Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Hampshire; Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking To Control Gasoline Fuel Parameters and Remove the Reformulated Gasoline Program From Four Counties in New Hampshire, 47161-47162 [E6-13492]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, we did
not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule
under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of
Homeland Security Management
Directive 5100.1, which guides the
Coast Guard in complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f),
and have concluded that there are no
factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under
section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Special
local regulations issued in conjunction
with a regatta or marine parade permit
are specifically excluded from further
analysis and documentation under that
section.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(h),
of the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule. Comments on this
section will be considered before we
make the final decision on whether to
categorically exclude this rule from
further environmental review.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water),
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE
PARADES
1. The authority citation for part 100
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Aug 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
47161
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
2. Add a temporary § 100.35T–05–078
to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 52
§ 100.35T–05–078 Patapsco River, Inner
Harbor, Baltimore, MD.
(a) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
(1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander
means a commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(2) Official Patrol means any vessel
assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard
ensign.
(3) Participant includes all vessels
participating in the Red Bull Flugtag
Baltimore under the auspices of a
Marine Event Permit issued to the event
sponsor and approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
(4) Regulated area includes the waters
of the Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD,
Inner Harbor within the immediate
vicinity of the southwest corner of the
harbor adjacent to the Maryland Science
Center. The area is bounded on the
south and west by the shoreline
promenade, bounded on the north by a
line drawn along latitude 39°16′58″
North and bounded on the east by a line
drawn along longitude 076°36′36.5″
West. All coordinates reference Datum
NAD 1983.
(b) Special local regulations. (1)
Except for event participants and
persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no
person or vessel may enter or remain in
the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the
regulated area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when
directed to do so by any Official Patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any Official
Patrol.
(iii) When authorized to transit the
regulated area, all vessels shall proceed
at the minimum speed necessary to
maintain a safe course that minimizes
wake near the event area.
(c) Effective period. This section will
be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
on October 21, 2006.
Dated: July 28, 2006.
Larry L. Hereth,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E6–13494 Filed 8–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[EPA–R01–OAR–2004–NH–0001; A–1–FRL–
8210–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Hampshire; Withdrawal of Proposed
Rulemaking To Control Gasoline Fuel
Parameters and Remove the
Reformulated Gasoline Program From
Four Counties in New Hampshire
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In a letter dated May 31, 2006,
the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (DES) requested
withdrawal of their previously
submitted State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision for oxygen flexible
reformulated gasoline (OFRFG). EPA
had proposed to approve this revision
on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), and
received comments from five parties
which outlined concerns. For reasons
outlined below, New Hampshire has
withdrawn this SIP revision request.
Therefore, EPA is also withdrawing its
proposed approval of the SIP revision.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn
as of August 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Judge, EPA New England
(CAQ), 1 Congress Street, suite 1100,
Boston MA 02203; telephone, 617–918–
1045; fax, 617–918–0045;
judge.robert@epa.gov.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2004 (69 FR
4903), EPA proposed approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
(DES) on October 31, 2002 and October
3, 2003, establishing fuel emissions
performance requirements for gasoline
distributed in southern New Hampshire
which includes Hillsborough,
Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford
Counties. Final EPA approval of this SIP
revision would ultimately result in New
Hampshire no longer utilizing Federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) in this area
90 days after the effective date of the
rule. New Hampshire had hoped their
program would result in gasoline with
less methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
being distributed in the State.
On May 31, 2006, DES submitted a
letter by which the State of New
Hampshire withdrew their request to
adopt their own State specific fuel
program (OFRFG), and their request to
opt-out of the Federal reformulated
gasoline program. In this letter, New
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
47162
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 2006 / Proposed Rules
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Hampshire outlined several reasons for
withdrawing this SIP revision request.
They explained that since the time of
their initial SIP submission and EPA’s
subsequent proposed approval in
February 2004, several circumstances
that impact New Hampshire’s choice to
opt-out of RFG and implement their
own State fuel program have changed.
Specifically, they noted that MTBE bans
were implemented in 2004 in
Connecticut and New York areas with
Federal reformulated gasoline without
supply or price disruptions. Informed
by this development, the New
Hampshire General Court passed House
Bill 58 in 2005 which banned (effective
January, 2007) the importation and
distribution of gasoline containing
MTBE in New Hampshire. (Other
similar MTBE ban legislation was also
enacted in Maine, Vermont, and Rhode
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Aug 15, 2006
Jkt 208001
Island). And finally, New Hampshire
pointed to the enactment of Federal
energy legislation (the Energy Policy Act
of 2005) with provisions that eliminated
the Clean Air Act (CAA) minimum 2
percent oxygen mandate for RFG (the
requirement that had resulted in
between 3 and 10 times higher MTBE
levels in RFG than conventional
gasoline), mandated increased use of
renewable fuels (primarily ethanol)
nationally, and limited EPA’s ability to
approve new ‘‘boutique’’ fuel blends.
Given those circumstances, New
Hampshire felt that their state, as well
as many other areas of the country,
would soon be receiving cleaner fuels
with significantly reduced levels of
MTBE. As such, they feel they achieved
the state’s objective of reducing MTBE
in its gasoline without removing itself
from the Federal RFG program and its
associated toxics emission reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
benefits. Therefore, New Hampshire has
requested that EPA no longer consider
this SIP revision request, and has
withdrawn the SIP revision request from
EPA. As a result, EPA is also
withdrawing its previous proposed
approval of New Hampshire’s SIP
revision request.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 7, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.
[FR Doc. E6–13492 Filed 8–15–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47161-47162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-13492]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2004-NH-0001; A-1-FRL-8210-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking To Control Gasoline
Fuel Parameters and Remove the Reformulated Gasoline Program From Four
Counties in New Hampshire
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In a letter dated May 31, 2006, the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services (DES) requested withdrawal of their
previously submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
oxygen flexible reformulated gasoline (OFRFG). EPA had proposed to
approve this revision on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), and received
comments from five parties which outlined concerns. For reasons
outlined below, New Hampshire has withdrawn this SIP revision request.
Therefore, EPA is also withdrawing its proposed approval of the SIP
revision.
DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of August 16, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, EPA New England
(CAQ), 1 Congress Street, suite 1100, Boston MA 02203; telephone, 617-
918-1045; fax, 617-918-0045; judge.robert@epa.gov.
SUMMARY: On February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), EPA proposed approval of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (DES) on October 31, 2002 and
October 3, 2003, establishing fuel emissions performance requirements
for gasoline distributed in southern New Hampshire which includes
Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties. Final EPA
approval of this SIP revision would ultimately result in New Hampshire
no longer utilizing Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) in this area 90
days after the effective date of the rule. New Hampshire had hoped
their program would result in gasoline with less methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) being distributed in the State.
On May 31, 2006, DES submitted a letter by which the State of New
Hampshire withdrew their request to adopt their own State specific fuel
program (OFRFG), and their request to opt-out of the Federal
reformulated gasoline program. In this letter, New
[[Page 47162]]
Hampshire outlined several reasons for withdrawing this SIP revision
request. They explained that since the time of their initial SIP
submission and EPA's subsequent proposed approval in February 2004,
several circumstances that impact New Hampshire's choice to opt-out of
RFG and implement their own State fuel program have changed.
Specifically, they noted that MTBE bans were implemented in 2004 in
Connecticut and New York areas with Federal reformulated gasoline
without supply or price disruptions. Informed by this development, the
New Hampshire General Court passed House Bill 58 in 2005 which banned
(effective January, 2007) the importation and distribution of gasoline
containing MTBE in New Hampshire. (Other similar MTBE ban legislation
was also enacted in Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island). And finally, New
Hampshire pointed to the enactment of Federal energy legislation (the
Energy Policy Act of 2005) with provisions that eliminated the Clean
Air Act (CAA) minimum 2 percent oxygen mandate for RFG (the requirement
that had resulted in between 3 and 10 times higher MTBE levels in RFG
than conventional gasoline), mandated increased use of renewable fuels
(primarily ethanol) nationally, and limited EPA's ability to approve
new ``boutique'' fuel blends.
Given those circumstances, New Hampshire felt that their state, as
well as many other areas of the country, would soon be receiving
cleaner fuels with significantly reduced levels of MTBE. As such, they
feel they achieved the state's objective of reducing MTBE in its
gasoline without removing itself from the Federal RFG program and its
associated toxics emission reduction benefits. Therefore, New Hampshire
has requested that EPA no longer consider this SIP revision request,
and has withdrawn the SIP revision request from EPA. As a result, EPA
is also withdrawing its previous proposed approval of New Hampshire's
SIP revision request.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 7, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.
[FR Doc. E6-13492 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
