# Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-06310 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** April 5, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 19718 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 30 CFR Part 550 [Docket ID: BOEM-2013-0081] RIN 1010-AD82 Air Quality Control, Reporting, and Compliance AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend existing BOEM regulations related to air quality measurement, evaluation, and control with respect to oil, gas, and sulphur operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States (U.S.), in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the area offshore the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, as part of the BOEM approval process for offshore oil and gas exploration and development plans, right-of-use and easement (RUE), pipeline rights-of-way (ROW), and lease term pipeline applications. The proposed rule would: (1) Fulfill BOEM's statutory responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing BOEM standards and benchmarks for those pollutants to those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); (2) change the manner in which lessees would evaluate and model vessel emissions attributed to OCS facilities; (3) change the methods for measuring and evaluating air emissions including measuring their impacts over State submerged lands; (4) provide a process by which exemption thresholds are established and updated; (5) change the circumstances when emission reduction measure(s) (ERM), including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establish new criteria for the application of ERM; (6) formalize requirements for the consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (7) consistent with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulate a schedule and requirements for ensuring that all plans, including those previously approved, will remain compliant on an ongoing basis with these updated regulations; and (8) include an air quality component in the submission of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications. Key policy changes include the following: (1) Aligning the list of pollutants that are subject to an air quality review with the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and cross-referencing the ambient air quality standards and benchmarks (AAQSB) for those pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and application of the term “attributed emissions;” (3) changing the locations where air emissions will be measured and evaluated; and (4) modifying the process by which exemption thresholds are established and updated. This rulemaking would be the first major re-write of the OCS air quality regulations in 35 years. DATES: Submit comments on the substance of this rulemaking by June 6, 2016. Send your comments on the substance of the proposed rule to the Department as directed in the ADDRESSES section below. Submit comments on the information collection (IC) burden in this rulemaking to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by May 5, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number 1010-AD82, by any of the following methods: • Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instruction for submitting comments. • Mail: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166. • Hand delivery: Front Desk, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, Attention: Peter Meffert, 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166. Please include your name, return address and phone number and/or email address, so we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. Send comments on the IC of this rule to: Interior Desk Officer 1010-AD82, Office of Management and Budget; 202-395-5806 (fax); email OIRA_Submission@eop.gov . Please also send a copy to BOEM at 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, VA 20166. Public Availability of Comments: BOEM does not consider anonymous comments; please include your name and address as part of your submittal. Before including your name, address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee we will be able to do so. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Meffert, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Policy, Regulation, and Analysis, at Peter.Meffert@boem.gov or mail to 45600 Woodland Road, Sterling, Virginia 20166; or call (703) 787-1610. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for BOEM? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI) 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments B. Availability of Related Information C. Abbreviations of Terms and Acronyms II. Executive Summary III. Background A. Statutory Authority B. Current Air Quality Framework—Air Quality Regulatory Program C. Air Quality Regulatory Program Data Requirements 1. Projected Emissions 2. Maximum Potential Emissions 3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and Combustibles 4. Distance to Shore 5. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM) 6. Non-Exempt Drilling Units 7. Documentation D. Proposed Analytical Approach 1. Flowchart 2. Exemption Threshold Analysis 3. Modeling Analysis 4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities 5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities 6. Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources 7. Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Evaluation 8. Intersection With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 9. Additional Environmental Review E. Conclusion IV. Summary of Key Changes A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards B. Attributed Emissions 1. Emissions From Stationary Sources 2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft 3. Determination of Attributed Emissions 4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore Emissions Sources C. Points of Measurement 1. Point-of-Origin Measurement 2. State Seaward Boundary (SSB) 3. Point-of-Impact Measurement 4. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring D. Emission Exemption Threshold(s) (EETs) E. Emission Reduction Measure(s) (ERM) 1. Emissions Credits and Offsets 2. Applicability of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Upon an Exceedance of the Significant Impact Levels (SILs) 3. ERM Evaluation Criteria 4. Nitrogen Oxides (NO X ) Waiver and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Waiver F. Consolidation of Emissions From Multiple Facilities G. Ongoing Monitoring and Review of Projected Emissions 1. Recordkeeping and Measurement Criteria H. Structure of the Proposed Rule 1. Potential Monitoring Alternative 2. Plan Resubmittals I. Gulf-Wide Offshore Activities Data System (GOADS) J. Prevention of Significant Deterioration V. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Proposed Rule A. 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 550, Subpart A B. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart B C. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart C D. 30 CFR Part 550, Subpart J VI. Interagency, Tribal, and Public Outreach VII. Legal and Regulatory Analyses A. Statutes 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 2. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 4. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 5. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 B. Executive Orders (E.O.) and Presidential Memorandum 1. Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (E.O. 12630) March 15, 1988 2. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) October 4, 1993 3. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) February 7, 1996 4. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks (E.O. 13045) April 21, 1997 5. Federalism (E.O. 13132) August 10, 1999 6. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175) November 6, 2000 7. Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211) May 18, 2001 8. Enhancing Coordination of National Efforts in the Arctic (E.O. 13689) January 21, 2015 9. Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (E.O. 13563) January 18, 2011 10. Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 on Plain Language in Government Writing I. General Information A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for BOEM? 1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI) Do not submit CBI or proprietary information to BOEM through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM you mail to BOEM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed. Any CD or data submitted to BOEM must be virus-free and usable, as submitted. BOEM will not attempt to correct, fix or amend any CD or other electronic media that is not readily accessible. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register (FR) date and page number). • Organize Comments—When your comments respond to specific provisions, organize your comments by referencing the relevant CFR part or section number in the proposed rule. • Explain why you agree or disagree, and suggest alternatives, and/or substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data you used. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. B. Availability of Related Information A number of documents relevant to this air quality rulemaking, including past and planned environmental studies and analysis, are available on the BOEM Web site at www.BOEM.gov . In addition, the economic and environmental analyses associated with this rulemaking are available for inspection and copying in the BOEM docket for this rulemaking, as identified above and are also available at www.BOEM.gov . C. Abbreviations of Terms and Acronyms The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble. AAI Ambient Air Increment AAQSB Ambient Air Quality Standards and Benchmarks AEDT Aviation Environmental Design Tool (Federal Aviation Administration) AQCR Air Quality Control Region AQRP Air Quality Regulatory Program AQRV Air Quality Related Value AQS Air Quality Subsystem (USEPA) BACT Best Available Control Technology BC Black Carbon (component of PM 2.5 ) BLM Bureau of Land Management BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Btu IT British Thermal Unit International Tables CAA Clean Air Act, as amended CAMX Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions CBI Confidential Business Information CEO Chief Environmental Officer (BOEM) CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH 4 Methane CMAQ Community Multi-scale Air Quality Model (USEPA) CO Carbon Monoxide CO 2 Carbon Dioxide CP Criteria Pollutant CSU Column-Stabilized Units DOCD Development Operations Coordination Document DOI Department of the Interior DPP Development and Production Plan EC Elemental Carbon ECE Emission Control Efficiency EET Emission Exemption Threshold(s) EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order EP Exploration Plan ERM Emission Reduction Measure(s) FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIRE Factor Information Retrieval System FLM Federal Land Manager (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS)) FPS Floating Production System FPSO Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel FR Federal Register FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI) GAO Government Accountability Office G&G Geological and Geophysical GHG Greenhouse Gas GOADS Gulf-wide Offshore Activities Data System GOM Gulf of Mexico H 2 S Hydrogen Sulfide hp Horsepower hpm Mechanical Horsepower IC Information Collection IRFA Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis IRIA Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis kW kilowatt MACI Maximum Allowable Concentration Increase MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit MSC Mobile Support Craft NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEI National Emissions Inventory (USEPA) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NH 3 Ammonia NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide NO X Nitrogen Oxides N 2 O Nitrous Oxide NPS National Park Service (DOI) NSPS New Source Performance Standards NSR New Source Review (USEPA) NTC NO X Technical Code NTL Notice to Lessees O 3 Ozone OCS Outer Continental Shelf OCSLA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, as amended OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Office of Management and Budget) OMB Office of Management and Budget (Executive Office of the President) ONRR Office of Natural Resources Revenue (DOI) OSV Offshore Supply Vessel Pb Lead PEMS Parametric Emissions Monitoring Systems PM Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Fine Particulate Matter, 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less PM 10 Particulate Matter, 10 micrometers in diameter or less PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PTE Potential to Emit Pub. L. Public Law RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle ROW Right-of-Way rpm Revolutions per minute RUE Right of-Use and Easement SBA Small Business Administration SCC Source Classification Codes SIL Significant Impact Level SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide SOB Statement of Basis SO X Sulphur Oxides SIP State Implementation Plan SSB State seaward boundary TAS Treatment as State TIMS-Web Technical Information Management System Web-based Application TIP Tribal Implementation Plan TLP Tension-Leg Platforms tpy Tons per year TSP Total Suspended Particulates U.S. United States USCG United States Coast Guard U.S.C. United States Code USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey VOC Volatile Organic Compound μg/m 3 Micrograms per cubic meter II. Executive Summary The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the Department of the Interior (DOI) to promulgate regulations for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), to the extent that activities approved under OCSLA significantly affect the air quality of any State (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a BOEM predecessor agency, prepared the first air quality regulations under OCSLA, which were promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior in 1980 (45 FR 15128, March 7, 1980). The current version of these regulations is contained in 30 CFR part 550 (“Oil, Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf”) subparts A (“General”), B (“Plans and Information”), and C (“Pollution Prevention and Control”). These regulations require: (1) The submission of information on projected air emissions from offshore oil and gas exploration or development activities with a proposed plan for exploration ( i.e., an exploration plan (EP)) or development ( i.e., a Development and Production Plan (DPP) or a Development Operations Coordination Document (DOCD); (2) the application of various emission exemption thresholds to determine whether air quality impacts would be presumed de minimis and, therefore, not require further BOEM review under subpart C or whether the impacts would exceed the threshold and require further review under subpart C; (3) the modeling of projected emissions when a facility's projected emissions exceed the exemption thresholds and would therefore potentially cause air quality impacts to a State; 1 and, (4) the control of an emissions source proposed for any facility that would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the AAQSB. 1 In the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress added two provisions authorizing Federally-recognized Indian tribes to be treated like States under the CAA. Congress added section 301(d) that authorizes the Administrator of the USEPA “to treat Indian tribes as States.” In implementing this provision, the USEPA published proposed rule entitled “the Tribal Clean Air Act Authority” to implement this provision of the Act. In its proposed rule (63 FR 7271, Feb. 12, 1998), the USEPA stated “[The] Regulations in this part identify those provisions of the Clean Air Act for which Indian tribes are or may be treated in the same manner as States. In general, these regulations authorize eligible tribes to have the same rights and responsibilities as States under the Clean Air Act and authorize EPA approval of tribal air quality programs meeting the applicable minimum requirements under the Act.” Furthermore, in its “EPA Statement of Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes,” dated May 4, 2011, on p. 3 in the section entitled Guiding Principles, the USEPA states: “EPA recognizes and works directly with Federally-recognized tribes as sovereign entities with primary authority and responsibility for each tribe's land and membership, and not as political subdivisions of states or other governmental units.” Just as States establish State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to comply with CAA/USEPA requirements, the tribes can establish Tribal Implementation Plans (TIPs) to regulate the air quality over tribal lands (which are then outside the general jurisdiction of the State SIP). In addition, for those tribes that have been granted “treatment as State” (TAS) status ( i.e., providing for Indian tribes to play essentially the same role in Indian country that states do within State lands for purposes of air quality management), BOEM will allow such a tribe to appeal the approval of a plan, in a manner similar to that accorded to States. For this reason, BOEM has proposed to expand the analysis of impacts under its air quality rules to include potential impacts to Federally-recognized Indian tribes having either TAS status or an approved TIP. BOEM is proposing to revise and replace its air quality regulations with a new set of regulations that reflect a number of policy changes with respect to the existing air quality regulatory program (AQRP (30 CFR 550 subpart C)). While the existing underlying framework would remain the same in a number of key aspects, the proposed rule would change in significant ways the manner in which BOEM regulates emissions from certain sources on the OCS. The most significant changes in the proposed rule relate to: (1) Fulfilling BOEM's statutory responsibility under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA by addressing all relevant criteria and major precursor air pollutants and by cross-referencing the AAQSB for those pollutants to those of the USEPA; (2) formalizing the concept and application of the term “attributed emissions;” (3) changing the methods for determining the locations from which air emissions will be measured and evaluated; (4) modifying the process by which emission exemption thresholds (EETs) are established and updated; (5) changing the circumstances when ERM, including Best Available Control Technology (BACT), are required, and establishing new criteria for the application of ERM; (6) revising the boundary at which BOEM determines air quality compliance to the State seaward boundary (SSB), rather than the coastline; (7) formalizing requirements for the consolidation of emissions from multiple facilities; (8) consistent with BOEM's existing regulatory authority, articulating a schedule for ensuring that plans, including previously approved plans, will be compliant with these updated regulations; (9) adding an air quality component to the submission of RUE, ROW, and lease term pipeline applications; (10) an expanded use of offsets as an alternative in circumstances where BACT was previously required; and (11) the addition of a new requirement for all plans to be reviewed at least every 10 years, to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, as amended from time to time. BOEM is proposing to amend the current regulations to provide a mechanism by which the regulations remain up-to-date in the future, particularly when the USEPA changes an applicable AAQSB; to reflect the recent statutory expansion of BOEM's air quality jurisdiction (42 U.S.C. 7627, as amended by Pub. L. 112-74); to improve the clarity of existing regulatory provisions; to account for technological advances in air quality measurement, evaluation, and reporting that have occurred since the current regulations were promulgated; and to reflect industry practices and procedures that have evolved since 1980. BOEM is proposing to define a number of additional key terms, to clarify the objectives and procedures associated with the AQRP, and to reorganize a number of existing provisions in its regulations. The proposed rule would consolidate all the existing data collection and information requirements in a single section dedicated to air quality. The pertinent provisions of BOEM's regulations related to air quality would be either substantially updated or entirely replaced. The proposed rule would make a number of changes to the existing requirements associated with reporting, tracking, modeling, and monitoring the air emissions from stationary facilities operating on the OCS and emissions from associated non-stationary sources, including vessels and vehicles, and aircraft traversing above the OCS or over State submerged lands 2 that operate in support of such facilities. 2 State submerged lands are the part of each State's territory that extends from the shoreline up to the point of federal jurisdiction (typically three miles from shore, but in some cases extending up to nine miles from shore). In contrast, the offshore lands under federal jurisdiction are referred to as the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Since BOEM's current air quality regulations were published in 1980, the USEPA has revised the NAAQS to include additional criteria pollutants ( i.e., to include Fine Particulate Matter, 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less (PM 2.5 )), standards with a wider range of averaging times and statistical forms. 3 There are two types of NAAQS: Primary NAAQS, which are intended to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety; and secondary NAAQS, which are focused on protecting public welfare. 3 In general, air quality standards are based on the concentration of a given pollutant at a given location averaged over a particular length of time, called the averaging time, evaluated in combination with some statistical parameter, which is referred to as the statistical form of the standard. This proposed rule would enhance the process by which operators of OCS facilities determine whether their proposed exploratory or developmental activities could cause or contribute to a significant adverse impact to the air quality of any State. It would define the circumstances under which BOEM would require lessees and operators 4 to control their air emissions in order to meet the USEPA's air pollution control-related standards for criteria air pollutants ( i.e., pollutants for which there are NAAQS) and major precursor air pollutants. The proposed rule would incorporate by reference USEPA's Significant Impact Levels (SILs), Ambient Air Increments (AAIs), and the primary and secondary NAAQS. It would also make a number of changes to ensure that certain provisions within BOEM's rules are automatically updated whenever the USEPA updates its NAAQS, SILs and AAIs. 4 Although the rule refers to lessees or operators, the provisions of the proposed rule would also apply to right-of-way holders, right-of-use and easement holders, lease-term pipeline applicants and any other party or parties that may be required to submit a plan to BOEM for review and approval. Because the USEPA's current NAAQS include standards for both annual and short-term averaging times, the proposed rule would also provide for the collection, evaluation, and consideration of data with respect to the long-term and short-term exposure to air pollution originating from the OCS. Under current BOEM regulations, most of the effects that are evaluated relate to an annual exposure to a certain level of pollution. Short-term averaging times measure something different, namely the potential impact of a short-term exposure to the same pollutant, where the level of pollution is much greater. In some cases, the long-term exposure to low levels of pollution may be harmful; in other cases, the short-term exposure to high levels of pollution may also be harmful. Because the proposed rule would evaluate different levels of exposure over different time periods, the proposed rule would more accurately determine whether any OCS operations would have the potential to cause an adverse effect to a State's air quality. The proposed rule would require the modeling of emissions over any averaging time that the USEPA has determined would be relevant whenever the projected annual emissions of a given pollutant exceed the EETs. This change would, therefore, enable BOEM to better ensure compliance with all the NAAQS. This change is of particular relevance in the case of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) because that air pollutant is the one for which the annual exemption threshold is most often exceeded. In order to ensure ongoing compliance with the NAAQS referenced in OCSLA, the proposed rule would also provide for the collection of additional information on approved activities described in any initial, revised, modified, resubmitted, or supplemental EP, DPP, or DOCD, or application for a RUE, pipeline ROW, or lease term pipeline (hereinafter referred to by the general term “plan”), in order to verify the information reported in the plan. As is the case with the current BOEM regulations, the proposed rule would establish emissions exemptions thresholds. The proposed rule would continue to require facilities whose projected emissions of criteria and major precursor pollutants would exceed the thresholds to model those emissions in order to determine whether such emissions could potentially cause the air quality of any State to exceed the NAAQS. To ensure that OCS operations do not cause any such impact to the air quality of a State, the proposed rule would require large emitters of air pollutants, namely, those whose facilities exceed BOEM's EETs—not only to project their emissions in their plan, but also to demonstrate that their actual emissions do not exceed their projected emissions (as contained in their original plan). To ensure ongoing compliance, three major new procedures have been proposed. First, under the proposed rule, if the USEPA revises any AAQSB that applies (NAAQS, or any applicable SIL, or AAI), BOEM would examine the appropriateness of its EETs, and, BOEM, at its discretion, would periodically revise its EETs for the air pollutant(s) corresponding to USEPA's revision(s). Second, certain large emitters would be required to develop a method for measuring and reporting their emissions to demonstrate their actual emissions do not exceed the original projections upon which approval was granted. Third, starting in 2020, 5 all lessees and operators with previously approved plans would be required to update their plans with then current emissions data, and BOEM would re-evaluate all of these updated plans against the current EETs and for compliance with current AAQSB, according to a schedule proposed in 550.310(c)(2). All lessees and operators that submit plans would be required to include up-to-date emissions data in their plans to ensure they comply with then current AAQSB. 5 BOEM is proposing this date because BOEM expects that it will have completed the studies to set new EETs by that time. Although BOEM does not issue air quality permits and instead reviews air emissions in the context of its AQRP, BOEM recognizes that a one-time review of a particular facility's compliance with AAQSB may not be adequate to ensure that the facility does not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS within a State. USEPA periodically updates the NAAQS and adds new averaging times and statistical forms for the various indicator pollutants. Measurement and evaluation techniques and methods are expected to improve over time. Equipment ages and becomes less efficient as it does so. The types and characteristics of support vessels, vehicles and aircraft may change. For these and various other reasons, BOEM has proposed that evaluating a plan's effectiveness more than once may aid BOEM in ensuring “compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), to the extent that activities authorized under [OCSLA] significantly affect the air quality of any State” (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). Consistent with the requirement in every offshore lease that lessees and operators are required to comply with changes to the regulations, as they are refined, BOEM is proposing plans be reevaluated periodically for air quality purposes. 6 6 See § 550.310(c)(2), below, of the proposed rule text. Finally, this rule proposes to codify the existing mechanism BOEM uses in the GOM OCS Region to report ongoing emissions information ( i.e., the Gulf-wide Offshore Activities Data System or GOADS, as described in Notice to Lessees and Operators ([NTL], BOEM NTL No. 2014-G01) and apply it to all OCS regions under BOEM air quality jurisdiction. This information is important to ensure that OCS activities authorized by BOEM do not cause any State to exceed the NAAQS. BOEM also uses this information in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents at several stages of the OCS leasing and plan review and approval process. In addition, BOEM shares this data with the USEPA to enhance its national emissions inventory (NEI), and with States and local air quality management agencies for the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In-addition, BOEM collects emissions information related to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) on a regular basis as part of the GOADS program and provides this information to lessees and operators to facilitate their reporting to the USEPA. III. Background A. Statutory Authority OCSLA grants DOI authority to issue leases for the development of the nation's energy and mineral resources on the OCS. The U.S. OCS extends from three to nine nautical miles (nm) offshore (this varies by State) to the extent of U.S. claimed jurisdiction and control, which is 200 nm or more from the coastal States' baseline. 7 BOEM makes OCS resources available for expeditious and orderly development through leasing, subject to environmental safeguards, in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of competition and other national needs (43 U.S.C. 1332(3)). In 1978, OCSLA was amended to include a requirement for DOI to promulgate regulations for “compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ), to the extent that activities authorized under [OCSLA] significantly affect the air quality of any State” (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). In 1980, the USGS, a BOEM predecessor agency responsible for overseeing OCS energy and mineral activity, promulgated air quality regulations for activities authorized on the entire OCS, which are now BOEM's air quality regulations. 7 The official U.S. coastal baseline is recognized as the low-water line along the coast in accordance with the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, art. 76, Dec.10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, 428. The territorial sea extends seaward 12 nautical miles (nm) from the baseline. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends from the outer boundary of territorial sea seaward to 200 nm. The continental shelf begins at 12 nm, includes the EEZ and may extend further. The U.S. OCS extends from the SSB to the extent of the continental shelf. See 43 U.S.C. 1331(a); see also 43 U.S.C. 1301. In 1990, Congress amended section 328 of the CAA and transferred authority to regulate air emissions on the OCS, other than in the Central and Western GOM, from DOI to the USEPA. In 2011, Congress again amended section 328 to transfer the authority for regulating air emissions from the USEPA back to DOI for those parts of the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. As of the publication of this proposed rule, DOI's jurisdiction for ensuring compliance with the NAAQS pursuant to the CAA includes OCS areas adjacent to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. B. Current Air Quality Framework—Air Quality Regulatory Program Congress has geographically divided air quality regulatory authority for authorized OCS activities between the USEPA and BOEM, based upon where those activities occur on the OCS. While the overall objectives of BOEM's and the USEPA's air quality regulations are similar, there are differences in each agency's statutory authority and differences in the way each agency implements its statutory charge. The USEPA implements its charge through permitting (CAA Sections 165 and 173). The CAA directs the USEPA to establish requirements to control air pollution from sources on the OCS to attain and maintain federal and State ambient air quality standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of subchapter I of the CAA (CAA Section 328(a)). USEPA regulations for permitting OCS sources “ensure that there is a rational relationship to the attainment and maintenance of federal and State ambient air quality standards and the requirements of part C of title I, and that the rule is not used for the purpose of preventing exploration and development of the OCS” (40 CFR 55.1). The USEPA's OCS air quality regulations incorporate requirements derived from other areas of the CAA and USEPA regulations and for sources within 25 miles of the State boundary require compliance with local rules as if the source were located onshore, the result of which is that operators must demonstrate compliance with several different types of requirements. BOEM's jurisdiction under 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to promulgate regulations “for compliance with the national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the [CAA] . . . to the extent that activities under OCSLA significantly affect the air quality of any State.” Thus, regulations implementing this section regulate offshore emissions specifically to protect State air quality rather than protecting air quality above the OCS generally. Upon submission by a lessee or operator of a plan, BOEM will determine whether the plan is consistent with the OCSLA and BOEM's regulations. If BOEM determines that a plan is inconsistent with OCSLA or BOEM's regulations, BOEM will require modifications of the plan as necessary to achieve consistency. BOEM may approve, require modification of, or disapprove an EP. BOEM can disapprove an EP only if there are no possible modifications that would avoid “serious harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), to property, to any mineral (in areas leased or not leased), to the national security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment,” as described in 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(2)(A)(i). With respect to a DPP or a DOCD, BOEM must approve, disapprove, or require modification of the plan after conducting a compliance review, which includes compliance with the regulations implementing section 1334(a)(8). In addition, the timing of BOEM's decisions is also circumscribed by the provisions of OCSLA. Under OCSLA, BOEM is required to approve a plan within 30 days for an EP or within 60 days for a DPP or DOCD, if BOEM finds that the plan is consistent with OCSLA and its implementing regulations, including those ensuring air quality compliance under section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA. (See 43 U.S.C. 1340(c) and 1351(h)). BOEM's predecessor, USGS, developed the current air quality regulatory framework in 1980 to address potential onshore air quality impacts of OCS operations on adjacent States. These regulations require lessees or operators to submit information on projected air emissions in their proposed EPs, DPPs and DOCDs. BOEM considers air emissions information submitted by lessees and operators as one component of its review of the overall exploration or development plan. The regulatory process by which BOEM evaluates the submitted emissions information is referred to in this document as BOEM's AQRP. The 1980 regulations first established a process for determining whether the potential air quality impacts from any given plan are low enough that they should be exempt from further air quality regulatory analysis. Plans that do not exceed these EETs are generally exempt from further analysis. For plans that exceed these exemption thresholds, BOEM regulations require lessees and operators to conduct modeling intended to help BOEM determine whether emissions from any facility could cause an exceedance of the AAIs or NAAQS onshore, and if so, what mitigation ( i.e., emissions reduction) measures, if any, BOEM should impose on those proposed exploration and development activities to reduce the potential impacts to affected States. BOEM conducts its AQRP analysis whenever a lessee or operator proposes new exploration, development, or production operations on the OCS or submits a revised or supplemental plan, which would modify operations in a manner that could cause an increase in the release of regulated pollutants above the amounts described in a previously approved plan. The AQRP focuses on the impact of emissions from a specific exploration or development and production project and its potential onshore impacts on air quality. The AQRP does not directly regulate OCS air quality, since 43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8) requires BOEM to focus its plan review on the potential impacts to the air quality of the States. The AQRP consists of a quantitative review of specific air quality data that informs a decision to approve, require modification of, or disapprove a specific plan. Any modifications BOEM requires as a result of the AQRP review become an enforceable provision of the approved plan. As BOEM fulfills its statutory obligation, its AQRP also achieves other objectives: (1) To protect public health from adverse air quality effects; (2) to protect public welfare by preventing a deterioration in the air quality of the environment ( e.g., to protect crops, forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the formation of new designated non-attainment areas; and, (4) to preserve and prevent degradation of the air quality in national parks and other areas of special natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value. In practical terms, this is accomplished by assessing whether OCS operations and activities will advance these objectives. The AQRP is one factor that BOEM considers in making a determination on the overall plan. The AQRP analysis is intended to account for emissions of pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment from facility and associated support craft. The plan must include descriptions of all relevant emissions sources—offshore, stationary and nonstationary, and certain onshore ones—regardless of whether they are intended to be used on a short-term or long-term basis, and regardless of attainment status. As part of the AQRP analysis, BOEM currently evaluates the emissions of most pollutants that the USEPA has designated as NAAQS “criteria pollutants” (CPs) in the USEPA's air quality regulatory scheme. The USEPA currently defines the following six pollutants as CPs: Carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ); sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ); ozone (O 3 ); particulate matter (PM); and lead (Pb). BOEM evaluates air emissions using the NAAQS as a standard because OCSLA provides that BOEM must ensure compliance with the NAAQS (43 U.S.C. 1334(a)(8)). At the time the current regulations were promulgated, BOEM's predecessor, USGS, determined that Pb was generally not released in sufficient quantities from offshore oil and gas operations to warrant a separate analysis, and so BOEM does not currently review Pb data as part of the AQRP. Also, as of 1980, the USGS had determined that there was no way to review O 3 formation directly, but it instead decided to regulate O 3 formation indirectly, through the tracking of O 3 precursor pollutants, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NO X . In addition to regulating CPs, BOEM currently regulates most of the major precursor pollutants that lead to the formation of the CPs. Some CPs are also precursors for other CPs. For example, USEPA has identified SO 2 as a precursor to the formation of PM 2.5 , which is PM that is 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less, and both are CPs. BOEM's current regulations address two precursor pollutants of ozone, NO X and VOCs. Ammonia (NH 3 ) is not currently covered by BOEM's regulations but is proposed to be regulated in this proposed rule, because it may be regulated under the Clean Air Act as a precursor pollutant to the formation of PM 2.5 . The USEPA has found that GHG 8 emissions endanger the public health and welfare (74 Federal Register (FR) 66496, Dec. 15, 2009). BOEM recognizes that the continued and prospective emissions of GHGs from offshore oil and gas operations will contribute to global GHG concentrations. 9 The goal of this rule, however, is to implement Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA, which requires BOEM to regulate air quality so as not to allow exceedances of the NAAQS in any State. While GHGs are not regulated under the NAAQS and are currently being addressed by the USEPA through other sections of the CAA, climate change itself impacts air quality, particularly ground-level ozone, and has consequential health impacts associated with poor air quality. 10 However, because GHGs are not regulated under the NAAQS, Section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA specifically is not the appropriate statutory vehicle to address the harm that GHGs cause and BOEM is not proposing to address the issue of GHG emissions in this proposed rule. 8 GHGs are defined by the USEPA as the aggregate group of the following six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(i). 9 More recently, in the preamble to its proposed new source performance standards for the oil and gas industry, the USEPA provided an update regarding the climate change impacts that result from GHG emissions (80 FR 56593, 56602, Sept. 18, 2015). Many of the numerous impacts identified by the USEPA, such as increased severity of storms, increased water pollution (including ocean acidification), rising sea levels, loss of sea ice, and habitat loss, relate to coastal areas and the natural resources of the OCS. Both the 2009 endangerment finding and the recent proposed new source performance standards underscore that these impacts will exacerbate ongoing environmental pressures in Alaska, and will particularly impact Alaska native communities. 10 See 74 FR 66496 (No. 239, December 15, 2009), “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” or the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) National Climate Assessment, available at http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ . The Bureau, however, is still interested in addressing GHGs consistent with its legal authorities. Lessees and operators currently submit to the NEI the results of BOEM's calculation of GHG information as part of GOADS, and GHG emissions are considered as part of the NEPA review of lease sales and post-lease approvals. In the coming months, BOEM will engage stakeholders regarding potential avenues to address GHG emissions, as appropriate, either through a separate rulemaking or some other action. Separate but related to the GHG issue is the matter of black carbon (BC) dispersion and deposition in Alaska and other parts of the Arctic, which is an environmental concern. BC is a component of PM 2.5 , and as such would be a component of a CP that will be regulated under the proposed rule. 11 The ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 , including BC, would be considered in any analysis of the pre-existing background pollution levels before any plan could be approved for development on the OCS. Recent scientific studies 12 have indicated that BC can be a source of negative health effects. 13 11 Black carbon is not classified as a unique CP and the USEPA does not directly regulate its emissions other than as a component of PM 2.5 . 12 For example, “Black Carbon Exposures, Blood Pressure, and Interactions with Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in MicroRNA Processing Genes,” in Environmental Health Perspectives, 118:943-948 (2010), and “Long-Term Exposure to Black Carbon and Carotid Intima-Media Thickness: The Normative Aging Study” in Environmental Health Perspectives, 121:1061-1067 (2013). Web addresses for these studies described are at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27822949?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents and http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/11877015 . 13 Based on an assessment of the scientific evidence for health effects associated with exposures to ambient PM, in the most recent review of the NAAQS for PM, the USEPA concluded that “many constituents of PM can be linked with differing health effects and the evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific health outcomes” (PM Integrated Science Assessment (ISA), section 2.4.4). BOEM is actively investigating this issue and our evaluation of the potential impacts of BC and a determination of appropriate controls is continuing to evolve. BOEM and the USEPA are coordinating their efforts on this matter. In addition to the health effects associated with the PM 2.5 emissions that include BC, there are also potentially significant implications to climate change and global warming from BC. These relate primarily to three factors: (1) BC particles directly absorb sunlight and reduce the planetary albedo 14 when suspended in the atmosphere; (2) BC absorbs incoming solar radiation, disturbs the temperature structure of the atmosphere, and influences cloud cover; and (3) when deposited on high albedo surfaces like ice and snow, BC particles reduce the total surface albedo 15 available to reflect solar energy back into space. Small initial snow albedo reduction may have a large radiative forcing effect 16 because of a positive feedback: Reduced snow albedo increases surface temperatures and the increased surface temperature decreases the snow cover and further decreases surface albedo. 17 14 Albedo is the fraction of solar energy (shortwave radiation) reflected from the Earth back into space. It is a measure of the reflectivity of the earth's surface. Ice, especially with snow on top of it, has a high albedo: Most sunlight hitting the surface bounces back towards space. 15 Total surface albedo is the diffuse reflectivity or reflecting power of a surface. It is the ratio of reflected radiation from the surface to incident radiation upon it. In this case, the reduction in total surface albedo would represent the reduction in albedo that is caused by the relevant OCS operations in the vicinity of the project or development that is generating BC emissions. 16 Radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. 17 Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato (January 17, 2013). “A Smut Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could Also Promote Global Warming: Atmospheric black carbon is not only bad for the lungs, but can also act as greenhouse particles under certain circumstances.” Scientific American. January 22, 2013. IPCC, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution Of Working Group I To The Fourth Assessment Report Of The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change 129, 132 (2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm . (Magnitudes and uncertainties added together, as per standard uncertainty rules). V. Ramathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon, 1 NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221-22 (23 March 2008) (“The BC forcing of 0.9 W m-2 (with a range of 0.4 to 1.2 W m-2) . . . is as much as 55% of the CO 2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as CH 4 , CFCs, N 2 O or tropospheric ozone.”). While BOEM does not currently have sufficient data to support a specific limit on BC, the exemption thresholds research study currently underway for the Gulf of Mexico (which is described in detail in section III.D.1, under the heading of “Exemption Threshold Analysis”) will analyze BC as part of the overall review. The study will apply the Community Multi-scale and Air Quality (CMAQ) Model and the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAM X ) photochemical grid models, as part of the analysis. PM emissions specified in the emissions inventory will be allocated to individual PM species 18 as part of the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) emissions processing and modeling system 19 using PM speciation factors obtained from USEPA's SPECIATE database 20 for each source category (as defined by the Source Classification Code (SCC)). This evaluation will result in PM mass being broken into the mass associated with elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon, and other elements, as well as particle bound VOCs, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. BC is essentially equivalent to the EC portion of PM. CMAQ 21 and CAM X 22 model projections of EC will be calculated and modeled for further analysis. This will be done both for the domain defined for the study ( see section III.D.1), and for specific sources. Two other models commonly used by the industry and BOEM to evaluate air quality, AERMOD 23 and CALPUFF, 24 are being considered for use and will apply a similar technique to apportion PM 2.5 mass for a BC analysis. 18 There are many forms of PM. The U.S. National Research Council has emphasized the importance of examining the risk of PM species (“Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: IV: Continuing Research Progress.” Washington, DC, National Research Council, 2004). Determining the differential toxicity of PM 2.5 species and identifying species with greatest toxicity is of great importance to emission-control strategies and regulations. These investigations have reported numerous components that may be responsible for particle toxicity, such as elemental and organic carbon, sulfate, nitrate, and metals including zinc, nickel, iron, potassium, and chromium. 19 See the following site for additional information on the SMOKE modeling system: https://cmascenter.org/smoke/. 20 SPECIATE is the USEPA's repository of volatile organic gas and PM speciation profiles of air pollution sources. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/software/speciate/. 21 Further information on CMAQ is available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/. 22 Further information on CAMX is available at: http://www.camx.com/. 23 AERMOD is described in detail in the publication, “AERMOD: DESCRIPTION OF MODEL FORMULATION,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-454/R-03-004, September 2004, available at: http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/aermod/aermod_mfd.pdf. 24 CALPUFF is an advanced non-steady-state meteorological and air quality modeling system adopted by the USEPA in its Guideline on Air Quality Models as the preferred model for assessing long range transport of pollutants and their impacts on federal Class I areas and on a case-by-case basis for certain near-field applications involving complex meteorological conditions. Further information on this model is available at: http://www.src.com/. BOEM requests comments and data on the extent of BC emissions from OCS-related operations and potential means of reducing such emissions and their negative effects. BOEM also requests comment on other factors, information, or data that BOEM should consider in its analysis of BC, either in connection with or in addition to its air quality regulatory analysis. C. Current Air Quality Regulatory Program Data Requirements As explained above, BOEM's AQRP review, conducted under existing regulations at 30 CFR part 550 subparts B and C, is triggered when a lessee or operator submits or resubmits an exploration or development plan. With respect to air quality, BOEM currently requires the submitter to provide the following information: 1. Projected Emissions Under existing BOEM regulations, the lessee or operator must provide tables showing the projected air emissions of all regulated criteria and major precursor pollutants, except PM 2.5 , Pb, and O 3 , 25 generated by the submitted plans. In addition, for each source for each pollutant, lessees must identify: The projected hourly emissions rate in peak pounds per hour; the total projected annual emissions in tons per year (tpy); the frequency and duration of projected emissions; and all projected emissions over the duration of the plan ( i.e., for as many years as the operations will continue). 25 Existing BOEM air pollution prevention and control regulations (30 CFR part 550 subpart C) apply air quality standards and screening methods current as of 1980. At that time PM 2.5 was not regulated and all PM was considered as total suspended particulates (TSP). Neither Pb nor O 3 were included in the USEPA's screening methods under 40 CFR 52.21(c) or 40 CFR 165(b)(2). 2. Maximum Potential Emissions The lessee or operator must base all of its projected air emissions identified in (1) above on the maximum rated capacity of the equipment on the plan's drilling unit or facility. 3. Processes, Equipment, Fuels, and Combustibles The lessee or operator must provide a description of processes, processing equipment, combustion equipment, fuels, and storage units, including the characteristics and the frequency, duration, and maximum burn rate of any well test fluids to be burned. 4. Distance to Shore The lessee or operator must provide the distance between any given facility and the closest shoreline of an adjacent State. 5. Emission Reduction Measures (ERM) Each lessee or operator must describe any proposed air emission reduction measures (ERM), including a description of the relevant source(s), the emission reduction control technologies or procedures, the quantity of reductions to be achieved, and any monitoring system proposed to measure emissions. 6. Reductions in Emissions From Non-Exempt Drilling Units The lessee or operator must provide a description of how the lessee or operator intends to address the emissions generated, if emissions from the plan are greater than the lessee's or operator's respective emission-exemption amounts and if modeling indicates that some form of emissions reductions will be necessary. 7. Documentation The lessee or operator must document the basis for all of its calculations, including engine size, rating, and applicable operational information. In the GOM region, BOEM and industry have historically used worksheets contained in forms BOEM-0138 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for EPs) and BOEM-0139 (Gulf of Mexico Air Emissions Calculations for DOCDs) for air quality information. D. Proposed Analytical Approach 1. Flowchart The following flow chart illustrates the analytical approach that a lessee or operator would use to evaluate its projected emissions under this proposed rule. The flow chart is intended for informational purposes only. In any circumstances where the flow chart may be interpreted to conflict with the regulatory text, the regulatory text is controlling. [See attached flowchart] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-C EP05AP16.000 EP05AP16.001 EP05AP16.002 EP05AP16.003 While many significant changes would be made to BOEM's AQRP under the proposed rule, the analytical framework remains fundamentally the same. Under both the current regulations and the proposed rule, the lessee or operator must perform the following fundamental steps: (1) Identify and describe the characteristics of all the relevant emissions sources; (2) calculate the emissions associated with these sources; (3) determine which emissions should properly be allocated to the lessee's or operator's plan; (4) compare the emissions totals, on a per-pollutant basis, to a series of exemption formulas; (5) apply ERMs to sources of VOC emissions that exceed the VOC exemption threshold; (6) conduct modeling of the potential impacts for any criteria pollutant that exceeds an exemption threshold and compare against various AAQSB; and (7) propose emission reduction measure(s) as necessary to ensure compliance with those standards and benchmarks. The “Summary of Key Changes” section of this preamble outlines the major changes included in this proposed rule. While the basic steps of the AQRP process would remain similar, the proposed rule would alter how the data are gathered, the standards and benchmarks against which the data are evaluated, and the process by which the air quality information is reviewed. BOEM's current air quality evaluation methodology is based in large part on the USEPA's New Source Review (NSR) pre-construction permitting program. 26 Under one part of that program, USEPA uses pollutant-specific emission rates (called Significant Emissions Rates) to determine whether a permit applicant is required to conduct an ambient air quality analysis for each pollutant. 27 If so, USEPA then uses concentration levels known as SILs to help determine whether an individual source will cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS and the level of analysis necessary to make that determination. 26 The NSR pre-construction permitting program is mainly composed of two parts: The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in attainment areas and the New Source Review Program for non-attainment areas. The PSD program applies to any “major emitting facility,” including any OCS source, that commences construction or undertakes a major “modification” in an attainment area (CAA sections 165(a) and 169(2)(C)). A “major emitting facility” or “major source” is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit (PTE) any air pollutant in the amount of at least 100 or 250 tpy, depending on the source category and irrespective of the facility's location. A major “modification” is any physical or operational change to a stationary source that would result in both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of one or more regulated NSR pollutants. A new major source or major modification must apply BACT, which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the control and energy and environmental impacts (40 CFR 52.21(b)(12) and (j)). 27 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23); 40 CFR 52.21(m)(1)(i). BOEM uses emission exemption thresholds to determine whether the lessee's plan emissions would potentially impact the air quality of the State. When the thresholds are not exceeded, those emissions are presumed to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS. The USEPA uses applicability thresholds to determine if a source is subject to the requirements of the respective parts of the NSR permitting program and then applies screening criteria like the SILs 28 to determine whether emissions per pollutant require further regulatory review. 28 The SILs are benchmarks used by the USEPA to determine whether some area may potentially be significantly affected by the emissions generated from a proposed new stationary source of emissions. The SILs are used as a screening tool to determine what additional steps, if any, may be required before a stationary source can be approved. Given BOEM's distinct mandate to focus on State impacts from OCS activities, BOEM currently uses a formula that accounts for the distance of the facility from the shoreline. Specifically, the determination as to whether a facility could significantly affect onshore air quality under BOEM's AQRP is based on a formula that considers both the amount of air pollutant emitted and the distance of the proposed facility from the shoreline. 29 Because BOEM's determination of what constitutes potentially significant emissions varies depending on a proposed facility's distance from shore, BOEM uses distance as a variable in its formula to determine the relevant EET. If a proposed plan would cause emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants in excess of the EET, the proposed plan is required to include a detailed air quality analysis. If a proposed plan would not cause emissions of criteria or precursor air pollutants in excess of the EET, the plan is not required to include a detailed air quality analysis. BOEM refers to plans that are not required to include a detailed air quality analysis as “exempt.” 29 This differs from the way in which the USEPA determines which facilities are subject to the NSR preconstruction permitting program. As explained in the previous footnote, the USEPA makes this determination based on whether the emissions of a new source or modification to an existing source are higher than a certain amount of tons of air pollution per year or whether the modification would result in both a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase of one or more regulated NSR pollutants irrespective of the facility's or facilities' location. 2. Exemption Threshold Analysis The first step in the approach of both the current regulations and the proposed rule is the exemption threshold analysis discussed above. BOEM determines, based on the information provided by the lessee or operator, whether or not any given plan (EP, DPP or DOCD) will generate emissions above a defined exemption threshold. If so, further analysis is required. If not, the impact to the air quality of the State is presumed to be de minimis and no further action is required. BOEM currently has only one set of exemption thresholds, which are, under the existing regulations, applied identically in the Central and Western GOM OCS Regions and offshore of the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. BOEM is now in the process of conducting scientific studies to re-evaluate the exemption thresholds formulas, for both the GOM and Alaska OCS Regions to tailor those thresholds to the relevant environmental characteristics of each region and to take into consideration USEPA standards applied to various time periods, whether annual or shorter intervals. These BOEM studies will evaluate and, if necessary, provide the basis for updating the current exemption threshold equations and consider whether recent advances in the field of computer simulation modeling and the availability of comprehensive meteorological datasets unique to each region may be applied to improve the exemption threshold equations by applying the updated underlying data. The studies will use computer-simulated air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling to provide the information necessary to evaluate the current threshold equations ( i.e., for the EETs) and, if necessary, establish a basis for developing a new method. All modeling conducted for the studies will be consistent with the USEPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 appendix W). The GOM and Alaska OCS studies are designed to fulfill the following objectives: • Prepare onshore and offshore emissions inventories for use in computer simulation air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling, based on the multi-sale 2017-2022 scenario emissions for both OCS Regions; • Evaluate current meteorological data and develop new data, as necessary, for input into air quality models; • Conduct air quality dispersion and photochemical modeling to discern the collective effect of onshore and offshore emissions on the onshore area of adjacent States; • Investigate the current exemption threshold formulas for evidence the rates are protective of the annual and short-term (24-hours or less) AAQSB using dispersion and photochemical air quality modeling and, if necessary, develop a new method; • Conduct visibility analyses for the GOM Region Class I areas: Breton Wilderness; Saint Marks Wilderness; Chassahowitzka Wilderness; and Bradwell Bay; and, • Perform a 40 CFR part 51 appendix W section 3.2.2 “Equivalency Demonstration” for modeling purposes in the GOM region. Such an “Equivalency Demonstration” would involve determining the most appropriate model for the exemption thresholds, taking into account the USEPA list of preferred models and the relevant criteria for evaluating alternatives. As discussed above, BOEM is considering establishing two or more sets of EETs ( i.e., per pollutant, averaging time, and location), at least one for the GOM OCS Region and at least one for the area offshore of the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska. For this reason, BOEM would like comments on the appropriateness of potentially distinct emissions thresholds or threshold formulas for these two areas, and/or how these thresholds should be structured. The USEPA recently established new one-hour NAAQS for NO 2 , and SO 2, as well as changes to the 8-hour O 3 and annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, and also given that the USEPA has recommended an interim SIL for one-hour NO 2 at 8μg/m 3 30 and an interim SIL for one-hour SO 2 at 3 parts per billion, 31 but has not proposed to add these SILs (or any SILs for PM 2.5 or ozone) to 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), comments are solicited on how these new ambient standards and SILs that have the status of only being USEPA recommendations should be implemented in the context of the new studies, for the purpose of updating the new EETs that result. 30 Available at: http://www3.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20100629no2guidance.pdf . 31 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/appwso2.pdf . Until such time as new EETs are established, the existing exemption thresholds will continue to apply identically in both regions. 3. Modeling Analysis In the event the exemption threshold analysis indicates that one or more criteria or major precursor pollutants would exceed an applicable threshold, the plan submitter must proceed to the second step in the BOEM AQRP, which is the modeling analysis. The purpose of the modeling analysis is to help BOEM determine, based on the information provided by the lessee or operator, whether or not the proposed operations that generate emissions above an exemption threshold would cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 32 BOEM's AQRP currently models the onshore concentrations created by the relevant criteria or precursor pollutants emitted offshore. Under existing regulations, plans that would result in operations or uses that generate ambient concentrations above these Significance Levels as modeled onshore are subject to further review and analysis. BOEM's Significance Levels are listed in its regulations at 30 CFR 550.303(e). 32 Under this proposed rule, the modeling analysis would also be used in certain cases to determine whether an exceedance of the AAIs has occurred; this is not listed separately, since the purpose of the AAI analysis is to protect an attainment area from potentially exceeding the NAAQS. These Significance Levels in BOEM's existing regulations are based on USEPA's SILs (as they existed approximately 35 years ago), which are ambient concentration levels used by the USEPA to determine whether the ambient air concentration of any given air pollutant could cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS at a given location. Under USEPA's historical practice in the PSD program, if the ambient air impacts of each criteria air pollutant are below the applicable SILs for all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are considered to have an impact that is de minimis and, therefore, not significant. BOEM's regulations utilize the USEPA's SILs to determine whether emissions of any given pollutant that originates offshore could have a potentially significant effect onshore. The USEPA SILs are expressed in terms of pollutant concentrations averaged over a specific period of time ( i.e., averaging time), for example on an annual basis. There are also SILs designed to evaluate peak emissions of air pollutants over shorter time intervals, which include the 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging times. By incorporating the relevant USEPA values listed in a table in an USEPA regulation, BOEM would automatically apply these timing intervals or averaging times, as well for those pollutants and averaging times that are reflected in USEPA regulations. Under BOEM's existing regulations, in order to evaluate the potential onshore effects of offshore emissions, the models project the ambient concentration of any given air pollutant at various measurement points onshore, which are referred to as receptor locations. If any projected concentration of a given air pollutant does not exceed BOEM's applicable Significance Level(s) at all receptor locations onshore for all relevant averaging times, then the incremental emissions are presumed de minimis, and no further analysis is required of emissions of that pollutant under the BOEM AQRP. In other cases, additional modeling and/or the application of relevant emissions reductions measures will generally be required. At the time the current BOEM regulations were promulgated, there were no USEPA-approved modeling approaches to quantify the impacts of single sources of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions on ambient O 3 levels. For this reason, the current rule does not require modeling of VOCs and there is nothing analogous to a SIL to indicate ambient impact of VOCs. Instead of evaluating VOC emissions against a SIL, VOCs are evaluated only against an exemption threshold. CPs and the reductions in their emissions that may be required under the current regulations are determined based on several different levels that can vary with the location of the facility, the attainment status of the areas it affects, and whether the facility is long- or short-term. In contrast, in those situations where the emissions of VOCs exceed the relevant emission exemption threshold, BOEM's regulations instead require a reduction in the emissions of VOCs 33 Based on the analysis done at the time, BOEM concluded that this reduction should have been sufficient to address the potential impact of VOCs on the formation of O 3 . 34 33 When VOC emissions exceed the EET for a short-term facility or a long-term facility affecting only an attainment area, the lessee or operator must apply ERM to reduce VOC emissions to the greatest extent possible. For a long-term facility affecting a non-attainment area, the lessee or operator must apply ERM to reduce VOC emissions so that the EET is not exceeded. 34 Results of the ongoing studies in the GOM and Alaska will provide an updated method for evaluating VOC contributions to ambient ozone concentrations in the future. 4. Controls for Short-Term Facilities If it is determined through modeling that the planned operations will generate an onshore concentration of one or more air pollutants in excess of the SILs, various further analyses must be done in order to determine what controls must be applied. Under the current AQRP, if a facility is projected to cause ambient concentrations of air pollution above acceptable levels ( i.e., the SILs), the lessee or operator of that facility must propose the application of BACT 35 in connection with post-control modeling, to demonstrate the AAQSB will likely be met. The requirements applicable to making this determination vary depending on the amount of time that the facility described in the proposed plan is anticipated to be present at any given location. The current regulations make a distinction between temporary and permanent facilities. Under the proposed rule, the phrase “short-term facility” is used instead of the phrase “temporary facility.” In both cases, these terms refer to a facility that is located in one place for less than three years. 35 In this proposed rule, references to BACT are intended to refer to BOEM's current or proposed requirements, unless the USEPA's definition is specifically referenced. Under the USEPA regulations, most types of ERM could qualify as BACT, whereas BOEM's definition is substantially limited to physical or mechanical controls. Under the proposed rule, if the projected concentration increase due to emissions from the proposed short-term facility exceeds the SILs but such exceedance only affects attainment areas, the lessee or operator would be required to determine the maximum amount of emissions reductions that it can achieve with operational controls and/or equipment replacements that are technically and economically feasible. This would represent a level of emissions reductions that achieves the maximum efficiency of their operations with respect to emissions reduction. At that point, the lessee or operator could decide whether to apply those operational controls and/or equipment replacements, or to instead obtain emissions credits. If it is determined that there are no operational controls and/or equipment replacements that are technically and economically feasible, and the emissions from the proposed facility would affect only attainment areas, then no ERM would be required. In BOEM's proposed rule, a maintenance area is treated as an attainment area; thus, the same requirements would apply. If the projected emissions for the proposed short-term facility exceed the SILs and such exceedance would affect a designated non-attainment area, the lessee or operator would not only be required to conduct an ERM analysis, but might also be required by the Regional Supervisor to apply additional types of ERM (beyond that which was proposed in the original plan). Under the proposed rule, described in more detail in the section-by-section analysis for section 550.306, a process has been outlined to facilitate the determination of the most appropriate ERM, of which BACT is one option. If the lessee or operator proposes to use BACT, the lessee or operator would be required to provide a description of the associated energy, environmental and economic impacts, 36 and other costs. 36 The description of the associated energy, environmental and economic impacts is not required in the case of non-BACT ERM. In the case of a short-term facility, the application of ERM would generally be sufficient for BOEM to conclude, without further analysis, that the facility does not cause a significant effect on the air quality of a State. As explained in the next Section, this presumption would not apply in the case of a long-term facility. Although BOEM would set the air emissions limits in connection with its approval of the plan, BSEE would be responsible for ensuring that any required ERM, including BACT, are actually applied in compliance with the plan requirements. 5. Controls for Long-Term Facilities If emissions from a long-term facility generate onshore concentrations of air pollutants in excess of the SILs, under the current regulations, the lessee or operator must apply BACT. If only an attainment area is affected, the proposed BACT must result in the plan or facility meeting the Maximum Allowable Concentration Increases (MACIs), which are set out in a table in BOEM's regulations. The MACIs are based on the USEPA's AAIs, and are designed to prevent the air quality in clean areas from deteriorating to an unacceptable level as set by the NAAQS. The NAAQS represent a maximum allowable concentration “ceiling” for each air pollutant and averaging time that does not vary geographically. A MACI, on the other hand, represents the maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a baseline concentration for any given pollutant. Baseline concentrations vary geographically. When the MACI 37 is added to the baseline concentration, the result is a new “ceiling” specific to that area. A significant deterioration in the air quality is said to occur when the concentration of a pollutant would exceed the applicable MACI added to the baseline concentration in that area. BOEM and its predecessors have taken the position that the exceedance of a MACI constitutes a significant deterioration in air quality that “significantly affect[s] the air quality of any State.” Moreover, the MACIs are designed to ensure that attainment areas do not fall out of attainment, and so they are appropriate increments to “ensure compliance with the [NAAQS].” Thus an activity that has the potential to cause an exceedance of the MACIs should not be approved under BOEM's current regulations. 37 Under BOEM's current regulations, the term MACI is used. This proposed rule would eliminate that term and use the term AAI exclusively. These MACIs, and the AAIs on which they were based, vary depending on whether any given location is defined as a Class I, a Class II or Class III location (described below in the discussion of the definitions of those terms) and the relevant timeframes of exposure ( i.e., averaging times). Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in an attainment area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to generate concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an ERM analysis, excluding BACT, to determine the most effective and technically and economically feasible approach for reducing the projected emissions from its facility. If the projected concentration increase due to emissions from the proposed facility exceed the SILs but do not exceed the AAIs, the proposed plan could be approved without the lessee or operator having to bring the concentration increase due to the emissions from its operations below the SILs. If the projected emissions exceed the AAIs after the application of ERM, the lessee or operator would be required to use additional ERM until it could demonstrate its emissions no longer resulted in such an exceedance. Under the proposed rule, with respect to impacts in a non-attainment area, if emissions from a long-term facility were to generate concentrations of air pollutants landward of the SSB in excess of the SILs, the lessee or operator would be required to undertake an ERM analysis, including BACT, to determine the most environmentally effective of the technically and economically feasible approaches for reducing the projected emissions from its facility. If the projected concentration increase—due to emissions from the proposed facility—continue to exceed the SILs after the application of ERM, the proposed plan could not be approved without the lessee or operator having to bring the concentration increase due to emissions from its operations below the SILs. Regardless of whether the projected emissions would affect a designated non-attainment or attainment area, the lessee or operator would be free to propose emissions credits in lieu of any other ERM to accomplish this objective. The proposed rule retains a requirement in the current regulations (in 30 CFR 550.303(g)(2)(i)(B)) that no plan can be approved if that plan would result in the generation of emissions sufficient to cause an area of a State to switch from attainment to a non-attainment status. For that reason, any long-term facility that demonstrates projected emissions in excess of the SILs would be required to demonstrate that those emissions do not cause the exceedance of any NAAQS in an attainment area. 6. Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources As part of the 1977 amendments to the CAA (Pub. L. 95-95; 91 Stat. 685), Congress mandated that the country be divided into various areas based on their sensitivity to potential problems associated with poor air quality. These amendments establish Class I, II, and III areas. The restriction on emissions are most strict in Class I areas and are progressively more lenient in Class II and III areas. In addition to the three classifications mentioned in the statute, the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 38 have established a fourth classification which they title “sensitive Class II areas.” Sensitive Class II areas represent an intermediate classification intended to designate special areas, such as national monuments and national refuges that, while not subject to the same level of controls as Class I areas, require special protections above those normally afforded to typical Class II areas. 38 The Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) was formed to develop a more consistent approach for the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to evaluate air pollution effects on their resources. Of particular importance is the New Source Review (NSR) program, especially in the review of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality permit applications. For a facility located in or near a Class I area, the PSD permitting program uses AQRVs when evaluating the potential impact of a proposed source or modification on resources which are sensitive to air quality. Thus, parts of the country are designated as Class I or sensitive Class II areas to indicate that they have been identified for special protections. National parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value are generally designated as Class I 39 or as sensitive Class II areas. FLMs, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, and DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manage these areas. Together, these FLMs have the affirmative responsibility to protect the unique attributes and air quality of Class I and sensitive Class II areas. BOEM has not proposed and does not intend to evaluate air quality impacts in non-sensitive Class II or Class III areas other than by applying the typical AQRP requirements. 39 Several tribes have also requested USEPA to redesignate their lands from Class II to Class I to provide additional air quality protection. These are the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, the Flathead Indian Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, the Spokane Indian Reservation and the Forest County Potawatomi Community Reservation. See 40 CFR 52.1382(c), 52.2497(c) and 52.2581(f). Under the CAA, FLMs are charged with reviewing available information about proposed facilities in order to determine their potential air quality impacts on Class I areas. FLMs have established Air Quality Related Values (AQRV), which represent resources which are sensitive to air quality and include a wide array of vegetation, soils, water, fish and wildlife, and visibility. The goal of the FLMs is to ensure that pollution levels stay below the critical loads ( i.e., below which they have determined there would be no adverse impact to a Class I area). These AQRVs include values designed to protect visibility, odor, flora, fauna, and geological, archeological, historical, and cultural resources, as well as soil and water resources. The AQRVs for various Class I areas differ depending on the purpose and characteristics of a particular area and the assessment by an area's FLM. The FLMs determine the requirements for compliance with each AQRV. 40 40 See http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf . FLMs evaluate plans submitted to BOEM to determine whether there would be any potential adverse impact to a Class I or sensitive Class II area and to recommend controls, as appropriate, if there are potentially adverse impacts. In order to complement this process, BOEM's AQRP requires any proposed long-term facility whose emissions cause an exceedance of the SILs to meet the standards for the MACIs that correspond to the Class designation of the areas onshore of the proposed operations. 7. Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Evaluation Once BOEM determines the MACIs or the SILs would not be exceeded, BOEM must make a further determination that the NAAQS would also not be exceeded in any attainment area. There are two types of NAAQS, primary and secondary. Primary NAAQS are intended to protect public health, including the health of sensitive subpopulations with a requisite margin of safety, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare ( e.g., effects on crop yields) from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of the specified pollutants in ambient air. These standards are composed of four elements: Indicator; averaging time; statistical form; and level. Under both BOEM's current regulations and its proposed rule, for any pollutant for which there is more than one standard, plans must comply with whichever NAAQS standard is strictest in terms of the ERMs needed for the facility. Generally, according to both BOEM and USEPA regulations, no project can be approved if it would result in design concentrations for any given air pollutant in excess of the level for either the primary or secondary NAAQS for that pollutant in an attainment area. The NAAQS, codified at 40 CFR part 50, identify the maximum allowable concentrations, or “ceilings,” and forms, for each of the various CPs at any given location. Under its current regulations, BOEM will not approve a plan that it determines would cause the ambient air quality either at the shoreline or farther onshore to deteriorate significantly beyond the air quality specified by the applicable NAAQS for any given air pollutant, regardless of whether the change would comply with the other relevant SIL(s) or AAI(s) for that same pollutant. 41 Because the NAAQS represent the amount of an air pollutant that is allowable at any given location, evaluating the emissions of the pollutant to determine the potential for an exceedance requires information on existing concentrations of the pollutant at the location, i.e., the background concentration. The sum of the background concentration of the pollutant plus the incremental concentration of that same pollutant caused by the projected emissions for the relevant averaging time and statistical form is referred to as the design concentration of that pollutant. BOEM compares the design concentration with the NAAQS to determine if there is likely to be an exceedance. 41 There could be an exception in a case where offsets are used in lieu of another ERM. In the proposed rule, the emissions credits must affect the same Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as the facility's projected emissions. Because the boundaries of the AQCR may not be the same as the boundaries of the non-attainment areas (because non-attainment areas are typically much smaller), and because the proposed rule would commit BOEM to always allowing offsets provided they are in the same AQCR, the effects of the facility's pollution and the offsets may occur in different areas. Thus, it is possible that the non-attainment area may remain unaffected even after the relevant ERM have been applied. Since the offset is the same magnitude as the required reduction, the statement would be accurate on an aggregate basis, regardless of the attainment/non-attainment areas to which the offset would apply. 8. Intersection With the National Environmental Policy Act Under current BOEM regulations, while the AQRP is focused on the extent to which projected air emissions generated offshore could significantly impact the air quality onshore, BOEM also considers air quality impacts related to lease and plan approval as part of its analyses conducted pursuant to NEPA. BOEM considers potential impacts from air emissions individually and collectively, including potential air quality impacts offshore and onshore that would be caused by proposed oil and gas exploration and development activities. Because of BOEM's staged decision-making with respect to activities conducted under an OCS lease, NEPA reviews involve multiple analyses and occur at several time points in the OCS lease and development process. In order to comply with the applicable requirements of NEPA, BOEM evaluates the likely cumulative impacts of OCS development during its Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the associated Five-Year Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. BOEM conducts an additional analysis of such prospective impacts at the time it prepares a multi-sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a NEPA analysis on an individual lease sale. BOEM conducts an even more detailed air quality analysis at the time the lessee or operator submits the EP, or RUE or ROW application, lease-term pipeline application, and again when the lessee or operator submits a DPP or DOCD. At these two later stages, BOEM conducts the AQRP in order to ensure the lessee's or operator's implementation proposals comply with the applicable requirements of OCSLA and the corresponding BOEM regulations. 9. Additional Environmental Review BOEM conducts analyses of the potential impact of OCS development on the conservation of the natural resources of the OCS and overlying waters (including the fish, marine mammals, plants, corals, etc.) to ensure the prevention of waste; to evaluate those circumstances that could result in environmental and other hazards; and to conserve and protect the associated mineral, economic, and environmental resources in and over the OCS, in accordance with OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1334(a), 1340(c), and 1351. Current BOEM regulations also specify each Regional Supervisor should evaluate every plan and make a determination that the proposed activities will not cause serious harm or damage to the marine, coastal, or human environment ( e.g., 30 CFR 550.202). E. Conclusion BOEM's AQRP is intended to protect the air quality of the States and to achieve the following objectives with regard to OCS exploration and development: (1) To protect public health from adverse effects; (2) to protect public welfare, including the economies of the States, by preventing a deterioration in the air quality of the environment ( e.g., to protect crops, forests, and wildlife); (3) to prevent the formation of new designated non-attainment areas; and (4) to preserve and enhance the air quality in national parks and other areas of special natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value. BOEM continues to maintain these same goals and objectives as it proposes to amend the regulations to more effectively meet these goals and objectives. In most cases, these objectives are similar to those of corresponding analysis and permit review processes of the States, working in conjunction with the USEPA. In addition to BOEM's AQRP, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) has an enforcement program designed to ensure lessees and operators comply with BOEM's air quality regulations and that such lessees and operators do not emit air pollutants that exceed the terms of their approved plans or RUE or pipeline ROW applications. BOEM provides plan information to BSEE on a regular basis, and BSEE uses this information to evaluate applications for permits to drill. BSEE also monitors lessee or operator operations on an ongoing basis, as one component of its inspections process. IV. Summary of Key Changes A. Air Pollution Emissions Standards The current rule has AAQSB relevant to CO, SO 2 , NO X , total suspended particulates (TSPs) and VOCs. The proposed rule would broaden the scope of BOEM's AQRP to cover all the NAAQS criteria pollutants and the major precursor pollutants, as required by OCSLA. Under the proposed rule, carbon monoxide and VOCs would be subject to substantially the same requirements as under the current regulations. The review of SO 2 would be expanded to also include an evaluation of other sulphur oxides (SO X ). Total suspended particulates would be replaced as an indicator pollutant with a new indicator pollutant titled PM 10 . New regulatory requirements would be added for O 3 , Pb, PM 2.5, and NH 3 , none of which have specific emissions limits in the current regulations. In addition, the requirements for hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S), a minor precursor to SO 2 , would be refined. The proposed rule defines BOEM's list of criteria and precursor pollutants by reference to the relevant tables in the USEPA's regulations, thereby ensuring that any changes or additions promulgated by the USEPA would be automatically accounted for in the BOEM regulations. In addition to accounting for all of the criteria and major precursor pollutants, as required by OCSLA, the proposed rule would result in enhanced collection, evaluation, and consideration of data on such pollutants over a greater variety of time intervals ( i.e., averaging times), because BOEM would evaluate air pollutant emissions in terms of the effects, not only on annual pollution levels, but also on pollution levels for the other averaging times the USEPA uses in evaluating SILs, AAIs (MACIs) and NAAQS for CPs, including 1-hour, 3-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour averaging times. The differing averaging times were established in recognition that higher short-term concentrations of a pollutant can have adverse effects even when the long-term average concentration of the same pollutant falls within relevant annual standards. The proposed rule would better align and coordinate the information gathering and data analysis requirements in BOEM's regulations with similar requirements used by the USEPA and reflected in USEPA requirements and tables. Specifically, under the proposed rule, BOEM would require the use of the USEPA's tables for SILs, AAIs and NAAQS in any circumstance where modeling is required. Thus, any changes to any applicable USEPA AAQSB would automatically be cross-referenced by BOEM regulations and would not require that BOEM amend or update its regulations. Under the proposed regulations, certain provisions within BOEM's rules would be updated automatically whenever the USEPA makes corresponding changes in: • The SILs, also known as significant impact levels or significance levels, with the associated averaging times, as defined in 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2); • The AAIs ( i.e., concentration levels of ambient pollutants and associated statistical form), as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(c); • The primary or secondary NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR part 50; • The identification of criteria and major precursor air pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.15(a); • The list of approved air quality models, as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W; • USEPA air quality modeling requirements and methodologies, as defined in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W; • Emissions factors, based on models defined by the USEPA or the FAA, to determine emissions levels for tier- and non-tier-compliant marine and non-road engines and aircraft; • Reporting timeframes associated with the NEI; and • Significant emissions rates (SERs) for criteria and major precursor pollutants, as defined in 40 CFR 51.21(b)(23)(i). Under the proposed rule, certain provisions in BOEM's rule would also be updated automatically whenever the USEPA changes 40 CFR 1043.100 to reflect emissions standards and other requirements applicable to marine engines under Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as the protocol is defined in 33 U.S.C. 1901), as implemented in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901-1915). This protocol is commonly referred to as “MARPOL.” The MARPOL standards are part of the federal coordinated strategy to address emissions from vessels adopted by the USEPA which consists of (1) the CAA engine standards and fuel limits for U.S. vessels contained in 40 CFR 80 and 40 CFR 1042; (2) the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea Emission Control Areas designed by amendment to the MARPOL protocol; and (3) the MARPOL engine emission and fuel sulphur limits that apply to all vessels regardless of flag (see 75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010). BOEM proposes that foreign vessels be allowed to use the MARPOL standards as emission factors for the purposes of the program, if there are no preferred, more accurate alternatives, with certain adjustments. 42 In addition, as the following are modified by the USEPA, BOEM's standards for review of plans and requirements would change correspondingly: 42 Such adjustment would be done in order to take appropriate account the deterioration in performance, based on the age of the equipment and the potential variation of the actual emissions from the standard to account for the maximum potential emissions that the emissions source may emit (as described in section 550.205(b)(2)(vii) of the proposed rule text). • The attainment or designated non-attainment status of State lands potentially impacted by emissions from OCS activities, as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart C; and • The Class designation of federal, State or tribal lands or waters on or potentially impacted by emissions from OCS activities, as defined in 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. B. Attributed Emissions Historically, BOEM has considered two primary sources of emissions in connection with its regulation of OCS air emissions—stationary sources, and non-stationary sources, such as support vessels, over-the-ice vehicles and aircraft. The proposed rule would change the manner in which lessees and operators must consider and model emissions from support vessels and other non-stationary sources. The changes would mean that plans will more accurately reflect how emissions may affect the air quality of States, given improvements in modeling capabilities. 1. Emissions From Stationary Sources BOEM proposes relatively few changes to what constitutes the kinds of stationary sources of air emissions subject to review and/or regulation. In accordance with OCSLA, all offshore facilities constructed or operating on the OCS must be covered by an approved plan that BOEM has evaluated for compliance with relevant emissions standards. While the proposed rule would retain this basic principle, the proposed rule would expand the definition of facility to address the greater variety of facilities now being constructed. Accordingly, the proposed rule would replace any existing reference to a “drilling unit” with a reference to the broader term “facility” and would clarify that air quality and air emissions information and analysis must be provided with respect to any facility that is proposed to be located on the OCS. Further details concerning the definition of the term facility are provided in the section-by-section analysis of the new or updated definitions listed in section 550.302. The proposed rule would make clear that emissions from decommissioning activities would be included in a facility's projected emissions. This proposed rule does not specify air quality review requirements associated with the decommissioning or removal of structures on the OCS. BOEM is soliciting information on the most appropriate method for establishing and reporting air quality requirements associated with decommissioning and structure removal activities in the context of the AQRP. This includes a request for information and comment on when and how BOEM should receive air quality emission data and information associated with decommissioning and structure removal and how an assessment of feasible ERM should be applied. One approach on which BOEM solicits comment would be whether it should provide for only the collection of emissions data associated with decommissioning activities for some period of time, followed by a second phase in which BOEM could utilize the data that was previously collected to craft an approach tailored to this unique type of activity. 2. Emissions From Mobile Support Craft (MSC) In the proposed rule, BOEM would continue to require the collection and evaluation of emissions data related to offshore supply vessels (OSVs) and other support vessels and vehicles (collectively, mobile support craft (MSCs)) for two primary reasons. First, the data remain necessary to accurately model the impact of any given exploration or development project to determine whether the air emissions are likely to exceed the emissions thresholds, and, therefore, to determine whether the air emissions are potentially significant. Second, this proposed rule would allow BOEM to use the data to determine whether emissions associated with a project covered by a plan are at a level such that the planned operations could cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in a State. BOEM's statutory responsibility to regulate “for compliance with the [NAAQS], to the extent that activities authorized under this subchapter significantly affect the air quality of any State,” authorizes BOEM to take into account sources of emissions directly related to OCS operations that have the potential to significantly affect a State's air quality. 43 A portion of the emissions associated with exploration and development of OCS oil and gas come from the MSCs providing support to OCS operations. While MSC operations do not require direct BOEM authorization, their activities and the associated emissions are undertaken pursuant to contracts and orders from lessees and operators engaging in oil and gas exploration and development, which require BOEM's approval of a plan. Without an accounting of these emissions in the plan, BOEM would not know whether emissions that will stem from its approval would have the potential to significantly affect the air quality of any State. Accordingly, BOEM is not proposing to regulate MSC sources directly, but it would continue its current practice of attributing MSC emissions to the approved facilities that the MSCs support. The most feasible, and perhaps only means, of preventing significant effects on State air quality is to require operators to manage the emissions that are closely associated with its operations. In this rule BOEM is proposing to refine the method for attributing these mobile source emissions to facilities. 43 The conference report accompanying the enactment of section 5(a)(8) of OCSLA explained: The standards of applicability the conferees intended the Secretary to incorporate in such regulations is that when a determination is made that offshore operations may have or are having a significant effect on the air quality of an adjacent onshore area, and may prevent or are preventing the attainment or maintenance of the AAQSs of such area, regulations are to be promulgated to assure that offshore operations conducted pursuant to this act do not prevent the attainment or maintenance of those standards. The terms “may have” and “may prevent” refer to the Secretarial judgment regarding future consideration of exploration plans, or development and production plans, in which the potential for “significant effect” is analyzed prior to approval and thus commencement of the proposed activities. See, H.R. Rep. No. 95-1474, at 85-86 (1978) (Conf. Rep.). Historically, and with cooperation from industry, BOEM followed an approach similar to the USEPA's to account for vessel emissions in the GOM. BOEM's current regulations require that operators report in their plans those emissions from MSCs that occur within 25 miles of a OCS facility. Although the current regulations are not explicit on this point, BOEM's GOM practice has been to add these emissions to the emissions of the facility and compare the total against the exemption thresholds to determine whether modeling and controls are required. 44 BOEM's predecessor agencies chose this approach to be consistent with the approach used by the USEPA. 45 44 The practice has differed in BOEM's Alaska region during those periods in which the Secretary had air quality jurisdiction over the Arctic OCS. For the Arctic, BOEM's practice has been to require reporting of MSC emissions in the plan, but the Alaska region has not made it a practice to combine those emissions with the facility's emissions to compare against the exemption thresholds. 45 See sec. 328 of the CAA, 43 U.S.C. 7627, specifies that “emissions from any vessel servicing or associated with an OCS source, including emissions while at the OCS source or en route to or from the OCS source within 25 miles of the OCS source, shall be considered direct emissions from the OCS source.” OCLSA does not mention emissions from such vessels. However there are a number of reasons that attributing all MSC emissions within a 25-mile radius of the facility may not be the best approach. This method of attributing emissions does not provide the most accurate picture of the effects of BOEM's plan approval on the State's air quality. Historically, the vast majority of new OCS operations were located within 50 miles of the shoreline. Thus, the 25-mile facility radius adequately addressed the impact of vessel air emissions on the air quality of States. For facilities located within 25 miles of the shoreline, 100% of all MSC emissions would have been accounted for by this formula. For facilities located 50 miles from the shoreline, roughly 50% of the total MSC emissions would have been accounted for. For facilities located 100 miles from the shoreline, only 25% of the total MSC emissions would be accounted for and at 200 miles distance, only 12.5% of the emissions would be considered. Also, in terms of the potential impact to a State, the most important MSC emissions generally would be those occurring closest to the State. Therefore, although 25% of MSC emissions for a facility located 100 miles from shore may be accounted for under the 25-mile rule, the 75% of emissions that are not considered would likely have a greater impact. According to the formula used in BOEM's current exemption thresholds, 3,300 tons of emissions 100 miles from shore would have an equivalent effect to 100 tons of emissions of the same pollutant 3 miles from shore. Applying this formula, the 25% of emissions within 25 miles of a facility would account for less than 2% of the impact on State air quality, and the portion of emissions from MSCs that occur while the MSC is closer to the State's boundary would have a proportionally larger effect on the State's air. Historically, facilities in the GOM accounted for the vast majority of the total emissions, with MSC emissions representing only a small share of total emissions. However, in the most recent inventory, BOEM determined that facilities only account for 45% of all OCS emissions associated with oil and gas exploration and production. Also, today, more facilities are being constructed at increasing distances from the shoreline. Today, some are located as far as 200 miles away from shore. Given these shifts, BOEM believes it is no longer appropriate to utilize a blanket 25-mile radius, because that radius does not capture most of the attributed emissions that occur between a port and the facility. Thus, the importance of accurately taking MSC emissions into consideration has grown substantially. BOEM could not ensure that it has avoided permitting uses of the OCS that would adversely affect the State if its evaluation of OCS projects did not take into account the majority of the relevant emissions. Additionally, current BOEM analysis treats all emissions from MSCs as if they originate at the facility itself. Improvements in dispersion modeling technology have made it easier to more accurately project impacts of emissions based on where these emissions actually occur. For this reason, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to aggregate emissions from non-stationary sources at one location for purposes of air quality analysis. Increasingly, lessees and operators are using new types of support vessels, including vessels that operate continuously offshore without having to return to port. When considered along with those support vessels that are unique to the Arctic, either due to its extreme environmental conditions or to the need to make up for the lack of onshore support facilities, it is increasingly evident that the use and types of vessels are substantially different than in the past. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. 112-74), Congress mandated that BOEM regulate air quality impacts from activities on the OCS adjacent to the North Slope Borough of the State of Alaska along with activities on the OCS in the Central and Western GOM. BOEM must now also consider the potential effects caused by air pollution generated by operations unique to the Arctic region, such as ice breakers and other vessels or vehicles that would not normally be necessary or present in the GOM. The relative proportion of attributed emissions to total emissions ( i.e., support vessel emissions relative to facility emissions) is substantially higher in Alaska than in the GOM. This is due to, among several things, the substantial differences in the existing oil and gas infrastructure, the significant variations in climate between the GOM region and Alaska, and the relatively greater need for MSCs (and their higher emissions) to support OCS facilities offshore Alaska. In the Alaska region, a typical ratio of MSC emissions to facility emissions would be in the range of 80% to 20%. Thus, the emissions of ice breakers, oil spill support vessels, trucks that operate over ice and other vessels unique to the Arctic make the need to account for MSC emissions even greater than is the case in the GOM. Furthermore, those MSCs used in Alaska are of a type whereby they can more readily operate outside of a 25-mile radius of the facility. While supply vessels, crew boats and tug boats cannot easily avoid coming into close contact with the facility they support, this is not true of ice breakers or oil spill support vessels. Such vessels can be and often are located just beyond the 25-mile boundary, sometimes closer to shore than the facility itself. Because, in an Arctic context, the MSCs generate far more emissions than the facilities they support, not accounting for their emissions makes it impossible to appropriately avoid authorizing activity causing or contributing to a violation of the NAAQS. BOEM is proposing a more accurate standard, namely that the emissions of MSCs should be accounted for while they are actually operating in support of the facility. As long as an ice breaker is engaged in active operations on behalf of a facility (and, in whose absence, the ice breaker would not be used), its emissions should count towards the total emissions resulting from plan approval. Once the MSC is no longer providing support to a facility, its emissions should not be considered as part of the projected emissions in the plan. In addition to these differences, technological advances with respect to non-stationary source modeling allow more accurate modeling of emissions from non-stationary sources. Unlike the situation in the past, when there was no accurate means to evaluate the emissions of mobile sources in terms of the impact to stationary sources, such modeling can be readily and accurately done today. BOEM believes that it is important to employ the most advanced and scientifically accurate measurements and evaluation techniques of air pollution, in order to most effectively implement its mandate. For all these reasons, BOEM has reevaluated its historical method of accounting for non-stationary source emissions ( i.e., emissions generated from support vessels, vehicles, and aircraft operating on the OCS, or in State waters, that are associated with OCS facilities) and proposes to revise the current practice in both Alaska and the GOM to better address BOEM's mandate. Instead of automatically applying a 25-mile radius, BOEM is proposing to require lessees and operators to report and attribute the MSCs to facilities to which the vessel is actually providing operational support, regardless of its distance from that facility. In the proposed rule, the key is whether an MSC is operating in support of a facility authorized under OCSLA, not how close the MSC it is to that facility. The proposed rule would require all MSCs operating in support of a facility to attribute their emissions to that facility while they provide such support (except in those rare cases where such attribution would be impractical). MSCs that do not provide support to a facility would not be reported, regardless of how close or distant they are. The discussion of proposed § 550.205(d), in the section-by-section description below, sets forth the details of how the proposed rule would require lessees and operators to attribute MSC emissions to a facility, including the allocation of emissions from MSCs servicing multiple facilities (see discussion below). 3. Determination of Attributed Emissions BOEM is proposing to define the term “attributed emissions” to cover non-stationary source emissions associated with a plan, including, “for any given criteria or precursor air pollutant, the emissions from MSCs and aircraft, operating above the OCS or State submerged lands, that are attributed to a facility.” As described in the discussion of proposed § 550.205(d), in section V below, where an MSC described in a plan also supports one or more facilities not described in a plan, the proposed rule would provide several alternatives for determining the emissions from a vessel or vehicle that should be attributed to the particular facility in the plan. A lessee or operator could always choose to attribute all of an MSC's emissions to a facility regardless of how many facilities it supports. The rule, however, would allow a lessee or operator to attribute only that relevant portion of a vessel's emissions to its facility or facilities. The proposed rule would provide a lessee or operator with a process to attribute only a portion of an MSC's emissions to its facility. This procedure is designed to provide the most detailed, accurate information available about the MSC's emissions. BOEM recognizes that any given lessee or operator may not know at the time of plan submittal, or RUE or pipeline ROW application, the extent to which it will rely on MSCs that also support facilities unrelated to those covered by the lessee's or operator's plan. For this reason, the procedure would allow lessees and operators alternative ways of making conservative estimates of the portion of an MSC's emissions that should be attributed to a facility. The intent of these alternatives is to simplify the process for determining the allocation of support vessel emissions in situations where it would otherwise be impracticable to do so. BOEM's proposed approach would reduce the potential for over-counting emissions resulting from plan approval compared with BOEM's current practice. Under BOEM's current practice, one hundred percent of the emissions of an MSC are counted when located within 25 miles of a plan facility, regardless of whether that MSC also supports five, ten, or even 20 unrelated facilities within a 25-mile radius of the facility. Under the proposed rule, emissions would be allocated to the appropriate facility in all cases where it would be practicable to do so, in accordance with proposed § 550.205(d). Only in the rare situation where there would be no reasonable basis to make any more accurate allocation would the 25-mile radius analysis remain as a last resort option. Ultimately, BOEM believes there is no reason to hold an operator responsible for emissions based on an emitting MSC's proximity to a facility, but rather it should be required to manage its operations to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS which result from only those MSCs which actually support its operations. Air emissions of an MSC may often occur close to shore, and therefore would cause a greater impact onshore and/or at the SSB, than a similar amount of emissions from that same MSC which occur in the vicinity of the facility. BOEM is seeking comments on this proposed approach and will consider alternative methods that more accurately attribute emissions from mobile sources to the appropriate facility. 4. Exclusion of Aircraft and Onshore Emissions Sources BOEM also proposes to change its approach to accounting for air pollutant emissions associated with other non-stationary sources. The proposed rule would continue to require lessees or operators to identify all vessels and vehicles supporting a facility and to report their relevant air emissions as part of each plan, as is the case with the current policy. However, BOEM is proposing to change how aircraft and onshore emissions would be addressed. Although lessees or operators would continue to be required to identify the likely types and number of support aircraft they propose to use, no collection of emissions data for those aircraft would generally be required under the proposed rule, except in exceptional circumstances. BOEM is proposing this change because collecting information on emissions from aircraft that support OCS operations in all plans would be unduly burdensome since aircraft emissions are a small fraction of emissions in most plans and their inclusion would likely not cause a facility's projected emissions to exceed the EETs or any AAQSB in a State where it would otherwise not do so. Available data from plans submitted to BOEM and its predecessors indicate that the level of relevant emissions from aircraft is generally an extremely small percentage of the total emissions reported in each plan. Furthermore, there are a large number of aircraft supporting OCS facilities and these aircraft service more facilities and are used for a wider variety of purposes than MSCs, including for purposes other than supporting oil and gas facilities on the OCS. This makes it cumbersome to accurately quantify and attribute (with respect to OCS support functions) their emissions to individual facilities in a plan in many cases. Accordingly, BOEM believes it is not prudent to require all lessees and operators to report aircraft emissions. The proposed rule, however, would require a lessee or operator to submit aircraft emissions information to account for the situati [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-06310. Public record. Not legal advice.