82 FR 16144 - Withdrawal of Proposed Rules: Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations; and Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 62 (April 3, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 62 (April 3, 2017)
| Page Range | 16144-16146 | |
| FR Document | 2017-06518 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 16144-16146] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-06518] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [FRL9961-12-OAR] Withdrawal of Proposed Rules: Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations; and Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rules. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the October 23, 2015 proposals for a federal plan to implement the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission guidelines (EGs) for existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs), for model trading rules for implementation of the EGs, and for amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) 111(d) framework regulations, and the June 30, 2016 proposed rule concerning design details of the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP). DATES: The proposed rule published on October 23, 2015 entitled ``Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations.'' 80 FR 64966, and the proposed rule published on June 30, 2016 entitled ``Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details,'' 81 FR 42940, are withdrawn as of April 3, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (888) 627-7764; email address: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background On October 23, 2015, EPA published final carbon dioxide EGs under CAA 111(d) for existing EGUs, entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units,'' 80 FR 64662 (October 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan or CPP). On the same date, in connection with the CPP, EPA published a proposed rule for a federal plan to implement those guidelines, for model trading rules to aid implementation of the guidelines, and for amendments to [[Page 16145]] the existing framework regulations implementing CAA 111(d) ``Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations.'' 80 FR 64966 (October 23, 2015) (the October 2015 Proposed Rule). Subsequently, on June 30, 2016, EPA published proposed design details of the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), an optional program that States could use to incentivize early emission reduction projects under the CPP. ``Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details,'' 81 FR 42940 (June 30, 2016) (CEIP Proposed Rule). The EPA never finalized the October 2015 Proposed Rule or the CEIP Proposed Rule, and is not doing so today. Instead, it is withdrawing them both. The CPP was promulgated under Section 111 of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7411. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to issue nationally applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limiting air pollution from ``new sources'' in source categories that cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 42 U.S.C. Section 7411(b)(1). Under this authority, the EPA had long regulated new fossil fuel-fired power plants to limit air pollution other than carbon dioxide, including particulate matter (PM); nitrogen oxides (NOX ) and sulfur dioxide (SO2 ). See 40 CFR part 60 subparts D, Da. In 2015, the EPA issued a rule that for the first time set carbon dioxide emissions limits for new fossil fuel-fired power plants. Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (New Source Rule), 80 FR 64510 (October 23, 2015). Under certain circumstances, when the EPA issues standards for new sources under Section 111(b), the EPA has the authority under Section 111(d), to prescribe regulations under which each State is to submit a plan to establish standards for existing sources in the same category. The EPA relied on that authority to issue the CPP, which for the first time required States to submit plans specifically designed to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. Due to concerns about EPA's legal authority and record, 24 States and a number of other parties sought judicial review of the New Source Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. State of North Dakota v. EPA, No. 15-1381 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). Similarly, due to concerns about EPA's legal authority and record, 27 States and a number of other parties sought judicial review of the CPP in the D.C. Circuit. State of West Virginia v. EPA, No. 15- 1363 (and consolidated cases) (D.C. Cir.). On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed implementation of the CPP pending judicial review. Oral argument in the D.C. Circuit in North Dakota is currently scheduled for April 17, 2017. Following full merits briefing, oral argument in West Virginia was held before the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, on September 27, 2016. Both challenges to these rules are pending in the D.C. Circuit. 2. Energy Development Executive Order and Other Related Notices On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order establishing a national policy in favor of energy independence, economic growth, and the rule of law. The purpose of that Executive Order is to facilitate the development of U.S. energy resources and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens associated with the development of those resources. The President has directed agencies to review existing regulations that potentially burden the development of domestic energy resources, and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind regulations that unduly burden the development of U.S. energy resources beyond what is necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law. The Executive Order also directs agencies to take appropriate actions, to the extent permitted by law, to promote clean air and clean water while also respecting the proper roles of Congress and the States. This Executive Order specifically directs EPA to review and, if appropriate, initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the CPP. In EPA's notice announcing the initiation of its review of the CPP, EPA states that, if its review concludes that suspension, revision or rescission of the CPP may be appropriate, EPA's review will be followed by a rulemaking process that will be transparent, follow proper administrative procedures, include appropriate engagement with the public, employ sound science, and be firmly grounded in the law. 3. Why is the EPA withdrawing the October 2015 Proposed Rule and the CEIP Proposed Rule? The Executive Order directs the EPA to review the October 2015 Proposed Rule and, if appropriate, as soon as practicable and consistent with law, consider revising or withdrawing the October 2015 Proposed Rule. In anticipation of the Executive Order, the EPA had already begun a review of both the October 2015 Proposed Rule, and of the CEIP Proposed Rule, which proposes implementation details for a program that is directly connected to the CPP. In light of the policies set forth in the Executive Order and the Agency's concurrent notice initiating a review of the CPP, EPA has decided to withdraw the Proposed Rules, for the reasons discussed below. At this time, the EPA is not under an obligation to finalize these rulemakings, nor is there a time-sensitive need for them given the Supreme Court stay of the CPP. The October 2015 proposal and the CEIP proposal were issued at EPA's discretion to implement the 2015 CPP. First, the proposed model trading rules were designed to provide a sample for States wishing to adopt a trading program to implement the CPP. It was the CPP, however, that was designed to establish the binding requirements for state action, while the purpose of the proposed model rules was to give states examples of how to design an approvable program. While model rules may be helpful, they are not required under the CAA. Second, under the Clean Air Act's principles of cooperative federalism, hopefully a federal plan will never be needed to implement Section 111(d) emission guidelines, and a federal plan certainly is not statutorily required early in the implementation process, when the Agency's focus is to assist States in developing approvable state plans. Finally, the CEIP proposal provides details for a voluntary program that was designed to help States and tribes meet their CPP goals by removing barriers to investment in energy efficiency in low-income communities and encouraging early investments in zero- emitting renewable energy generation. The CEIP is not required by the CAA. Furthermore, because the energy markets continue to change, the appropriateness of the details of the CEIP proposal are dependent on projected market conditions during the time period when it would apply. Changes in CPP compliance dates, including state plan submission dates, would likely necessitate a re-evaluation of the CEIP proposal details. When EPA initially made these proposals, it assumed that States needed immediate guidance to develop state plans because EPA had set state plan submission dates starting in September 2016. EPA also wanted to be prepared to institute a federal plan immediately if a State missed its submission date. Given the Supreme Court's stay of the CPP, however, the CPP compliance [[Page 16146]] dates must be reviewed. Indeed, the first state plan submission date has already passed, and other compliance dates are likely to pass while the Supreme Court stay is pending. Further, under the Supreme Court's stay of the CPP, States and other interested parties have not been required nor expected to work towards meeting the compliance dates set in the CPP. Thus, as the EPA conducts its review of the CPP and decides what further action to take on the EGU emission guidelines, EPA will ensure that any and all remaining compliance dates will be reasonable and appropriate in light of the Supreme Court stay of the CPP and other factors. Further state action will not be required unless and until there is resolution of the pending litigation or the EPA issues new EGU emission guidelines. This gives the EPA time to re-evaluate these CPP- related proposals. The EPA believes it should use this time to re-evaluate these CPP- related proposals and, if appropriate, put out re-proposals or new proposals to ensure that the public is commenting on EPA's most up-to- date thinking on these issues. There are a number of reasons why these proposals may ultimately not reflect the Agency's reasoned policy decisions reflecting both the current state of the energy market and the agency's operative understanding of its statutory authority. First, the Agency has announced that it is reviewing and, as appropriate, may suspend, revise or rescind the CPP. Though our review of the CPP is ongoing and any final decision to suspend, revise or rescind it will be made only after EPA has provided notice and an opportunity for public comment, it is possible that the CPP as promulgated in 2015 will be rescinded and that new emission guidelines, if any, for existing EGUs will be different from the CPP. Because the CPP-related Proposed Rules are designed to provide implementation details related to the specific requirements of the CPP, any changes to the CPP or new emission guidelines would most likely require changes to these CPP-related proposals. Thus, this preliminary action to withdraw these CPP-related proposals will allow EPA to review them in light of its review of the CPP and, if they are still needed, to determine the appropriate next steps for these proposals, which may be to develop new proposals with revisions to ensure they are consistent with and appropriately implement revised emission guidelines, if any. Second, whether or not the EPA makes any changes as a result of its review of the CPP, it is appropriate for the EPA to re-evaluate the proposals in light of the policies set forth in the Executive Order and ensure that what the Agency proposes and seeks public comment on has been developed or reviewed in light of those policies. As a final point, we want to be clear that our withdrawal of these proposals is not based on any final substantive decision that we have made with respect to these proposals. We are withdrawing these proposals for the procedural reasons that we have discussed above to promote the EPA's review of the CPP and future rulemaking process, and ensure that interested parties have a full opportunity to comment on proposals that reflect the Agency's most up-to-date and relevant thinking. Thus, for the reasons stated above, EPA concludes that, at this time, it is appropriate to withdraw the October 2015 Proposed Rule and the CEIP Proposed Rule. The EPA intends to review these proposals in conjunction with its comprehensive review of the CPP. Based on that review, the Agency will determine how best to proceed, which may include the development of new proposals consistent with the requirements of CAA Section 307(d). 4. Statutory Authority Pursuant to CAA Section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator is determining that this withdrawal is subject to the provisions of CAA Section 307(d). The statutory authority for this notice is provided by Sections 111, 301 and 307(d) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 and 7607(d)). 5. Impact Analysis Because the EPA is not promulgating any regulatory requirements, there are no compliance costs or impacts associated with today's final action. 6. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Today's action does not establish new regulatory requirements. Hence, the requirements of other regulatory statutes and Executive Orders that generally apply to rulemakings (e.g., the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not apply to this action. Dated: March 28, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017-06518 Filed 3-31-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![16144 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
We accept anonymous comments. All associated with the lava flow at the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
comments received will be posted Kamokuna lava delta. AGENCY
without change to http:// (b) Enforcement period. The COTP
www.regulations.gov and will include 40 CFR Part 60
Honolulu will establish the enforcement
any personal information you have dates that will be announced with a [FRL9961–12–OAR]
provided. For more about privacy and
notice of enforcement of regulations
the docket, you may review a Privacy Withdrawal of Proposed Rules: Federal
published in the Federal Register. The
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Plan Requirements for Greenhouse
Management System in the March 24, enforcement dates will also be
announced with a Broadcast Notice to Gas Emissions From Electric Utility
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 Generating Units Constructed on or
FR 15086). Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and
Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading
Documents mentioned in this NPRM Outreach.
Rules; Amendments to Framework
as being available in the docket, and all (c) Regulations. The general Regulations; and Clean Energy
public comments, will be in our online regulations governing safety zones Incentive Program Design Details
docket at http://www.regulations.gov contained in § 165.23 apply to the safety
and can be viewed by following that zone created by this rule. AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if Agency (EPA).
(1) All persons and vessels are
you go to the online docket and sign up ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rules.
for email alerts, you will be notified required to comply with the general
when comments are posted or a final regulations governing safety zones SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
rule is published. found in this part. Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing
We plan to hold one public meeting (2) Entry into or remaining in this the October 23, 2015 proposals for a
on May 08, 2017 at 5 p.m. at the East safety zone is prohibited unless federal plan to implement the
Hawaii County Building (Hilo) Aupuni authorized by the COTP Honolulu or his greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
Center Conference Room located at 101 designated representative. guidelines (EGs) for existing fossil fuel-
Pauahi St. #7, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. For fired electric generating units (EGUs),
(3) Persons or vessels desiring to for model trading rules for
information on facilities or services for
transit the safety zone identified in implementation of the EGs, and for
individuals with disabilities or to
request special assistance at the public paragraph (a) of this section may contact amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA)
meeting, contact the person named in the COTP of Honolulu through his 111(d) framework regulations, and the
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT designated representatives at the June 30, 2016 proposed rule concerning
section, above. Command Center via telephone: (808) design details of the Clean Energy
842–2600 and (808) 842–2601; fax: (808) Incentive Program (CEIP).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 842–2642; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 DATES: The proposed rule published on
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation Mhz) to request permission to transit the October 23, 2015 entitled ‘‘Federal Plan
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping safety zone. If permission is granted, all Requirements for Greenhouse Gas
requirements, Security measures, persons and vessels must comply with Emissions From Electric Utility
Waterways. the instructions of the COTP Honolulu Generating Units Constructed on or
For the reasons discussed in the or his designated representative and Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to proceed at the minimum speed Rules; Amendments to Framework
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: necessary to maintain a safe course Regulations.’’ 80 FR 64966, and the
while in the safety zone. proposed rule published on June 30,
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 2016 entitled ‘‘Clean Energy Incentive
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS (4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be
assisted in the patrol and enforcement Program Design Details,’’ 81 FR 42940,
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 of the safety zone by Federal, State, and are withdrawn as of April 3, 2017.
continues to read as follows: local agencies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; (d) Notice of enforcement. The COTP Programs Division (D205–01), U.S.
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Honolulu will provide notice of
Department of Homeland Security Delegation Environmental Protection Agency,
enforcement of the safety zone Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
No. 0170.1.
described in this section by verbal radio telephone number: (888) 627–7764;
■ 2. Add § 165.1414 to read as follows: broadcasts and written notice to email address: airaction@epa.gov.
§ 165.1414 Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, mariners. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean Entry on (e) Definitions. As used in this
Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI. 1. Background
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
(a) Location. The safety zone area is means any Coast Guard commissioned, On October 23, 2015, EPA published
located within the COTP Zone (See 33 warrant, or petty officer who has been final carbon dioxide EGs under CAA
CFR 3.70–10) and encompasses one authorized by the COTP to assist in 111(d) for existing EGUs, entitled
primary area from the surface of the enforcing the safety zone described in ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines
water to the ocean floor at the Kilauea for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
paragraph (a) of this section.
active lava flow entry into the Pacific Utility Generating Units,’’ 80 FR 64662
Ocean on the southeast side of the Dated: March 28, 2017. (October 23, 2015) (Clean Power Plan or
Island of Hawaii, HI. The entry point of M.C. Long, CPP). On the same date, in connection
the lava does change based on flow, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the with the CPP, EPA published a
however the safety zone will encompass Port Honolulu. proposed rule for a federal plan to
all waters extending 300 meters (984 [FR Doc. 2017–06474 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am] implement those guidelines, for model
feet) in all directions around the entry BILLING CODE 9110–04–P trading rules to aid implementation of
point of lava flow into the ocean the guidelines, and for amendments to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Mar 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16206/page/1.svg)
![16146 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
dates must be reviewed. Indeed, the first evaluate the proposals in light of the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
state plan submission date has already policies set forth in the Executive Order AGENCY
passed, and other compliance dates are and ensure that what the Agency
likely to pass while the Supreme Court proposes and seeks public comment on 40 CFR Part 68
stay is pending. Further, under the has been developed or reviewed in light [EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9960–44–
Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP, States of those policies. OLEM]
and other interested parties have not
As a final point, we want to be clear RIN 2050–AG91
been required nor expected to work
towards meeting the compliance dates that our withdrawal of these proposals
is not based on any final substantive Accidental Release Prevention
set in the CPP. Thus, as the EPA
decision that we have made with Requirements: Risk Management
conducts its review of the CPP and
respect to these proposals. We are Programs Under the Clean Air Act;
decides what further action to take on
withdrawing these proposals for the Further Delay of Effective Date
the EGU emission guidelines, EPA will
ensure that any and all remaining procedural reasons that we have AGENCY: Environmental Protection
compliance dates will be reasonable and discussed above to promote the EPA’s Agency (EPA).
appropriate in light of the Supreme review of the CPP and future ACTION: Proposed rule.
Court stay of the CPP and other factors. rulemaking process, and ensure that
Further state action will not be required interested parties have a full SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
unless and until there is resolution of opportunity to comment on proposals Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay the
the pending litigation or the EPA issues that reflect the Agency’s most up-to-date effective date of the final rule that
new EGU emission guidelines. This and relevant thinking. Thus, for the amends the Risk Management Program
gives the EPA time to re-evaluate these reasons stated above, EPA concludes regulations under the Clean Air Act
CPP-related proposals. that, at this time, it is appropriate to published in the Federal Register on
The EPA believes it should use this withdraw the October 2015 Proposed January 13, 2017. On March 16, 2017,
time to re-evaluate these CPP-related Rule and the CEIP Proposed Rule. The the EPA published in the Federal
proposals and, if appropriate, put out re- Register a stay and delay of the effective
EPA intends to review these proposals date pending reconsideration to June 19,
proposals or new proposals to ensure in conjunction with its comprehensive
that the public is commenting on EPA’s 2017. The EPA is proposing to further
review of the CPP. Based on that review, delay the effective date to February 19,
most up-to-date thinking on these the Agency will determine how best to
issues. There are a number of reasons 2019. This action would allow the
proceed, which may include the Agency time to consider petitions for
why these proposals may ultimately not
development of new proposals reconsideration of this final rule and
reflect the Agency’s reasoned policy
decisions reflecting both the current consistent with the requirements of take further regulatory action, which
state of the energy market and the CAA Section 307(d). could include proposing and finalizing
agency’s operative understanding of its a rule to revise the Risk Management
4. Statutory Authority
statutory authority. First, the Agency Program amendments.
has announced that it is reviewing and, Pursuant to CAA Section 307(d)(1)(V), DATES:
as appropriate, may suspend, revise or the Administrator is determining that Comments. Written comments must
rescind the CPP. Though our review of this withdrawal is subject to the be received by May 19, 2017.
the CPP is ongoing and any final provisions of CAA Section 307(d). The Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a
decision to suspend, revise or rescind it statutory authority for this notice is public hearing on this proposed rule on
will be made only after EPA has provided by Sections 111, 301 and April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.
provided notice and an opportunity for 307(d) of the CAA as amended (42 ADDRESSES:
public comment, it is possible that the U.S.C. 7411, 7601 and 7607(d)). Comments. Submit your comments,
CPP as promulgated in 2015 will be identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
rescinded and that new emission 5. Impact Analysis OEM–2015–0725, at http://
guidelines, if any, for existing EGUs will www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
Because the EPA is not promulgating
be different from the CPP. Because the instructions for submitting comments.
any regulatory requirements, there are
CPP-related Proposed Rules are Once submitted, comments cannot be
designed to provide implementation no compliance costs or impacts edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
details related to the specific associated with today’s final action. The EPA may publish any comment
requirements of the CPP, any changes to 6. Statutory and Executive Order received to its public docket. Do not
the CPP or new emission guidelines Reviews submit electronically any information
would most likely require changes to you consider to be Confidential
these CPP-related proposals. Thus, this Today’s action does not establish new Business Information (CBI) or other
preliminary action to withdraw these regulatory requirements. Hence, the information whose disclosure is
CPP-related proposals will allow EPA to requirements of other regulatory statutes restricted by statute. Multimedia
review them in light of its review of the and Executive Orders that generally submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
CPP and, if they are still needed, to apply to rulemakings (e.g., the accompanied by a written comment.
determine the appropriate next steps for Unfunded Mandate Reform Act) do not The written comment is considered the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
these proposals, which may be to apply to this action. official comment and should include
develop new proposals with revisions to discussion of all points you wish to
Dated: March 28, 2017.
ensure they are consistent with and make. The EPA will generally not
appropriately implement revised E. Scott Pruitt, consider comments or comment
emission guidelines, if any. Second, Administrator. contents located outside of the primary
whether or not the EPA makes any [FR Doc. 2017–06518 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am] submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
changes as a result of its review of the BILLING CODE 6560–50–P other file sharing system). For
CPP, it is appropriate for the EPA to re- additional submission methods, the full
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:05 Mar 31, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM 03APP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_16206/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2017-04-01 09:36:16
Document Modified: 2017-04-01 09:36:16
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Withdrawal of proposed rules. | |
| Dates | The proposed rule published on October 23, 2015 entitled ``Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations.'' 80 FR 64966, and the proposed rule published on June 30, 2016 entitled ``Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details,'' 81 FR 42940, are withdrawn as of April 3, 2017. | |
| Contact | Mr. Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D205-01), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (888) 627-7764; | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 16144 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR