Instead of a specialized regulatory definition, BOEM will rely on the plain dictionary meaning of the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ in this part. 31 The criteria pollutants are Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Ozone, and Particulate Matter, of which there are several forms, two of which, PM2.5, and PM10, have defined NAAQS. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 final rule, BOEM is updating the definition of the terms ‘‘attainment area’’ and ‘‘non-attainment area’’ by replacing the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in the definition of each of these terms. BOEM is making this change for clarification purposes only. The final rule definition of ‘‘attainment area’’ excludes part of the proposed definition that would have referred to USEPA regulations explicitly and instead continues BOEM’s practice of referring to attainment areas by stating that these consist of all areas not designated as non-attainment.32 By the same token, the definition of ‘‘non-attainment area’’ in § 550.105 would change. The meaning of the definition of the term ‘‘non-attainment area’’ remains the same as in both the existing and proposed regulation. Although the existing regulations refer to air pollutant, and not criteria air pollutant, the definition of air pollutant in the existing regulations was limited to criteria pollutants. This use of the term air pollutant is misleading because it typically has a broader meaning. For example, hazardous pollutants would not be covered. Secondly, the existing regulations referred to air pollutants as both including and excluding precursors, specifically VOCs. In this final rule, we define only the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ and, in each relevant provision, specifically mention any non-criteria pollutant we are referencing (e.g., TSP and VOCs). BOEM left the definition more limited because OCSLA’s statutory mandate is more limited than that imposed under the CAA considering the impact of OCS emissions on an area whose non-OCS emissions might impact a third area is outside the scope of OCSLA’s statutory mandate. For the same reason, the definition of BACT was also revised in §§ 550.105 and 550.203. In this instance the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ referred both to criteria air pollutants 33 and VOCs and the definition of BACT was changed accordingly.34 32 The USEPA has multiple designations for areas that BOEM refers to as ‘‘attainment areas,’’ and BOEM regulations do not mirror the USEPA regulations, in part because of this. Given OCSLA’s more limited air quality mandate, there is no reason for BOEM to classify onshore areas into more categories. 33 The Solicitor’s Office prepared a memorandum from Associate Solicitor, Energy and Resources, to Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Authority to Require Air Pollution Controls on Vessels in Transit to Outer Continental Shelf Facilities (June 15, 1987). 34 The definition of air pollutant in BOEM’s existing regulations did not clearly make a distinction between criteria air pollutants and those pollutants that are not criteria air pollutants (i.e., VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout this final rule, BOEM is updating the definition so that it also applies to DOCDs. Thus, the updated definition of ‘‘emission offsets’’ in § 550.105 reads as set out in the regulatory text below. Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout this final rule, BOEM is updating the definition so that it also applies to DOCDs. Thus, the updated definition of ‘‘existing facility’’ in § 550.105 reads as set out in the regulatory text below. The effect of this change is to include the DOCD among the list of plans referenced in the definition. The final rule does not make any of the other proposed changes to this definition. BOEM is moving the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ from § 550.302 to § 550.105, where alphabetical order dictates. That term is used in subpart B, but is not defined in the existing regulations until subpart C. Because the definitions in subpart C technically apply only to subpart C, BOEM is adding this term to the general definition section in subpart A. Subpart B—Plans and Information § 550.218—What Air Emissions Information Must Accompany the EP? Paragraph (e) in the proposed rule provided that 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) and your attributed emissions under paragraph (d)(6). This would have required lessees and operators to provide emissions data on an annual, 12-month rolling sum, and maximum and peak hourly basis for criteria air pollutants, VOCs, and ammonia. The final rule does not implement the proposed rule requirement for lessees and operators to provide and analyze 12-month rolling sum emissions. This final rule also does not implement the proposed rule requirement that operators report emissions data for ammonia. As was the case with the proposed rule, § 550.218(a) requires lessees and operators to include in their EPs a table showing both projected emissions of all criteria air pollutants for which there is a NAAQS and projected emissions of VOCs. The requirement is the same as VOCs) but contribute to the formation of criteria air pollutants. This rule intends to correct that error. PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34921 § 550.218(a) in the existing regulations, but the list of pollutants is replaced with reference to ‘‘criteria air pollutants,’’ as defined by the USEPA. The lessee or operator must submit the information required by this section with the EP and BOEM will use the submitted information in evaluating the EP. BOEM made appropriate changes to implement this provision in both § 550.218(a) and (e). Because of the change to the regulatory text, which replaced the enumeration of specific criteria pollutants with a reference to criteria pollutants generally, additional criteria pollutants were added to § 550.218(a). Of these, three criteria air pollutants (lead, PM2.5, and PM10) will have reporting requirements without an EET corresponding to those air pollutants. As stated in the proposed rule, BOEM lacks sufficient data to update the EETs at this time. Subpart B of the existing regulations specifies what data and information must be included in a plan. Subpart C specifies how that data should be analyzed and what the operator must do, depending on the results of the analysis. Although BOEM modified subpart B of the existing regulations several years ago to require operators to report PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, that change was not accompanied by a corresponding change to subpart C. As a result, although BOEM requires operators to report PM10 and PM2.5 data, the EET formula for PM in §§ 550.303(d) and 550.304(b) requires an analysis of data for TSP. Unfortunately, the existing regulations did not explain how to resolve the discrepancy between subpart B’s data reporting requirements and subpart C’s data utilization requirements. Because BOEM has determined that it does not yet have a proper scientific basis to consider revising the formulas in §§ 550.303(d) and 550.304(b), BOEM has decided to instead update §§ 550.218(a) and 550.249(a), applicable to exploration and development plans respectively, to specify that operators should also report data for TSP. As noted previously, because the SL for TSP has been replaced by new SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, if an operator uses the EET formula for TSP and determines that its emissions exceed the EET, it would be required to model emissions of PM10 and PM2.5, not TSP, and to compare the results with the significance levels for PM10 and PM2.5. In the event that the significance levels for PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeded, additional modeling of TSP may be required to determine whether the E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 34922 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations emissions exceed the MACIs, as defined in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(A). In order to determine if the projected emissions associated with its plan exceed the relevant SLs, the operator would be required to use a BOEMapproved model, in accordance with the existing requirements of § 550.218(e) and (f), in the case of an EP, or § 550.249(e) and (f), in the case of a DOCD or DPP. Any dispersion modeling would also have to be conducted using a methodology consistent with USEPA modeling requirements outlined in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, in accordance with the existing requirements of § 550.218(e), in the case of an EP, or § 550.249(e), in the case of a DPP. This final rule amends §§ 550.218(e) and 550.249(e) to make clear that the reference to appendix W is applicable only insofar as it is relevant to dispersion models. On January 17, 2017, subsequent to the publication of the air quality proposed rule, the USEPA published a final rule entitled, ‘‘Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter’’ (82 FR 5182, EPA–HQ–OAR– 2015–0310; FRL–9956–23–OAR, RIN 2060–AS54). This final rule updated the list of approved air quality models and the modeling guidelines associated with the remaining USEPA-approved air quality models. Notably, the USEPA rule newly allowed the use of singlesource chemical transport models, which typically involve photochemical modeling, to evaluate the impacts of new and modified emissions sources with respect to the formation of ozone and the secondary formation of PM2.5 when more general analyses for an area are not sufficient. But, this amendment to appendix W did not require the use of such models either. Still because appendix W is cross-referenced in BOEM’s existing regulations, the update made by the USEPA could have been interpreted to imply that BOEM would also support the potential use of photochemical modeling for ozone and secondary formation of PM2.5. This final rule makes clear that this is not the case. Based in part on the public comments received, BOEM understands that single source photochemical modeling is only starting to be used, that its use and application is complex, and that the costs of doing such modeling can be high. Also, the timeframes for review of CAA permits that involve photochemical modeling under appendix W are much longer than the timeframes required by the OCSLA for VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 BOEM to review plans. Furthermore, BOEM’s studies will provide relevant information as to whether or not OCS sources may impact State air quality with respect to ozone or PM. Accordingly, it would be unwarranted to require the complex photochemical modeling to evaluate ozone or PM formation. As stated previously, this final rule does not adopt any requirements for photochemical modeling. To resolve any potential confusion regarding the cross-reference to appendix W in the existing regulations, BOEM is modifying the relevant language in §§ 550.218(e) and 550.249(e) to clarify that the regulations as amended by this final rule do not, under any circumstances, require that an operator apply photochemical modeling to its analysis of its air pollutant emissions. The existing language provides that when BOEM requires air quality modeling, you must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 with a model approved by the Director. The revised language provides that when BOEM requires air quality dispersion modeling, you must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion modeling with a model approved by the Director. The USEPA’s current list of criteria air pollutants includes ozone and the USEPA has defined a NAAQS for ozone. OCS operations do not result in the emission of ozone directly. To address this, however, BOEM does evaluate emissions of VOCs, which is an ozone precursor, under the existing regulations. The proposed rule would have eliminated § 550.218 entitled, ‘‘What air emissions information must accompany the EP?’’ from the existing regulations because all BOEM air quality requirements in subpart B of part 550 of the existing regulations were proposed to be consolidated in a new § 550.205. BOEM received a number of comments to the effect that it would be simpler to make changes to the relevant sections, rather than consolidate them into a new section. Given the more limited nature of this final rule compared with the proposed rule, BOEM has decided to leave the existing regulatory organization intact and instead make the limited amendments directly to the relevant sections. The proposed rule would have required that lessees and operators identify the emissions of facilities and support vessels separately and report both in terms of an ‘‘annual rate (for each calendar year), the maximum 12month rolling sum, and the maximum peak hourly rate.’’ This final rule retains the existing regulation’s language PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 requiring reporting of annual emissions and peak hourly emissions, as defined in § 550.218(a)(1), but does not adopt the proposed reporting requirements for a 12-month rolling sum. The regional air quality studies will evaluate the cumulative effects of OCS emissions on the States and whether any additional emissions tests or evaluations may be necessary. The proposed provision to add a maximum 12-month rolling sum provision was intended to address situations where a proposed plan would involve drilling beginning in one calendar year and ending in a subsequent calendar year, thereby splitting the emissions across calendar years and potentially undercounting the actual annual emissions. Commenters noted that there are many ways to calculate rolling averages and that there are also multiple ways to utilize the results in attempting to model the effects of emissions at various destination points. These same commenters noted that most air quality models are not equipped to handle multiple annual projects and this requirement would ‘‘add an extra burden to post-processing the model results that is not included in most modeling systems. Such uncertainty could lead to considerable modeling costs of questionable value that have not been anticipated by the agency.’’ Because BOEM has decided that it would be best to first evaluate in connection with its studies where and under what circumstances emissions from multi-year operation of OCS facilities may affect the States, BOEM has determined that this requirement should not be implemented until more information about such effects has been evaluated. BOEM is deferring any consideration about amending the regulations to add new EETs corresponding to non-annual emissions averaging times for the criteria air pollutants pending the evaluation of results of its air quality studies. For that reason, in this final rule, BOEM has made no changes to the time intervals or forms for which reporting is required in either § 550.218(a)(1) or § 550.249(a)(1). Lessees or operators will continue to provide peak hourly and total annual emissions, but not 3-hour, 8-hour, or 24hour, or rolling emissions data, nor any new data related to the form of the NAAQS (e.g., the number of times that a pollutant concentration level is exceeded). The proposed rule stated in § 550.205(b) that lessees and operators must in each plan, for each criteria and major precursor air pollutant, calculate E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations the attributed projected annual emissions for each mobile support craft (MSC). Instead, this final rule requires in § 550.218(a) (for EPs) that lessees and operators provide tables showing the projected emissions of criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and TSP generated by your proposed exploration activities. As previously stated, the final rule does not adopt the proposed reporting requirements for a 12-month rolling sum. As noted previously, BOEM refers to air pollutants that contribute to the formation of a criteria air pollutant as precursor air pollutants. In order to ensure that the NAAQS standards for these pollutants are not exceeded, DOI must also regulate the emissions of both the criteria air pollutants and the precursor air pollutants. Historically, the major precursor air pollutant that DOI has regulated is Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). In addition to VOCs, the proposed rule identified Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) as a precursor for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), VOCs and Carbon Monoxide (CO), as precursors for Ozone (O3); and NOX, VOCs, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Sulfur Oxides (SOX) and Ammonia (NH3), as precursors for PM2.5. The proposed rule suggested that DOI require the collection of additional data on these precursors and that new formulas be created to evaluate precursor pollutants in their capacity as precursors. In particular, DOI suggested that lessees and operators be required to start reporting ammonia emissions. VOCs and ammonia were classified as ‘‘major precursor pollutants’’ under the proposed rule because these precursors were included in the list of pollutants for which States would be required to gather emissions data to comply with USEPA requirements. The final rule does not adopt the concept of ‘‘major precursor pollutant’’ that was included in the proposed rule. As is the case in the existing regulations, the only non-criteria air pollutants included in the final rule are VOCs and TSP. The proposed rule would also have included ammonia under the heading of ‘‘major precursor pollutant.’’ BOEM has decided not to add ammonia at this time. There were several reasons for this. First, as is the case with all the EETs, BOEM does not believe that it has an adequate scientific basis for establishing new formulas. Indeed, BOEM never had an EET for ammonia. Second, it is not clear that ammonia is emitted from OCS facilities in quantities sufficient to cause a significant effect to any State. Third, since ammonia is primarily a precursor VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 for PM2.5 and BOEM does not have an EET for PM2.5, it is unclear how a formula should be determined. Although BOEM is modifying the air quality spreadsheets to calculate ammonia emissions on behalf of operators, BOEM has determined not to add an EET for ammonia or to add any requirements (including requirements for photochemical modeling) for ammonia to this final rule, though BOEM will continue to evaluate and review its study results. This final rule is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC as was proposed in a new section 30 CFR 550.205. The proposed section would have required lessees and operators to add vessel emissions to those of facilities and the proposed Subpart C would have required lessees and operators to compare the total emissions against the EETs. The final rule is not adopting these proposed changes for two reasons. First, it is questionable whether BOEM has legal authority to include vessel emissions as proposed. The Secretary’s statutory authority is distinct from that of the USEPA under the CAA. The CAA explicitly authorizes the Administrator of the USEPA to regulate emissions from vessels servicing or associated with an OCS source within 25 miles of the OCS source in specific areas of the OCS. 42 U.S.C. 7627. In contrast, OCSLA only authorizes the Secretary to regulate air pollutants from ‘‘activities authorized’’ by OCSLA. OCSLA, section 5(a)(8). The Office of the Solicitor has previously opined that vessel traffic to and from OCS facilities is not an activity ‘‘authorized’’ under OCSLA, rendering requirements to count vessel emissions in regulating facilities potentially beyond the scope of the Secretary’s statutory authority.35 For these reasons, the proposed provision is not appropriate in implementing section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA. Second, in addition to legal concerns, commenters pointed out practical difficulties involved in requiring operators to prepare plans with the highly specific details about vessel emissions sources that the proposed rule would have required. Commenters also pointed out that no state has identified emissions from vessels supporting OCS operations as a significant contributor to onshore air pollutant concentrations. For these reasons, and because section 5(a)(8) of 35 The Solicitor’s Office prepared a memorandum from Associate Solicitor, Energy and Resources, to Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Authority to Require Air Pollution Controls on Vessels in Transit to Outer Continental Shelf Facilities (June 15, 1987). PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34923 OCSLA does not require BOEM to consider vessel traffic to and from OCS facilities in order to determine modeling and control requirements, BOEM is not adopting the proposed changes on this point. Existing §§ 550.224 and 550.257 require operators to report emissions from their support vessels within 25 miles of their facilities in their EP or DPP or DOCD, and this final rule does not affect those sections. § 550.249—What air emissions information must accompany the DPP or DOCD? For the same reasons as discussed under § 550.218 above, BOEM has made changes to § 550.249(a) and (e) that mirror those changes made to § 550.218. In addition, BOEM has replaced the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP’’ in the one place the term appears in paragraph (a)(2). This latter change, which is consistent with the proposed rule, does not change the substantive requirements of this paragraph. As noted in the discussion for § 550.218(e), BOEM is modifying the requirement to perform air quality modeling using the guidelines of the USEPA’s appendix W to clarify that operators must only comply with the modeling guidelines of appendix W to the extent that they are required to perform dispersion modeling. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this section of the final rule. § 550.283—When must I revise or supplement the approved EP, DPP, or DOCD? BOEM has replaced the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP’’ in § 550.283(a)(4), to make the wording consistent with the changes made to the other sections of the rule. This change is consistent with BOEM’s interpretation of the existing regulatory text. Because this section deals with when a revision to an EP, DPP, or DOCD is required, and VOCs and TSP are specifically listed in existing §§ 550.218 and 550.249, the existing provision has been interpreted to include VOCs and TSP. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this section of the final rule. Subpart C—Pollution Prevention and Control The proposed rule would have replaced all references to exploration or development plans with a generic term ‘‘plan’’ and the new term ‘‘plan’’ would have encompassed all EPs, DPPs, DOCDs, RUEs, pipeline ROWs, and E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 34924 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lease term pipelines. Section 550.205 of the proposed rule, which outlined all of the reporting requirements, was accordingly entitled, ‘‘What air emissions information must be submitted with my Plan (EPs, DPPs, DOCDs, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline)?’’ The intention was that all EPs, DPPs, DOCDs, RUEs, pipeline ROWs, and lease term pipeline applications would be subject to the same air quality requirements. This approach was consistent with the proposed rule’s goal to consolidate all air quality requirements in one place, rather than follow the structure of the existing regulations that lists separate requirements, in separate sections, for each type of plan. Because BOEM no longer intends to consolidate all the air quality data requirements into one section, the changes that BOEM is implementing with this final rule are made separately by section. The text of subpart C of part 550 in the existing regulations refers only to EPs and DPPs. Because BOEM also uses DOCDs to review and approve production plans, BOEM is replacing all references to DPP with references to DPPs or DOCDs, or both (depending on the context). BOEM is not including the proposed references to pipeline ROWs, RUEs, and lease term pipelines in this final rule. BOEM ensures that lessees and operators address lease term pipelines and RUEs within the DPP or DOCD review process. See existing § 550.241 (regarding lease term pipelines) and Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 2015–N06 (regarding RUEs). Since our existing program relies on plan reviews and since lease term pipelines and any facilities on a RUE must be described in a plan, this issue can readily be addressed under BOEM’s and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (BSEE) procedures for implementing the existing regulations. The proposed references to lease-term pipelines and RUEs are unneeded. According to the requirements outlined in NTL No. 2007–G09, BOEM collects information on emissions from the installation or operation of any new or modified accessory platform on a ROW whenever an application is submitted to BSEE. Based on BOEM’s review of the information that BSEE has collected, BOEM is not aware of any such facilities on ROWs that would exceed the EETs, and so BOEM believes that such facilities are not causing significant effects to any State’s air quality. Therefore, BOEM is not adopting the proposed language on ROWs with this final rule. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 § 550.302—Definitions Concerning Air Quality BOEM made the following changes in this final rule in a manner consistent with the proposed rule: Air pollutant. The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ was defined in § 550.302 in the existing regulations to mean any combination of agents for which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act, a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard. This definition is essentially the definition for ‘‘criteria air pollutants,’’ not for air pollutants generally, since it excludes many substances defined by the USEPA as air pollutants (e.g., precursor air pollutants or hazardous air pollutants), including some air pollutants referenced in DOI’s existing regulations (i.e., hydrogen sulfide and VOC). The existing definitions of the terms ‘‘attainment area,’’ ‘‘non-attainment area,’’ and BACT all contain the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ and this final rule replaces the term ‘‘air pollutant,’’ in those definitions with either the newly defined term ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ or ‘‘criteria air pollutant or VOC,’’ as appropriate. To ensure that there is no confusion regarding the meaning of the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant,’’ BOEM has included a definition of the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in § 550.302 providing that it’s any air pollutant for which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act. Despite the fact that the existing definition of air pollutant in § 550.303 refers only to criteria air pollutants, the usage of the term ‘‘air pollutants’’ in the existing regulations may have been read to mean that the regulations were applicable more broadly. For instance, § 550.303(e) refers to ‘‘air pollutants other than VOC,’’ even though VOC is not within the scope of the definition of ‘‘air pollutant.’’ Section 550.303(d) requires the evaluation of various air pollutants, including VOC. Section 550.283, discussed above, refers to conditions under which a lessee or operator would be required to submit a revised plan as being any time ‘‘you propose to increase the emissions of an air pollutant to an amount that exceeds the amount specified in your approved EP, DPP, or DOCD;’’ a reference which, given the apparent purpose of the provision, should also include VOCs and TSP. Thus, the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 has not been used consistently and in line with the requirements specified in the regulations that refer to the term ‘‘air pollutant.’’ To correct this problem, BOEM has replaced the definition of the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with a definition of the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ and made related edits to the existing regulations to address these issues, as previously noted in discussion of subpart A, above. The proposed rule would have revised the definition of ‘‘air pollutant’’ to include hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases, as well as criteria air pollutants and precursor air pollutants. BOEM received comments both in favor and opposed to expanding the scope of the regulations beyond criteria air pollutants and precursor air pollutants. Generally, industry argued that the Secretary’s authority under OCSLA did not permit BOEM to regulate for anything else. Environmental groups argued the opposite. After reviewing the comments, BOEM determined that limiting the scope of this rulemaking to that of the existing regulations would be appropriate. Although this final rule has replaced some references to specific pollutants with general references to criteria air pollutants, it does not add or subtract any air pollutants from the list of criteria pollutants in the existing regulations. Emission exemption threshold (EET). According to OCSLA, the Secretary shall prescribe regulations to ensure compliance with the NAAQS to the extent that certain authorized activities ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State.’’ There are two ways that operators can demonstrate this. They can perform a detailed analysis of their proposed pollutant emissions through the use of complex air quality models. Alternately, they can demonstrate that their emissions are below a BOEMdetermined exemption level. This has long been the practice employed under OCSLA’s distinct authorities. The adoption and use of the term ‘‘Emissions Exemption Threshold’’ does not make any substantive change to the air quality regulations. BOEM has always had a mechanism to determine whether an offshore operator proposing to explore or develop oil and gas on the OCS should be exempt from air quality modeling. BOEM has historically used a number of terms (e.g., exemption amount, exempt emissions, ‘‘E,’’ exempt plans, and exemption levels) to define these values. This change is being made to establish a single term and to clarify the purpose and intent of the existing exemptions calculations and does not affect the formulas, or their usage, in any way. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations The term ‘‘threshold’’ reflects the fact that emissions reported in a plan below that amount do not require the operator to model its air quality impacts. On the other hand, emissions above the ‘‘threshold’’ are subject to further air quality modeling and evaluation and may be subject to mitigation requirements. For that reason, BOEM believes that the term ‘‘threshold’’ more accurately reflects the nature and purpose of the EETs. BOEM added a definition in this final rule to clarify the purpose and use of the acronym EET. The proposed rule in § 550.302 defined this term as 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. The final rule in § 550.302 defines the term as the rate of projected emissions, calculated for a criteria air pollutant or VOC or TSP, above which a facility would be subject to the requirements of § 550.303(e) through (i) or § 550.304(b) through (e).36 In drafting the final rule, BOEM came to realize that the qualifiers ‘‘maximum allowable’’ and ‘‘above which facilities would be subject to the requirement to perform modeling’’ might cause confusion vis-a`-vis the provisions in §§ 550.303(j) and 550.304(f), which relate to the review of facilities with emissions below the EET. Accordingly, the final rule clarifies that the EETs are specifically applicable in the context of §§ 550.303(e)–(i) and 550.304(b)–(e) of the regulations. In contrast, the use of the EET is not necessary for BOEM to make a determination under §§ 550.303(j) and 550.304(f) as to whether its approval may or may not cause a significant effect to any State. Commenters raised a question as to why BOEM would establish EETs only in terms of annual emissions, given that many of the NAAQS and SLs, which would have been cross-referenced by the proposed rule, relate only to shortterm effects (e.g., 3-hour emissions). BOEM will review EETs for such shortterm effects as are warranted once the regional modeling air quality studies are completed and evaluated. Instead of specifying the units (i.e., tons per year) for the EET in the definition of EET, as was proposed, BOEM has decided to specify the units in § 550.303(d) in the final rule, where the EETs are actually set forth. For that reason, BOEM has 36 BOEM is not updating the EET formulas at this time. Because the current EET formulas do not directly account for all the criteria pollutants, the formulas would apply to the same pollutants as are found in the existing BOEM regulations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 decided to remove the qualifier ‘‘expressed as short tons per year (tpy)’’ from the proposed definition of EET, but retain the reference to tons per year in §§ 550.303(d) and 550.304(b) of the final rule. Other commenters suggested that BOEM modify the proposed definition of EET so that the definition of EET refers only to criteria air pollutants. BOEM is not making this suggested change since the existing regulations include a formula for VOCs, and the final rule does not change this or change the types of pollutants that the AQRP regulates. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). BOEM has added a definition of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed rule would have defined the term with explicit crossreferences to particular USEPA’s regulations. Instead, BOEM has provided a definition clarifying what the NAAQS are, and under what statutory authority they are promulgated. BOEM determined that although the NAAQS appear at a number of locations in 40 CFR part 50, it is not difficult for a lessee or operator to find the relevant provisions, and, if they cannot, they can contact BOEM for assistance in locating them. Referencing specific provisions could introduce confusion should USEPA reorganize or renumber their regulations. Significant Impact Level (SIL). The proposed rule would have defined the term ‘‘Significant Impact Level’’ in § 505.302 as 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), and would have used SIL in lieu of the existing term ‘‘Significance Level.’’ This final rule does not define the term ‘‘Significance Level’’ with reference to the USEPA’s regulations because BOEM is instead providing a table of the relevant SLs that are to be applied as part of the air quality regulatory program. BOEM is finalizing the rule using the existing term ‘‘Significance Level,’’ as it is used in the current regulation, to set the level above which impacts from emissions of criteria air pollutants on a State’s air quality would be significant under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA. The proposed rule would have replaced the current table setting forth the significance levels (SLs) in 30 CFR 550.303 and 550.304 with a crossreference to USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). The purpose was to address the disparities between BOEM’s table and those presented in that USEPA PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34925 regulation that have developed over 39 years. To accomplish this, in the final rule, BOEM is updating the table utilizing the values of the SLs in USEPA’s regulation to address these disparities. The proposed rule recognized that the USEPA’s SLs would not always be appropriate to apply to offshore operations and would have given BOEM the authority to grant a departure to exempt such SL revisions from applying under BOEM regulations. The final rule will avoid the problem by allowing DOI to promulgate updates to the SLs table in the future, with notice and comment as necessary, and to make an independent determination as to which USEPA revisions should be adopted offshore and which should not in accordance with OCSLA’s authorities. Emissions Offset/Existing Facility. In addition to the changes noted above, the definitions of the terms ‘‘emissions offset’’ and ‘‘existing facility’’ in § 550.302 have been modified in this section to add a reference to DOCD, where the existing regulation definitions refer inconsistently to either an ‘‘Exploration Plan or a Development and Production Plan’’ or an ‘‘Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan.’’ This merely clarifies BOEM’s existing interpretation that the regulations include DOCDs among the list of plans referenced in these definitions. The proposed rule included language to consistently apply all requirements to EPs, DPPs, and DOCDs. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this section of the final rule. BOEM did receive comments pertaining to the proposed provisions that would have added requirements for ‘‘emissions credits’’ (which, in the proposed rule, was the term that would have replaced ‘‘emissions offsets’’). However, BOEM is not adopting those proposed substantive changes and is instead merely making the clarification regarding DOCDs described above. BOEM has never encountered an instance in which operators have used the existing regulatory provision for emissions offsets. Further, most States’ comments highlighted the differences in their onshore programs, and BOEM is not aware of any instance of OCS activities causing significant onshore air quality impacts. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34926 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations § 550.303—Facilities Described in a New or Revised Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document Paragraphs (a)–(c)—New Plans, Applicability of § 550.303 to Existing Facilities, Revised Facilities The only change made to these paragraphs is to add the phrase ‘‘Development Operations Coordination Document’’ after ‘‘Development and Production Plan’’ anywhere that the latter phrase is mentioned. BOEM made this change to reflect its long-term practice with respect to these closely related plan documents, for the reasons previously described in the discussion of definitions. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to these paragraphs of the final rule. Paragraph (d)—Exemption formulas We have made a minor clarification to the text of § 550.303(d). In the existing regulations, the first part of paragraph (d) reads: To determine whether a facility described in a new, modified, or revised Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee shall use the highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility for each air pollutant calculated in § 550.249(a) or § 550.218(a) of this part . . . The location of the word ‘‘calculated’’ in this sentence may cause confusion. The sections to which the sentence applies refer to the amount of emissions generated by a facility for each type of air pollutant, not to the air pollutants themselves. To clarify the meaning, BOEM has reworded the sentence as follows: lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 To determine whether a facility described in an initial, modified, supplemental, or revised Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use the highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility calculated for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in § 550.249(a) or § 550.218(a) . . . Separately, commenters questioned the meaning of the word ‘‘calculated’’ in the proposed rule, asking whether BOEM intended this term to mean that the emissions amounts associated with revised or supplemental plans would need to be recalculated every time a lessee or operator revised, modified, or supplemented 37 a plan or whether the 37 The comments were made in reference to proposed rule provision that would have required VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 original emissions amounts could continue to be used (assuming that no changes to the facility were being proposed that would give cause to alter the original estimates). BOEM did not intend that the proposed rule would have required lessees and operators to recalculate their emissions with every revision of their plan, regardless of whether the proposed changes would affect the amount of air pollution emitted. The regulation at § 550.283(a)(4) specifies that a plan needs to be revised when the lessee or operator proposes to ‘‘[i]ncrease the emissions of an air pollutant to an amount that exceeds the amount specified in your approved EP, DPP, or DOCD.’’ Except for the change in the use of the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ as previously discussed, § 550.283(a)(4) is unchanged with this final rule; thus, BOEM has retained the original language and intent of the existing regulations (i.e., that an update of the air emissions, and the associated analysis, must be provided only if a proposed plan revision would increase the amount of air emissions released).38 We made five additional changes to § 505.303(d), all of which were included in the proposed rule and none of which commenters opposed. First, the term ‘‘emission exemption threshold’’ replaces the term ‘‘emissions exemption amount’’ used in the existing regulations. Second, although the proposed rule suggested replacing TSP with PM10 in the existing EET formula for particulates, BOEM has determined that doing so would have the effect of lowering the air quality standards for particulates. Although TSP is a largelyoutdated measure of the mass concentration of PM in the air that counts particles up to 100 microns in diameter, for any given facility the emissions of TSP would typically be lessees and operators to resubmit and reevaluate air emissions every 10 years, a provision that BOEM is not finalizing as part of this rule. Although the comments were made in another context, BOEM has determined that it would be beneficial to clarify the meaning of the text to address any confusion arising from the ambiguity of the existing regulation. 38 In addition to the changes discussed here, BOEM is also changing the word ‘‘shall’’ in § 550.303(d) and (e)(1), and (h) and in § 550.304(b) and (c), to ‘‘must,’’ and BOEM is changing ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘will’’ in §§ 550.303(f) and 550.304(d). These changes merely modernize usage and clarify the meaning of these paragraphs, and they do not change their meaning. BOEM acknowledges that this rulemaking will leave the word ‘‘shall’’ in some provisions of Part 550, which are unaffected by this rulemaking, and, while BOEM intends to make similar edits in the future, no implication of differences in meaning should be drawn the use of ‘‘will’’ or ‘‘must’’ in these amended paragraph, while ‘shall’ remains in un-amended sections. PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 double those of PM10 and roughly four times the volume of PM2.5. Thus, if BOEM were to simply substitute PM10 for TSP in the EET formula, this would have the effect of potentially allowing a much higher level of emissions to occur under an existing exemption. TSP includes a broad range of particle sizes, and under windy conditions can be predominantly composed of large wind-blown soil particles of relatively low toxicity. USEPA has determined that PM10 and PM2.5 are better indicators of particulate health impacts than TSP, and now uses only PM10 and PM2.5 in formulating SLs and NAAQS for particulates.39 This final rule does not add EET formulas specifically for PM10 or PM2.5 emissions for several reasons. BOEM is just completing and evaluating its modeling studies in the GOMR and in the Alaska OCS Region (AKOCSR) and needs to evaluate the results and potentially follow-up studies to consider whether PM10 and PM2.5 EET formulas should be considered. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are both components of TSP. For this reason, if the EET for TSP is exceeded, it is likely that the emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 may also be exceeded, thereby significantly affecting an adjacent State. This final rule will create a situation where there will be SLs for PM10 and PM2.5 but not corresponding EETs. However, BOEM has consistently interpreted the existing regulations to require facilities to model for all SLs and NAAQS that might be exceeded when emissions of any air pollutant exceeds an EET. For PM, exceedance of the EET for TSP will require the lessee or operator to model for both PM10 and PM2.5. In the event that modeling results indicate that the SL for either PM2.5 or PM10 would be exceeded, a lessee or operator would be expected to undertake appropriate mitigation measures based on the regulations and BOEM’s policies. Because BOEM has not replaced the MACI table in § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(A), lessees and operators are required, when exceeding the SLs for PM10, to apply the TSP values in the MACI table to ensure sufficient reduction in impacts in attainment areas. Third, the final rule in § 550.303(d) explicitly references the DOCD as a covered plan, conforming to BOEM’s long-standing practice in reviewing both 39 See USEPA, Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, EPA 452/R–08–004, March 2008, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ standards/pm/data/2008_03_final_integrated_ review_plan.pdf. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations DPPs and DOCDs for compliance with these regulations. Fourth, as proposed, the final rule in § 550.303(d) substitutes the term ‘‘initial’’ for the term ‘‘new’’ in reference to plans. Any time a lessee or operator proposes a new facility, BOEM must review it for compliance with the AQRP. The term ‘‘initial’’ in reference to a plan reflects the reality that a lessee or operator may update a plan to add an additional facility. Under those circumstances, even though BOEM would not consider the plan to be a new plan, it would still be the first (i.e., initial) plan for the additional facility and would therefore be subject to the requirement for an air quality review. In addition, lessees or operators may submit supplemental plans, so BOEM added the term ‘‘supplemental’’ to the types of plan submissions requiring review. Fifth, the final rule in § 550.303(d) replaces the phrase ‘‘for each air pollutant’’ with the phrase ‘‘for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP’’ to align with the change in the definitions in § 550.105, using the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ instead of ‘‘air pollutant,’’ and to address the fact that this final rule will retain existing EETs for criteria air pollutants,40 VOCs, and TSP. For the reasons discussed above in the context of § 550.218, this final rule is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC, and, accordingly, § 550.303(d), like the rest of §§ 550.303 and 550.304, will continue to refer to a facility’s emissions and not, as proposed, ‘‘projected emissions’’ more broadly.41 While BOEM has traditionally maintained that the proposed framework for attributing MSC emissions was permissible under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, the Solicitor’s Office has pointed out that the Secretary’s statutory authority under OCSLA is distinct from that of the USEPA under the CAA. OCSLA does not require considering attributed emissions from vessels in order to determine modeling and control obligations. Moreover, the practical considerations discussed above weigh against doing so. Because of the manner in which the USEPA defines criteria pollutants, it is sometimes unclear under what circumstances they refer to nitrogen oxides (NOX) generally and under what circumstances they refer to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in particular. With 40 The existing regulations do not have EET formulas for PM10, PM2.5, lead, or ozone. This final rule will not add EETs for any pollutants. 41 This was one feature of proposed § 550.205. In the existing regulations, information on vessel emissions is dealt with in §§ 550.224 and 550.257. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 respect to the table of SLs, BOEM has continued its longstanding practice of utilizing NO2 as an indicator pollutant for NOX, consistent with the practice of the USEPA. The use of NO2 as an indicator of NOX is conservative, and is consistent with BOEM’s approach of requiring operators to report emissions based on the maximum potential emissions from their equipment. BOEM did not receive any other comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this paragraph of the final rule. Paragraph (e)(1)—Significance Levels The proposed rule would have replaced the table of SLs from the existing regulations at §§ 550.303(e) and 550.304(c) with a cross-reference to the corresponding USEPA regulations. Instead, BOEM has updated the table to reflect those SLs that are currently identified in the regulations of the USEPA at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). By using this table, BOEM provides lessees and operators with a simple consolidated listing of the relevant SLs values, organized by air pollutant and averaging time. Rather than including a crossreference to the USEPA tables, BOEM believes that it would be better for BOEM to make a determination about the appropriateness of applying future changes to USEPA’s SLs to the OCS. The SLs in this regulation may not always be identical to those of the USEPA SLs for that reason. The proposed rule implicitly recognized this because it would have added a provision to the regulations to allow BOEM to issue exceptions to those SLs that BOEM determined would not be relevant. Rather than including a crossreference to a USEPA table and then providing a list of exceptions, BOEM has determined that it would be more appropriate to produce DOI’s own table of relevant SLs. That way, BOEM can update the SLs table in the future, whenever it is appropriate to do so, whether to accommodate any changes in the SLs that are made by the USEPA in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) or for some other reason. Paragraph (e) in the existing regulations lists the SLs to use in modeling if a proposed plan has projected emissions in excess of an EET. DOI adopted the USEPA’s SLs in the existing regulations as they existed in 1980. However, the USEPA has updated the SLs since then and the SLs in the existing regulations can be updated. This final rule updates the table of SLs in the existing regulations with the USEPA’s current values. The existing regulations at § 550.303(e) provide that for a facility PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34927 not exempt under paragraph (d) for air pollutants other than VOC, the lessee shall use an approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions of those air pollutants from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the significance levels set out in paragraph (e). The proposed rule would have addressed this modeling requirement as stated above through a revised proposed § 550.303(f), which would have required that if your projected emissions or complex total emissions of the precursor or criteria air pollutant exceed the applicable emissions exemption threshold, then further review and/or controls are required, in accordance with: (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. This final rule retains the existing definition in § 550.303(e), except for referring to ‘‘criteria air pollutants’’ rather than to ‘‘air pollutants other than VOC’’ and referring to the updated SLs table, consistent with changes elsewhere in this final rule. Section 550.303(e) will now provide that for a facility not exempt under paragraph (d), the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality model to determine whether projected emissions of criteria air pollutants from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above any SL set forth in the table in paragraph (e). The proposed rule would have changed BOEM’s interpretation of the word ‘‘State’’ in the statutory phrase ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State.’’ Specifically, the proposed rule would have defined ‘‘State’’ to include submerged lands adjacent to the State shoreline to the State seaward boundary, changed the distance term in the emission exemption formulas, and required that non-exempt plans provide modeling results, which would include air quality effects over offshore State submerged lands in addition to onshore effects. This final rule leaves in place the current and long-standing approach, as reflected in the existing regulations, of evaluating impacts to the air quality of a State at its shoreline. Some commenters objected to the proposal to use the State seaward boundary, pointing to OCSLA legislative history that they assert would support congressional intent to protect onshore air quality—not to regulate offshore air quality. Commenters also raised practical difficulties with the proposed E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 34928 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations change, pointing out that because the seaward boundary of Texas is much farther offshore than other producing Gulf States, a facility off the coast of Texas would have a lower exemption amount than one the same distance off the coast of Louisiana. They also maintained that the proposal to require modeling of impacts over State submerged lands would be difficult due to the lack of offshore monitoring stations and information about background pollutant concentrations. Other commenters, however, expressed general support for extending consideration of impacts to the State seaward boundary, and one commenter argued that evaluating impacts over the entirety of a State (including offshore submerged lands) was required by section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA. While the term ‘‘State,’’ read in isolation from its context in the statutory phrase ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State’’ could be interpreted to include offshore submerged lands of the State, the context and purpose reflected in the legislative history demonstrates congressional focus on the health effects on the onshore population. The goal expressed in the first clause of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA is to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and the NAAQS have historically been established based on an evaluation of impacts to onshore populations and resources. See e.g., USEPA, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, Second External Review Draft, July 2009. Also, the existing regulations, which consider onshore impacts on a State’s air quality, more closely matches the intent of Congress as expressed in the Conference Committee report to the 1978 OCLSA amendments. In two separate passages, that report describes the application of the regulations prescribed by section 5(a)(8) as focusing on effects to ‘‘adjacent onshore areas’’ and not impacts over offshore submerged lands. S. Rep. 95–1091, at pp. 85–86 (1978). Moreover, two practical considerations support a decision not to adopt this aspect of the proposed rule. First, BOEM is in the process of completing its study of the EET formulas, so any changes to the distance term in the formulas would be premature. Second, the lack of monitoring stations offshore and the resulting lack of data about background concentrations would make determinations about the offshore impacts of a facility’s emissions uncertain. For all these reasons, BOEM is not adopting the proposed changes VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 interpreting ‘‘State’’ to include submerged lands out to the State seaward boundary, and thus leaves in place this aspect of the existing regulation. The proposed rule contained a provision that would have authorized the deferral or waiver of new SILs in order to avoid adding new USEPA designated SILs that might not be relevant to OCS operations. Because BOEM has instead elected to update the SLs table with a new table containing the USEPA SLs currently found in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), that provision is no longer necessary and has not been included in this final rulemaking. The final rule also makes clarifying edits that eliminate the use of the existing phrase ‘‘any air pollutant other than VOC’’ in § 505.303(e). This particular change does not affect the meaning of the existing provision and reflects the deletion of the defined term ‘‘air pollutant’’ discussed earlier. Paragraph (e)(2)—Significance Levels This provision is being added to clarify that, in the event that the EET for TSP is exceeded, air quality modeling will be required not of TSP but instead of PM10 and PM2.5.42 In the event that that modeling determines that an SL for PM2.5 or PM10 is exceeded in any State, this would be interpreted by BOEM to indicate that the incremental amount of the criteria air pollutant ‘‘significantly affects the air quality of a State.’’ This final rule replaces the values for the SLs of TSP with new SLs for PM10 and PM2.5. Going forward, the SLs table will no longer contain any values for TSP. The SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, which are criteria air pollutants, are a more appropriate basis for evaluating PM pollution and must be used for any air quality modeling, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of any mitigation or controls that may be used. Paragraph (f)—Significance Determinations Based on the comments received in response to the proposed rule, there may be situations in which emissions do not result in an exceedance of the SLs but the area does not comply with the NAAQS. However, the existing regulations provide a way of addressing such situations should they arise. First, existing § 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) already provides that, in a situation where an operator has exceeded the EETs and must submit modeling information, the 42 Air quality modeling of TSP may still be required in limited cases if the SLs for PM are exceeded and the analysis of the MACI becomes necessary (since the MACI table retains TSP in 30 CFR 503.303(g)(2)(i)(A)). PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 modeled concentration of an air pollutant cannot exceed the NAAQS (as described below this provision is being changed by replacing ‘‘air pollutant’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’). Second, because the States can oppose an OCS plan, both under the existing air quality regulations and under the Coastal Zone Management Act’s consistency certification process, there are existing mechanisms for triggering review of proposed decisions to approve plans when there is an exceedance of the NAAQS. In the existing regulations, this paragraph sets the criteria for what BOEM means by the word ‘‘significant’’ in the context of the OCSLA mandate ‘‘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.’’ Although BOEM received many comments, particularly from industry, to the effect that BOEM’s historical environmental analyses had previously concluded that air pollutant emissions associated with OCS activities have not had a significant effect on the air quality of the States, these comments did not relate to the standard established for significance in the air quality regulations. BOEM’s policy of using the SLs to define significance has been in place since the beginning of DOI’s AQRP and BOEM did not propose to change this policy as part of the proposed air quality rule. Although BOEM has been consistent in following this policy, paragraph (e) of this section is now being updated with the USEPA SLs currently found at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). The phrase ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ is replaced with the newly defined term ‘‘criteria air pollutant.’’ Finally, the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ has been replaced with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in the two additional places where the term is used in the paragraph, consistent with similar changes and rationale given elsewhere in this final rule. As was noted in the proposed rule, the existing regulations do not use the terms ‘‘air pollutant’’ and ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ consistently throughout. This final rule ensures that every term is used properly and consistently and appropriate changes to the usage of these terms were made wherever necessary. As is the case with paragraph (d) of this section, this final rule is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Paragraph (f)(1)—Significance Determinations The terms ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ and ‘‘air pollutant’’ have been replaced with ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ in those places in this paragraph where these terms were used. Paragraph (f)(2)—Significance Determinations This paragraph was revised for clarity but without making any substantive change in the meaning of the text. The paragraph in the existing regulations was changed from providing that the projected emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph (d) for that air pollutant shall be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC to providing that the projected emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph (d) will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC.43 Paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) The only change made to these paragraphs was to replace the reference to ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant.’’ This change conforms this paragraph with similar changes made throughout subpart C and discussed previously. lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A) The proposed rule would have replaced the MACI table with a crossreference to the USEPA’s table of Ambient Air Increments. This final rule does not implement that change. The regulations employ the table of MACIs in this paragraph as a criterion for determining whether required controls are sufficient for facilities that significantly affect attainment areas (i.e., areas that are in compliance with the NAAQS). The concept of MACI in the AQRP originally came from the USEPA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The USEPA’s PSD program is designed primarily to prevent the air quality in an attainment area from deteriorating substantially from a prior baseline. The statutory requirements for the PSD program are described in detail in the CAA, but OCSLA contains no reference to preventing deterioration within attainment areas. 43 When the VOC EET is exceeded then, under § 550.303(f)(2), the projected emissions are deemed to significantly affect a state. This treatment of VOCs is different from the treatment of the other pollutants in the regulations, for which the determination whether emissions will significantly affect a state is based on their modeled impacts within the onshore area of a state. This distinction is part of the reason that BOEM consistently refers to criteria pollutants and VOCs separately. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 BOEM has only rarely had to apply the MACI table in an evaluation of any plan. Because of this, it is not clear that the existing MACI table is necessary or relevant to evaluate emissions from OCS facilities. Furthermore, it is unclear whether emissions from OCS facilities cumulatively cause significant degradation in State air quality in attainment areas, particularly with respect to SOX and TSP, the two pollutants which are referenced in the MACI table. Until BOEM makes such a determination, BOEM does not intend to update this table. Once BOEM has more information about potential updates to other aspects of the regulation, it may decide to make changes to this table. Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B) The only change made to this paragraph was to replace the reference to ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ with ‘‘criteria air pollutant.’’ This change conforms this paragraph with similar changes made throughout Subpart C and discussed previously. For the reasons described previously, BOEM has determined that it would be best not to implement a formal crossreference to the USEPA’s regulations setting out the NAAQS as in the proposed rule. Instead, BOEM has added a definition of the term ‘‘NAAQS’’ that refers to the statutory authority for establishing NAAQS to the list of definitions. Paragraph (h)—Controls Required on Temporary Facilities Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout this final rule, BOEM is replacing the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ with the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant or VOC.’’ The existing text of § 550.303(h) provides that the 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. With this change, the text of § 505.303(h) will provide that the lessee must apply BACT to reduce projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC from a temporary facility that significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area of a State. The existing rule establishes what a significant impact would be for both criteria pollutants and VOCs, and it would be incongruous for this provision to apply to criteria pollutants, but not VOCs. This change in terminology is consistent with the proposed rule, which proposed to consistently use the terms criteria air pollutant and air pollutant. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34929 Paragraph (j)—Review of Facilities With Emissions Below the Exemption Amount The proposed rule contained provisions requiring the aggregation of emissions across multiple facilities and facilities covered by multiple plans. Comments submitted in response to the proposed rule raised many concerns about the practicality and implications of such consolidation. The major concern expressed was the fact that adding nearby facilities could thereby implicate other facilities in the vicinity of those added and those facilities could, in turn, be located nearby other facilities, and so forth. Thus, the requirement to consolidate emissions across multiple nearby facilities could lead to a ‘‘chain reaction’’ that would potentially be unbounded or, at the least, be very confusing to operators. Aside from that, the practicalities of getting emissions data from competing companies would make it very difficult for operators to comply with these proposed requirements. BOEM agrees that these are valid concerns and has elected not to finalize that proposal. The final rule retains the existing paragraph (j) under which the regional supervisor may require the consolidation of emissions reporting from multiple facilities if, in his or her determination, such emissions would cause a significant effect to any State. Consistent with the proposed rule’s terminology, the final rule replaces the term ‘‘exemption amount’’ with the phrase ‘‘emission exemption threshold.’’ Consistent with the changes made elsewhere in this rule, the reference to ‘‘Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan’’ is replaced by ‘‘Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document.’’ § 550.304—Existing Facilities Section 550.303 refers to plans for new facilities or to those that are described in a plan that was approved after 1980, and § 550.304 refers to facilities that are described in a plan approved before 1980. The proposed rule would have eliminated this distinction and established one set of requirements for all plans. Because the final rule is more limited in scope than the proposed rule, BOEM has retained § 550.304 and has made changes to § 550.304 that conform to those changes made in the corresponding parts of § 550.303. Although the vast majority of plans related to facilities still in operation post-date 1980, public comments received from industry did indicate that E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34930 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations there are still a small number of offshore facilities that were approved under a plan that pre-dated 1980. If such a facility were to emit pollutants in sufficient amounts so as to significantly affect the air quality of any State, BOEM could utilize OCSLA’s existing authority to require that appropriate action be taken to mitigate these emissions. For these reasons, BOEM has determined that leaving the existing § 550.304 as amended would be more appropriate than either substantially revising or deleting it. Paragraph (b)—Exemption Formulas The changes made to this paragraph are analogous to those made in § 550.303(d), as noted above. lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Paragraph (c)—Significance Levels The primary change made to this paragraph is to replace the existing table with a cross-reference to the new BOEM table of SLs in § 550.303(e). Just as in § 550.303(e), the final rule also makes clarifying edits that eliminate the use of the existing phrase ‘‘any air pollutant other than VOC’’ in this paragraph. This particular change does not affect the meaning of the existing provision and reflects the deletion of the defined term ‘‘air pollutant’’ discussed earlier. Also, consistent with the change made to § 550.303(e), the changes to this paragraph clarify that, in the event that the EET for TSP is exceeded, air quality modeling for SLs will be required, not of TSP, but instead of PM10 and PM2.5. The values for the SLs of TSP are being replaced with new SLs for PM10 and PM2.5. Going forward, the SLs table will no longer contain any values for TSP. The SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, which are criteria air pollutants, are a more appropriate basis for evaluating PM pollution and must be used for any air quality modeling, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of any mitigation or controls that may be used. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made in this paragraph of the final rule. Paragraph (d)—Significance Determinations Under the existing regulations, § 550.304(d) describes what constitutes ‘‘significant emissions’’ with respect to the OCSLA requirement that OCS operations must not ‘‘significantly affect the air quality of any State.’’ Facilities that pre-date the 1980 adoption of the regulations are subject to the requirements of this section. The text of this paragraph is unchanged with three exceptions. First, in paragraph (d)(1), the new text uses the acronym SL for VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 the term ‘‘significance level,’’ consistent with a similar change made elsewhere in this rule; however, this change has no effect on the substance of these regulations. Moreover, consistent with adding the definition of ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’ to the regulations, this final rule removes the phrase ‘‘for that air pollutant’’ in paragraph (d). Finally, BOEM is modifying paragraph (d)(2) to delete the term ‘‘air pollutant.’’ The paragraph does not deal with any air pollutant other than VOCs and the use of the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is needlessly confusing. This change does not affect the meaning of the provision. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this paragraph of the final rule. Paragraph (e)—Controls Required Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout this final rule, BOEM is replacing the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ in § 550.304(e)(1) with the term ‘‘criteria air pollutant or VOC.’’ The existing text of § 550.304(e)(1) provides that the projected emissions of any air pollutant which significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area shall be reduced through the application of BACT. With this change, the text of this paragraph will provide that the projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC that significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area must be reduced through the application of BACT. This change does not change the meaning of the provision and mirrors the change made to paragraph (h). BOEM is making it for the same reasons as for the change in that paragraph. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this paragraph of the final rule. Paragraph (f)—Review of Facilities With Emissions Below the Exemption Amount Consistent with the terminology in the proposed rule, the final rule changes the term ‘‘exemption amount’’ to ‘‘emissions exemption threshold’’ to correspond to the use of this term elsewhere in the final rule. BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the changes made to this paragraph of the final rule. V. Key Statutes and Executive Orders A. Key Statutes 1. Congressional Review Act Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the OMB has determined that PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 this rulemaking is not a major rulemaking, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), because this rulemaking has not and is unlikely to result in: • An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; • a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or • significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and export markets. 2. Data Quality Act In developing this rule, BOEM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106–554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–153– 154). BOEM received one comment relevant to the Data Quality Act, also known as the Information Quality Act (IQA). The commenter asserted that the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA seems to be subject to the IQA and, therefore, should have been made available to the public to aid comment. However, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the draft EA is not subject to the IQA. In any case, BOEM did make the draft EA publicly available for review and public input during the proposed rulemaking by placing that document in the public docket along with the proposed rule. 3. National Environmental Policy Act BOEM has developed a final EA and made a finding that this final rule does not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the NEPA. The final EA and Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) are available for review in conjunction with this final rule at www.regulations.gov (in the Search box, enter BOEM–2018–0038). 4. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a ‘‘collection of information,’’ unless the collection of information is approved by OMB and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Collections of information include requests and requirements that an individual, partnership, or corporation obtain information, and report it to a Federal agency (44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k)). This final rule contains a collection of information that BOEM submitted to E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations OMB for review and approval under the PRA. This PRA section of the final rule relates to the OMB control numbers associated with information collection under 30 CFR part 550, subparts B and C. The proposed rule, soliciting comments on the collections of information for 60 days, was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 32259). BOEM received ten comments on the collections of information. Commenters raised a number of issues specific to individual collections of information and estimated costs associated with the proposal. Although BOEM made certain changes related to information collection in the final rule, it did not do so directly in response to the comments received. This final rule retains most of the text of the existing regulations while making only a small number of the changes originally proposed. The proposed rule changes were far greater than those implemented in this final rule. BOEM has determined that the changes in the final rule are necessary to update outdated standards and benchmarks. The changes related to collection of information include: • Updating the table of SLs in the existing regulations, dating from 1980, with current SLs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). Annual burden hours will not be significantly impacted. • Updating the data collection requirements from the existing regulations, dating from 1980, with a statement requiring operators to provide TSP data in subpart B in §§ 550.218 and 550.249. This requirement was implied by the necessity to apply TSP estimates to the EET formulas in subpart C, §§ 550.303 and 550.304; however, the requirement to actually collect the data analyzed in subpart C was not previously mentioned as a requirement in subpart B. Annual burden hours will not be significantly impacted. • Although BOEM has not replaced the EET formula for TSP with an identical formula for PM10, as suggested in the proposed rule, BOEM has replaced TSP with two categories of criteria air pollutants, PM10 and PM2.5 in the table of SLs as part of this final rule. This change will provide more clarity to OCS lessees and operators, but will not impact annual burden hours. • BOEM updated the paragraph that refers to the EETs to clarify that the formulas apply to both DPPs and DOCDs. This update will not change current practice because the air quality regulations have always applied to DPPs and DOCDs, and the spreadsheets are already set up for both DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM’s spreadsheets automatically calculate the formulas. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 This clarification will not increase annual burden hours. • BOEM is updating the spreadsheets so that emissions from transiting support vessels will no longer be considered as part of the EET evaluation. The rule is not, however, changing the requirement that emissions from vessels temporarily attached either to the seabed or to another facility must be accounted for as part of the EET evaluation process. This means that some sources may fall under the definition of ‘‘facility’’ depending on their function (i.e., a vessel transiting to and from a facility would need to report the associated emissions, but those emissions would not be added in with the facility emissions for the purpose of the EET analysis; however, emissions generated from the same vessel during workover operations would be added in with the facility emissions). In some cases, therefore, emissions from the same source may need to be separately reported to account for the different functions (e.g., transiting versus well operations) that they intend to perform. Title of Collection: Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance. OMB Control Number: Information Collection burdens associated with 30 CFR part 550, subpart A, are approved under OMB Control Number 1010–0114 (30, 635 annual burden hours, $165,492 non-hour costs; expires January 31, 2020). Information Collection burdens associated with 30 CFR part 550, subpart B, are approved under OMB Control No. 1010–0151, Plans and Information (436,438 annual burden hours; $3,939,435 non-hour costs; expires June 30, 2021). Information Collection burdens associated with 30 CFR part 550, subpart C, are approved under OMB Control No. 1010–0057 (35,200 annual burden hours; $0 nonhour costs; expires May 31, 2021). This rule does not add new information collection requirements or change the burden estimates. However, BOEM is submitting OMB control number 1010–0151 for revisions with publication of the final rule. The final rule will modify two forms, BOEM– 0138 and BOEM–0139. Form Number: • BOEM–0137, OCS Plan Information Form • BOEM–0138, EP Air Quality Screening Checklist • BOEM–0139, DOCD/DPP Air Quality Screening Checklist • BOEM–0141, ROV Survey Report • BOEM–0142, Environmental Impact Analysis Worksheet Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34931 Respondents/Affected Public: Respondents are Federal oil and gas or sulfur lessees or operators. Total Estimated Number of Annual Response: 4,266 response. Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 436,438 hours. Respondent’s Obligation: Some responses to the information collection are required to obtain or retain a benefit, and some are mandatory. Frequency of Collection: The frequency of the response varies, but primarily responses are required only on occasion. Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $3,939,435. BOEM is updating the air quality spreadsheets, BOEM–0138 (EP Air Quality Screening Checklist) and BOEM–1039 (DOCD/DPP Air Quality Screening Checklist), in response to this final rule. BOEM intends for these forms to be comprehensive and to meet the needs of different lessees and operators. BOEM uses the data from these forms to determine the effect of the air emissions on the environment. These forms aim to provide a way for the designated operator to document the emissions sources and facilitate the calculation of emissions, which BOEM evaluates against the EETs. As recommended in and submitted to OMB in the proposed rulemaking, the new spreadsheets would split the PM data into two categories, PM10 and PM2.5 and would clarify that the reporting requirement for PM would include both filterable and condensable PM, in accordance with USEPA guidelines. The proposed rulemaking also included reporting requirements for lead and ammonia and BOEM proposed corresponding changes to those forms. Lead is a criteria air pollutant and has a defined NAAQS. For that reason, information on lead emissions will still be required with this final rule. BOEM is not adding any reporting requirement for ammonia in this final rule. Instead, BOEM will modify the spreadsheets so that they calculate and display ammonia emissions along with the list of other pollutants reported. This latter change would impose no additional burdens on operators since the spreadsheets will use the activity data already being provided by operators to calculate that amount of ammonia that would be generated by any given plan. BOEM will use this information about ammonia to inform potential future policy making. In addition to changing the data collection to accommodate different types of pollutants, BOEM will also update these forms as discussed in the proposed rule to reflect the addition of E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 34932 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations unique emissions sources that are applicable to Alaska. In the past, BOEM’s air quality spreadsheets could not be used in the Alaska region because they did not encompass the unique types of equipment that were necessary to properly evaluate emissions from Alaskan operations. With the publication of this final rule, BOEM submitted the updated forms, BOEM–0138 and BOEM–0139, to OMB for approval under OMB Control Number 1010–0151. Once OMB approves OMB Control Number 1010– 0151, BOEM will publish the updated forms on the BOEM OCS Operation Forms website at: https:// www.boem.gov/BOEM-OCS-OperationForms/. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, BOEM invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. The collection of information does not include questions of a sensitive nature. BOEM protects proprietary information according to section 26 of OCSLA; the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522), the DOI’s implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2; and the regulations at 30 CFR 550.197, Data and information to be made available to the public or for limited inspection, and 30 CFR 556.104, Information collection and proprietary information. Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB–OIRA at (202) 395– 5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@ omb.eop.gov (email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Information Collections Clearance Officer, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; U.S. Department of the Interior; VAM–BOEM DIR; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166; or by email to anna.atkinson@boem.gov. Please reference Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance (Final Rulemaking) in your comments. VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 5. Impact of This Final Rule on Small Entities, Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulations when a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is likely. If the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, then this analysis is not required. As defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small entity is one that is ‘‘independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.’’ What characterizes a small business varies from industry to industry in order to properly reflect industry size differences. This final rule will affect lease operators that are conducting OCS exploration and development operations in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska. BOEM’s analysis shows this could include about 70 companies with active operations. Of the 70 companies, 21 (∼30 percent) are large and 49 (∼70 percent) are small. Entities that will operate under this rule primarily fall under the SBA’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 211120 (Crude Petroleum Extraction) and 211130 (Natural Gas Extraction). For NAICS classifications 211120 and 211130, SBA defines a small business as one with fewer than 1,251 employees. BOEM’s analysis shows that there are 49 small companies with active operations on the OCS, and all of these companies would be impacted by the rule if they engage in activities that require an air quality review. Most of these entities are likely to engage in such activities (i.e., exploration and/or development of offshore mineral resources). BOEM has determined that this final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. However, as the rule does not increase costs compared to the baseline, it will not impose additional costs on small entities. The regulatory changes in this final rule are technical corrections or reflect updates to the list of USEPA criteria pollutants, primary and secondary NAAQS, and their relevant SL values. Because operators have already been designing their plans based upon USEPA’s updated NAAQS, BOEM does not anticipate that these definitional and technical updates will have a significant impact on operators. Other changes are definitional or intended to confirm and codify existing policies or PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 procedures. There will not be an increase in compliance burdens as a result of this rule because this final air quality rule does not impose new information reporting or air quality modeling requirements, it does not change any requirements for air quality monitoring on the part of lessees or operators, and it does not implement the proposed requirements for additional emissions reductions measures. The regulatory updates will not add paperwork or other burdens to small or other entities operating in OCS areas under BOEM’s air quality jurisdiction. None of these changes increase or decrease the burden on small or other entities operating on the OCS. The effect of this final rule is simply to clarify requirements and update BOEM regulations to reflect current practice; therefore, BOEM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 6. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, because this rule: (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will 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. 7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, 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. Therefore, 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 1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630) This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required. E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) E.O. 12866 provides that the OIRA will review all significant rules. The proposed rule was deemed significant both because of its potentially substantial economic impact and because it raised certain issues that could have significant policy implications. Although, the scope of this final rule is much more limited than the proposed rule, OMB has nevertheless determined that this rule should be classified as significant because of the overall importance of air quality to the potentially affected States and the potential implications of the proposed rule on the oil and gas industry. The rule is considered significant for policy reasons, not for economic reasons, however, because the final rule would not cause a substantial impact to either the regulated entities or any other potentially affected parties. Unlike the proposed rule, as compared to the current AQRP, this rule would impose no additional burdens or costs and would likely cause a minor reduction in such burdens and costs. BOEM has compared the costs and benefits of the provisions in this final rule to the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario represents BOEM’s best assessment of what U.S. OCS operations would be like absent this regulatory action. The baseline includes compliance with existing BOEM regulations and current established procedures for the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) administered air-quality jurisdiction in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska. In comments on the proposed rule, industry stakeholders asserted that BOEM’s proposed rule cost estimates were significantly underestimated. These same stakeholders also asserted that BOEM’s benefits were over-stated since the emissions reductions were unlikely to occur. BOEM evaluated the comments and information provided by the commenters and concurs that the compliance costs in the proposed rule’s regulatory impact analysis were underestimated and the benefits were overestimated. This final rule will result in no changes to compliance burdens and no change in benefits compared to BOEM’s existing regulations and practices. The major change in this final rule with respect to the SLs is the deletion of annual and 24-hour averaging times for TSP and the insertion of annual and 24hour averaging times for both PM10 and PM2.5. Although the final rule requires the use of updated USEPA SLs, BOEM’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 practice over the past several years has been to review plans it has received against these same SLs. Accordingly, BOEM has determined that using the updated SLs will not cause any increase in costs compared to the baseline. BOEM is seeking approval from OMB for changes to the air quality spreadsheets necessitated by this rule. These include adding columns to allow separate reporting of PM2.5 and PM10, as well as lead.44 None of these changes would impose any additional costs on operators because current BOEM practice is to have BOEM’s spreadsheets perform the emissions calculations based on an inventory of the types of equipment and activity levels provided by the operators. There is no change that will be required of operators as a result of this rule because BOEM will update all the necessary data in the spreadsheets so that the new information required by this rule will be calculated automatically for the operator. Because the EET for TSP has never been exceeded, and also because the EET for TSP is not being updated with this rulemaking, it is likely that the change to the SLs will not have any effect on the mitigation that BOEM requires of operators. This final rule updates BOEM’s existing requirements, but does not add any new procedures to the air quality review program, nor does it add any reporting requirements. It does not add any incremental burden to industry to meet the criteria BOEM uses to review plans nor does it change what lessees and operators must do to ensure compliance with OCSLA. The plan requirements, operating requirements, and compliance and monitoring requirements of BOEM’s regulations remain unchanged. This final air quality rule does not impose any new air quality modeling requirements, it does not require any new air quality monitoring on the part of lessees or operators, and it does not implement any additional emissions reductions measures. None of the regulatory changes in this final rule increase or decrease the regulatory burden compared to current practice. BOEM does not expect any changes in OCS air quality emissions resulting from this rule; the air pollution reductions that BOEM estimated may 44 Although the new rule is not adding any new EET or SL for lead, because §§ 550.218 and 550.249 now refer to ‘‘criteria air pollutants,’’ BOEM is adding a separate column to report lead. As with other pollutants, when the operator enters activity information (e.g. fuel usage and duration) the lead emissions would be automatically calculated and populated into the spreadsheet based upon an emissions factor embedded in the spreadsheet. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34933 have been caused by the proposed rule may or may not occur. In accordance with the existing regulations, EPs, DPPs or DOCDs submitted by lessees and operators must show whether regulated air pollutant emissions are below the exemption threshold or below the SLs in order to avoid applying controls.45 If a plan’s maximum estimated emissions are below the exemption threshold, no additional modeling or controls is required. According to both the existing regulations and this final rule, if the maximum emissions estimated for a proposed plan are above the exemption threshold, lessees must model emissions to determine if the plan’s emissions will remain below the SLs. If the plan’s emissions exceed an SL, then, under both the existing regulations (baseline) and this final rule, BOEM requires lessees and operators to implement BACT to reduce the proposed facility’s air quality impact on the State. Congress transferred air quality jurisdiction for the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska to DOI in December 2011. Potential minor differences in practice between the GOMR and AKOCSR in implementing the air quality regulations do not result in material compliance differences. Practical differences are minor and the sheer quantity of GOM EPs and DOCDs dwarf the one or two plans BOEM expects to receive each year in the AKOCSR. This final rule retains most of the existing air quality regulations and makes only minor changes, as discussed above. These changes are primarily updates to outdated air quality standards and benchmarks. BOEM is updating the table of SLs in the existing regulations, dating from 1980, with the values currently found in the USEPA table at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). Other changes are mostly to clarify terminology. BOEM believes that this rule is deregulatory in nature, both because it replaces onerous provisions of the proposed rule with provisions that are much simpler and because it corrects a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the existing regulations in such a manner as to reduce the complexity of the regulatory process. BOEM does not expect any changes in OCS air quality resulting from this rule. 45 There is an exception to this noted in current 30 CFR 550.303(j). If BOEM determines that a proposed plan would result in one or more facilities to be installed that could generate a level of pollution that would exceed the SLs or NAAQS, BOEM could require additional analysis and modeling (regardless of the EET analysis). E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34934 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule: (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that 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) E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires that environmental and related rules separately evaluate the potential impact to children. 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. BOEM has evaluated this final rule according to the requirements of E.O. 13045 and determined that this final 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. lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary impact statement is not required. 6. Consultation With Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Other Authorities) DOI strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes through a commitment to consultation with tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. E.O. 13175 and DOI’s tribal consultation policy, which implements the E.O., provide for procedures for consultation with tribes when taking an action with tribal implications. DOI has extended its consultation policy to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporations. Furthermore, BOEM recently issued its own expanded Tribal Consultation Guidance on June 29, 2018 (https://www.boem.gov/TribalEngagement/https://www.boem.gov/ Tribal-Engagement/), identifying VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 various consultation authorities that BOEM will follow in consulting with tribes and ANCSA Corporations. DOI recognizes and respects the distinct, unique, and individual cultural traditions and values of Alaska Native people and statutory relationship between ANCSA Corporations and the Federal Government. In developing this rule, BOEM determined, based on DOI’s consultation policies and the criteria in E.O. 13175, that the rule will not cause a substantial, direct effect on any federally recognized Indian tribe or ANCSA Corporation. 81 FR at 19795. The proposed rule preamble discussed the reasons for this determination with relation to the overall goals of the rulemaking. This final rule is much narrower in scope than the proposed rule, and any effects that the proposed rule might have had on tribes or ANCSA Corporations are more limited in this final rule. Despite this determination on the proposed rule, BOEM offered to hold consultations with tribes and ANCSA Corporations during the proposal comment period. To determine whether tribes or ANCSA Corporations wanted to consult, BOEM provided, or offered to provide, information to several federally recognized tribes in Alaska (Kotzebue IRA,46 Inpuiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of Wainwright, Native Village of Point Hope, Native Village of Point Lay, Native Village of Kaktovik, Native Village of Nuiqsut, and Native Village of Barrow) and in the GOM. BOEM received several requests for consultation, and in July 2016, BOEM followed through with invitations for government-to-government consultations with the federally recognized tribes listed above and several ANCSA Corporations (Kuupik Corporation, Inc.; Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation; the Northwest Arctic Native Association (NANA, also known as the NANA Regional Corporation); Cully Corporation; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation; Tikigaq Corporation; and Olgoonik Corporation). BOEM also invited the following tribes in the GOM to consult: The Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the TunicaBiloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana, the 46 The Tribe, a sovereign entity, is commonly called the Kotzebue IRA due to its organization pursuant to the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act as amended for Alaska in 1936. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, and the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas. No federally recognized tribes in Alaska or the GOM accepted the invitation. One ANCSA Corporation, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), accepted the invitation and engaged in consultation with BOEM. Their concerns related primarily to the amount of new information that could be required of lessees and operators in connection with the new rule, the increased complexity of the rulemaking, and the timing of the rulemaking relative to the ongoing Alaska regional air quality study. BOEM has taken all of the concerns raised by ASRC into consideration and has removed a number of rule provisions, in part in response to some of the comments made by the ASRC and other tribal organizations. 7. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) This rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. 8. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563) E.O. 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 E.O. 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 that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements. 9. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 13689) 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 E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 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 Arctic matters, BOEM worked with the Steering Committee and other relevant agencies in developing this rule. Within DOI, these agencies included the BSEE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, BOEM consulted extensively with the USEPA and the U.S. 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 has complied with this order, as described further in the section K, which is entitled, ‘‘Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175) and Other Authorities,’’ above. 10. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771) E.O. 13771 (January 30, 2017) directs federal agencies to reduce the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory costs. E.O. 13795 directs the DOI to reconsider its proposed rule on air quality compliance. The proposed rule would have changed BOEM’s air quality regulatory program (AQRP) to align BOEM’s regulatory scheme with various aspects of USEPA’s regulations under the CAA. That alignment would have resulted in an AQRP that imposed a significant increase in the regulatory burden on industry. In contrast, this final rule is limited in scope to those provisions mandated by OCSLA and which do not impose additional cost burdens on industry. As a result, there VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 are no incremental compliance costs in this rulemaking and the concerns associated with the high cost of the proposed air quality rule are no longer relevant. This final rule streamlines information collection and provides compliance clarity to the regulated entities. Therefore, BOEM considers this final rule to be deregulatory. 11. Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (E.O. 13783) E.O. 13783 section 2 requires agencies to ‘‘review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions’’ with the goal of eliminating provisions that impede domestic energy production. Section 2(a) exempts agency actions ‘‘that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy [to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on domestic energy production while promoting clean air and water within the constraints of current statutes].’’ BOEM determined in coordination with DOI and OMB that the E.O. 13783 principles should be applied to the proposed rule. Consequently, BOEM is publishing this final rule consistent with OCSLA’s statutory mandate to ensure OCS domestic energy activities authorized under OCSLA comply with the NAAQS under the CAA. The final rule promotes the public interest and clean air, while also eliminating many of the proposed rule’s unnecessary and premature provisions that may not have withstood judicial review. This is done in an effort to reduce compliance costs on industry and to narrowly tailor the regulatory system to BOEM’s specific statutory jurisdiction, pending evaluation of the results of air quality studies. 12. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (E.O. 13795) E.O. 13795 section 2 states that U.S. policy is ‘‘to encourage energy exploration and production, including on the [OCS], in order to maintain the Nation’s position as a global energy leader and foster energy security and resilience . . . while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible.’’ Section 8 specifically directs the Secretary to review the proposed rule and ‘‘consistent with law, consider whether [it] . . . should be revised or withdrawn.’’ Consequently, BOEM reviewed the proposed rule through the section 2 policy lens and eliminated or revised many of the provisions in this final rule by striking a balance between OCS energy development and clean air responsibilities consistent with this PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 34935 Administration’s policy. This final rule reflects the Secretary’s clean air responsibilities mandated under 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8). It also, as discussed elsewhere in this preamble, avoids adding requirements that could have been unduly burdensome, that would be premature in light of the evaluation of recent studies, and that were based on an attempt to align with requirements under the CAA in spite of the differences between that statute and section 1334(a)(8). 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 air pollutants, Development plan, Development and production plan, Environmental protection, Exploration plan, Federal lands, Federal land manager, New source review, Nonattainment area, Oil, gas, and sulfur exploration, Oil, gas, and sulfur development, Oil pollution, Oil production, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Penalties, Pipelines, Precursor pollutants, Prevention of significant deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur. Casey Hammond, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR part 550 as follows: PART 550—OIL AND GAS AND SULFUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 1. The authority citation for part 550 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334. 2. In § 550.105: a. Remove the definition of ‘‘Air pollutant’’; ■ b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Attainment area’’; ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Best available control technology’’, remove ‘‘air pollutant’’ everywhere it appears and add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant and VOC’’; ■ d. Add a definition for ‘‘Criteria air pollutant’’ in alphabetical order; ■ e. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Emission offsets’’, ‘‘Existing facility’’, and ‘‘Nonattainment area’’; and ■ f. Add a definition for ‘‘Volatile organic compound’’ in alphabetical order. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34936 § 550.105 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations Definitions. * * * * * Attainment area means, for any 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be reliable) not to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality standards established by EPA. * * * * * Criteria air pollutant means any air pollutant for which the EPA has established a primary or secondary national ambient air quality standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act. * * * * * Emission offsets mean emission reductions obtained from facilities, either onshore or offshore, other than the facility or facilities covered by the proposed Exploration Plan (EP), Development and Production Plan (DPP), or Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD). * * * * * Existing facility, as used in § 550.303, means an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) facility described in an Exploration Plan, a Development and Production Plan, or a Development Operations Coordination Document, approved before June 2, 1980. * * * * * Nonattainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be reliable) to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality standard established by EPA. * * * * * Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that is emitted to the atmosphere as a vapor. Unreactive compounds are excluded from the preceding sentence of this definition. * * * * * ■ 3. In § 550.218, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (e) to read as follows: § 550.218 What air emissions information must accompany the EP? lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 * * * * * (a) Projected emissions. Tables showing the projected emissions of criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and total suspended particulates (TSP) generated by your proposed exploration activities. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 (e) Non-exempt drilling units. A description of how you will comply with § 550.303 when the projected emissions reported under paragraph (a) of this section are greater than the respective emission exemption thresholds (EET) calculated using the formulas in § 550.303(d). When BOEM requires air quality dispersion modeling, you must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion modeling with a model approved by the Director. You must also submit the best available meteorological information and data consistent with the model(s) used. * * * * * ■ 4. In § 550.249: ■ a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text; ■ b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove ‘‘air pollutant’’ and add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP’’; and ■ c. Revise paragraph (e). The revisions read as follows: § 550.249 What air emissions information must accompany the DPP or DOCD? * * * * * (a) Projected emissions. Tables showing the projected emissions of criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and total suspended particulates (TSP) generated by your proposed development and production activities. * * * * * (e) Non-exempt facilities. A description of how you will comply with § 550.303 when the projected emissions reported under paragraph (a) of this section are greater than the respective emission exemption thresholds (EET) calculated using the formulas in § 550.303(d). When BOEM requires air quality dispersion modeling, you must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion modeling with a model approved by the Director. You must also submit the best available meteorological information and data consistent with the model(s) used. * * * * * § 550.283 [Amended] 5. In § 550.283(a)(4), remove ‘‘air pollutant’’ and add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP’’. ■ 6. In § 550.302: ■ a. Remove the definition of ‘‘Air pollutant’’; ■ b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Attainment area’’; ■ c. In the definition of ‘‘Best available control technology’’, remove ‘‘air pollutant’’ everywhere it appears and add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant and VOC’’; ■ PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 d. Add the definitions for ‘‘Criteria air pollutant’’ and ‘‘Emission exemption threshold’’ in alphabetical order; ■ e. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Emission offsets’’ and ‘‘Existing facility’’; ■ f. Add the definition for ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ in alphabetical order; and ■ g. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Nonattainment area’’ and ‘‘Volatile organic compound’’. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ § 550.302 quality. Definitions concerning air * * * * * Attainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be reliable) not to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality standards established by EPA. * * * * * Criteria air pollutant means any air pollutant for which the EPA has established a primary or secondary national ambient air quality standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act. Emission exemption threshold (EET) means the rate of projected emissions, calculated for a criteria air pollutant or VOC or TSP, above which a facility would be subject to the requirements of § 550.303(e) through (i) or § 550.304(b) through (e). Emission offsets mean emission reductions obtained from facilities, either onshore or offshore, other than the facility or facilities covered by the proposed Exploration Plan (EP), Development and Production Plan (DPP), or Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD). Existing facility, as used in § 550.303, means an OCS facility described in an Exploration Plan, a Development and Production Plan, or a Development Operations Coordination Document approved before June 2, 1980. * * * * * National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) means a national air quality standard for any given criteria air pollutant, established pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act. Nonattainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be reliable) to exceed any primary or secondary E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations ambient air quality standard established by EPA. * * * * * Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that is emitted to the atmosphere as a vapor. Unreactive compounds are excluded from the preceding sentence of this definition. ■ 7. In § 550.303: ■ a. Revise the section heading; ■ b. In paragraphs (a) and (c), remove ‘‘Exploration Plans and Development and Production Plans’’ and add in its place ‘‘Exploration Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations Coordination Documents’’; ■ c. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (j), remove ‘‘Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan’’ and add in its place ‘‘Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document’’; ■ d. Revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f); ■ e. In paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) introductory text, remove ‘‘air pollutant other than VOC’’ add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’; f. In paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), remove ‘‘air pollutant’’ everywhere it appears and add in its place ‘‘criteria air pollutant’’; and ■ g. Revise paragraph (h) and the heading of paragraph (j). The revisions read as follows: ■ § 550.303 Facilities described in a new or revised Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document. * * * * * (d) Exemption formulas. To determine whether a facility described in an initial, modified, supplemental, or revised Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use the highest annualtotal amount of emissions from the facility calculated for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in § 550.249(a) or § 550.218(a) and compare these emissions to the emission exemption threshold (EET) calculated using the following formulas: 34937 EET = 3400*D2/3 for carbon monoxide (CO); and EET = 33.3*D for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), utilizing NO2 as the indicator pollutant for NOX, and VOC (where EET is the emission exemption threshold expressed in short tons per year, and D is the distance of the proposed facility from the closest onshore area of a State expressed in statute miles). If the amount of these projected emissions is less than or equal to the emission exemption threshold (EET) for the corresponding criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP, the facility is exempt from further air quality review required under paragraphs (e) through (i) of this section. (e) Significance levels (SLs). (1) For a facility not exempt under paragraph (d) of this section, the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality model to determine whether projected emissions from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above any SL set forth in the following table: TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1)—SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS (SLS) Averaging time Criteria Air Pollutant: Sulfur Dioxide ............................................................... PM10 ............................................................................. PM2.5 ............................................................................. Nitrogen Dioxide 1 ......................................................... Carbon Monoxide ......................................................... lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 1 NO 2 1 hour (mg/m3) 3 hour (μg/m3) 8 hour (mg/m3) 24 hour (μg/m3) Annual (μg/m3) ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2.0 25.0 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 0.5 5.0 5.0 1.2 ........................ ........................ 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 ........................ is the indicator pollutant for NOX. (2) In the event that the emissions of TSP exceed the EET for TSP, the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the SL for either PM10 or PM2.5. (f) Significance determinations. (1) The projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant from any facility that result in an onshore ambient air concentration above a SL determined under paragraph (e) of this section for that criteria air pollutant will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that criteria air pollutant. (2) The projected emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph (d) of this section will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC. * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 (h) Controls required on temporary facilities. The lessee must apply BACT to reduce projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC from a temporary facility that significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area of a State. * * * * * (j) Review of facilities with emissions below the emission exemption thresholds. * * * * * * * * ■ 8. In § 550.304, revise paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e)(1) and the heading of paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 550.304 Existing facilities. * * * * * (b) Exemption formulas. To determine whether an existing facility is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use the highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility calculated for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in § 550.249(a) or PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 § 550.218(a) and compare these emissions to the emission exemption threshold (EET) calculated using the following formulas: EET = 3400*D2/3 for carbon monoxide (CO); and EET = 33.3*D for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), utilizing NO2 as the indicator pollutant for NOX and VOC (where EET is the emission exemption threshold expressed in short tons per year, and D is the distance of the proposed facility from the closest onshore area of a State expressed in statute miles). If the amount of these projected emissions is less than or equal to the emission exemption threshold (EET) for the corresponding criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP, the facility is exempt from further air quality review required under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section. (c) Significance levels. For a facility not exempt under paragraph (b) of this section, the lessee must use a BOEM E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4 34938 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules and Regulations lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with RULES4 approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above any SL set forth in § 550.303(e). In the event that the emissions of TSP exceed the EET for TSP, the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the SL for either PM10 or PM2.5. (d) Significance determinations. (1) The projected emissions of any criteria VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:01 Jun 04, 2020 Jkt 250001 air pollutant from any facility that result in an onshore ambient air concentration above an SL determined under paragraph (c) of this section for that criteria air pollutant, will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that criteria air pollutant. (2) The projected emissions of VOC from any facility, which is not exempt under paragraph (b) of this section, will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC. (e) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 (1) The projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC that significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area must be reduced through the application of BACT. * * * * * (f) Review of facilities with emissions below the emission exemption thresholds. * * * * * * * * [FR Doc. 2020–11573 Filed 6–4–20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P E:\FR\FM\05JNR4.SGM 05JNR4

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34912-34938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11573]



[[Page 34911]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 109

June 5, 2020

Part V





Department of the Interior





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





Bureau of Ocean Energy Management





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





30 CFR Part 550





Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 34912]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

30 CFR Part 550

[Docket ID: BOEM-2018-0038]
RIN 1010-AE02


Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance

AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 5, 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule that would 
amend the regulations related to air quality measurement, evaluation, 
and control for oil, gas, and sulfur operations on the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS). The rule proposed significant revisions to 
existing regulations. This final rule amends the air quality management 
regulations applicable to activities that BOEM authorizes on the OCS of 
the United States in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) west 
of 87.5 degrees longitude and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of 
the State of Alaska. The air quality regulatory program (AQRP) is a 
component of the review and approval of plans for the exploration, 
development, and production of oil, gas, and sulfur on the OCS to 
comport with the Secretary of the Interior's separate and distinct 
statutory authority governing air quality. This final rule implements 
the Secretary of the Interior's statutory responsibility to ensure that 
conventional energy activities authorized under the Outer Continental 
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) do not preclude compliance with National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to the extent those activities 
significantly affect the air quality of any State.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at 
[email protected] or by mail to 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 
20166 or by calling (703) 787-1610. You may also contact Deanna Meyer-
Pietruszka, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Chief, Office of Policy, 
Regulation, and Analysis, at [email protected] or by 
mail to 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop 5238, Washington, DC 20240 or by 
calling (202) 208-6352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Table of Contents

I. Preamble Acronyms and Terms
II. Background and Legal Authority
    A. Background
    B. Key Provisions of the Final Rule
    C. BOEM's Air Quality Modeling Studies
    D. Summary of Key Changes Since the Proposed Rule
III. Summary of Public Comments
    A. Overview of Comments
    B. Why does BOEM need to update the air quality regulations?
    C. Why issue a rule before the regional air quality studies are 
complete?
    D. Responses to General Comments Made About the Proposed Rule
    E. Comments on the Regulatory Impact and Information Collection 
Analyses
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule
V. Key Statutes and Executive Orders
    A. Statutes
    1. Congressional Review Act
    2. Data Quality Act
    3. National Environmental Policy Act
    4. Paperwork Reduction Act
    5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    6. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    B. Executive Orders
    1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630)
    2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
    3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
    4. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety 
Risks (E.O. 13045)
    5. Federalism (E.O. 13132)
    6. Consultation With Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Related Authorities)
    7. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
    8. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563)
    9. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic 
(E.O. 13689)
    10. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 
13771)
    11. Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (E.O. 
13783)
    12. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (E.O. 
13795)

I. Preamble Acronyms and Terms

    To ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, 
the following acronyms and terms are used in the preamble:

AKOCSR Alaska OCS Region
ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
AQRP Air Quality Regulatory Program
ASLM Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management
ASRC Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CAA Clean Air Act
DOI Department of the Interior
DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document
DPP Development and Production Plan
EA Environmental Assessment
EET Emission Exemption Threshold
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
E.O. Executive Order
EP Exploration Plan
FR Federal Register
GOM Gulf of Mexico
GOMR Gulf of Mexico Region
IC Information Collection
IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis
MACI Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases
MMS Minerals Management Service
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NASEM National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
NGO Non-governmental Organization
NTL Notice to Lessees and Operators
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (a sub agency 
within OMB)
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than or equal to 2.5 
microns diameter (i.e., fine PM)
PM10 Particulate Matter less than or equal to 10 microns 
diameter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ROW Right-of-Way
RUE Right-of-Use-and-Easement
SBA Small Business Administration
Secretary Secretary of the Interior
S.O. Secretary's Order
SILs Significant Impact Levels
SLs Significance Levels
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

II. Background and Legal Authority

A. Background

    The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) provides the 
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting through the Bureau of 
Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), with the authority to ``prescribe and 
amend such rules and regulations as he determines to be necessary and 
proper in order to provide for the prevention of waste and conservation 
of resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and the protection 
of correlative rights therein'' and that ``notwithstanding any other 
provisions herein, such rules and regulations shall, as of their 
effective date, apply to all operations conducted under a lease issued 
or maintained under the provisions of this subchapter.'' 43 U.S.C. 
1334(a). OCSLA is clear on the Secretary's responsibilities to ensure 
``compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
[(NAAQS)]'', however the plain language also states that his

[[Page 34913]]

authority to regulate is limited to ``activities authorized under this 
[Act]'' that ``significantly affect the air quality of any State.'' For 
instance, OCSLA itself does not require or permit the operation of 
vessels in support of activities under a lease.
    OCSLA's provisions on air quality provide the Secretary a much 
narrower authority to regulate when compared with the breadth of those 
authorities granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under later amendment to the CAA, the CAA 
Amendments of 1990, section 328 of the CAA clearly outlines the 
separate and distinct jurisdictional authority of the USEPA, limiting 
the applicability of USEPA's regulatory authority only to specific 
areas of the OCS in consultation with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 7627. 
Congress further curtailed the geographic extent of USEPA's 
jurisdiction on the OCS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 
(Pub. L. 112-74), which transferred regulatory authority for air 
quality for operations in the Arctic OCS adjacent to the North Slope 
Borough of the State of Alaska from the USEPA to DOI.
    Unlike the USEPA, whose regulatory mandate is much broader and 
applicable to many types of air pollutants, DOI's regulatory authority 
under section 5(a) of OCSLA is focused on the six criteria air 
pollutants for which the USEPA has defined National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA). These pollutants are Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon 
Monoxide, Lead, Ozone, and Particulate Matter, of which there are 
several forms, two of which, PM2.5, and PM10, 
have defined NAAQS.\1\ The amount of any given criteria pollutant that 
may affect any State is influenced by two factors, the direct emission 
and dispersion of the criteria pollutant and the formation of a 
criteria pollutant caused by the emissions of other pollutants. Those 
air pollutants that contribute to the formation of a criteria air 
pollutant are known as precursor air pollutants. Historically, the 
precursor air pollutant that BOEM has regulated (in addition to those 
precursor air pollutants that are themselves also criteria air 
pollutants) is Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The existing BOEM regulations refer to total suspended 
particulates (TSP), which was a criteria air pollutant at the time 
the regulations were originally published. Total suspended 
particulates means any form of particulate matter (i.e., solid 
particles or droplets) suspended in the air that has a diameter of 
100 microns or less. PM10 and PM2.5 are 
subsets of TSP because they represent forms of particulate matter 
having a diameter of 10 or 2.5 microns or less, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative history of section 5(a) of OCSLA provides more 
insight into Congressional intent. The 1978 Conference Report notes 
that while one version of the original legislation included ``very 
broad authority, with few guidelines, to promulgate regulations'' it 
was ultimately the final, adopted language known to us in the statute 
that ``does provide statutory guidelines and requirements for certain 
types of regulations'' in order to provide ``a mechanism for 
coordinated bureaucratic action.'' S. Rep. 95-1091 at 82-83 (1978).
    Furthermore, this same report notes that conferees intended that 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary would, ``. . . not generally 
require that the air mass above the OCS itself be brought into 
compliance . . .'' but instead would control emissions from seaward 
sources ``. . . to prevent a significant effect on the air quality of 
an adjacent onshore area.'' Id. at 85-86. It is apparent from this 
Conference Report that Congress contemplated greater authorities, but 
instead chose statutory direction that sought to both de-conflict and 
define a separate and distinct regulatory regimen for the Secretary, 
expecting that some authorized activities on the OCS may not have 
significant effects due to their being located ``many miles'' from an 
adjacent onshore area. Id. at 86. Subsequent to the passage of this 
statutory direction provided by the OCSLA Amendments of 1978, the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) promulgated air quality regulations 
for the OCS in 1980, which incorporated the NAAQS, as established at 
that time.
    On April 5, 2016, BOEM published a proposed rule (81 FR 19718, 
April 5, 2016) to update the current air quality regulations that were 
promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) over 39 years 
ago (45 FR 15128, March 7, 1980). While the existing regulatory process 
is adequate, the regulations copied USEPA's significance levels (SLs) 
and Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACIs) at the time of 
promulgation (1980). The corresponding values in the USEPA regulations 
have been updated since DOI's regulations were adopted.
    On May 23, 2016, BOEM provided a 14-day comment period extension to 
the original 60-day public comment period, thus extending the public 
comment period to June 20, 2016 (81 FR 32259). On March 28, 2017, 
President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13783, ``Promoting Energy 
Independence and Economic Growth.'' In section 2 of that Executive 
order, the President directed that: ``The heads of agencies shall 
review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, 
and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) 
that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced 
energy resources . . .'' and directed the head of each agency to 
finalize a report detailing the aforementioned agency actions that 
potentially burden domestic energy development. On October 24, 2017, 
the DOI finalized and published in the Federal Register the ``Review of 
the Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic 
Energy.'' 82 FR 5052, Nov. 1, 2017. This report identified BOEM's 
review of the proposed air quality rule.
    Separately, on April 28, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13795, 
``Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.'' In section 
8 of that Executive order, the President directed that: ``The Secretary 
of the Interior shall take all steps necessary to review BOEM's 
Proposed Rule entitled `Air Quality Control, Reporting, and 
Compliance,' 81 FR 19718 (April 5, 2016), along with any related rules 
and guidance, and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable and 
consistent with law, consider whether the proposed rule, and any 
related rules and guidance, should be revised or withdrawn.'' Notably, 
both Executive orders only directed the review of agency actions and 
did not direct specific outcomes for rulemakings, leaving decisions to 
the discretion of the Secretary, consistent with applicable laws.
    BOEM has carefully reviewed the available alternatives to ensure 
compliance with all relevant subsequent Executive and Secretary's 
orders, including those related to energy independence and regulatory 
reform. Moreover, BOEM reviewed all comments received during the public 
comment period for the proposed rule, in accordance with the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Reexamination of the public 
comments from the 2016 proposed rule was necessary since it is 
questionable whether all provisions of the 2016 proposed rule would 
survive judicial review.
    This final rule revises the regulations so that they adequately 
reflect current SLs while ensuring that the regulatory administration 
of the Secretary's distinct statutory authorities does not go beyond 
the authorities granted to the Secretary in OCSLA.

[[Page 34914]]

B. Key Provisions of the Final Rule

    BOEM is adopting the following key provisions from the proposed 
rule in this final rule:
     Compliance with the NAAQS. The values for primary and 
secondary NAAQS are currently set forth in USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 
part 50.\2\ Consistent with the proposed rule, this final rule defines 
the term ``NAAQS,'' deletes the outdated lists of specific criteria air 
pollutants, and retains the existing regulation that requires 
compliance with the NAAQS. Currently, Sec.  550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) 
provides that 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. BOEM and its predecessor 
agencies \3\ have required compliance with both primary and secondary 
standards because OCSLA's mandate makes no distinction between them. 
This final rule also clarifies that DOI's reporting and compliance 
requirements apply to the emissions of all pollutants on the OCS for 
which a national ambient air quality standard has been defined.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Primary NAAQS standards provide for public health 
protection, including that of sensitive populations such as 
asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary NAAQS standards 
provide for public welfare protection, including protection against 
decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and 
buildings.
    \3\ BOEM's predecessor agencies are the U.S. Geological Survey, 
Bureau of Land Management, Minerals Management Service (MMS), and 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement.
    \4\ See 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8), which requires ``compliance with 
the national ambient air quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Updating the Significance Levels (SLs) Table. The term 
``Significance Level'' is defined to reference the values in the table 
at Sec.  550.303(e), which are based on the values currently set forth 
in USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). These updated values and 
their updated criteria air pollutants replace the outdated table of SLs 
in the existing Sec. Sec.  550.303(e) and 550.304(c), dating from 1980. 
BOEM may update these SLs as warranted through future rulemaking. In 
contrast to the proposed rule's approach of merely cross-referencing to 
the USEPA's regulations, the final rule provides a table of SLs for 
lessees and operators as a quick reference. Instead of searching for 
relevant SLs in another agency's regulations, and given that USEPA's 
regulations are different from DOI's, the numbers are appropriately 
placed and readily accessible here.
     Clarifying the Emission Exemption Threshold (EET) 
Terminology. The existing regulations use several different terms 
interchangeably, as they relate to the ``Emissions Exemption Amount.'' 
These include ``exemption amount'' and ``exempt emissions.'' BOEM is 
adding a definition of the term ``emissions exemption threshold,'' 
which replaces the term ``exemption amount'' used in the existing 
regulations. The existing references to the term ``exempt emissions'' 
are also being clarified by reference to the new defined term. These 
changes merely clarify terminology.
     Replacing the Term Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). 
This final rule replaces the former criteria air pollutant ``total 
suspended particulates'' \5\ with the new criteria pollutants 
``particulate matter 10'' (PM10) and ``particulate matter 
2.5'' (PM2.5) in the list of air pollutants in the tables at 
Sec. Sec.  550.303(e) and 550.304(c). BOEM is aware that the USEPA has 
determined that PM10 and PM2.5 are more relevant 
indicators of particle pollution impact on human health and public 
welfare than TSP. Nevertheless, for the time being, TSP has been 
retained in the EET formulas at Sec. Sec.  550.303(d) and 550.304(b). 
Although the USEPA replaced TSP as a NAAQS pollutant in 1987 and has 
discontinued the use of TSP in most of its air quality regulations, 
BOEM does not believe that the bureau has an adequate scientific basis 
for replacing the EET formula for TSP at this time. Hence, BOEM is 
continuing the use of TSP in the EET formulas. BOEM's recent GOM and 
Alaska air quality studies provide insights into the EET formulas, 
informing potential future regulatory changes. At the same time, BOEM 
believes that it is important for operators to evaluate the impacts of 
criteria air pollutants PM10 and PM2.5. For this 
reason, this rulemaking replaces the TSP significance level values with 
those of PM10 and PM2.5 in the table of 
Significance Levels--Air Pollution Concentrations at Sec. Sec.  
550.303(e) and 550.304(c). Going forward, the SLs table will no longer 
contain any values for TSP. Because the SLs for PM10 and 
PM2.5 are a more appropriate basis for evaluating PM 
pollution, this final rule will require operators, whose emissions 
exceed the EET for TSP,\6\ to use modeling to determine whether their 
facility would cause an exceedance of the SLs for PM10 and 
PM2.5, not TSP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ TSP represents PM having a diameter of 100 microns or less; 
in contrast, PM10 represents PM have a diameter of 10 
microns or less. PM2.5 represents PM having a diameter of 
two and one-half microns or less. Thus, PM2.5 is a subset 
of PM10 and PM10 is a subset of TSP.
    \6\ Because TSP is no longer a criteria pollutant, the USEPA has 
deleted SLs for TSP from its SLs table; similarly, this rule's new 
SLs table no longer contains an SL value for TSP.
    \7\ Although the final rule requires operators, whose emissions 
exceed the EET for TSP, to use modeling to determine whether their 
facility would cause an exceedance of the SLs for PM10 
and PM2.5, not TSP, where modeling indicates an 
exceedance of the SL for either PM10 or PM2.5, 
TSP evaluation in relation to the values in the table listing the 
Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACI) might be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Application to Development Operations Coordination 
Document (DOCDs). This final rule clarifies that the EET formulas in 
current Sec. Sec.  550.303 and 550.304 apply to Development and 
Production Plans (DPPs) and DOCDs. This clarification will not lead to 
a change in practice because BOEM has always applied the existing air 
quality regulations to DPPs and DOCDs. The proposed rule included this 
clarification. Conforming changes are made in other provisions of the 
final rule as described in the Section-by-Section analysis.
     Criteria Air Pollutants. The final rule replaces the term 
``air pollutant'' with the term ``criteria air pollutant.'' Criteria 
air pollutants include Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Monoxide, 
Lead, Ozone, Particulate Matter, for which two forms, PM2.5, 
and PM10, have been defined. Under OCSLA, the Secretary's 
authority is to ensure compliance with the NAAQS to the extent that 
authorized activities significantly affect the air quality of any 
State. As noted above, USEPA has defined NAAQS for six common air 
pollutants, known as ``criteria air pollutants.'' In addition to the 
criteria air pollutants, DOI regulates VOCs, which can affect the 
formation of criteria pollutants. Many other ``air pollutants'' are not 
within the scope of OCSLA's statutory mandate, as they are not covered 
under the NAAQS.\8\ As discussed in the proposed rule, BOEM has 
clarified throughout the final rule what was meant by the use of the 
term ``air pollutant'' in the existing regulations. Before this change, 
BOEM used the term ``air pollutant'' with differing meanings.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases 
have no NAAQS and therefore fall outside the scope of BOEM's AQRP.
    \9\ The section by section discussion of 30 CFR 550.105 provides 
details on where each of these uses of ``air pollutant'' are found 
in the existing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Dispersion Modeling. As noted previously, this final rule 
does not incorporate any of the provisions from

[[Page 34915]]

the proposed rule regarding the use of photochemical models to evaluate 
the formation of ozone or fine PM. Because the existing regulations 
cross-reference the recently updated USEPA modeling guidelines, which 
include guidelines on photochemical modeling, this final rule clarifies 
that those cross-references are applicable only to the portions of 
USEPA's modeling guidelines that deal with dispersion modeling. BOEM 
will not require photochemical modeling under any circumstances at this 
time. Once the ongoing air quality studies are completed and evaluated, 
BOEM may reevaluate this position if it determines that OCS sources 
significantly contribute to the formation of ozone or fine PM.
     Air Quality Spreadsheets. Along with this rulemaking, BOEM 
is updating the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved air 
quality spreadsheets BOEM-0138 and BOEM-0139, which are applicable to 
Exploration Plans (EPs), DOCDs, and DPPs, respectively.\10\ These are 
forms (not part of the regulations themselves) that operators use to 
report the information on air emissions required in the regulations, 
primarily the emissions associated with their proposed plans. These 
spreadsheets require the operator to identify the relevant types of 
equipment that will be used in connection with its OCS operations. The 
air quality spreadsheets provide emissions factors that correspond to 
each of the equipment types and that BOEM uses to determine the amount 
of emissions generated for every relevant criteria air pollutant, TSP, 
or Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) under the plan. The spreadsheets 
enable the operator to quantify the total emissions by type of air 
pollutant for all equipment included in the EP, DPP, or DOCD, and then 
determine whether such emissions would or would not exceed the relevant 
EETs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available at: https://www.boem.gov/Air-Quality-Reporting/ 
or at https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-OCS-Operation-Forms/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, BOEM is updating the spreadsheets with emissions 
factors for new types of equipment that are not currently listed 
(particularly those relevant to operations on the Alaska OCS). BOEM is 
also modifying the spreadsheet data requirements consistent with the 
regulations as amended. A detailed description of the spreadsheet 
changes is included in the section of this preamble under the heading 
``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
    As part of this rulemaking, the air quality spreadsheets are being 
updated with newer, more up-to-date emissions factors to more 
accurately assess the emissions being emitted by equipment used by OCS 
lessees and operators and to evaluate the emissions for lead, 
PM2.5, PM10, TSP, and ammonia.

C. BOEM's Air Quality Modeling Studies

    This final rule updates outdated standards and benchmarks, but 
defers consideration for further regulatory changes until the BOEM 
studies discussed below can all be completed and evaluated.
    In 2013 and 2014, BOEM initiated two air quality modeling studies 
to evaluate the impact of OCS operations on the air quality of the 
neighboring States. The first of these studies was focused on air 
quality adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska; the second 
addressed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) air quality.
    In 2018, BOEM completed its Alaska study, the ``Arctic Air Quality 
Impact Assessment Modeling Study,'' conducted by the Eastern Research 
Group, Inc. (ERG), Ramboll Group A/S, and the University of Alaska 
Fairbanks.\11\ This study assessed BOEM's current EETs, and proposed 
neither new EETs nor changes to the existing EETs. BOEM has proposed a 
follow-up study entitled ``Updating the Emissions Exemption Thresholds 
(EETs) Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) Analysis Study'' 
for BOEM's Studies Development Plan.\12\ This follow-on study also 
would evaluate the consistency in the EETs between the Alaska and GOM 
regions, develop separate EETs for Alaska if appropriate, and address 
any comments on the methods used to formulate new EETs that are 
received from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and 
Medicine (NASEM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Paula Fields Simma, Bebhinn Do, Bart Brashers, Till 
Stoeckius & Ralph Morris, Arctic Air Quality Impact Assessment 
Modeling Study: Final Project Report (2018) (report prepared by 
Eastern Research Group, Inc., and Ramboll under BOEM contract 
M12PC00014), available at https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-2018-020/.
    \12\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Studies Development Plan 
2020-2022 (2019), available at https://www.boem.gov/FY-2020-2022-SDP/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second referenced air quality modeling study is entitled, ``Air 
Quality Modeling in the Gulf of Mexico'' (GM-14-01), conducted by the 
ERG, Ramboll Group A/S, and Alpine Geophysics. The study was completed 
in September 2019, has undergone an independent peer review, and is 
posted on BOEM's website at https://espis.boem.gov/final%20reports/BOEM_2019-057.PDF. BOEM is currently reviewing the results of the NASEM 
peer review and intends to evaluate the NASEM recommendations in the 
near future.

D. Summary of Key Changes Since the Proposed Rule

    This final rule amends regulations implementing section 5(a)(8) of 
OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)), which requires the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations ``for 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.'' BOEM administers 
these existing regulations, which have been fundamentally the same 
since their publication in 1980. This final rule adopts some provisions 
of the proposed rule.
    Over the past 40 years, the existing regulations have required 
lessees and operators to: \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ You can find an explanation of the process that BOEM and 
its predecessor agency, the MMS, used to develop these requirements 
in the preamble to the proposed rule (44 FR 27449 (May 10, 1979)) 
and the final existing air quality rule (45 FR 15128 (March 7, 
1980)). Although BOEM presently manages the air quality regulatory 
program (AQRP), the U.S. Geological Survey largely wrote the 
original air quality regulations, which the Secretary approved. 
Since that time, MMS and then the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 
Regulation and Enforcement administered this program, before BOEM 
took responsibility for the AQRP in October 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Submit information on air emissions from their OCS oil, gas, and 
sulfur activities projected to occur under any proposed EP, DPP, or 
DOCD (collectively referred to in this final rule as ``plans'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In its evaluation of emissions through the use of the air 
quality spreadsheets, BOEM has historically and continues to require 
operators to report emissions based on the maximum rated capacity or 
maximum emissions estimate for their proposed type of equipment. 
Because any piece of equipment may emit more or less of any given 
air pollutant at any given time, depending on factors such as the 
type of fuel used, the length of time a piece of equipment is 
operated, the capacity utilization of the equipment, the workloads 
applied, the level of maintenance, etc., BOEM's spreadsheets 
calculate the highest level of emissions for each type of air 
pollutant that any piece of equipment is capable of emitting over 
any given period of time. The existing air quality spreadsheets 
calculate the highest annual and peak hour emissions for each type 
of equipment and those numbers are the ones used to evaluate whether 
the emissions exemption threshold has or has not been exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Determine whether projected emissions of certain air pollutants 
exceed the applicable EET.
    3. Model the potential impacts of certain air pollutants when 
projected emissions exceed an applicable EET that could potentially 
cause significant air quality impacts to a State. As part of this 
review, BOEM first analyzes whether the modeled emissions would cause 
an increase in the ambient concentration of any criteria air pollutant 
in any State to exceed an SL. If no SL is exceeded, no

[[Page 34916]]

further analysis is required. In the event that an SL is exceeded, if 
that exceedance occurs in an attainment area (i.e., an area where the 
NAAQS are not exceeded), a further analysis is required to determine if 
the increase would exceed the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increase 
(MACI) for that air pollutant. If not, no further analysis is required 
and the plan would be approved. If the MACI is exceeded, appropriate 
mitigations or controls would be required.
    4. Control any emissions source proposed for or on any facility 
that modeling indicates could cause or contribute to an exceedance of 
the NAAQS.
    The proposed rule would have significantly revised the existing 
regulations and would have more closely aligned DOI's regulations with 
those of the USEPA. The proposed rule sought to require operators to 
include in their regulated emissions, the emissions from activities 
that are not expressly authorized under OCSLA. However, the Secretary's 
statutory requirements differ substantially from those of the USEPA and 
so, based on BOEM's reassessment of the proposed rule in light of the 
public comments, such alignment is not appropriate. For example, 
compared to the time periods for plan review under OCSLA, the CAA and 
USEPA regulations provide for a very different process and timeframes 
for evaluating air quality permits. Congress, in providing the 
Secretary with this distinct statutory authority, specifically noted in 
the Conference Report that it did not intend the ``. . . application of 
section 5(a)(8) regulations [to] interfere with the time periods 
provided in the conference report for review and approval of 
exploration plans, and development and production plans.'' S. Rept. 95-
1091, p. 86. Based largely on the extensive public comments received to 
the proposed rule, BOEM has determined that such an extensive alignment 
could: (1) Unduly burden the industry; (2) potentially complicate and 
duplicate other Federal agency requirements; (3) possibly raise legal 
questions regarding DOI's authority to adopt some of the proposed 
changes; and (4) potentially prevent BOEM from complying with the 
statutorily mandated timeframes for completing exploration and 
development plan reviews. For these reasons, BOEM has determined that 
the extensive revisions in the proposed rule are unnecessary.
    This final rule incorporates a limited number of the changes in the 
proposed rule and retains the fundamental structure of the existing 
regulations. Because of this, it would not be practical to cite in this 
preamble every provision in the proposed rule that BOEM is not adopting 
in this final rule. However, several of the more significant proposed 
revisions that BOEM has not included in this final rule are discussed 
in the parts of the preamble responding to general comments and the 
Section-by-Section analysis. Among those proposed changes that BOEM is 
not adopting in the final rule are those that would have:
     Required the consideration of emissions from transiting 
support vessels, vehicles, or aircraft in the EET analysis.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BOEM is not reducing the reporting requirements, 
themselves, as the emissions of all support vessels will still be 
reported in accordance in with the requirements of subpart B. In 
addition, support vessels that are temporarily connected either to 
the seabed or to a facility (such as well reworking vessels) will 
continue to be treated as facility emissions, in accordance with 
existing requirements for facilities, and will continue to be 
considered as part of the EET analysis. For a more detailed summary, 
see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart B. 
Plans and Information (Sec.  550.218--What Air Emissions Information 
Must Accompany the EP?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Required BOEM's evaluation of air quality impacts arising 
from all right-of-use and easement grants (RUEs) and right-of-way 
grants (ROWs).\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-
Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and 
Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Required re-certification of existing facilities for 
compliance with existing air quality standards on a periodic basis.
     Changed the location at which BOEM evaluates air quality 
impacts from the coastal point nearest the offshore facility's most 
significant impact on a State's air quality based on prevailing winds 
to such a point on the seaward boundary of a State's submerged 
lands.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-
Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and 
Control (Paragraph (e)(1)--Significance Levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Specified how emissions should be determined and evaluated 
by equipment type and various usage rates (i.e., emissions 
factors).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For a more detailed summary, see Part II. Background and 
Legal Authority, Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Air 
Quality Spreadsheets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Added new criteria for aggregating emissions from multiple 
facilities to evaluate air quality impacts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-
Section Analysis, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control 
(Paragraph (j)--Review of Facilities with Emissions Below the 
Exemption Amount).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Added a detailed methodology for implementing emission 
reduction credits in lieu of emission reductions from controls applied 
to facilities, expanding on treatment of the matter in the existing 
regulations.
     Extended to Indian tribes the same opportunity afforded to 
States to comment on BOEM's consideration of a plan.\20\ When the CAA 
was amended in 1990 to change the status of the Tribes with respect to 
air quality, Congress made no mention of extending analogous authority 
more broadly to other agencies. OCSLA was not mentioned in the 
discussion of these CAA amendments and no efforts were made on the part 
of Congress to extend this authority more broadly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For a more detailed summary, see Part V. Key Statutes and 
Executive Orders, Subpart B. Executive Orders, section 5. 
Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Other Authorities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Set criteria for adopting future EET changes without 
additional rulemaking.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For more detailed summaries, see Part II. Background and 
Legal Authority, Subpart C. BOEM's Air Quality Modeling Studies and 
Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Replacing the Term 
TSP). Also see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, 
Subpart B. Plans and Information (Sec.  550.218--What Air Emissions 
Information Must Accompany the EP?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Established new single source photochemical modeling 
requirements for ozone and PM2.5 \22\ that may be formed in 
the atmosphere from OCS facilities' emissions.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ PM2.5, or fine PM, is an airborne contaminant 
composed of particles having a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 
micrometers.
    \23\ BOEM is using the USEPA's latest modeling guidance in 
Appendix W in a prudent manner consistent with BOEM's authorities 
and is working with the USEPA through the Interagency Workgroup on 
Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). For more detailed summaries of the 
modeling processes, see Part II. Background and Legal Authority, 
Subpart D. Key Provisions of the Final Rule (Dispersion Modeling), 
and Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of Final Rule, Subpart B. 
Plans and Information (Sec.  550.218--What Air Emissions Information 
Must Accompany the EP?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Replaced the table of MACI in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(A) 
\24\ with a cross-reference to the codified USEPA Ambient Air 
Increments.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ To improve readability and avoid any confusion, all further 
regulatory section references in the main body of this notice are to 
30 CFR part 550 unless otherwise specified. Footnotes will contain 
the complete citation.
    \25\ For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-
Section Analysis of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention 
and Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Established new requirements for how and when lessees and 
operators should measure and report emissions on an ongoing basis.
     Added various provisions intended to make the AQRP similar 
to that of USEPA's.
     Used the term ``significant impact level'' (SIL) in lieu 
of the term ``significance level'' (SL).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For more details, see Part IV. Section-by-Section Analysis 
of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention and Control.

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

[[Page 34917]]

     Adopted a cross-reference to the regulations of the USEPA; 
instead, a table of updated relevant and applicable SLs applied by BOEM 
is included in this final rule, as described above.
     In addition, the proposed rule raised the issue of whether 
the SLs used by states should be incorporated into the table of 
SLs.\27\ Upon further review of the comments received, BOEM has 
determined to continue to use the values reflected in USEPA regulations 
\28\ in implementing the NAAQS. The existing regulation at Sec.  
550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) provides that 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. This section 
from the existing regulations will continue to be applied to ensure 
that no plan for an OCS facility will be approved if it would cause an 
exceedance of the NAAQS in any State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ While BOEM discussed this proposal in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and solicited comment on it, BOEM did not include this 
proposal in the proposed regulatory text.
    \28\ For a more detailed summary, see Part IV. Section-by-
Section Analysis of the Final Rule, Subpart C. Pollution Prevention 
and Control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Public Comments

A. Overview of Comments

    BOEM received 81 written comments, consisting of several thousand 
pages of text, to the proposed rule. Only three comments were submitted 
by individuals. The remaining comments were submitted on behalf of 
organizations. Many comments were submitted on behalf of multiple 
parties; therefore, the number of organizations that submitted comments 
is significantly larger than the number of comments BOEM received.
    The following industry and trade groups submitted comments: Alaska 
Oil and Gas Association (AOGA); American Petroleum Institute (API); 
Offshore Operators Committee (OOC); National Ocean Industries 
Association (NOIA); Independent Petroleum Association of America 
(IPAA); International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC); 
Offshore Marine Services Association (OMSA); Jackson Offshore 
Operators; International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA); Truck 
and Engine Manufacturers Association (TEMA); and Louisiana Mid-
Continent Oil and Gas Association.
    Additionally, the following companies submitted individual 
comments: Arena Offshore; Anadarko Petroleum; ASRC Exploration; Barry 
Graham Oil Service LLC; British Petroleum; BR Petrobras; Chevron 
Corporation; Diamond Offshore; Edison Chouest Offshore; Fieldwood 
Energy; Gulfmark Americas Inc.; Hornbeck Offshore Services; Murphy Oil; 
LLOG Exploration; Odyssea Marine; Otto Candies LLC; Rowan Companies; 
Seacor Marine LLC; Sea Support Ventures LLC; Shell Oil; Tidewater 
Marine; Transocean; Walter Oil; and W&T Offshore.
    The following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) submitted 
comments: Alaska Inter-Tribal Council; Alaska Wilderness League; Center 
for American Progress; Center for Biological Diversity; Clean Air Task 
Force; Earthjustice; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace USA; and the Gulf 
Restoration Network.
    Various Federal, State, local, quasi-governmental, and tribal 
organizations also provided comments, including the following: Arctic 
Slope Regional Corporation; Arctic Inupiat Offshore; North Slope 
Borough; the State of Alaska; the State of Louisiana; the State of 
Texas; USEPA; the National Park Service; the U.S. Forest Service; the 
Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition, BOEM 
held meetings with a number of tribal groups, as discussed more fully 
in Part V. Key Statutes, Subpart B. Executive Orders, section 5. 
Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Related Authorities).
    In general, industry and industry trade groups took the position 
that the emissions generated from OCS sources do not represent a 
significant source of air pollution to the States and that the existing 
regulatory approach is adequate. They also raised the concern that some 
of the proposed changes would force them to incur high costs that would 
negatively impact exploration and development. Environmental NGOs 
generally took the opposite view, arguing that the regulations are 
outdated and inadequate to ensure that OCS facilities do not adversely 
impact the air quality of the States. The following includes more 
detailed description of certain comments received on the proposed 
rulemaking. BOEM addresses comments relevant to specific regulatory 
provisions in the Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule in Part 
IV. of the preamble, to the extent that those comments are relevant to 
the changes BOEM is making in this final rule. In most cases BOEM is 
not specifically addressing comments related to the proposed regulatory 
provisions that BOEM is not adopting from the proposed rule; however, 
some such comments have been addressed when necessary to clarify BOEM's 
action on specific rule sections.

B. Why does BOEM need to update the air quality regulations?

    Comment: Some comments stated that in various environmental 
analyses BOEM concluded that the OCS facilities it regulates do not 
significantly impact State air quality. Those commenters questioned why 
BOEM proposed extensive revisions to its air quality regulations 
despite the fact that the existing AQRP seems to be doing an adequate 
job of protecting State air quality. Some commenters also asserted that 
BOEM's 2012-2017 GOM lease sale environmental impact statement (EIS) 
\29\ as well as various other BOEM documents specifically stated that 
the existing regulations have prevented adverse onshore air quality 
impacts. Those commenters argued, for that reason, that no changes are 
necessary for the air quality regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 
Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2012-2017, Western 
Planning Area Lease Sales 229, 233, 238, 246, and 248, Central 
Planning Area Lease Sales 227, 231, 235, 241, and 247, Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (2012) (OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: This final rule maintains the BOEM air quality existing 
regulations with only a few changes and retains the regulatory 
framework that has been in place since March 1980. This final rule is 
intended primarily to update obsolete or irrelevant provisions in the 
regulations that no longer reflect NAAQS standards and benchmarks. For 
example, USEPA's current list of criteria air pollutants no longer 
includes TSP, but does include PM10 and PM2.5. 
This final rule adds SLs for PM10 and PM2.5 and 
updates criteria air pollutants and SLs that the USEPA has revised 
since 1980.

C. Why issue a rule before the regional air quality studies are 
complete?

    Comment: Some comments questioned proceeding with a final air 
quality rule while a study of air quality in the GOM region (GOMR) is 
ongoing.
    Response: Partly based on these comments, the final rule does not 
adopt the provisions to which the commenters were objecting. Although 
the GOM region study is complete, it is being peer reviewed and BOEM 
plans to consider and respond to that peer review once completed.
    This final rule adopts the values that the USEPA currently lists in 
40 CFR

[[Page 34918]]

51.165(b)(2) as SLs to be used by BOEM. The final rule also replaces 
outdated SLs for the former criteria air pollutant TSP in Sec. Sec.  
550.303(e) and 550.304(c) with PM10 and PM2.5 
SLs. The GOMR study is not relevant to these revisions.
    BOEM intends to use the information from its GOMR and Alaska 
studies to inform future policy determinations and National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. The studies also will provide 
information on the cumulative effects of activities that BOEM 
authorizes. BOEM is evaluating the results of a peer-review process of 
the GOM study which BOEM conducted in accordance with the OMB's ``Final 
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,'' under which agencies 
must undertake a peer review of influential scientific information by 
specialists in the field who were not involved in producing the draft, 
before they disseminate the information to the public. This Bulletin 
also imposes minimum requirements for the peer review of highly 
influential scientific assessments. BOEM has determined that the GOMR 
study is a highly influential assessment and is complying with OMB peer 
review requirements as outlined in the OMB Bulletin for Peer Review.

D. Responses to Other Comments Made About the Proposed Rule

    Comment: Some comments suggested that BOEM simplify the explanation 
of the term NAAQS found in existing Sec.  550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) by 
referring to the list of NAAQS in 40 CFR part 50.
    Response: BOEM finds it unnecessary to reference 40 CFR part 50 and 
believes that the existing reference to NAAQS in the referenced 
paragraph is sufficient. However, this final rule provides definitions 
for ``NAAQS'' and ``criteria air pollutant'' (which refers to the 
NAAQS) in Sec. Sec.  550.105 and 550.302. The final rule makes 
corresponding changes to add ``criteria air pollutant'' where ``NAAQS'' 
are discussed. The APA specifically states that ``a sanction may not be 
imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within 
jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.'' 5 
U.S.C. 558. Adopting by reference a separate and distinct regulatory 
agency's regulations could lead to a future scenario in which an agency 
may promulgate a rulemaking, as defined in the APA as a ``statement of 
general or particular applicability and future effect designed to 
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy,'' that may have a 
significant impact on states, localities, or a regulated community over 
which that agency has no statutory jurisdiction or expertise. In such 
cases, the agency with jurisdiction may have little recourse to provide 
meaningful input aside from those provided in the formal rulemaking 
process unless a complete exemption is granted. Given the separate and 
distinct legal authorities of the USEPA and BOEM, BOEM believes that 
updating the NAAQS through the rulemaking process best affords 
``interested persons an opportunity to participate'' through notice and 
comment while also adhering to the principles outlined in section 1 of 
E.O. 13771 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' which include: designing 
regulations ``in the most cost-effective manner to achieve the 
regulatory objective;'' tailoring regulations ``to impose the least 
burden on society . . .;'' and drafting regulations to be ``simple and 
easy to understand, with the goal of minimizing the potential for 
uncertainty and litigation arising from such uncertainty.''
    Comment: Some comments suggested that BOEM should utilize two sets 
of SLs, one for attainment areas and one for non-attainment areas. 
These commenters argued that the proposed SLs were too stringent for 
attainment areas. Other comments suggested that the regulations should 
include interim SILs, recommended in USEPA guidance. Some comments 
suggested that DOI establish its own SL valuations for each criteria 
air pollutant--perhaps with a ``default'' level at 5 percent of the 
NAAQS--independent of the USEPA SIL valuations.''
    Response: BOEM is updating the SL values to those the USEPA has 
established and applying these values to both attainment and non-
attainment areas. BOEM has not established separate SLs for attainment 
and non-attainment areas in the final rule. The USEPA values set forth 
at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2) apply in both areas; States also generally have 
one set of SLs for both areas in their permitting programs.
    Comment: Various comments requested that BOEM interpret what it 
means by the phrase ``significantly affect the air quality of any 
State.'' 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8). Several commenters suggested that BOEM 
define this phrase in terms of causing an exceedance of the NAAQS; 
others, in terms of contributing to an exceedance. One commenter 
asserted that an exceedance of a SL and the corresponding NAAQS should 
both be required to qualify as significantly affecting the air quality 
of a State.
    Response: The existing Sec.  550.303(f)(1) defines that phrase as 
the projected emissions of any air pollutant other than VOC from any 
facility which result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the 
SL determined under paragraph (e), which lists the USEPA's SLs for 
criteria pollutants from 1980, for that air pollutant, shall be deemed 
to significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that 
air pollutant. Additionally, the existing Sec.  550.303(f)(2) defines 
``significantly affect'' with respect to VOC emissions as the projected 
emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph 
(d), which lists the exemption threshold equations, for that air 
pollutant [i.e., referring to an EET for VOC] shall be deemed to 
significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC. This 
final rule continues using SLs as the indicator of whether emissions 
significantly affect the air quality of any State and updates the SL 
values to conform with the NAAQS as updated by the USEPA.
    In the regulation as amended by this final rule, there are two 
exceptions to the use of the SLs to determine whether emissions 
significantly affect the air quality of any State. First, with respect 
to VOCs, BOEM has retained the existing policy whereby an exceedance of 
the EET for VOCs is the criteria for determining whether emissions of 
VOCs significantly affect the air quality of any State. Second, BOEM 
recognizes that an air pollutant concentration could exceed the 
relevant NAAQS in rare circumstances when OCS emissions of criteria air 
pollutants from a facility that has an impact below the SLs are 
considered with the background concentrations of a relevant onshore 
area. In either of these two situations, BOEM would treat the plan in 
the same manner as it would handle a situation where the SLs had been 
exceeded.
    Comment: Some comments questioned the proposed rule's definitions 
of ``attainment area'' and ``non-attainment area'' because none closely 
align with USEPA's usages. In particular, some commenters noted that 
BOEM's use of ``non-attainment area'' is narrower than that of the 
USEPA's because BOEM does not consider whether an area that is itself 
in attainment with the NAAQS may nevertheless be considered non-
attainment, as USEPA may do, because it may cause a nearby area to fall 
into non-attainment.
    Response: The existing regulations use the terms ``attainment 
area'' and ``non-attainment area'' differently than the USEPA. The 
USEPA's regulations provide for multiple categories of areas beyond 
these two categories (e.g., attainment areas, maintenance areas, 
unclassifiable areas) whereas DOI's regulations treat all areas outside 
``non-attainment'' as attainment areas. The existing regulations 
deliberately use this

[[Page 34919]]

simplified nomenclature to streamline the regulations, because the 
USEPA's categories are not relevant to implementing the Secretary's 
statutory authority. BOEM also left the definition more limited because 
OCSLA's statutory mandate is more limited than USEPA's under the CAA; 
considering the impact of OCS emissions on an area whose non-OCS 
emissions might impact a third area is outside the scope of OCSLA's 
statutory mandate. BOEM is not making any substantive change to the 
definition of either attainment or non-attainment areas.
    Comment: Generally, industry commenters objected to the proposal to 
add photochemical modeling requirements when the EETs for PM or ozone 
precursors are exceeded. These commenters argued that BOEM has not 
determined that OCS operations are responsible for any State exceedance 
of PM or ozone NAAQS. They asserted that the contrary has always been 
true: OCS operations have never significantly affected any State with 
respect to PM or ozone. Next, these commenters pointed out that BOEM 
has not approved a photochemical model for secondary formation of PM or 
ozone. They state that the USEPA had not established any photochemical 
modeling guidelines. Finally, they pointed out that the proposed rule 
did not contain criteria for determining when to model ozone formation 
and argued that including such criteria in the final rule would likely 
be arbitrary.
    Response: BOEM does not intend to require photochemical modeling 
under this final rule. The regulations do not currently require 
photochemical modeling. The existing Sec. Sec.  550.218 and 550.249, 
however, require lessees and operators to follow the modeling 
guidelines in USEPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, appendix W. This 
cross-reference introduces ambiguity because the USEPA updated appendix 
W after the proposed rule was published and established guidelines for 
evaluating ozone and secondary PM formation, which may in some cases 
result in photochemical modeling for these pollutants. BOEM has 
determined that incorporating photochemical modeling into this final 
rule is inappropriate for several reasons. First, the existing 
regulations do not contain EETs addressing secondary criteria air 
pollutant formation except for the VOC EET and regulations do not 
provide a SL for ozone. Without these, BOEM lacks a basis for 
determining when ozone modeling should be required and what the results 
should be measured against. In the case of PM, the SL for 
PM2.5 was based on dispersion modeling and was not intended 
to identify when photochemical modeling should be employed. Second, 
BOEM has not determined that an appropriate single-source photochemical 
model relevant to OCS operations exists; thus, there is no BOEM-
approved photochemical model. Third, BOEM must wait until its air 
quality studies are completed and fully evaluated before it can 
determine whether OCS operations cause sufficient emissions of 
precursors to PM2.5 and ozone to significantly affect the 
air quality of any State.
    In order to avoid confusion, the final rule clarifies that the 
cross-reference to the USEPA's appendix W applies only to dispersion 
modeling.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would have 
impaired BOEM's ability to timely process applications for plan 
approvals.
    Response: BOEM agrees that many of the proposed provisions would 
have added substantial burdens to both BOEM staff in reviewing plans 
and to operators' ability to fully conform to the proposed rule's 
provisions. OCSLA mandates particular timeframes for approval of EPs 
and DPPs (43 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1) and 1351(h)(1)) and the regulations 
similarly provide a timeframe for review of DOCDs (30 CFR 550.267). The 
proposed rule would have made meeting these deadlines difficult. 
Congress specifically noted in the 1978 Conference Report that the 
regulations under section 5(a)(8) should not ``interfere with the time 
periods provided . . . for review and approval'' of plans. Moreover, 
BOEM is aware that the procedure and the associated timeframes for 
making and appealing permitting decisions under the CAA are very 
different from those under its authorities. Congress too was aware of 
these differences when they passed legislation to transfer authority to 
regulate air quality on the Arctic OCS in 2011. Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012, Public Law 112-74, section 432, December 23, 
2011; see also, The American Energy Initiative, Part 4: H.R. __, The 
Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011: Hearing Before the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 112th 
Cong. 37 (2011). In any case, BOEM is not finalizing the proposed 
provisions that gave rise to these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters voiced opposition to the proposed 
provision on ``Mobile Support Craft.'' Others complained that the 
proposed requirement was unclear as to whether sources on support 
vessels would be subject to control requirements. Other commenters 
urged that BOEM must regulate such sources directly.
    Response: BOEM is not adopting these proposed provisions. As 
explained in more detail later, the proposed provisions were legally 
questionable and raised numerous practical problems.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed support for BOEM regulating 
pollutants for which there is no NAAQS, including greenhouse gasses.
    Response: BOEM requested comment on this issue but did not propose 
any particular regulatory provisions. BOEM's ability to regulate air 
quality is limited to the authority provided to the Secretary in 
section 5(a)(8). The authority granted in section 5(a)(8) is limited to 
ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and therefore that provision does not 
grant authority to regulate emissions that have no relation to 
attaining a NAAQS.
    Comment: BOEM received comments opposed to the proposed provisions 
requiring that in certain circumstances emissions from multiple 
facilities be combined. Commenters expressed concerns about the 
practical difficulties in complying with these provisions and pointed 
out that BOEM failed to provide sufficient reasons why such provisions 
were necessary.
    Response: BOEM is not adopting the proposed provisions. BOEM agrees 
that the proposed provisions were unnecessary, and BOEM believes that 
these proposed provisions were unduly burdensome.
    Comment: Some commenters raised both legal and practical problems 
with the proposal to evaluate impacts at the State's seaward boundary. 
The commenters assert that there is a lack of reliable information 
about the background concentrations at the state seaward boundary 
because of a lack of offshore monitors. Moreover, they pointed out that 
different states have different seaward boundaries under the Submerged 
Lands Act. These commenters noted that it is appropriate to consider 
NAAQS compliance and associated onshore impacts at the shoreline and 
inland where public exposure and protection is the primary focus. Other 
commenters expressed support for this aspect of the proposal.
    Response: As discussed in more detail below, BOEM is not adopting 
this aspect of the proposal. BOEM generally agrees with the practical 
difficulties over which commenters expressed concerns. The clearly 
expressed intent of Congress in the 1978 Conference Report was that the 
regulations under section 5(a)(8) regulate the onshore impacts to State 
air quality.

[[Page 34920]]

    Comment: Proposed Sec.  550.310(c) would have required lessees to 
re-submit previously approved plans at least every 10 years to verify 
compliance with the existing air quality regulations, including those 
provisions relating to new information gathering and reporting 
requirements.
    Some commenters suggested that the proposed requirement to re-
submit plans every 10 years could be inconsistent with section 25(h)(3) 
of OCSLA, which indicates that BOEM should review existing plans 
``based upon changes in available information and other onshore or 
offshore conditions affecting or impacted by development and production 
pursuant to such plan.'' Current Sec.  550.303(j) authorizes the 
Regional Supervisor to require submittal of additional information when 
he or she judges an individual facility alone or in combination with 
others may significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area. 
These same commenters have asserted that this existing regulatory 
provision should be sufficient for BOEM to address any isolated 
situation where one or more facilities may be causing harm to any 
State(s). For these reasons, commenters assert that BOEM should not 
require the routine resubmission and additional approval of existing 
plans.
    Response: BOEM has decided not to adopt these proposed provisions. 
Based on its review of the public comments received, BOEM has 
determined that requiring a periodic re-review of all plans would be 
inappropriate. BOEM believes that reconsideration of previous approvals 
should not be undertaken lightly and is not warranted based on the mere 
passage of time. Operators depend on BOEM's approval of their plans, 
and BOEM should not upset these expectations without good cause. For 
these reasons, the proposal to periodically re-review and re-approve 
existing plans is not being adopted with this final rule.
    BOEM's responses to other stakeholder commenters are available in 
Part III. Summary of Public Comments, Subpart E. Comments on the 
Regulatory Impact and Information Collection Analyses, and Part IV. 
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule of this preamble below.

E. Comments on the Regulatory Impact and Information Collection 
Analyses

    Comments: Ten comments addressed both BOEM's initial regulatory 
impact analysis (IRIA) and information collection (IC) analysis; an 
additional 12 comments focused solely on the IRIA. Overall, the 
commenters addressed the benefits of the rule (in terms of emissions 
reductions) compared to the burdens (i.e., costs), necessity, practical 
utility, burden reduction, and accuracy of the proposed collections. 
The comments raised a number of questions regarding the calculations 
and estimates provided by BOEM with the proposed rule.
    Response: Commenters questioned the estimated IC costs under the 
proposed rule. Partly in response to those comments, the final rule 
does not appreciably impact the annual burden hours or non-hour costs 
currently authorized under OMB control numbers 1010-0114 (30 CFR part 
550, subpart A, ``General''), 1010-0151 (30 CFR part 550, subpart B, 
``Plans and Information''), and 1010-0057 (30 CFR part 550, subpart C, 
``Pollution Prevention and Control''). Therefore, BOEM is not seeking 
OMB approval for any new annual burden hours or non-hour cost burdens.
    Because the final rule does not change overall IC burdens, BOEM 
only will seek OMB approval for revising the air quality spreadsheets, 
BOEM-0138 and BOEM-0139.

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Final Rule

    This part of the preamble provides a section-by-section analysis of 
the regulations promulgated in this final rule.

Part 550--Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental 
Shelf

Subpart A--General
Sec.  550.105 Definitions
    The existing regulations define ``air pollutant'' as any 
combination of agents' for which the USEPA has established primary or 
secondary NAAQS. 30 CFR 550.302. Under the CAA, such combinations of 
agents are defined as ``criteria air pollutants.''
    However, the regulations use the term ``air pollutant'' 
inconsistently and, in some instances, contrary to its definition. For 
example, Sec.  550.303(e) discusses ``air pollutants other than VOCs,'' 
suggesting that VOCs meet the definition of an air pollutant; and Sec.  
550.303(d) implies that VOCs meet the definition of ``air pollutant'' 
because the referenced exemption formulas for ``emissions from the 
facility for each air pollutant'' include a formula for VOCs. However, 
VOCs fall outside the stated definition of ``air pollutant'' because 
NAAQS have not been established for them.
    The proposed rule would have added a definition for ``criteria air 
pollutant,'' would have redefined ``air pollutant,'' and would have 
used those terms consistent with their definitions throughout the 
regulations. The proposed definition of ``air pollutant'' was very 
broad and included categories of emissions (i.e., hazardous air 
pollutants) that fell outside the Secretary's statutory authority to 
regulate because NAAQS have not been established for them.
    The final rule completely eliminates a regulatory definition for 
``air pollutant'' \30\ and adds a definition for ``criteria air 
pollutant.'' The final rule replaces the term ``air pollutant'' with 
``criteria air pollutant'' in Sec. Sec.  550.105, 550.302, and 
550.303(f)(1) and (g)(2)(i)(B), and in the definitions of ``attainment 
area'' and ``nonattainment area.'' The final rule replaces the term 
``air pollutant'' with ``criteria air pollutant and VOC'' in Sec. Sec.  
550.105 and 550.302 definitions of ``best available control technology 
(BACT).'' The final rule replaces the term ``air pollutant'' with 
``criteria air pollutant or VOC'' in Sec.  550.303(h). The final rule 
replaces the term ``air pollutant'' with ``criteria air pollutant, VOC, 
or TSP'' in Sec. Sec.  550.249(a)(2) and 550.283(a)(4). The final rule 
replaces the term ``air pollutant'' with ``criteria air pollutant, VOC, 
and TSP'' in Sec. Sec.  550.303(d) and 550.304(b). The final rule 
replaces the term ``air pollutant other than VOC'' with ``criteria air 
pollutant'' in Sec. Sec.  550.303(g)(1) and (2) and 550.304(d)(1). 
Finally, the final rule deletes the phrase ``for that air pollutant'' 
in Sec.  550.303(f)(2) because the existing provision only relates to 
VOCs. These changes clarify the existing regulations to address 
perceived inconsistency.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Instead of a specialized regulatory definition, BOEM will 
rely on the plain dictionary meaning of the term ``air pollutant'' 
in this part.
    \31\ The criteria pollutants are Sulfur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, 
Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Ozone, and Particulate Matter, of which there 
are several forms, two of which, PM2.5, and 
PM10, have defined NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definition set out in the regulatory text below is essentially 
the same as that in the proposed rule. However, the proposed rule also 
included a reference to 40 CFR part 50, which BOEM has not adopted for 
the reasons previously described. This aspect of the final rule (i.e., 
eliminating the ``air pollutant'' definition, but adding a similar one 
for ``criteria air pollutant'') is not substantively different from the 
existing regulations and will have no effect on the administration of 
the AQRP.
    Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout 
this

[[Page 34921]]

final rule, BOEM is updating the definition of the terms ``attainment 
area'' and ``non-attainment area'' by replacing the term ``air 
pollutant'' with ``criteria air pollutant'' in the definition of each 
of these terms.
    BOEM is making this change for clarification purposes only. The 
final rule definition of ``attainment area'' excludes part of the 
proposed definition that would have referred to USEPA regulations 
explicitly and instead continues BOEM's practice of referring to 
attainment areas by stating that these consist of all areas not 
designated as non-attainment.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The USEPA has multiple designations for areas that BOEM 
refers to as ``attainment areas,'' and BOEM regulations do not 
mirror the USEPA regulations, in part because of this. Given OCSLA's 
more limited air quality mandate, there is no reason for BOEM to 
classify onshore areas into more categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By the same token, the definition of ``non-attainment area'' in 
Sec.  550.105 would change. The meaning of the definition of the term 
``non-attainment area'' remains the same as in both the existing and 
proposed regulation. Although the existing regulations refer to air 
pollutant, and not criteria air pollutant, the definition of air 
pollutant in the existing regulations was limited to criteria 
pollutants. This use of the term air pollutant is misleading because it 
typically has a broader meaning. For example, hazardous pollutants 
would not be covered. Secondly, the existing regulations referred to 
air pollutants as both including and excluding precursors, specifically 
VOCs. In this final rule, we define only the term ``criteria air 
pollutant'' and, in each relevant provision, specifically mention any 
non-criteria pollutant we are referencing (e.g., TSP and VOCs).
    BOEM left the definition more limited because OCSLA's statutory 
mandate is more limited than that imposed under the CAA considering the 
impact of OCS emissions on an area whose non-OCS emissions might impact 
a third area is outside the scope of OCSLA's statutory mandate.
    For the same reason, the definition of BACT was also revised in 
Sec. Sec.  550.105 and 550.203. In this instance the term ``air 
pollutant'' referred both to criteria air pollutants \33\ and VOCs and 
the definition of BACT was changed accordingly.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Solicitor's Office prepared a memorandum from Associate 
Solicitor, Energy and Resources, to Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land 
and Minerals Management, Authority to Require Air Pollution Controls 
on Vessels in Transit to Outer Continental Shelf Facilities (June 
15, 1987).
    \34\ The definition of air pollutant in BOEM's existing 
regulations did not clearly make a distinction between criteria air 
pollutants and those pollutants that are not criteria air pollutants 
(i.e., VOCs) but contribute to the formation of criteria air 
pollutants. This rule intends to correct that error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout 
this final rule, BOEM is updating the definition so that it also 
applies to DOCDs. Thus, the updated definition of ``emission offsets'' 
in Sec.  550.105 reads as set out in the regulatory text below.
    Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout 
this final rule, BOEM is updating the definition so that it also 
applies to DOCDs. Thus, the updated definition of ``existing facility'' 
in Sec.  550.105 reads as set out in the regulatory text below.
    The effect of this change is to include the DOCD among the list of 
plans referenced in the definition. The final rule does not make any of 
the other proposed changes to this definition.
    BOEM is moving the definition of ``volatile organic compound'' from 
Sec.  550.302 to Sec.  550.105, where alphabetical order dictates. That 
term is used in subpart B, but is not defined in the existing 
regulations until subpart C. Because the definitions in subpart C 
technically apply only to subpart C, BOEM is adding this term to the 
general definition section in subpart A.
Subpart B--Plans and Information
Sec.  550.218--What Air Emissions Information Must Accompany the EP?
    Paragraph (e) in the proposed rule provided that 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) and your attributed emissions under 
paragraph (d)(6).
    This would have required lessees and operators to provide emissions 
data on an annual, 12-month rolling sum, and maximum and peak hourly 
basis for criteria air pollutants, VOCs, and ammonia.
    The final rule does not implement the proposed rule requirement for 
lessees and operators to provide and analyze 12-month rolling sum 
emissions. This final rule also does not implement the proposed rule 
requirement that operators report emissions data for ammonia.
    As was the case with the proposed rule, Sec.  550.218(a) requires 
lessees and operators to include in their EPs a table showing both 
projected emissions of all criteria air pollutants for which there is a 
NAAQS and projected emissions of VOCs. The requirement is the same as 
Sec.  550.218(a) in the existing regulations, but the list of 
pollutants is replaced with reference to ``criteria air pollutants,'' 
as defined by the USEPA. The lessee or operator must submit the 
information required by this section with the EP and BOEM will use the 
submitted information in evaluating the EP. BOEM made appropriate 
changes to implement this provision in both Sec.  550.218(a) and (e).
    Because of the change to the regulatory text, which replaced the 
enumeration of specific criteria pollutants with a reference to 
criteria pollutants generally, additional criteria pollutants were 
added to Sec.  550.218(a). Of these, three criteria air pollutants 
(lead, PM2.5, and PM10) will have reporting 
requirements without an EET corresponding to those air pollutants. As 
stated in the proposed rule, BOEM lacks sufficient data to update the 
EETs at this time.
    Subpart B of the existing regulations specifies what data and 
information must be included in a plan. Subpart C specifies how that 
data should be analyzed and what the operator must do, depending on the 
results of the analysis. Although BOEM modified subpart B of the 
existing regulations several years ago to require operators to report 
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, that change was not 
accompanied by a corresponding change to subpart C. As a result, 
although BOEM requires operators to report PM10 and 
PM2.5 data, the EET formula for PM in Sec. Sec.  550.303(d) 
and 550.304(b) requires an analysis of data for TSP. Unfortunately, the 
existing regulations did not explain how to resolve the discrepancy 
between subpart B's data reporting requirements and subpart C's data 
utilization requirements.
    Because BOEM has determined that it does not yet have a proper 
scientific basis to consider revising the formulas in Sec. Sec.  
550.303(d) and 550.304(b), BOEM has decided to instead update 
Sec. Sec.  550.218(a) and 550.249(a), applicable to exploration and 
development plans respectively, to specify that operators should also 
report data for TSP. As noted previously, because the SL for TSP has 
been replaced by new SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, if 
an operator uses the EET formula for TSP and determines that its 
emissions exceed the EET, it would be required to model emissions of 
PM10 and PM2.5, not TSP, and to compare the 
results with the significance levels for PM10 and 
PM2.5. In the event that the significance levels for 
PM10 and PM2.5 are exceeded, additional modeling 
of TSP may be required to determine whether the

[[Page 34922]]

emissions exceed the MACIs, as defined in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(A).
    In order to determine if the projected emissions associated with 
its plan exceed the relevant SLs, the operator would be required to use 
a BOEM-approved model, in accordance with the existing requirements of 
Sec.  550.218(e) and (f), in the case of an EP, or Sec.  550.249(e) and 
(f), in the case of a DOCD or DPP. Any dispersion modeling would also 
have to be conducted using a methodology consistent with USEPA modeling 
requirements outlined in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51, in accordance 
with the existing requirements of Sec.  550.218(e), in the case of an 
EP, or Sec.  550.249(e), in the case of a DPP.
    This final rule amends Sec. Sec.  550.218(e) and 550.249(e) to make 
clear that the reference to appendix W is applicable only insofar as it 
is relevant to dispersion models. On January 17, 2017, subsequent to 
the publication of the air quality proposed rule, the USEPA published a 
final rule entitled, ``Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality 
Models: Enhancements to the AERMOD Dispersion Modeling System and 
Incorporation of Approaches To Address Ozone and Fine Particulate 
Matter'' (82 FR 5182, EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0310; FRL-9956-23-OAR, RIN 2060-
AS54). This final rule updated the list of approved air quality models 
and the modeling guidelines associated with the remaining USEPA-
approved air quality models. Notably, the USEPA rule newly allowed the 
use of single-source chemical transport models, which typically involve 
photochemical modeling, to evaluate the impacts of new and modified 
emissions sources with respect to the formation of ozone and the 
secondary formation of PM2.5 when more general analyses for 
an area are not sufficient. But, this amendment to appendix W did not 
require the use of such models either. Still because appendix W is 
cross-referenced in BOEM's existing regulations, the update made by the 
USEPA could have been interpreted to imply that BOEM would also support 
the potential use of photochemical modeling for ozone and secondary 
formation of PM2.5. This final rule makes clear that this is 
not the case.
    Based in part on the public comments received, BOEM understands 
that single source photochemical modeling is only starting to be used, 
that its use and application is complex, and that the costs of doing 
such modeling can be high. Also, the timeframes for review of CAA 
permits that involve photochemical modeling under appendix W are much 
longer than the timeframes required by the OCSLA for BOEM to review 
plans. Furthermore, BOEM's studies will provide relevant information as 
to whether or not OCS sources may impact State air quality with respect 
to ozone or PM. Accordingly, it would be unwarranted to require the 
complex photochemical modeling to evaluate ozone or PM formation. As 
stated previously, this final rule does not adopt any requirements for 
photochemical modeling. To resolve any potential confusion regarding 
the cross-reference to appendix W in the existing regulations, BOEM is 
modifying the relevant language in Sec. Sec.  550.218(e) and 550.249(e) 
to clarify that the regulations as amended by this final rule do not, 
under any circumstances, require that an operator apply photochemical 
modeling to its analysis of its air pollutant emissions. The existing 
language provides that when BOEM requires air quality modeling, you 
must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 with a model 
approved by the Director. The revised language provides that when BOEM 
requires air quality dispersion modeling, you must use the guidelines 
in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion modeling with a model 
approved by the Director.
    The USEPA's current list of criteria air pollutants includes ozone 
and the USEPA has defined a NAAQS for ozone. OCS operations do not 
result in the emission of ozone directly. To address this, however, 
BOEM does evaluate emissions of VOCs, which is an ozone precursor, 
under the existing regulations.
    The proposed rule would have eliminated Sec.  550.218 entitled, 
``What air emissions information must accompany the EP?'' from the 
existing regulations because all BOEM air quality requirements in 
subpart B of part 550 of the existing regulations were proposed to be 
consolidated in a new Sec.  550.205.
    BOEM received a number of comments to the effect that it would be 
simpler to make changes to the relevant sections, rather than 
consolidate them into a new section. Given the more limited nature of 
this final rule compared with the proposed rule, BOEM has decided to 
leave the existing regulatory organization intact and instead make the 
limited amendments directly to the relevant sections.
    The proposed rule would have required that lessees and operators 
identify the emissions of facilities and support vessels separately and 
report both in terms of an ``annual rate (for each calendar year), the 
maximum 12-month rolling sum, and the maximum peak hourly rate.'' This 
final rule retains the existing regulation's language requiring 
reporting of annual emissions and peak hourly emissions, as defined in 
Sec.  550.218(a)(1), but does not adopt the proposed reporting 
requirements for a 12-month rolling sum. The regional air quality 
studies will evaluate the cumulative effects of OCS emissions on the 
States and whether any additional emissions tests or evaluations may be 
necessary.
    The proposed provision to add a maximum 12-month rolling sum 
provision was intended to address situations where a proposed plan 
would involve drilling beginning in one calendar year and ending in a 
subsequent calendar year, thereby splitting the emissions across 
calendar years and potentially undercounting the actual annual 
emissions. Commenters noted that there are many ways to calculate 
rolling averages and that there are also multiple ways to utilize the 
results in attempting to model the effects of emissions at various 
destination points. These same commenters noted that most air quality 
models are not equipped to handle multiple annual projects and this 
requirement would ``add an extra burden to post-processing the model 
results that is not included in most modeling systems. Such uncertainty 
could lead to considerable modeling costs of questionable value that 
have not been anticipated by the agency.'' Because BOEM has decided 
that it would be best to first evaluate in connection with its studies 
where and under what circumstances emissions from multi-year operation 
of OCS facilities may affect the States, BOEM has determined that this 
requirement should not be implemented until more information about such 
effects has been evaluated.
    BOEM is deferring any consideration about amending the regulations 
to add new EETs corresponding to non-annual emissions averaging times 
for the criteria air pollutants pending the evaluation of results of 
its air quality studies. For that reason, in this final rule, BOEM has 
made no changes to the time intervals or forms for which reporting is 
required in either Sec.  550.218(a)(1) or Sec.  550.249(a)(1). Lessees 
or operators will continue to provide peak hourly and total annual 
emissions, but not 3-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour, or rolling emissions 
data, nor any new data related to the form of the NAAQS (e.g., the 
number of times that a pollutant concentration level is exceeded).
    The proposed rule stated in Sec.  550.205(b) that lessees and 
operators must in each plan, for each criteria and major precursor air 
pollutant, calculate

[[Page 34923]]

the attributed projected annual emissions for each mobile support craft 
(MSC). Instead, this final rule requires in Sec.  550.218(a) (for EPs) 
that lessees and operators provide tables showing the projected 
emissions of criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), 
and TSP generated by your proposed exploration activities. As 
previously stated, the final rule does not adopt the proposed reporting 
requirements for a 12-month rolling sum.
    As noted previously, BOEM refers to air pollutants that contribute 
to the formation of a criteria air pollutant as precursor air 
pollutants. In order to ensure that the NAAQS standards for these 
pollutants are not exceeded, DOI must also regulate the emissions of 
both the criteria air pollutants and the precursor air pollutants. 
Historically, the major precursor air pollutant that DOI has regulated 
is Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). In addition to VOCs, the proposed 
rule identified Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) as a precursor for 
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), VOCs 
and Carbon Monoxide (CO), as precursors for Ozone (O3); and 
NOX, VOCs, Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), 
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) and Ammonia (NH3), as 
precursors for PM2.5. The proposed rule suggested that DOI 
require the collection of additional data on these precursors and that 
new formulas be created to evaluate precursor pollutants in their 
capacity as precursors. In particular, DOI suggested that lessees and 
operators be required to start reporting ammonia emissions. VOCs and 
ammonia were classified as ``major precursor pollutants'' under the 
proposed rule because these precursors were included in the list of 
pollutants for which States would be required to gather emissions data 
to comply with USEPA requirements.
    The final rule does not adopt the concept of ``major precursor 
pollutant'' that was included in the proposed rule. As is the case in 
the existing regulations, the only non-criteria air pollutants included 
in the final rule are VOCs and TSP. The proposed rule would also have 
included ammonia under the heading of ``major precursor pollutant.'' 
BOEM has decided not to add ammonia at this time. There were several 
reasons for this. First, as is the case with all the EETs, BOEM does 
not believe that it has an adequate scientific basis for establishing 
new formulas. Indeed, BOEM never had an EET for ammonia. Second, it is 
not clear that ammonia is emitted from OCS facilities in quantities 
sufficient to cause a significant effect to any State. Third, since 
ammonia is primarily a precursor for PM2.5 and BOEM does not 
have an EET for PM2.5, it is unclear how a formula should be 
determined. Although BOEM is modifying the air quality spreadsheets to 
calculate ammonia emissions on behalf of operators, BOEM has determined 
not to add an EET for ammonia or to add any requirements (including 
requirements for photochemical modeling) for ammonia to this final 
rule, though BOEM will continue to evaluate and review its study 
results.
    This final rule is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC 
as was proposed in a new section 30 CFR 550.205. The proposed section 
would have required lessees and operators to add vessel emissions to 
those of facilities and the proposed Subpart C would have required 
lessees and operators to compare the total emissions against the EETs.
    The final rule is not adopting these proposed changes for two 
reasons. First, it is questionable whether BOEM has legal authority to 
include vessel emissions as proposed. The Secretary's statutory 
authority is distinct from that of the USEPA under the CAA. The CAA 
explicitly authorizes the Administrator of the USEPA to regulate 
emissions from vessels servicing or associated with an OCS source 
within 25 miles of the OCS source in specific areas of the OCS. 42 
U.S.C. 7627. In contrast, OCSLA only authorizes the Secretary to 
regulate air pollutants from ``activities authorized'' by OCSLA. OCSLA, 
section 5(a)(8). The Office of the Solicitor has previously opined that 
vessel traffic to and from OCS facilities is not an activity 
``authorized'' under OCSLA, rendering requirements to count vessel 
emissions in regulating facilities potentially beyond the scope of the 
Secretary's statutory authority.\35\ For these reasons, the proposed 
provision is not appropriate in implementing section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The Solicitor's Office prepared a memorandum from Associate 
Solicitor, Energy and Resources, to Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land 
and Minerals Management, Authority to Require Air Pollution Controls 
on Vessels in Transit to Outer Continental Shelf Facilities (June 
15, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, in addition to legal concerns, commenters pointed out 
practical difficulties involved in requiring operators to prepare plans 
with the highly specific details about vessel emissions sources that 
the proposed rule would have required. Commenters also pointed out that 
no state has identified emissions from vessels supporting OCS 
operations as a significant contributor to onshore air pollutant 
concentrations. For these reasons, and because section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA 
does not require BOEM to consider vessel traffic to and from OCS 
facilities in order to determine modeling and control requirements, 
BOEM is not adopting the proposed changes on this point. Existing 
Sec. Sec.  550.224 and 550.257 require operators to report emissions 
from their support vessels within 25 miles of their facilities in their 
EP or DPP or DOCD, and this final rule does not affect those sections.
Sec.  550.249--What air emissions information must accompany the DPP or 
DOCD?
    For the same reasons as discussed under Sec.  550.218 above, BOEM 
has made changes to Sec.  550.249(a) and (e) that mirror those changes 
made to Sec.  550.218.
    In addition, BOEM has replaced the term ``air pollutant'' with 
``criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP'' in the one place the term 
appears in paragraph (a)(2). This latter change, which is consistent 
with the proposed rule, does not change the substantive requirements of 
this paragraph.
    As noted in the discussion for Sec.  550.218(e), BOEM is modifying 
the requirement to perform air quality modeling using the guidelines of 
the USEPA's appendix W to clarify that operators must only comply with 
the modeling guidelines of appendix W to the extent that they are 
required to perform dispersion modeling.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this section of the final rule.
Sec.  550.283--When must I revise or supplement the approved EP, DPP, 
or DOCD?
    BOEM has replaced the term ``air pollutant'' with ``criteria air 
pollutant, VOC, or TSP'' in Sec.  550.283(a)(4), to make the wording 
consistent with the changes made to the other sections of the rule. 
This change is consistent with BOEM's interpretation of the existing 
regulatory text. Because this section deals with when a revision to an 
EP, DPP, or DOCD is required, and VOCs and TSP are specifically listed 
in existing Sec. Sec.  550.218 and 550.249, the existing provision has 
been interpreted to include VOCs and TSP.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this section of the final rule.
Subpart C--Pollution Prevention and Control
    The proposed rule would have replaced all references to exploration 
or development plans with a generic term ``plan'' and the new term 
``plan'' would have encompassed all EPs, DPPs, DOCDs, RUEs, pipeline 
ROWs, and

[[Page 34924]]

lease term pipelines. Section 550.205 of the proposed rule, which 
outlined all of the reporting requirements, was accordingly entitled, 
``What air emissions information must be submitted with my Plan (EPs, 
DPPs, DOCDs, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term 
pipeline)?'' The intention was that all EPs, DPPs, DOCDs, RUEs, 
pipeline ROWs, and lease term pipeline applications would be subject to 
the same air quality requirements. This approach was consistent with 
the proposed rule's goal to consolidate all air quality requirements in 
one place, rather than follow the structure of the existing regulations 
that lists separate requirements, in separate sections, for each type 
of plan.
    Because BOEM no longer intends to consolidate all the air quality 
data requirements into one section, the changes that BOEM is 
implementing with this final rule are made separately by section. The 
text of subpart C of part 550 in the existing regulations refers only 
to EPs and DPPs. Because BOEM also uses DOCDs to review and approve 
production plans, BOEM is replacing all references to DPP with 
references to DPPs or DOCDs, or both (depending on the context). BOEM 
is not including the proposed references to pipeline ROWs, RUEs, and 
lease term pipelines in this final rule. BOEM ensures that lessees and 
operators address lease term pipelines and RUEs within the DPP or DOCD 
review process. See existing Sec.  550.241 (regarding lease term 
pipelines) and Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) No. 2015-N06 
(regarding RUEs). Since our existing program relies on plan reviews and 
since lease term pipelines and any facilities on a RUE must be 
described in a plan, this issue can readily be addressed under BOEM's 
and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's (BSEE) 
procedures for implementing the existing regulations. The proposed 
references to lease-term pipelines and RUEs are unneeded.
    According to the requirements outlined in NTL No. 2007-G09, BOEM 
collects information on emissions from the installation or operation of 
any new or modified accessory platform on a ROW whenever an application 
is submitted to BSEE. Based on BOEM's review of the information that 
BSEE has collected, BOEM is not aware of any such facilities on ROWs 
that would exceed the EETs, and so BOEM believes that such facilities 
are not causing significant effects to any State's air quality. 
Therefore, BOEM is not adopting the proposed language on ROWs with this 
final rule.
Sec.  550.302--Definitions Concerning Air Quality
    BOEM made the following changes in this final rule in a manner 
consistent with the proposed rule:
    Air pollutant. The term ``air pollutant'' was defined in Sec.  
550.302 in the existing regulations to mean any combination of agents 
for which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established, 
pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act, a national primary or 
secondary ambient air quality standard.
    This definition is essentially the definition for ``criteria air 
pollutants,'' not for air pollutants generally, since it excludes many 
substances defined by the USEPA as air pollutants (e.g., precursor air 
pollutants or hazardous air pollutants), including some air pollutants 
referenced in DOI's existing regulations (i.e., hydrogen sulfide and 
VOC).
    The existing definitions of the terms ``attainment area,'' ``non-
attainment area,'' and BACT all contain the term ``air pollutant'' and 
this final rule replaces the term ``air pollutant,'' in those 
definitions with either the newly defined term ``criteria air 
pollutant'' or ``criteria air pollutant or VOC,'' as appropriate.
    To ensure that there is no confusion regarding the meaning of the 
term ``criteria air pollutant,'' BOEM has included a definition of the 
term ``criteria air pollutant'' in Sec.  550.302 providing that it's 
any air pollutant for which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
has established a national primary or secondary ambient air quality 
standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
    Despite the fact that the existing definition of air pollutant in 
Sec.  550.303 refers only to criteria air pollutants, the usage of the 
term ``air pollutants'' in the existing regulations may have been read 
to mean that the regulations were applicable more broadly. For 
instance, Sec.  550.303(e) refers to ``air pollutants other than VOC,'' 
even though VOC is not within the scope of the definition of ``air 
pollutant.'' Section 550.303(d) requires the evaluation of various air 
pollutants, including VOC. Section 550.283, discussed above, refers to 
conditions under which a lessee or operator would be required to submit 
a revised plan as being any time ``you propose to increase the 
emissions of an air pollutant to an amount that exceeds the amount 
specified in your approved EP, DPP, or DOCD;'' a reference which, given 
the apparent purpose of the provision, should also include VOCs and 
TSP. Thus, the term ``air pollutant'' has not been used consistently 
and in line with the requirements specified in the regulations that 
refer to the term ``air pollutant.''
    To correct this problem, BOEM has replaced the definition of the 
term ``air pollutant'' with a definition of the term ``criteria air 
pollutant'' and made related edits to the existing regulations to 
address these issues, as previously noted in discussion of subpart A, 
above.
    The proposed rule would have revised the definition of ``air 
pollutant'' to include hazardous air pollutants and greenhouse gases, 
as well as criteria air pollutants and precursor air pollutants. BOEM 
received comments both in favor and opposed to expanding the scope of 
the regulations beyond criteria air pollutants and precursor air 
pollutants. Generally, industry argued that the Secretary's authority 
under OCSLA did not permit BOEM to regulate for anything else. 
Environmental groups argued the opposite. After reviewing the comments, 
BOEM determined that limiting the scope of this rulemaking to that of 
the existing regulations would be appropriate. Although this final rule 
has replaced some references to specific pollutants with general 
references to criteria air pollutants, it does not add or subtract any 
air pollutants from the list of criteria pollutants in the existing 
regulations.
    Emission exemption threshold (EET). According to OCSLA, the 
Secretary shall prescribe regulations to ensure compliance with the 
NAAQS to the extent that certain authorized activities ``significantly 
affect the air quality of any State.'' There are two ways that 
operators can demonstrate this. They can perform a detailed analysis of 
their proposed pollutant emissions through the use of complex air 
quality models. Alternately, they can demonstrate that their emissions 
are below a BOEM-determined exemption level. This has long been the 
practice employed under OCSLA's distinct authorities.
    The adoption and use of the term ``Emissions Exemption Threshold'' 
does not make any substantive change to the air quality regulations. 
BOEM has always had a mechanism to determine whether an offshore 
operator proposing to explore or develop oil and gas on the OCS should 
be exempt from air quality modeling. BOEM has historically used a 
number of terms (e.g., exemption amount, exempt emissions, ``E,'' 
exempt plans, and exemption levels) to define these values. This change 
is being made to establish a single term and to clarify the purpose and 
intent of the existing exemptions calculations and does not affect the 
formulas, or their usage, in any way.

[[Page 34925]]

    The term ``threshold'' reflects the fact that emissions reported in 
a plan below that amount do not require the operator to model its air 
quality impacts. On the other hand, emissions above the ``threshold'' 
are subject to further air quality modeling and evaluation and may be 
subject to mitigation requirements. For that reason, BOEM believes that 
the term ``threshold'' more accurately reflects the nature and purpose 
of the EETs.
    BOEM added a definition in this final rule to clarify the purpose 
and use of the acronym EET. The proposed rule in Sec.  550.302 defined 
this term as 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.
    The final rule in Sec.  550.302 defines the term as the rate of 
projected emissions, calculated for a criteria air pollutant or VOC or 
TSP, above which a facility would be subject to the requirements of 
Sec.  550.303(e) through (i) or Sec.  550.304(b) through (e).\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ BOEM is not updating the EET formulas at this time. Because 
the current EET formulas do not directly account for all the 
criteria pollutants, the formulas would apply to the same pollutants 
as are found in the existing BOEM regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In drafting the final rule, BOEM came to realize that the 
qualifiers ``maximum allowable'' and ``above which facilities would be 
subject to the requirement to perform modeling'' might cause confusion 
vis-[agrave]-vis the provisions in Sec. Sec.  550.303(j) and 
550.304(f), which relate to the review of facilities with emissions 
below the EET. Accordingly, the final rule clarifies that the EETs are 
specifically applicable in the context of Sec. Sec.  550.303(e)-(i) and 
550.304(b)-(e) of the regulations. In contrast, the use of the EET is 
not necessary for BOEM to make a determination under Sec. Sec.  
550.303(j) and 550.304(f) as to whether its approval may or may not 
cause a significant effect to any State.
    Commenters raised a question as to why BOEM would establish EETs 
only in terms of annual emissions, given that many of the NAAQS and 
SLs, which would have been cross-referenced by the proposed rule, 
relate only to short-term effects (e.g., 3-hour emissions). BOEM will 
review EETs for such short-term effects as are warranted once the 
regional modeling air quality studies are completed and evaluated. 
Instead of specifying the units (i.e., tons per year) for the EET in 
the definition of EET, as was proposed, BOEM has decided to specify the 
units in Sec.  550.303(d) in the final rule, where the EETs are 
actually set forth. For that reason, BOEM has decided to remove the 
qualifier ``expressed as short tons per year (tpy)'' from the proposed 
definition of EET, but retain the reference to tons per year in 
Sec. Sec.  550.303(d) and 550.304(b) of the final rule.
    Other commenters suggested that BOEM modify the proposed definition 
of EET so that the definition of EET refers only to criteria air 
pollutants. BOEM is not making this suggested change since the existing 
regulations include a formula for VOCs, and the final rule does not 
change this or change the types of pollutants that the AQRP regulates.
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). BOEM has added a 
definition of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    The proposed rule would have defined the term with explicit cross-
references to particular USEPA's regulations. Instead, BOEM has 
provided a definition clarifying what the NAAQS are, and under what 
statutory authority they are promulgated. BOEM determined that although 
the NAAQS appear at a number of locations in 40 CFR part 50, it is not 
difficult for a lessee or operator to find the relevant provisions, 
and, if they cannot, they can contact BOEM for assistance in locating 
them. Referencing specific provisions could introduce confusion should 
USEPA reorganize or renumber their regulations.
    Significant Impact Level (SIL). The proposed rule would have 
defined the term ``Significant Impact Level'' in Sec.  505.302 as 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), and would have used SIL in lieu of the existing 
term ``Significance Level.''
    This final rule does not define the term ``Significance Level'' 
with reference to the USEPA's regulations because BOEM is instead 
providing a table of the relevant SLs that are to be applied as part of 
the air quality regulatory program. BOEM is finalizing the rule using 
the existing term ``Significance Level,'' as it is used in the current 
regulation, to set the level above which impacts from emissions of 
criteria air pollutants on a State's air quality would be significant 
under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA.
    The proposed rule would have replaced the current table setting 
forth the significance levels (SLs) in 30 CFR 550.303 and 550.304 with 
a cross-reference to USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). The 
purpose was to address the disparities between BOEM's table and those 
presented in that USEPA regulation that have developed over 39 years. 
To accomplish this, in the final rule, BOEM is updating the table 
utilizing the values of the SLs in USEPA's regulation to address these 
disparities. The proposed rule recognized that the USEPA's SLs would 
not always be appropriate to apply to offshore operations and would 
have given BOEM the authority to grant a departure to exempt such SL 
revisions from applying under BOEM regulations. The final rule will 
avoid the problem by allowing DOI to promulgate updates to the SLs 
table in the future, with notice and comment as necessary, and to make 
an independent determination as to which USEPA revisions should be 
adopted offshore and which should not in accordance with OCSLA's 
authorities.
    Emissions Offset/Existing Facility. In addition to the changes 
noted above, the definitions of the terms ``emissions offset'' and 
``existing facility'' in Sec.  550.302 have been modified in this 
section to add a reference to DOCD, where the existing regulation 
definitions refer inconsistently to either an ``Exploration Plan or a 
Development and Production Plan'' or an ``Exploration Plan or 
Development and Production Plan.'' This merely clarifies BOEM's 
existing interpretation that the regulations include DOCDs among the 
list of plans referenced in these definitions. The proposed rule 
included language to consistently apply all requirements to EPs, DPPs, 
and DOCDs.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this section of the final rule. BOEM did receive 
comments pertaining to the proposed provisions that would have added 
requirements for ``emissions credits'' (which, in the proposed rule, 
was the term that would have replaced ``emissions offsets''). However, 
BOEM is not adopting those proposed substantive changes and is instead 
merely making the clarification regarding DOCDs described above. BOEM 
has never encountered an instance in which operators have used the 
existing regulatory provision for emissions offsets. Further, most 
States' comments highlighted the differences in their onshore programs, 
and BOEM is not aware of any instance of OCS activities causing 
significant onshore air quality impacts.

[[Page 34926]]

Sec.  550.303--Facilities Described in a New or Revised Exploration 
Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations 
Coordination Document
Paragraphs (a)-(c)--New Plans, Applicability of Sec.  550.303 to 
Existing Facilities, Revised Facilities
    The only change made to these paragraphs is to add the phrase 
``Development Operations Coordination Document'' after ``Development 
and Production Plan'' anywhere that the latter phrase is mentioned. 
BOEM made this change to reflect its long-term practice with respect to 
these closely related plan documents, for the reasons previously 
described in the discussion of definitions.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to these paragraphs of the final rule.
Paragraph (d)--Exemption formulas
    We have made a minor clarification to the text of Sec.  550.303(d). 
In the existing regulations, the first part of paragraph (d) reads:

    To determine whether a facility described in a new, modified, or 
revised Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan is 
exempt from further air quality review, the lessee shall use the 
highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility for each 
air pollutant calculated in Sec.  550.249(a) or Sec.  550.218(a) of 
this part . . .

    The location of the word ``calculated'' in this sentence may cause 
confusion. The sections to which the sentence applies refer to the 
amount of emissions generated by a facility for each type of air 
pollutant, not to the air pollutants themselves. To clarify the 
meaning, BOEM has reworded the sentence as follows:

    To determine whether a facility described in an initial, 
modified, supplemental, or revised Exploration Plan, Development and 
Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination Document is 
exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use the 
highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility 
calculated for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in 
Sec.  550.249(a) or Sec.  550.218(a) . . .

    Separately, commenters questioned the meaning of the word 
``calculated'' in the proposed rule, asking whether BOEM intended this 
term to mean that the emissions amounts associated with revised or 
supplemental plans would need to be recalculated every time a lessee or 
operator revised, modified, or supplemented \37\ a plan or whether the 
original emissions amounts could continue to be used (assuming that no 
changes to the facility were being proposed that would give cause to 
alter the original estimates). BOEM did not intend that the proposed 
rule would have required lessees and operators to recalculate their 
emissions with every revision of their plan, regardless of whether the 
proposed changes would affect the amount of air pollution emitted. The 
regulation at Sec.  550.283(a)(4) specifies that a plan needs to be 
revised when the lessee or operator proposes to ``[i]ncrease the 
emissions of an air pollutant to an amount that exceeds the amount 
specified in your approved EP, DPP, or DOCD.'' Except for the change in 
the use of the term ``air pollutant'' as previously discussed, Sec.  
550.283(a)(4) is unchanged with this final rule; thus, BOEM has 
retained the original language and intent of the existing regulations 
(i.e., that an update of the air emissions, and the associated 
analysis, must be provided only if a proposed plan revision would 
increase the amount of air emissions released).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The comments were made in reference to proposed rule 
provision that would have required lessees and operators to resubmit 
and reevaluate air emissions every 10 years, a provision that BOEM 
is not finalizing as part of this rule. Although the comments were 
made in another context, BOEM has determined that it would be 
beneficial to clarify the meaning of the text to address any 
confusion arising from the ambiguity of the existing regulation.
    \38\ In addition to the changes discussed here, BOEM is also 
changing the word ``shall'' in Sec.  550.303(d) and (e)(1), and (h) 
and in Sec.  550.304(b) and (c), to ``must,'' and BOEM is changing 
``shall'' to ``will'' in Sec. Sec.  550.303(f) and 550.304(d). These 
changes merely modernize usage and clarify the meaning of these 
paragraphs, and they do not change their meaning. BOEM acknowledges 
that this rulemaking will leave the word ``shall'' in some 
provisions of Part 550, which are unaffected by this rulemaking, 
and, while BOEM intends to make similar edits in the future, no 
implication of differences in meaning should be drawn the use of 
``will'' or ``must'' in these amended paragraph, while `shall' 
remains in un-amended sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We made five additional changes to Sec.  505.303(d), all of which 
were included in the proposed rule and none of which commenters 
opposed.
    First, the term ``emission exemption threshold'' replaces the term 
``emissions exemption amount'' used in the existing regulations.
    Second, although the proposed rule suggested replacing TSP with 
PM10 in the existing EET formula for particulates, BOEM has 
determined that doing so would have the effect of lowering the air 
quality standards for particulates. Although TSP is a largely-outdated 
measure of the mass concentration of PM in the air that counts 
particles up to 100 microns in diameter, for any given facility the 
emissions of TSP would typically be double those of PM10 and 
roughly four times the volume of PM2.5. Thus, if BOEM were 
to simply substitute PM10 for TSP in the EET formula, this 
would have the effect of potentially allowing a much higher level of 
emissions to occur under an existing exemption.
    TSP includes a broad range of particle sizes, and under windy 
conditions can be predominantly composed of large wind-blown soil 
particles of relatively low toxicity. USEPA has determined that 
PM10 and PM2.5 are better indicators of 
particulate health impacts than TSP, and now uses only PM10 
and PM2.5 in formulating SLs and NAAQS for particulates.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See USEPA, Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, EPA 452/R-08-004, 
March 2008, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/2008_03_final_integrated_review_plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not add EET formulas specifically for 
PM10 or PM2.5 emissions for several reasons. BOEM 
is just completing and evaluating its modeling studies in the GOMR and 
in the Alaska OCS Region (AKOCSR) and needs to evaluate the results and 
potentially follow-up studies to consider whether PM10 and 
PM2.5 EET formulas should be considered. In addition, 
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are both components of 
TSP. For this reason, if the EET for TSP is exceeded, it is likely that 
the emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 may also be 
exceeded, thereby significantly affecting an adjacent State.
    This final rule will create a situation where there will be SLs for 
PM10 and PM2.5 but not corresponding EETs. 
However, BOEM has consistently interpreted the existing regulations to 
require facilities to model for all SLs and NAAQS that might be 
exceeded when emissions of any air pollutant exceeds an EET. For PM, 
exceedance of the EET for TSP will require the lessee or operator to 
model for both PM10 and PM2.5. In the event that 
modeling results indicate that the SL for either PM2.5 or 
PM10 would be exceeded, a lessee or operator would be 
expected to undertake appropriate mitigation measures based on the 
regulations and BOEM's policies. Because BOEM has not replaced the MACI 
table in Sec.  550.303(g)(2)(i)(A), lessees and operators are required, 
when exceeding the SLs for PM10, to apply the TSP values in 
the MACI table to ensure sufficient reduction in impacts in attainment 
areas.
    Third, the final rule in Sec.  550.303(d) explicitly references the 
DOCD as a covered plan, conforming to BOEM's long-standing practice in 
reviewing both

[[Page 34927]]

DPPs and DOCDs for compliance with these regulations.
    Fourth, as proposed, the final rule in Sec.  550.303(d) substitutes 
the term ``initial'' for the term ``new'' in reference to plans. Any 
time a lessee or operator proposes a new facility, BOEM must review it 
for compliance with the AQRP. The term ``initial'' in reference to a 
plan reflects the reality that a lessee or operator may update a plan 
to add an additional facility. Under those circumstances, even though 
BOEM would not consider the plan to be a new plan, it would still be 
the first (i.e., initial) plan for the additional facility and would 
therefore be subject to the requirement for an air quality review. In 
addition, lessees or operators may submit supplemental plans, so BOEM 
added the term ``supplemental'' to the types of plan submissions 
requiring review.
    Fifth, the final rule in Sec.  550.303(d) replaces the phrase ``for 
each air pollutant'' with the phrase ``for each criteria air pollutant, 
VOC, and TSP'' to align with the change in the definitions in Sec.  
550.105, using the term ``criteria air pollutant'' instead of ``air 
pollutant,'' and to address the fact that this final rule will retain 
existing EETs for criteria air pollutants,\40\ VOCs, and TSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The existing regulations do not have EET formulas for 
PM10, PM2.5, lead, or ozone. This final rule 
will not add EETs for any pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above in the context of Sec.  550.218, 
this final rule is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC, 
and, accordingly, Sec.  550.303(d), like the rest of Sec. Sec.  550.303 
and 550.304, will continue to refer to a facility's emissions and not, 
as proposed, ``projected emissions'' more broadly.\41\ While BOEM has 
traditionally maintained that the proposed framework for attributing 
MSC emissions was permissible under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, the 
Solicitor's Office has pointed out that the Secretary's statutory 
authority under OCSLA is distinct from that of the USEPA under the CAA. 
OCSLA does not require considering attributed emissions from vessels in 
order to determine modeling and control obligations. Moreover, the 
practical considerations discussed above weigh against doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ This was one feature of proposed Sec.  550.205. In the 
existing regulations, information on vessel emissions is dealt with 
in Sec. Sec.  550.224 and 550.257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the manner in which the USEPA defines criteria 
pollutants, it is sometimes unclear under what circumstances they refer 
to nitrogen oxides (NOX) generally and under what 
circumstances they refer to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in 
particular. With respect to the table of SLs, BOEM has continued its 
longstanding practice of utilizing NO2 as an indicator 
pollutant for NOX, consistent with the practice of the 
USEPA. The use of NO2 as an indicator of NOX is 
conservative, and is consistent with BOEM's approach of requiring 
operators to report emissions based on the maximum potential emissions 
from their equipment.
    BOEM did not receive any other comments that would be relevant to 
the changes made to this paragraph of the final rule.
Paragraph (e)(1)--Significance Levels
    The proposed rule would have replaced the table of SLs from the 
existing regulations at Sec. Sec.  550.303(e) and 550.304(c) with a 
cross-reference to the corresponding USEPA regulations. Instead, BOEM 
has updated the table to reflect those SLs that are currently 
identified in the regulations of the USEPA at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). By 
using this table, BOEM provides lessees and operators with a simple 
consolidated listing of the relevant SLs values, organized by air 
pollutant and averaging time. Rather than including a cross-reference 
to the USEPA tables, BOEM believes that it would be better for BOEM to 
make a determination about the appropriateness of applying future 
changes to USEPA's SLs to the OCS. The SLs in this regulation may not 
always be identical to those of the USEPA SLs for that reason. The 
proposed rule implicitly recognized this because it would have added a 
provision to the regulations to allow BOEM to issue exceptions to those 
SLs that BOEM determined would not be relevant. Rather than including a 
cross-reference to a USEPA table and then providing a list of 
exceptions, BOEM has determined that it would be more appropriate to 
produce DOI's own table of relevant SLs. That way, BOEM can update the 
SLs table in the future, whenever it is appropriate to do so, whether 
to accommodate any changes in the SLs that are made by the USEPA in 40 
CFR 51.165(b)(2) or for some other reason.
    Paragraph (e) in the existing regulations lists the SLs to use in 
modeling if a proposed plan has projected emissions in excess of an 
EET. DOI adopted the USEPA's SLs in the existing regulations as they 
existed in 1980. However, the USEPA has updated the SLs since then and 
the SLs in the existing regulations can be updated. This final rule 
updates the table of SLs in the existing regulations with the USEPA's 
current values.
    The existing regulations at Sec.  550.303(e) provide that for a 
facility not exempt under paragraph (d) for air pollutants other than 
VOC, the lessee shall use an approved air quality model to determine 
whether the projected emissions of those air pollutants from the 
facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the 
significance levels set out in paragraph (e).
    The proposed rule would have addressed this modeling requirement as 
stated above through a revised proposed Sec.  550.303(f), which would 
have required that if your projected emissions or complex total 
emissions of the precursor or criteria air pollutant exceed the 
applicable emissions exemption threshold, then further review and/or 
controls are required, in accordance with:
    (1) If the exceedance is for VOCs, you must control your emissions 
of VOCs in accordance with Sec.  550.306, for a short-term facility, or 
Sec.  550.307, for a long-term facility.
    (2) If the exceedance is for any criteria air pollutant, then you 
must conduct modeling in accordance with Sec.  550.304.
    This final rule retains the existing definition in Sec.  
550.303(e), except for referring to ``criteria air pollutants'' rather 
than to ``air pollutants other than VOC'' and referring to the updated 
SLs table, consistent with changes elsewhere in this final rule. 
Section 550.303(e) will now provide that for a facility not exempt 
under paragraph (d), the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality 
model to determine whether projected emissions of criteria air 
pollutants from the facility result in an onshore ambient air 
concentration above any SL set forth in the table in paragraph (e).
    The proposed rule would have changed BOEM's interpretation of the 
word ``State'' in the statutory phrase ``significantly affect the air 
quality of any State.'' Specifically, the proposed rule would have 
defined ``State'' to include submerged lands adjacent to the State 
shoreline to the State seaward boundary, changed the distance term in 
the emission exemption formulas, and required that non-exempt plans 
provide modeling results, which would include air quality effects over 
offshore State submerged lands in addition to onshore effects. This 
final rule leaves in place the current and long-standing approach, as 
reflected in the existing regulations, of evaluating impacts to the air 
quality of a State at its shoreline.
    Some commenters objected to the proposal to use the State seaward 
boundary, pointing to OCSLA legislative history that they assert would 
support congressional intent to protect onshore air quality--not to 
regulate offshore air quality. Commenters also raised practical 
difficulties with the proposed

[[Page 34928]]

change, pointing out that because the seaward boundary of Texas is much 
farther offshore than other producing Gulf States, a facility off the 
coast of Texas would have a lower exemption amount than one the same 
distance off the coast of Louisiana. They also maintained that the 
proposal to require modeling of impacts over State submerged lands 
would be difficult due to the lack of offshore monitoring stations and 
information about background pollutant concentrations. Other 
commenters, however, expressed general support for extending 
consideration of impacts to the State seaward boundary, and one 
commenter argued that evaluating impacts over the entirety of a State 
(including offshore submerged lands) was required by section 5(a)(8) of 
OCSLA.
    While the term ``State,'' read in isolation from its context in the 
statutory phrase ``significantly affect the air quality of any State'' 
could be interpreted to include offshore submerged lands of the State, 
the context and purpose reflected in the legislative history 
demonstrates congressional focus on the health effects on the onshore 
population.
    The goal expressed in the first clause of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA 
is to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, and the NAAQS have historically 
been established based on an evaluation of impacts to onshore 
populations and resources. See e.g., USEPA, Integrated Science 
Assessment for Particulate Matter, Second External Review Draft, July 
2009.
    Also, the existing regulations, which consider onshore impacts on a 
State's air quality, more closely matches the intent of Congress as 
expressed in the Conference Committee report to the 1978 OCLSA 
amendments. In two separate passages, that report describes the 
application of the regulations prescribed by section 5(a)(8) as 
focusing on effects to ``adjacent onshore areas'' and not impacts over 
offshore submerged lands. S. Rep. 95-1091, at pp. 85-86 (1978).
    Moreover, two practical considerations support a decision not to 
adopt this aspect of the proposed rule. First, BOEM is in the process 
of completing its study of the EET formulas, so any changes to the 
distance term in the formulas would be premature. Second, the lack of 
monitoring stations offshore and the resulting lack of data about 
background concentrations would make determinations about the offshore 
impacts of a facility's emissions uncertain. For all these reasons, 
BOEM is not adopting the proposed changes interpreting ``State'' to 
include submerged lands out to the State seaward boundary, and thus 
leaves in place this aspect of the existing regulation.
    The proposed rule contained a provision that would have authorized 
the deferral or waiver of new SILs in order to avoid adding new USEPA 
designated SILs that might not be relevant to OCS operations. Because 
BOEM has instead elected to update the SLs table with a new table 
containing the USEPA SLs currently found in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), that 
provision is no longer necessary and has not been included in this 
final rulemaking.
    The final rule also makes clarifying edits that eliminate the use 
of the existing phrase ``any air pollutant other than VOC'' in Sec.  
505.303(e). This particular change does not affect the meaning of the 
existing provision and reflects the deletion of the defined term ``air 
pollutant'' discussed earlier.
Paragraph (e)(2)--Significance Levels
    This provision is being added to clarify that, in the event that 
the EET for TSP is exceeded, air quality modeling will be required not 
of TSP but instead of PM10 and PM2.5.\42\ In the 
event that that modeling determines that an SL for PM2.5 or 
PM10 is exceeded in any State, this would be interpreted by 
BOEM to indicate that the incremental amount of the criteria air 
pollutant ``significantly affects the air quality of a State.'' This 
final rule replaces the values for the SLs of TSP with new SLs for 
PM10 and PM2.5. Going forward, the SLs table will 
no longer contain any values for TSP. The SLs for PM10 and 
PM2.5, which are criteria air pollutants, are a more 
appropriate basis for evaluating PM pollution and must be used for any 
air quality modeling, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of 
any mitigation or controls that may be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Air quality modeling of TSP may still be required in 
limited cases if the SLs for PM are exceeded and the analysis of the 
MACI becomes necessary (since the MACI table retains TSP in 30 CFR 
503.303(g)(2)(i)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraph (f)--Significance Determinations
    Based on the comments received in response to the proposed rule, 
there may be situations in which emissions do not result in an 
exceedance of the SLs but the area does not comply with the NAAQS. 
However, the existing regulations provide a way of addressing such 
situations should they arise. First, existing Sec.  550.303(g)(2)(i)(B) 
already provides that, in a situation where an operator has exceeded 
the EETs and must submit modeling information, the modeled 
concentration of an air pollutant cannot exceed the NAAQS (as described 
below this provision is being changed by replacing ``air pollutant'' 
with ``criteria air pollutant''). Second, because the States can oppose 
an OCS plan, both under the existing air quality regulations and under 
the Coastal Zone Management Act's consistency certification process, 
there are existing mechanisms for triggering review of proposed 
decisions to approve plans when there is an exceedance of the NAAQS.
    In the existing regulations, this paragraph sets the criteria for 
what BOEM means by the word ``significant'' in the context of the OCSLA 
mandate ``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.'' Although BOEM received many comments, 
particularly from industry, to the effect that BOEM's historical 
environmental analyses had previously concluded that air pollutant 
emissions associated with OCS activities have not had a significant 
effect on the air quality of the States, these comments did not relate 
to the standard established for significance in the air quality 
regulations. BOEM's policy of using the SLs to define significance has 
been in place since the beginning of DOI's AQRP and BOEM did not 
propose to change this policy as part of the proposed air quality rule. 
Although BOEM has been consistent in following this policy, paragraph 
(e) of this section is now being updated with the USEPA SLs currently 
found at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2).
    The phrase ``air pollutant other than VOC'' is replaced with the 
newly defined term ``criteria air pollutant.'' Finally, the term ``air 
pollutant'' has been replaced with ``criteria air pollutant'' in the 
two additional places where the term is used in the paragraph, 
consistent with similar changes and rationale given elsewhere in this 
final rule. As was noted in the proposed rule, the existing regulations 
do not use the terms ``air pollutant'' and ``criteria air pollutant'' 
consistently throughout. This final rule ensures that every term is 
used properly and consistently and appropriate changes to the usage of 
these terms were made wherever necessary.
    As is the case with paragraph (d) of this section, this final rule 
is not adopting the proposed changes regarding MSC.

[[Page 34929]]

Paragraph (f)(1)--Significance Determinations
    The terms ``air pollutant other than VOC'' and ``air pollutant'' 
have been replaced with ``criteria air pollutant'' in those places in 
this paragraph where these terms were used.
Paragraph (f)(2)--Significance Determinations
    This paragraph was revised for clarity but without making any 
substantive change in the meaning of the text. The paragraph in the 
existing regulations was changed from providing that the projected 
emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph 
(d) for that air pollutant shall be deemed to significantly affect the 
air quality of the onshore area for VOC to providing that the projected 
emissions of VOC from any facility which is not exempt under paragraph 
(d) will be deemed to significantly affect the air quality of the 
onshore area for VOC.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ When the VOC EET is exceeded then, under Sec.  
550.303(f)(2), the projected emissions are deemed to significantly 
affect a state. This treatment of VOCs is different from the 
treatment of the other pollutants in the regulations, for which the 
determination whether emissions will significantly affect a state is 
based on their modeled impacts within the onshore area of a state. 
This distinction is part of the reason that BOEM consistently refers 
to criteria pollutants and VOCs separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paragraphs (g)(1) and (2)
    The only change made to these paragraphs was to replace the 
reference to ``air pollutant other than VOC'' with ``criteria air 
pollutant.'' This change conforms this paragraph with similar changes 
made throughout subpart C and discussed previously.
Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(A)
    The proposed rule would have replaced the MACI table with a cross-
reference to the USEPA's table of Ambient Air Increments. This final 
rule does not implement that change.
    The regulations employ the table of MACIs in this paragraph as a 
criterion for determining whether required controls are sufficient for 
facilities that significantly affect attainment areas (i.e., areas that 
are in compliance with the NAAQS). The concept of MACI in the AQRP 
originally came from the USEPA's Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) program. The USEPA's PSD program is designed 
primarily to prevent the air quality in an attainment area from 
deteriorating substantially from a prior baseline. The statutory 
requirements for the PSD program are described in detail in the CAA, 
but OCSLA contains no reference to preventing deterioration within 
attainment areas.
    BOEM has only rarely had to apply the MACI table in an evaluation 
of any plan. Because of this, it is not clear that the existing MACI 
table is necessary or relevant to evaluate emissions from OCS 
facilities. Furthermore, it is unclear whether emissions from OCS 
facilities cumulatively cause significant degradation in State air 
quality in attainment areas, particularly with respect to 
SOX and TSP, the two pollutants which are referenced in the 
MACI table. Until BOEM makes such a determination, BOEM does not intend 
to update this table. Once BOEM has more information about potential 
updates to other aspects of the regulation, it may decide to make 
changes to this table.
Paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B)
    The only change made to this paragraph was to replace the reference 
to ``air pollutant other than VOC'' with ``criteria air pollutant.'' 
This change conforms this paragraph with similar changes made 
throughout Subpart C and discussed previously.
    For the reasons described previously, BOEM has determined that it 
would be best not to implement a formal cross-reference to the USEPA's 
regulations setting out the NAAQS as in the proposed rule.
    Instead, BOEM has added a definition of the term ``NAAQS'' that 
refers to the statutory authority for establishing NAAQS to the list of 
definitions.
Paragraph (h)--Controls Required on Temporary Facilities
    Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout 
this final rule, BOEM is replacing the term ``air pollutant'' with the 
term ``criteria air pollutant or VOC.'' The existing text of Sec.  
550.303(h) provides that the 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.
    With this change, the text of Sec.  505.303(h) will provide that 
the lessee must apply BACT to reduce projected emissions of any 
criteria air pollutant or VOC from a temporary facility that 
significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area of a State.
    The existing rule establishes what a significant impact would be 
for both criteria pollutants and VOCs, and it would be incongruous for 
this provision to apply to criteria pollutants, but not VOCs. This 
change in terminology is consistent with the proposed rule, which 
proposed to consistently use the terms criteria air pollutant and air 
pollutant.
Paragraph (j)--Review of Facilities With Emissions Below the Exemption 
Amount
    The proposed rule contained provisions requiring the aggregation of 
emissions across multiple facilities and facilities covered by multiple 
plans. Comments submitted in response to the proposed rule raised many 
concerns about the practicality and implications of such consolidation. 
The major concern expressed was the fact that adding nearby facilities 
could thereby implicate other facilities in the vicinity of those added 
and those facilities could, in turn, be located nearby other 
facilities, and so forth. Thus, the requirement to consolidate 
emissions across multiple nearby facilities could lead to a ``chain 
reaction'' that would potentially be unbounded or, at the least, be 
very confusing to operators. Aside from that, the practicalities of 
getting emissions data from competing companies would make it very 
difficult for operators to comply with these proposed requirements. 
BOEM agrees that these are valid concerns and has elected not to 
finalize that proposal. The final rule retains the existing paragraph 
(j) under which the regional supervisor may require the consolidation 
of emissions reporting from multiple facilities if, in his or her 
determination, such emissions would cause a significant effect to any 
State.
    Consistent with the proposed rule's terminology, the final rule 
replaces the term ``exemption amount'' with the phrase ``emission 
exemption threshold.''
    Consistent with the changes made elsewhere in this rule, the 
reference to ``Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan'' is 
replaced by ``Exploration Plan, Development and Production Plan, or 
Development Operations Coordination Document.''
Sec.  550.304--Existing Facilities
    Section 550.303 refers to plans for new facilities or to those that 
are described in a plan that was approved after 1980, and Sec.  550.304 
refers to facilities that are described in a plan approved before 1980. 
The proposed rule would have eliminated this distinction and 
established one set of requirements for all plans. Because the final 
rule is more limited in scope than the proposed rule, BOEM has retained 
Sec.  550.304 and has made changes to Sec.  550.304 that conform to 
those changes made in the corresponding parts of Sec.  550.303.
    Although the vast majority of plans related to facilities still in 
operation post-date 1980, public comments received from industry did 
indicate that

[[Page 34930]]

there are still a small number of offshore facilities that were 
approved under a plan that pre-dated 1980. If such a facility were to 
emit pollutants in sufficient amounts so as to significantly affect the 
air quality of any State, BOEM could utilize OCSLA's existing authority 
to require that appropriate action be taken to mitigate these 
emissions. For these reasons, BOEM has determined that leaving the 
existing Sec.  550.304 as amended would be more appropriate than either 
substantially revising or deleting it.
Paragraph (b)--Exemption Formulas
    The changes made to this paragraph are analogous to those made in 
Sec.  550.303(d), as noted above.
Paragraph (c)--Significance Levels
    The primary change made to this paragraph is to replace the 
existing table with a cross-reference to the new BOEM table of SLs in 
Sec.  550.303(e).
    Just as in Sec.  550.303(e), the final rule also makes clarifying 
edits that eliminate the use of the existing phrase ``any air pollutant 
other than VOC'' in this paragraph. This particular change does not 
affect the meaning of the existing provision and reflects the deletion 
of the defined term ``air pollutant'' discussed earlier. Also, 
consistent with the change made to Sec.  550.303(e), the changes to 
this paragraph clarify that, in the event that the EET for TSP is 
exceeded, air quality modeling for SLs will be required, not of TSP, 
but instead of PM10 and PM2.5. The values for the 
SLs of TSP are being replaced with new SLs for PM10 and 
PM2.5. Going forward, the SLs table will no longer contain 
any values for TSP. The SLs for PM10 and PM2.5, 
which are criteria air pollutants, are a more appropriate basis for 
evaluating PM pollution and must be used for any air quality modeling, 
as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of any mitigation or 
controls that may be used.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made in this paragraph of the final rule.
Paragraph (d)--Significance Determinations
    Under the existing regulations, Sec.  550.304(d) describes what 
constitutes ``significant emissions'' with respect to the OCSLA 
requirement that OCS operations must not ``significantly affect the air 
quality of any State.'' Facilities that pre-date the 1980 adoption of 
the regulations are subject to the requirements of this section. The 
text of this paragraph is unchanged with three exceptions. First, in 
paragraph (d)(1), the new text uses the acronym SL for the term 
``significance level,'' consistent with a similar change made elsewhere 
in this rule; however, this change has no effect on the substance of 
these regulations. Moreover, consistent with adding the definition of 
``criteria air pollutant'' to the regulations, this final rule removes 
the phrase ``for that air pollutant'' in paragraph (d). Finally, BOEM 
is modifying paragraph (d)(2) to delete the term ``air pollutant.'' The 
paragraph does not deal with any air pollutant other than VOCs and the 
use of the term ``air pollutant'' is needlessly confusing. This change 
does not affect the meaning of the provision.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this paragraph of the final rule.
Paragraph (e)--Controls Required
    Consistent with a similar change made in other places throughout 
this final rule, BOEM is replacing the term ``air pollutant'' in Sec.  
550.304(e)(1) with the term ``criteria air pollutant or VOC.'' The 
existing text of Sec.  550.304(e)(1) provides that the projected 
emissions of any air pollutant which significantly affect the air 
quality of an onshore area shall be reduced through the application of 
BACT.
    With this change, the text of this paragraph will provide that the 
projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC that 
significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area must be reduced 
through the application of BACT.
    This change does not change the meaning of the provision and 
mirrors the change made to paragraph (h). BOEM is making it for the 
same reasons as for the change in that paragraph.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this paragraph of the final rule.
Paragraph (f)--Review of Facilities With Emissions Below the Exemption 
Amount
    Consistent with the terminology in the proposed rule, the final 
rule changes the term ``exemption amount'' to ``emissions exemption 
threshold'' to correspond to the use of this term elsewhere in the 
final rule.
    BOEM did not receive any comments that would be relevant to the 
changes made to this paragraph of the final rule.

V. Key Statutes and Executive Orders

A. Key Statutes

1. Congressional Review Act
    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the OMB has 
determined that this rulemaking is not a major rulemaking, as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), because this rulemaking has not and is unlikely to 
result in:
     An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
     a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or 
geographic regions; or
     significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic and export markets.
2. Data Quality Act
    In developing this rule, BOEM did not conduct or use a study, 
experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act 
(Pub. L. 106-554, app. C, sec. 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154). 
BOEM received one comment relevant to the Data Quality Act, also known 
as the Information Quality Act (IQA). The commenter asserted that the 
draft Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA seems to be subject to 
the IQA and, therefore, should have been made available to the public 
to aid comment. However, contrary to the commenter's assertion, the 
draft EA is not subject to the IQA. In any case, BOEM did make the 
draft EA publicly available for review and public input during the 
proposed rulemaking by placing that document in the public docket along 
with the proposed rule.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
    BOEM has developed a final EA and made a finding that this final 
rule does not have a significant impact on the quality of the human 
environment under the NEPA. The final EA and Finding of No Significant 
Impacts (FONSI) are available for review in conjunction with this final 
rule at www.regulations.gov (in the Search box, enter BOEM-2018-0038).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) provides that an agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 
``collection of information,'' unless the collection of information is 
approved by OMB and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
Collections of information include requests and requirements that an 
individual, partnership, or corporation obtain information, and report 
it to a Federal agency (44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k)). 
This final rule contains a collection of information that BOEM 
submitted to

[[Page 34931]]

OMB for review and approval under the PRA. This PRA section of the 
final rule relates to the OMB control numbers associated with 
information collection under 30 CFR part 550, subparts B and C. The 
proposed rule, soliciting comments on the collections of information 
for 60 days, was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2016 (81 
FR 32259). BOEM received ten comments on the collections of 
information. Commenters raised a number of issues specific to 
individual collections of information and estimated costs associated 
with the proposal. Although BOEM made certain changes related to 
information collection in the final rule, it did not do so directly in 
response to the comments received.
    This final rule retains most of the text of the existing 
regulations while making only a small number of the changes originally 
proposed. The proposed rule changes were far greater than those 
implemented in this final rule. BOEM has determined that the changes in 
the final rule are necessary to update outdated standards and 
benchmarks. The changes related to collection of information include:
     Updating the table of SLs in the existing regulations, 
dating from 1980, with current SLs at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). Annual 
burden hours will not be significantly impacted.
     Updating the data collection requirements from the 
existing regulations, dating from 1980, with a statement requiring 
operators to provide TSP data in subpart B in Sec. Sec.  550.218 and 
550.249. This requirement was implied by the necessity to apply TSP 
estimates to the EET formulas in subpart C, Sec. Sec.  550.303 and 
550.304; however, the requirement to actually collect the data analyzed 
in subpart C was not previously mentioned as a requirement in subpart 
B. Annual burden hours will not be significantly impacted.
     Although BOEM has not replaced the EET formula for TSP 
with an identical formula for PM10, as suggested in the 
proposed rule, BOEM has replaced TSP with two categories of criteria 
air pollutants, PM10 and PM2.5 in the table of 
SLs as part of this final rule. This change will provide more clarity 
to OCS lessees and operators, but will not impact annual burden hours.
     BOEM updated the paragraph that refers to the EETs to 
clarify that the formulas apply to both DPPs and DOCDs. This update 
will not change current practice because the air quality regulations 
have always applied to DPPs and DOCDs, and the spreadsheets are already 
set up for both DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM's spreadsheets automatically 
calculate the formulas. This clarification will not increase annual 
burden hours.
     BOEM is updating the spreadsheets so that emissions from 
transiting support vessels will no longer be considered as part of the 
EET evaluation. The rule is not, however, changing the requirement that 
emissions from vessels temporarily attached either to the seabed or to 
another facility must be accounted for as part of the EET evaluation 
process. This means that some sources may fall under the definition of 
``facility'' depending on their function (i.e., a vessel transiting to 
and from a facility would need to report the associated emissions, but 
those emissions would not be added in with the facility emissions for 
the purpose of the EET analysis; however, emissions generated from the 
same vessel during workover operations would be added in with the 
facility emissions). In some cases, therefore, emissions from the same 
source may need to be separately reported to account for the different 
functions (e.g., transiting versus well operations) that they intend to 
perform.
    Title of Collection: Air Quality Control, Reporting, and 
Compliance.
    OMB Control Number: Information Collection burdens associated with 
30 CFR part 550, subpart A, are approved under OMB Control Number 1010-
0114 (30, 635 annual burden hours, $165,492 non-hour costs; expires 
January 31, 2020). Information Collection burdens associated with 30 
CFR part 550, subpart B, are approved under OMB Control No. 1010-0151, 
Plans and Information (436,438 annual burden hours; $3,939,435 non-hour 
costs; expires June 30, 2021). Information Collection burdens 
associated with 30 CFR part 550, subpart C, are approved under OMB 
Control No. 1010-0057 (35,200 annual burden hours; $0 non-hour costs; 
expires May 31, 2021).
    This rule does not add new information collection requirements or 
change the burden estimates. However, BOEM is submitting OMB control 
number 1010-0151 for revisions with publication of the final rule. The 
final rule will modify two forms, BOEM-0138 and BOEM-0139.
    Form Number:

 BOEM-0137, OCS Plan Information Form
 BOEM-0138, EP Air Quality Screening Checklist
 BOEM-0139, DOCD/DPP Air Quality Screening Checklist
 BOEM-0141, ROV Survey Report
 BOEM-0142, Environmental Impact Analysis Worksheet

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information 
collection.
    Respondents/Affected Public: Respondents are Federal oil and gas or 
sulfur lessees or operators.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Response: 4,266 response.
    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 436,438 hours.
    Respondent's Obligation: Some responses to the information 
collection are required to obtain or retain a benefit, and some are 
mandatory.
    Frequency of Collection: The frequency of the response varies, but 
primarily responses are required only on occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $3,939,435.
    BOEM is updating the air quality spreadsheets, BOEM-0138 (EP Air 
Quality Screening Checklist) and BOEM-1039 (DOCD/DPP Air Quality 
Screening Checklist), in response to this final rule. BOEM intends for 
these forms to be comprehensive and to meet the needs of different 
lessees and operators. BOEM uses the data from these forms to determine 
the effect of the air emissions on the environment. These forms aim to 
provide a way for the designated operator to document the emissions 
sources and facilitate the calculation of emissions, which BOEM 
evaluates against the EETs. As recommended in and submitted to OMB in 
the proposed rulemaking, the new spreadsheets would split the PM data 
into two categories, PM10 and PM2.5 and would 
clarify that the reporting requirement for PM would include both 
filterable and condensable PM, in accordance with USEPA guidelines.
    The proposed rulemaking also included reporting requirements for 
lead and ammonia and BOEM proposed corresponding changes to those 
forms. Lead is a criteria air pollutant and has a defined NAAQS. For 
that reason, information on lead emissions will still be required with 
this final rule.
    BOEM is not adding any reporting requirement for ammonia in this 
final rule. Instead, BOEM will modify the spreadsheets so that they 
calculate and display ammonia emissions along with the list of other 
pollutants reported. This latter change would impose no additional 
burdens on operators since the spreadsheets will use the activity data 
already being provided by operators to calculate that amount of ammonia 
that would be generated by any given plan. BOEM will use this 
information about ammonia to inform potential future policy making.
    In addition to changing the data collection to accommodate 
different types of pollutants, BOEM will also update these forms as 
discussed in the proposed rule to reflect the addition of

[[Page 34932]]

unique emissions sources that are applicable to Alaska. In the past, 
BOEM's air quality spreadsheets could not be used in the Alaska region 
because they did not encompass the unique types of equipment that were 
necessary to properly evaluate emissions from Alaskan operations.
    With the publication of this final rule, BOEM submitted the updated 
forms, BOEM-0138 and BOEM-0139, to OMB for approval under OMB Control 
Number 1010-0151. Once OMB approves OMB Control Number 1010-0151, BOEM 
will publish the updated forms on the BOEM OCS Operation Forms website 
at: https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-OCS-Operation-Forms/.
    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burdens, BOEM invites the public and other Federal agencies to comment 
on any aspect of this information collection, including:
    (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, 
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection 
of information;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents.
    The collection of information does not include questions of a 
sensitive nature. BOEM protects proprietary information according to 
section 26 of OCSLA; the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 522), the 
DOI's implementing regulations at 43 CFR part 2; and the regulations at 
30 CFR 550.197, Data and information to be made available to the public 
or for limited inspection, and 30 CFR 556.104, Information collection 
and proprietary information.
    Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection 
to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at 
(202) 395-5806 (fax) or [email protected] (email). Please 
provide a copy of your comments to the Information Collections 
Clearance Officer, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis; Bureau 
of Ocean Energy Management; U.S. Department of the Interior; VAM-BOEM 
DIR; 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166; or by email to 
[email protected]. Please reference Air Quality Control, 
Reporting, and Compliance (Final Rulemaking) in your comments.
5. Impact of This Final Rule on Small Entities, Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA)
    The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulations when a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities is likely. If the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, then this analysis is not 
required.
    As defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA), a small 
entity is one that is ``independently owned and operated and which is 
not dominant in its field of operation.'' What characterizes a small 
business varies from industry to industry in order to properly reflect 
industry size differences. This final rule will affect lease operators 
that are conducting OCS exploration and development operations in the 
Gulf of Mexico and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska. 
BOEM's analysis shows this could include about 70 companies with active 
operations. Of the 70 companies, 21 (~30 percent) are large and 49 (~70 
percent) are small. Entities that will operate under this rule 
primarily fall under the SBA's North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) codes 211120 (Crude Petroleum Extraction) and 211130 
(Natural Gas Extraction). For NAICS classifications 211120 and 211130, 
SBA defines a small business as one with fewer than 1,251 employees.
    BOEM's analysis shows that there are 49 small companies with active 
operations on the OCS, and all of these companies would be impacted by 
the rule if they engage in activities that require an air quality 
review. Most of these entities are likely to engage in such activities 
(i.e., exploration and/or development of offshore mineral resources). 
BOEM has determined that this final rule will affect a substantial 
number of small entities. However, as the rule does not increase costs 
compared to the baseline, it will not impose additional costs on small 
entities.
    The regulatory changes in this final rule are technical corrections 
or reflect updates to the list of USEPA criteria pollutants, primary 
and secondary NAAQS, and their relevant SL values. Because operators 
have already been designing their plans based upon USEPA's updated 
NAAQS, BOEM does not anticipate that these definitional and technical 
updates will have a significant impact on operators. Other changes are 
definitional or intended to confirm and codify existing policies or 
procedures. There will not be an increase in compliance burdens as a 
result of this rule because this final air quality rule does not impose 
new information reporting or air quality modeling requirements, it does 
not change any requirements for air quality monitoring on the part of 
lessees or operators, and it does not implement the proposed 
requirements for additional emissions reductions measures. The 
regulatory updates will not add paperwork or other burdens to small or 
other entities operating in OCS areas under BOEM's air quality 
jurisdiction. None of these changes increase or decrease the burden on 
small or other entities operating on the OCS. The effect of this final 
rule is simply to clarify requirements and update BOEM regulations to 
reflect current practice; therefore, BOEM certifies that this rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
6. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, because this rule:
    (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more;
    (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions; and
    (c) will 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.
7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector, 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. Therefore, 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

1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630)
    This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have takings implications under E.O. 12630. Therefore, a takings 
implication assessment is not required.

[[Page 34933]]

2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
    E.O. 12866 provides that the OIRA will review all significant 
rules. The proposed rule was deemed significant both because of its 
potentially substantial economic impact and because it raised certain 
issues that could have significant policy implications. Although, the 
scope of this final rule is much more limited than the proposed rule, 
OMB has nevertheless determined that this rule should be classified as 
significant because of the overall importance of air quality to the 
potentially affected States and the potential implications of the 
proposed rule on the oil and gas industry. The rule is considered 
significant for policy reasons, not for economic reasons, however, 
because the final rule would not cause a substantial impact to either 
the regulated entities or any other potentially affected parties. 
Unlike the proposed rule, as compared to the current AQRP, this rule 
would impose no additional burdens or costs and would likely cause a 
minor reduction in such burdens and costs.
    BOEM has compared the costs and benefits of the provisions in this 
final rule to the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario represents 
BOEM's best assessment of what U.S. OCS operations would be like absent 
this regulatory action. The baseline includes compliance with existing 
BOEM regulations and current established procedures for the Department 
of the Interior's (DOI) administered air-quality jurisdiction in the 
Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and adjacent to the North Slope Borough of Alaska.
    In comments on the proposed rule, industry stakeholders asserted 
that BOEM's proposed rule cost estimates were significantly 
underestimated. These same stakeholders also asserted that BOEM's 
benefits were over-stated since the emissions reductions were unlikely 
to occur. BOEM evaluated the comments and information provided by the 
commenters and concurs that the compliance costs in the proposed rule's 
regulatory impact analysis were underestimated and the benefits were 
overestimated.
    This final rule will result in no changes to compliance burdens and 
no change in benefits compared to BOEM's existing regulations and 
practices. The major change in this final rule with respect to the SLs 
is the deletion of annual and 24-hour averaging times for TSP and the 
insertion of annual and 24-hour averaging times for both 
PM10 and PM2.5. Although the final rule requires 
the use of updated USEPA SLs, BOEM's practice over the past several 
years has been to review plans it has received against these same SLs. 
Accordingly, BOEM has determined that using the updated SLs will not 
cause any increase in costs compared to the baseline.
    BOEM is seeking approval from OMB for changes to the air quality 
spreadsheets necessitated by this rule. These include adding columns to 
allow separate reporting of PM2.5 and PM10, as 
well as lead.\44\ None of these changes would impose any additional 
costs on operators because current BOEM practice is to have BOEM's 
spreadsheets perform the emissions calculations based on an inventory 
of the types of equipment and activity levels provided by the 
operators. There is no change that will be required of operators as a 
result of this rule because BOEM will update all the necessary data in 
the spreadsheets so that the new information required by this rule will 
be calculated automatically for the operator. Because the EET for TSP 
has never been exceeded, and also because the EET for TSP is not being 
updated with this rulemaking, it is likely that the change to the SLs 
will not have any effect on the mitigation that BOEM requires of 
operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Although the new rule is not adding any new EET or SL for 
lead, because Sec. Sec.  550.218 and 550.249 now refer to ``criteria 
air pollutants,'' BOEM is adding a separate column to report lead. 
As with other pollutants, when the operator enters activity 
information (e.g. fuel usage and duration) the lead emissions would 
be automatically calculated and populated into the spreadsheet based 
upon an emissions factor embedded in the spreadsheet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule updates BOEM's existing requirements, but does not 
add any new procedures to the air quality review program, nor does it 
add any reporting requirements. It does not add any incremental burden 
to industry to meet the criteria BOEM uses to review plans nor does it 
change what lessees and operators must do to ensure compliance with 
OCSLA. The plan requirements, operating requirements, and compliance 
and monitoring requirements of BOEM's regulations remain unchanged. 
This final air quality rule does not impose any new air quality 
modeling requirements, it does not require any new air quality 
monitoring on the part of lessees or operators, and it does not 
implement any additional emissions reductions measures.
    None of the regulatory changes in this final rule increase or 
decrease the regulatory burden compared to current practice. BOEM does 
not expect any changes in OCS air quality emissions resulting from this 
rule; the air pollution reductions that BOEM estimated may have been 
caused by the proposed rule may or may not occur.
    In accordance with the existing regulations, EPs, DPPs or DOCDs 
submitted by lessees and operators must show whether regulated air 
pollutant emissions are below the exemption threshold or below the SLs 
in order to avoid applying controls.\45\ If a plan's maximum estimated 
emissions are below the exemption threshold, no additional modeling or 
controls is required. According to both the existing regulations and 
this final rule, if the maximum emissions estimated for a proposed plan 
are above the exemption threshold, lessees must model emissions to 
determine if the plan's emissions will remain below the SLs. If the 
plan's emissions exceed an SL, then, under both the existing 
regulations (baseline) and this final rule, BOEM requires lessees and 
operators to implement BACT to reduce the proposed facility's air 
quality impact on the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ There is an exception to this noted in current 30 CFR 
550.303(j). If BOEM determines that a proposed plan would result in 
one or more facilities to be installed that could generate a level 
of pollution that would exceed the SLs or NAAQS, BOEM could require 
additional analysis and modeling (regardless of the EET analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress transferred air quality jurisdiction for the OCS adjacent 
to the North Slope Borough of Alaska to DOI in December 2011. Potential 
minor differences in practice between the GOMR and AKOCSR in 
implementing the air quality regulations do not result in material 
compliance differences. Practical differences are minor and the sheer 
quantity of GOM EPs and DOCDs dwarf the one or two plans BOEM expects 
to receive each year in the AKOCSR.
    This final rule retains most of the existing air quality 
regulations and makes only minor changes, as discussed above. These 
changes are primarily updates to outdated air quality standards and 
benchmarks. BOEM is updating the table of SLs in the existing 
regulations, dating from 1980, with the values currently found in the 
USEPA table at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2). Other changes are mostly to clarify 
terminology.
    BOEM believes that this rule is deregulatory in nature, both 
because it replaces onerous provisions of the proposed rule with 
provisions that are much simpler and because it corrects a number of 
inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the existing regulations in such a 
manner as to reduce the complexity of the regulatory process. BOEM does 
not expect any changes in OCS air quality resulting from this rule.

[[Page 34934]]

3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that 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)
    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks, requires that environmental and related rules 
separately evaluate the potential impact to children. 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. BOEM 
has evaluated this final rule according to the requirements of E.O. 
13045 and determined that this final 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)
    Under the criteria in section 1 of E.O. 13132, this rule does not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement. Therefore, a federalism summary 
impact statement is not required.
6. Consultation With Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
Corporations (E.O. 13175 and Other Authorities)
    DOI strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship 
with federally recognized tribes through a commitment to consultation 
with tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and 
tribal sovereignty. E.O. 13175 and DOI's tribal consultation policy, 
which implements the E.O., provide for procedures for consultation with 
tribes when taking an action with tribal implications. DOI has extended 
its consultation policy to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 
Corporations. Furthermore, BOEM recently issued its own expanded Tribal 
Consultation Guidance on June 29, 2018 (https://www.boem.gov/Tribal-Engagement/https://www.boem.gov/Tribal-Engagement/), identifying 
various consultation authorities that BOEM will follow in consulting 
with tribes and ANCSA Corporations.
    DOI recognizes and respects the distinct, unique, and individual 
cultural traditions and values of Alaska Native people and statutory 
relationship between ANCSA Corporations and the Federal Government. In 
developing this rule, BOEM determined, based on DOI's consultation 
policies and the criteria in E.O. 13175, that the rule will not cause a 
substantial, direct effect on any federally recognized Indian tribe or 
ANCSA Corporation. 81 FR at 19795. The proposed rule preamble discussed 
the reasons for this determination with relation to the overall goals 
of the rulemaking. This final rule is much narrower in scope than the 
proposed rule, and any effects that the proposed rule might have had on 
tribes or ANCSA Corporations are more limited in this final rule.
    Despite this determination on the proposed rule, BOEM offered to 
hold consultations with tribes and ANCSA Corporations during the 
proposal comment period. To determine whether tribes or ANCSA 
Corporations wanted to consult, BOEM provided, or offered to provide, 
information to several federally recognized tribes in Alaska (Kotzebue 
IRA,\46\ Inpuiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of 
Wainwright, Native Village of Point Hope, Native Village of Point Lay, 
Native Village of Kaktovik, Native Village of Nuiqsut, and Native 
Village of Barrow) and in the GOM. BOEM received several requests for 
consultation, and in July 2016, BOEM followed through with invitations 
for government-to-government consultations with the federally 
recognized tribes listed above and several ANCSA Corporations (Kuupik 
Corporation, Inc.; Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation; the Northwest Arctic 
Native Association (NANA, also known as the NANA Regional Corporation); 
Cully Corporation; Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation; Arctic Slope Regional 
Corporation; Kikiktagruk Inupiat Corporation; Tikigaq Corporation; and 
Olgoonik Corporation). BOEM also invited the following tribes in the 
GOM to consult: The Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama, the 
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, 
the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the 
Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana, the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes 
of Texas, the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, and the Ysleta Del 
Sur Pueblo of Texas. No federally recognized tribes in Alaska or the 
GOM accepted the invitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Tribe, a sovereign entity, is commonly called the 
Kotzebue IRA due to its organization pursuant to the 1934 Indian 
Reorganization Act as amended for Alaska in 1936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One ANCSA Corporation, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 
(ASRC), accepted the invitation and engaged in consultation with BOEM. 
Their concerns related primarily to the amount of new information that 
could be required of lessees and operators in connection with the new 
rule, the increased complexity of the rulemaking, and the timing of the 
rulemaking relative to the ongoing Alaska regional air quality study. 
BOEM has taken all of the concerns raised by ASRC into consideration 
and has removed a number of rule provisions, in part in response to 
some of the comments made by the ASRC and other tribal organizations.
7. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)
    This rule is not a significant energy action as defined in E.O. 
13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
8. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563)
    E.O. 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 E.O. 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 that regulations 
must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking 
process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of 
ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these 
requirements.
9. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 
13689)
    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

[[Page 34935]]

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 Arctic matters, BOEM worked with the Steering 
Committee and other relevant agencies in developing this rule. Within 
DOI, these agencies included the BSEE, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. 
In addition, BOEM consulted extensively with the USEPA and the U.S. 
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 nonprofit-sector stakeholders.'' BOEM has complied 
with this order, as described further in the section K, which is 
entitled, ``Consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act Corporations (E.O. 13175) and Other Authorities,'' 
above.
10. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (E.O. 13771)
    E.O. 13771 (January 30, 2017) directs federal agencies to reduce 
the regulatory burden on regulated entities and control regulatory 
costs. E.O. 13795 directs the DOI to reconsider its proposed rule on 
air quality compliance. The proposed rule would have changed BOEM's air 
quality regulatory program (AQRP) to align BOEM's regulatory scheme 
with various aspects of USEPA's regulations under the CAA. That 
alignment would have resulted in an AQRP that imposed a significant 
increase in the regulatory burden on industry. In contrast, this final 
rule is limited in scope to those provisions mandated by OCSLA and 
which do not impose additional cost burdens on industry. As a result, 
there are no incremental compliance costs in this rulemaking and the 
concerns associated with the high cost of the proposed air quality rule 
are no longer relevant. This final rule streamlines information 
collection and provides compliance clarity to the regulated entities. 
Therefore, BOEM considers this final rule to be deregulatory.
11. Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (E.O. 13783)
    E.O. 13783 section 2 requires agencies to ``review all existing 
regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other 
similar agency actions'' with the goal of eliminating provisions that 
impede domestic energy production. Section 2(a) exempts agency actions 
``that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and 
consistent with the policy [to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens on 
domestic energy production while promoting clean air and water within 
the constraints of current statutes].'' BOEM determined in coordination 
with DOI and OMB that the E.O. 13783 principles should be applied to 
the proposed rule. Consequently, BOEM is publishing this final rule 
consistent with OCSLA's statutory mandate to ensure OCS domestic energy 
activities authorized under OCSLA comply with the NAAQS under the CAA. 
The final rule promotes the public interest and clean air, while also 
eliminating many of the proposed rule's unnecessary and premature 
provisions that may not have withstood judicial review. This is done in 
an effort to reduce compliance costs on industry and to narrowly tailor 
the regulatory system to BOEM's specific statutory jurisdiction, 
pending evaluation of the results of air quality studies.
12. Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy (E.O. 13795)
    E.O. 13795 section 2 states that U.S. policy is ``to encourage 
energy exploration and production, including on the [OCS], in order to 
maintain the Nation's position as a global energy leader and foster 
energy security and resilience . . . while ensuring that any such 
activity is safe and environmentally responsible.'' Section 8 
specifically directs the Secretary to review the proposed rule and 
``consistent with law, consider whether [it] . . . should be revised or 
withdrawn.'' Consequently, BOEM reviewed the proposed rule through the 
section 2 policy lens and eliminated or revised many of the provisions 
in this final rule by striking a balance between OCS energy development 
and clean air responsibilities consistent with this Administration's 
policy. This final rule reflects the Secretary's clean air 
responsibilities mandated under 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8). It also, as 
discussed elsewhere in this preamble, avoids adding requirements that 
could have been unduly burdensome, that would be premature in light of 
the evaluation of recent studies, and that were based on an attempt to 
align with requirements under the CAA in spite of the differences 
between that statute and section 1334(a)(8).

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 air pollutants, Development plan, Development and 
production plan, Environmental protection, Exploration plan, Federal 
lands, Federal land manager, New source review, Non-attainment area, 
Oil, gas, and sulfur exploration, Oil, gas, and sulfur development, Oil 
pollution, Oil production, Outer Continental Shelf, Ozone, Penalties, 
Pipelines, Precursor pollutants, Prevention of significant 
deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur.

Casey Hammond,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Exercising the Authority of the 
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR part 550 
as follows:

PART 550--OIL AND GAS AND SULFUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER 
CONTINENTAL SHELF

0
1. The authority citation for part 550 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.

0
2. In Sec.  550.105:
0
a. Remove the definition of ``Air pollutant'';
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Attainment area'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Best available control technology'', remove 
``air pollutant'' everywhere it appears and add in its place ``criteria 
air pollutant and VOC'';
0
d. Add a definition for ``Criteria air pollutant'' in alphabetical 
order;
0
e. Revise the definitions of ``Emission offsets'', ``Existing 
facility'', and ``Nonattainment area''; and
0
f. Add a definition for ``Volatile organic compound'' in alphabetical 
order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 34936]]

Sec.  550.105  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Attainment area means, for any 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 the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be reliable) not to exceed any 
primary or secondary ambient air quality standards established by EPA.
* * * * *
    Criteria air pollutant means any air pollutant for which the EPA 
has established a primary or secondary national ambient air quality 
standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *
    Emission offsets mean emission reductions obtained from facilities, 
either onshore or offshore, other than the facility or facilities 
covered by the proposed Exploration Plan (EP), Development and 
Production Plan (DPP), or Development Operations Coordination Document 
(DOCD).
* * * * *
    Existing facility, as used in Sec.  550.303, means an Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) facility described in an Exploration Plan, a 
Development and Production Plan, or a Development Operations 
Coordination Document, approved before June 2, 1980.
* * * * *
    Nonattainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be 
reliable) to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality 
standard established by EPA.
* * * * *
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that is 
emitted to the atmosphere as a vapor. Unreactive compounds are excluded 
from the preceding sentence of this definition.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  550.218, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (e) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  550.218  What air emissions information must accompany the EP?

* * * * *
    (a) Projected emissions. Tables showing the projected emissions of 
criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and total 
suspended particulates (TSP) generated by your proposed exploration 
activities.
* * * * *
    (e) Non-exempt drilling units. A description of how you will comply 
with Sec.  550.303 when the projected emissions reported under 
paragraph (a) of this section are greater than the respective emission 
exemption thresholds (EET) calculated using the formulas in Sec.  
550.303(d). When BOEM requires air quality dispersion modeling, you 
must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion 
modeling with a model approved by the Director. You must also submit 
the best available meteorological information and data consistent with 
the model(s) used.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  550.249:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove ``air pollutant'' and add in its place 
``criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP''; and
0
c. Revise paragraph (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  550.249  What air emissions information must accompany the DPP or 
DOCD?

* * * * *
    (a) Projected emissions. Tables showing the projected emissions of 
criteria air pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and total 
suspended particulates (TSP) generated by your proposed development and 
production activities.
* * * * *
    (e) Non-exempt facilities. A description of how you will comply 
with Sec.  550.303 when the projected emissions reported under 
paragraph (a) of this section are greater than the respective emission 
exemption thresholds (EET) calculated using the formulas in Sec.  
550.303(d). When BOEM requires air quality dispersion modeling, you 
must use the guidelines in appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 for dispersion 
modeling with a model approved by the Director. You must also submit 
the best available meteorological information and data consistent with 
the model(s) used.
* * * * *


Sec.  550.283  [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  550.283(a)(4), remove ``air pollutant'' and add in its 
place ``criteria air pollutant, VOC, or TSP''.

0
6. In Sec.  550.302:
0
a. Remove the definition of ``Air pollutant'';
0
b. Revise the definition of ``Attainment area'';
0
c. In the definition of ``Best available control technology'', remove 
``air pollutant'' everywhere it appears and add in its place ``criteria 
air pollutant and VOC'';
0
d. Add the definitions for ``Criteria air pollutant'' and ``Emission 
exemption threshold'' in alphabetical order;
0
e. Revise the definitions of ``Emission offsets'' and ``Existing 
facility'';
0
f. Add the definition for ``National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' in 
alphabetical order; and
0
g. Revise the definitions of ``Nonattainment area'' and ``Volatile 
organic compound''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  550.302  Definitions concerning air quality.

* * * * *
    Attainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be 
reliable) not to exceed any primary or secondary ambient air quality 
standards established by EPA.
* * * * *
    Criteria air pollutant means any air pollutant for which the EPA 
has established a primary or secondary national ambient air quality 
standard pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
    Emission exemption threshold (EET) means the rate of projected 
emissions, calculated for a criteria air pollutant or VOC or TSP, above 
which a facility would be subject to the requirements of Sec.  
550.303(e) through (i) or Sec.  550.304(b) through (e).
    Emission offsets mean emission reductions obtained from facilities, 
either onshore or offshore, other than the facility or facilities 
covered by the proposed Exploration Plan (EP), Development and 
Production Plan (DPP), or Development Operations Coordination Document 
(DOCD).
    Existing facility, as used in Sec.  550.303, means an OCS facility 
described in an Exploration Plan, a Development and Production Plan, or 
a Development Operations Coordination Document approved before June 2, 
1980.
* * * * *
    National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) means a national air 
quality standard for any given criteria air pollutant, established 
pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act.
    Nonattainment area means, for any 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 EPA to be 
reliable) to exceed any primary or secondary

[[Page 34937]]

ambient air quality standard established by EPA.
* * * * *
    Volatile organic compound (VOC) means any organic compound that is 
emitted to the atmosphere as a vapor. Unreactive compounds are excluded 
from the preceding sentence of this definition.

0
7. In Sec.  550.303:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. In paragraphs (a) and (c), remove ``Exploration Plans and 
Development and Production Plans'' and add in its place ``Exploration 
Plans, Development and Production Plans, and Development Operations 
Coordination Documents'';
0
c. In paragraphs (b)(1) and (j), remove ``Exploration Plan or 
Development and Production Plan'' and add in its place ``Exploration 
Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations 
Coordination Document'';
0
d. Revise paragraphs (d), (e), and (f);
0
e. In paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) introductory text, remove ``air 
pollutant other than VOC'' add in its place ``criteria air pollutant'';
0
f. In paragraph (g)(2)(i)(B), remove ``air pollutant'' everywhere it 
appears and add in its place ``criteria air pollutant''; and
0
g. Revise paragraph (h) and the heading of paragraph (j).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  550.303  Facilities described in a new or revised Exploration 
Plan, Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations 
Coordination Document.

* * * * *
    (d) Exemption formulas. To determine whether a facility described 
in an initial, modified, supplemental, or revised Exploration Plan, 
Development and Production Plan, or Development Operations Coordination 
Document is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use 
the highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility 
calculated for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in 
Sec.  550.249(a) or Sec.  550.218(a) and compare these emissions to the 
emission exemption threshold (EET) calculated using the following 
formulas: EET = 3400*D^2/3 for carbon monoxide (CO); and EET 
= 33.3*D for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), utilizing 
NO2 as the indicator pollutant for NOX, and VOC 
(where EET is the emission exemption threshold expressed in short tons 
per year, and D is the distance of the proposed facility from the 
closest onshore area of a State expressed in statute miles). If the 
amount of these projected emissions is less than or equal to the 
emission exemption threshold (EET) for the corresponding criteria air 
pollutant, VOC, and TSP, the facility is exempt from further air 
quality review required under paragraphs (e) through (i) of this 
section.
    (e) Significance levels (SLs). (1) For a facility not exempt under 
paragraph (d) of this section, the lessee must use a BOEM approved air 
quality model to determine whether projected emissions from the 
facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above any SL 
set forth in the following table:

                             Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(1)--Significance Levels (SLs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Averaging time
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    1 hour (mg/   3 hour ([mu]g/    8 hour (mg/   24 hour ([mu]g/ Annual ([mu]g/
                                       m\3\)           m\3\)           m\3\)           m\3\)           m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Air Pollutant:
    Sulfur Dioxide..............  ..............            25.0  ..............             5.0             1.0
    PM10........................  ..............  ..............  ..............             5.0             1.0
    PM2.5.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............             1.2             0.3
    Nitrogen Dioxide \1\........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             1.0
    Carbon Monoxide.............             2.0  ..............             0.5  ..............  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NO2 is the indicator pollutant for NOX.

    (2) In the event that the emissions of TSP exceed the EET for TSP, 
the lessee must use a BOEM approved air quality model to determine 
whether the projected emissions from the facility result in an onshore 
ambient air concentration above the SL for either PM10 or 
PM2.5.
    (f) Significance determinations. (1) The projected emissions of any 
criteria air pollutant from any facility that result in an onshore 
ambient air concentration above a SL determined under paragraph (e) of 
this section for that criteria air pollutant will be deemed to 
significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that 
criteria air pollutant.
    (2) The projected emissions of VOC from any facility which is not 
exempt under paragraph (d) of this section will be deemed to 
significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC.
* * * * *
    (h) Controls required on temporary facilities. The lessee must 
apply BACT to reduce projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant 
or VOC from a temporary facility that significantly affect the air 
quality of an onshore area of a State.
* * * * *
    (j) Review of facilities with emissions below the emission 
exemption thresholds. * * *
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  550.304, revise paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e)(1) and 
the heading of paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  550.304  Existing facilities.

* * * * *
    (b) Exemption formulas. To determine whether an existing facility 
is exempt from further air quality review, the lessee must use the 
highest annual-total amount of emissions from the facility calculated 
for each criteria air pollutant, VOC, and TSP listed in Sec.  
550.249(a) or Sec.  550.218(a) and compare these emissions to the 
emission exemption threshold (EET) calculated using the following 
formulas: EET = 3400*D^2/3 for carbon monoxide (CO); and EET 
= 33.3*D for total suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), utilizing 
NO2 as the indicator pollutant for NOX and VOC 
(where EET is the emission exemption threshold expressed in short tons 
per year, and D is the distance of the proposed facility from the 
closest onshore area of a State expressed in statute miles). If the 
amount of these projected emissions is less than or equal to the 
emission exemption threshold (EET) for the corresponding criteria air 
pollutant, VOC, and TSP, the facility is exempt from further air 
quality review required under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 
section.
    (c) Significance levels. For a facility not exempt under paragraph 
(b) of this section, the lessee must use a BOEM

[[Page 34938]]

approved air quality model to determine whether the projected emissions 
from the facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above 
any SL set forth in Sec.  550.303(e). In the event that the emissions 
of TSP exceed the EET for TSP, the lessee must use a BOEM approved air 
quality model to determine whether the projected emissions from the 
facility result in an onshore ambient air concentration above the SL 
for either PM10 or PM2.5.
    (d) Significance determinations. (1) The projected emissions of any 
criteria air pollutant from any facility that result in an onshore 
ambient air concentration above an SL determined under paragraph (c) of 
this section for that criteria air pollutant, will be deemed to 
significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for that 
criteria air pollutant.
    (2) The projected emissions of VOC from any facility, which is not 
exempt under paragraph (b) of this section, will be deemed to 
significantly affect the air quality of the onshore area for VOC.
    (e) * * *
    (1) The projected emissions of any criteria air pollutant or VOC 
that significantly affect the air quality of an onshore area must be 
reduced through the application of BACT.
* * * * *
    (f) Review of facilities with emissions below the emission 
exemption thresholds. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-11573 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.