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, 16144-16146 [2017-06518]
Download as PDF
16144
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
We plan to hold one public meeting
on May 08, 2017 at 5 p.m. at the East
Hawaii County Building (Hilo) Aupuni
Center Conference Room located at 101
Pauahi St. #7, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. For
information on facilities or services for
individuals with disabilities or to
request special assistance at the public
meeting, contact the person named in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, above.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
■
2. Add § 165.1414 to read as follows:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 165.1414 Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean,
Kilauea Lava Flow Ocean Entry on
Southeast Side of Island of Hawaii, HI.
(a) Location. The safety zone area is
located within the COTP Zone (See 33
CFR 3.70–10) and encompasses one
primary area from the surface of the
water to the ocean floor at the Kilauea
active lava flow entry into the Pacific
Ocean on the southeast side of the
Island of Hawaii, HI. The entry point of
the lava does change based on flow,
however the safety zone will encompass
all waters extending 300 meters (984
feet) in all directions around the entry
point of lava flow into the ocean
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
associated with the lava flow at the
Kamokuna lava delta.
(b) Enforcement period. The COTP
Honolulu will establish the enforcement
dates that will be announced with a
notice of enforcement of regulations
published in the Federal Register. The
enforcement dates will also be
announced with a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and
Outreach.
(c) Regulations. The general
regulations governing safety zones
contained in § 165.23 apply to the safety
zone created by this rule.
(1) All persons and vessels are
required to comply with the general
regulations governing safety zones
found in this part.
(2) Entry into or remaining in this
safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the COTP Honolulu or his
designated representative.
(3) Persons or vessels desiring to
transit the safety zone identified in
paragraph (a) of this section may contact
the COTP of Honolulu through his
designated representatives at the
Command Center via telephone: (808)
842–2600 and (808) 842–2601; fax: (808)
842–2642; or on VHF channel 16 (156.8
Mhz) to request permission to transit the
safety zone. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels must comply with
the instructions of the COTP Honolulu
or his designated representative and
proceed at the minimum speed
necessary to maintain a safe course
while in the safety zone.
(4) The U.S. Coast Guard may be
assisted in the patrol and enforcement
of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
(d) Notice of enforcement. The COTP
Honolulu will provide notice of
enforcement of the safety zone
described in this section by verbal radio
broadcasts and written notice to
mariners.
(e) Definitions. As used in this
section, ‘‘designated representative’’
means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to assist in
enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Dated: March 28, 2017.
M.C. Long,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2017–06474 Filed 3–31–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rules.
AGENCY:
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 fuelfired 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: airaction@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
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
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16145
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 lowincome 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
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
16146
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 62 / Monday, April 3, 2017 / Proposed Rules
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 reproposals 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-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Mar 31, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 68
[EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9960–44–
OLEM]
RIN 2050–AG91
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act;
Further Delay of Effective Date
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to delay the
effective date of the final rule that
amends the Risk Management Program
regulations under the Clean Air Act
published in the Federal Register on
January 13, 2017. On March 16, 2017,
the EPA published in the Federal
Register a stay and delay of the effective
date pending reconsideration to June 19,
2017. The EPA is proposing to further
delay the effective date to February 19,
2019. This action would allow the
Agency time to consider petitions for
reconsideration of this final rule and
take further regulatory action, which
could include proposing and finalizing
a rule to revise the Risk Management
Program amendments.
DATES:
Comments. Written comments must
be received by May 19, 2017.
Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a
public hearing on this proposed rule on
April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES:
Comments. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OEM–2015–0725, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03APP1.SGM
03APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 62 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16144-16146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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: airaction@epa.gov.
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