[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 56 (Thursday, March 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15844-15853]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0006; FRL-10021-72-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Maine; Removal of Reliance on Reformulated
Gasoline in the Southern Counties of Maine

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maine on August 20, 2020. The Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) submission is in support of the
State's separate petition requesting that EPA remove the federal
reformulated gasoline (RFG) requirements for York, Cumberland,
Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln Counties
(hereinafter referred to as the ``southern Maine counties''). This
action proposes to incorporate into the Maine SIP, Maine's statute,
which repealed the State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the
southern Maine counties effective November 1, 2020. Maine voluntarily
opted into the federal RFG program in 2015. In order to remove the
federal RFG requirements from the Maine SIP, Maine is required to
complete a noninterference demonstration evaluating whether removing
the RFG requirements in the southern Maine counties interferes with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is proposing to
approve this SIP revision and the corresponding noninterference
demonstration. EPA has determined that the revision is consistent with
the applicable provisions of the CAA. At this time, EPA is not
proposing to remove the requirement for the sale of federal RFG in the
applicable southern Maine counties as that is the subject of a separate
petition to the EPA Administrator submitted on August 20, 2020,
requesting opt-out of the federal RFG program in those counties. The
Administrator intends to act on that petition in the near future. This
action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2021-0006 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Townsend, Air Quality
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. What is the background for the southern Maine counties?
III. What is the history of the reformulated gasoline requirement?
IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
V. What is EPA's analysis of Maine's submittal?
VI. Final Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On August 20, 2020, the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (Maine DEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to opt-out of
the federal RFG requirements in York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc,
Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln Counties (hereinafter referred
to as the ``southern Maine counties'').\1\ On December 23, 2020, Maine
DEP provided an email clarifying the changes that the State was
requesting to the Maine SIP. Pursuant to Maine DEP's December 23, 2020
email, EPA is proposing to approve into the Maine SIP Maine's revisions
to C.M.R. ch. 119 Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits that remove the
State's requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties
and concurrently adopting Maine statute at 38 M.R.S. Sec.  585-N as
amended by Public Law 2019, c. 55, Sec.  1, which repealed the State's
requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties
effective November 1, 2020. Maine voluntarily opted-in to the federal
RFG program in 2015. In order to remove the federal RFG requirements

from the Maine SIP, Maine is required to complete a noninterference
demonstration evaluating whether removing the RFG requirements in the
southern Maine counties interferes with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 1090.290(d), the Governor must submit a
petition to the EPA Administrator requesting removal of any opt-in
areas from the federal RFG program. The petition must include
certain specified information and any additional information
requested by the Administrator. As fully described in section III
below, if RFG is relied upon as a control measure in any approved
SIP or plan revision, the federal RFG program opt-out regulations
require that a SIP revision must be submitted. Maine's SIP includes
Chapter 119 Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits; as a result, Maine
submitted this SIP revision. The decision on whether to grant the
optout petition pursuant to 40 CFR 1090.290(d) is at the discretion
of the Administrator and will be made through a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To make this noninterference demonstration, Maine completed a
technical analysis, including modeling, to estimate the change in
emissions that would result from removing RFG from the southern Maine
counties. In the noninterference demonstration, Maine evaluated
NOX and VOC emissions inventories from point, non-point
(area), and on-road and non-road mobile sources, expressed as tons per
summer day for the southern Maine counties plus Waldo and Hancock
counties.\2\ Emissions data were based on several factors including
level of industrial activity, population, and vehicle miles traveled
for a typical summer day, and have been prepared according to EPA
requirements as described within our May, 2017 guidance entitled,
``Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
Regional Haze Regulations''.\3\ Maine completed a technical analysis of
NOX and VOC emissions for 2014/2015, 2017, 2019, and 2023.
The 2014/2015 inventory year was mixed, with non-point data only
available from 2014, and point, on-road and non-road data available for
2015. For 2014/2015, 2017 and 2019, the emissions inventories included
the emissions impacts for federal RFG requirements for the southern
Maine counties. A second emissions inventory for 2019 and the emissions
inventory for 2023 were prepared to model the emission impacts from the
use of conventional gasoline in all nine counties. Separate emissions
inventories for 2019 were prepared, one with RFG and one with
conventional gasoline, to clearly show the expected emissions impacts
from removing the requirement for the sale of RFG in the southern Maine
counties. The noninterference demonstration then examined the emissions
trends in all source sectors, both in aggregate and on a county by
county basis, to determine if removing the federal RFG requirements for
the southern Maine counties would interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone, or any other applicable requirement
of the CAA including the NAAQS for PM, SO2, NO2,
CO, or Pb, or their related precursors. EPA proposes to find that the
State has demonstrated that removing the federal RFG requirements in
the southern Maine counties will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
standard) or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA's
detailed evaluation of Maine's noninterference demonstration can be
found in section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Emissions from Waldo and Hancock counties were included in
the emissions inventories for the noninterference demonstration
because those counties also fall within the Portland and Midcoast
Maintenance Areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 20, 2020, Maine DEP also submitted a petition to the EPA
Administrator requesting to opt-out of the federal RFG program in the
southern Maine counties and, as stated above, this SIP revision is
submitted in support of that petition (particularly the requirements of
40 CFR 1090.290(d)(1)(iii)-(iv).\3\ Maine's opt-out petition will be
acted on by the Administrator in a separate action and EPA will notify
the State, in writing, of its decision as required by 40 CFR
1090.290(d). If approved in that separate action, the action will
establish the effective date of the opt-out, which cannot be less than
90 days from the effective date of the approval of the SIP revision.
EPA will also publish a notice in the Federal Register to notify the
public of the effective date of any opt-out approval as required by 40
CFR 1090.290(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A copy of the opt-out petition is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for the southern Maine counties?

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Pursuant to the
1990 CAA amendments York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin,
Kennebec, Knox and Lincoln Counties were designated as ``moderate''
nonattainment, while Waldo and Hancock counties were designated as
``marginal'' nonattainment for ozone on November 6, 1991 for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS (56 FR 56694).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08
ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). The
EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-
hour standard would be more protective of human health, especially for
children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a
preexisting respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the ``Portland
area'' and the ``Midcoast area'' as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, and the designations became effective on June 15,
2004.4 5
    On August 3, 2006, Maine DEP submitted to EPA a request to
redesignate the Portland and Midcoast nonattainment areas to attainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This submittal included a plan to provide for
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Portland and Midcoast
nonattainment areas through 2016 as a revision to the Maine SIP. EPA
approved maintenance plans for the Portland and Midcoast nonattainment
areas and the State's request to redesignate the Portland and Midcoast
nonattainment areas to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on December
11, 2006 (71 FR 71489). Subsequently, EPA approved limited maintenance
plans for the Portland and Midcoast areas on October 14, 2020 (85 FR
64969). The entire state of Maine was designated as attainment/
unclassifiable for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards. 77 FR 30088
(May 21, 2012), 82 FR 54232 (November 16, 2017).
    State gasoline regulations are intended to assist areas in meeting
local air quality requirements. As part of Maine's ozone control
strategy for the 1-hour ozone standard, Maine voluntarily opted into
the RFG program in 1991 and began selling RFG in the southern seven
counties in January of 1995. Maine petitioned the EPA in October 1998
to allow the state to opt out of the RFG program based on the risk to
ground water posed by methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). EPA approved
the petition provided several conditions were met, including
implementing a replacement gasoline program that achieved reductions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that were equivalent to emission
reductions achieved using RFG. In response, the Maine Board of
Environmental Protection adopted amendments to Chapter 119, Motor
Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limit, which required 7.8 pounds per square
inch (psi) Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline in the southern

seven counties from May 1st to September 15th of each year. Having met
the conditions, the effective date for withdrawal from the RFG program
was March 10, 1999. In May 2001, the Maine DEP submitted a waiver of
preemption request for 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to be adopted into its SIP
under section 211(c) of the CAA. With the waiver of preemption granted
by EPA, the requirement for 7.8 psi RVP gasoline became effective on
April 5, 2002 (67 FR 10099).
    The 7.8 psi RVP gasoline that Maine adopted is a listed
``boutique'' fuel by EPA as set out in the Federal Register in December
2006 (71 FR 78192). In 2015, Maine decided to remove the 7.8 psi RVP
gasoline requirement from its SIP due to limited supply, and with MTBE
no longer being added to RFG, opted back into the federal RFG program
as an alternative ozone control strategy. Subsequently, EPA approved
the removal of the State's regulation that established the 7.8 psi RVP
standard on July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33012) and the requirement for 7.8 psi
RVP ceased to be in Maine's SIP. In addition, EPA approved the State's
request to opt into RFG on February 6, 2015 with an effective date of
June 1, 2015 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (80 FR
6658).

III. What is the history of the reformulated gasoline requirement?

    The 1990 amendments to the CAA designed the RFG program to reduce
ozone levels in the largest metropolitan areas in the country with the
worst ground-level ozone or smog problems by reducing vehicle emissions
of compounds that form ozone, specifically VOC. The 1990 CAA
amendments, specifically section 211(k)(5), directed EPA to issue
regulations that specify how gasoline can be ``reformulated'' so as to
result in significant reductions in vehicle emissions of ozone-forming
and toxic air pollutants relative to the 1990 baseline fuel, and to
require the use of such reformulated gasoline in certain ``covered
areas.'' The Act defined certain nonattainment areas as ``covered
areas'' which are required to use RFG and provided other areas with an
ability to ``opt-in'' to the federal RFG program.\4\ Of relevance here
is CAA section 211(k)(6), which provides that upon application of the
Governor of a State, the Administrator shall apply the prohibition
contained in section 211(k)(5) for areas to ``opt-in'' to the federal
RFG program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAA section 211(k)(5) prohibits the sale of conventional
gasoline (i.e., gasoline that the EPA has not certified as
reformulated) in certain ozone nonattainment areas beginning January
1, 1995. CAA section 211(k)(10)(D) defines the areas initially
covered by the federal RFG program as ozone nonattainment areas
having a 1980 population in excess of 250,000 and having the nine
highest ozone design values during the period 1987 through 1989. In
addition, under CAA section 211(k)(10)(D), any area reclassified as
a severe ozone nonattainment area under CAA section 181(b) is also
included in the federal RFG program effective one year after the
effective date of the reclassification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2013, the State of Maine enacted Public Law 2013 c.221 calling
for the use of RFG in southern Maine counties beginning May 1, 2014. On
July 23, 2013, the Governor of Maine formally requested, pursuant to
CAA section 211(k)(6)(B), that the EPA extend the requirement for the
sale of RFG to these counties beginning on May 1, 2014. The Maine
legislature subsequently postponed the requirement for the sale of RFG
in these counties until June 1, 2015.
    EPA first published regulations for the federal RFG program on
February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7716). These regulations constituted Phase I
of a two-phase nationwide program.\5\ The federal RFG regulations also
contain provisions, at 40 CFR 1090.290(d), establishing criteria and
procedures for opting out of the program for those states that had
previously voluntarily opted into the program (``opt-out provisions'').
For example, the opt-out provisions require that a governor, or his or
her authorized representative, submit an opt-out petition to the
Administrator of the Agency. The opt-out petition must include certain
information, including a description of how, if at all, reformulated
gasoline has been relied upon as a control measure in any state or
local implementation plan or in any proposed plan that is pending
before EPA. This would include, for example, attainment as well as
maintenance plans. The petition must also include an explanation of
whether the state is intending to submit a revision to an approved or
pending plan that does not use RFG as a control measure, and a
description of alternative air quality measures, if any, that will
replace the use of RFG; a description of the current status of any
proposed revision to an approved or pending plan that uses RFG; and a
projected schedule for the plan revision submission. See 40 CFR
1090.290(d)(1)(iii)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A current listing of the RFG requirements for states can be
found on EPA's website at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, on August 20, 2020, Maine submitted a petition
to the EPA Administrator requesting to opt-out of the federal RFG
program in the southern Maine counties and, as stated above, this SIP
revision is submitted in support of that petition (particularly the
requirements of 40 CFR 1090.290(d)(1)(iii)-(iv)).\6\ Maine's opt-out
petition will be acted on by the Administrator in a separate action,
and, if approved, that separate action will establish the effective
date of the opt-out, which cannot be less than 90 days from the
effective date of the approval of the SIP revision that is the subject
of today's approval. EPA will also publish a notice in the Federal
Register to notify the public of the effective date of any opt-out
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A copy of the opt-out petition is included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?

    The use of RFG in Maine was not mandated by the CAA; however, to
support Maine's requested SIP revision to remove the federal RFG
requirements in the southern Maine counties, the State must demonstrate
that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA.
Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. Maine submitted a noninterference demonstration
with this SIP revision and EPA proposes to find that the analysis
demonstrates noninterference based on an evaluation of current air
quality monitoring data and the information provided in the
noninterference demonstration.
    EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on
a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP
revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that
are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which
EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on
any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies
depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed
SIP revision. EPA's section 110(l) analysis of the noninterference
demonstration included as part of Maine's August 20, 2020, SIP revision
is provided below.

V. What is EPA's analysis of Maine's submittal?

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Maine's Noninterference
Analyses

    The RFG program is designed to reduce ozone levels and air toxics
in

areas that are required to implement the program and in areas that
opted into the program. RFG gasoline reduces motor vehicle emissions of
the ozone precursors, NOX and VOC (mainly VOC), through fuel
reformulation. On August 20, 2020, Maine DEP submitted a SIP revision
along with a corresponding noninterference demonstration to support
Maine's separate petition to opt-out of the RFG requirements for York,
Cumberland, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc
counties, referred to in this notice as the southern Maine counties.
This noninterference demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact
that removing RFG from these counties would have on the area's ability
to attain or maintain the NAAQS for ozone, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA including the NAAQS for PM, SO2,
NO2, CO, or Pb, or their related precursors in the southern
Maine counties.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare-
based standards are carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). RFG requirements do not have an impact on
actual or modeled lead emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maine DEP's noninterference analysis utilized NOX and
VOC emissions inventories from point and non-point (area) sources and
EPA's MOVES2014a emission modeling system for on-road and non-road
mobile sources, expressed as tons per summer day. Emissions data are
based on several factors including level of industrial activity,
population, and vehicle miles traveled for a typical summer day, and
were prepared according to EPA requirements. As directed by EPA, Maine
completed a technical analysis of NOX and VOC emissions for
2014/2015, 2017, 2019, and 2023. The 2014/2015 inventory year was
mixed, with non-point data only available from 2014, and point, on-road
and non-road data available for 2015. Given the incremental overall
change in emissions that typically occurs from one year to the next for
the non-point sector, where emission estimates are made using
surrogates for activity levels such as changes in population or
economic activity, the use of a different inventory base year for this
sector (2014) should be reasonably consistent with the 2015 based
emission estimates for the other inventory sectors.
    Point sources include industrial, electric generation, commercial/
institutional and large residential facilities. Facilities licensed to
emit above certain threshold values submit annual activity and
emissions data to Maine DEP's point source database using continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) data, stack test data, or AP-42 or
other appropriate emission factors. These submissions are then verified
by Maine DEP. Maine point source data (as submitted to EPA) were used
for the 2014 and 2017 point source emissions demonstration. Point
source emissions data for 2023 were obtained from the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) modeled inventories,
downloaded from the Emissions Modeling Framework (EMF). Emissions for
2019 were estimated for point sources using a linear interpolation of
2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Maine point source data along with
2023 MARAMA model data.\8\ Seasonal adjustment factors were used to
adjust annual point source data to tons per typical summer data. Per
EPA guidance, the ten highest point source emitters for NOX
and VOCs were determined. Maine DEP reached out to these facilities to
obtain seasonal adjustment factors. Where unavailable, such as for a
facility no longer in operating status, monthly data for June, July,
and August provided by the facility were summed and divided by 92 days.
For those facilities not ranking as a top ten emitter for any of the
inventory years studied, annual NOX and VOC emissions were
divided by 365 to estimate tons per typical summer day. Linear
interpolations for 2019 emissions were completed on a per facility
basis for those ranked as top ten emitters and as a group for those not
ranking as a top ten emitter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Information on the Mid Atlantic Regional Air Management
Association, Inc. (MARAMA) 2011 inventory and projections for 2017
and 2023 emissions inventories scan be found at https://marama.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The non-point (or area) source emissions inventory consists of
gasoline distribution sources, stationary area source fuel use,
stationary area source solvent use, bioprocess sources, catastrophic/
accidental releases, solid waste incineration, and other stationary
area sources. EPA's National Emissions Inventory Version 2 (NEIv2) data
for 2014 was used for the non-point components of the 2014/2015
inventory, MARAMA data downloaded from the EMF was used for the 2017
and 2023 non-point source emissions data, and 2019 data was generated
through a linear interpolation of the 2014, 2017, and 2023 data.
Seasonal adjustment factors by non-point source classification code
(SCC), where available, were used to convert emissions in tons per year
to tons per typical summer day. If no seasonal adjustment factor was
available, annual emissions were divided by 365. The technical analysis
was completed both with and without biogenic emissions data.
    The mobile source emissions inventory contains two sub-categories:
On-road and non-road. On-road mobile sources include cars, trucks, and
buses. Non-road mobile sources include recreational equipment, farm
equipment, residential lawn/garden equipment, and industrial/commercial
construction off-road engines. Maine used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) to develop its annual emissions inventories according
to EPA's guidance for on-road and non-road mobile sources using MOVES
version 2014a and the NON-ROAD2008 model within MOVES2014a for the non-
road sources. On-road and non-road emissions estimates were generated
for 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2023 inventory years. All data was generated
in tons per typical summer day.
    MOVES mobile sources emissions were generated for 2015 and 2017
assuming RFG use in the southern seven counties (York, Cumberland,
Kennebec, Androscoggin, Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc) and conventional
gasoline use in Waldo and Hancock counties. Mobile sources emissions
estimates of NOX and VOCs were generated using MOVES2014a
assuming RFG for 2019 in the southern seven counties and conventional
gasoline in Waldo and Hancock counties, as well as with conventional
gasoline statewide for 2019 and 2023. Emissions estimates for 2019 were
generated two ways, with and without RFG, for comparison.
    The fuel formulations for the gasoline compilations that best
represented local conditions were selected from MOVES2014a default
database.\9\ Maine currently uses reformulated or conventional gasoline
blended with 10% ethanol (E-10). Limits applied to RVP in the fuel
formulations are used as control measures to regulate emissions.
Effective June 1, 2015 a retailer who sells gasoline in York,
Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, or Lincoln County
may sell only RFG year-round. Conventional gasoline may be sold in all
other counties in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ movesdb20161117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this modeling demonstration, Maine selected fuel formulations
that represent fuels that are currently sold in those counties
encompassing the Portland and Midcoast Maintenance Areas. Terminals are
required to report to Maine DEP on a quarterly basis the amounts of
fuel sold with several fuel properties, including RVP. Weighted
averages for each of the fuel properties

were compiled and matched to an existing fuel formulation in the
MOVES2014a default table. The regulatory limit for RVP for Hancock and
Waldo County is 9.0 psi. The formulation chosen for the remaining
counties is 7.0 psi based upon the reports obtained from the terminals.
For this modeling demonstration, 7.0 psi RVP represents the required
RFG VOC emissions performance standard, and 9.0 psi RVP represents
conventional gasoline.
    As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, the combined emissions inventories
and MOVES model results project that the overall downward trend of VOC
and NOX emissions is not significantly disrupted by removing
the federal RFG requirements from the southern Maine counties. The
technical analysis of VOC emissions for all source categories
demonstrates a continuous decline from 2015 to 2023 both with and
without the required use of RFG in the southern Maine counties (Table
1). The decrease from 75.66 tons per typical summer day in 2014/2015 to
49.89 in 2023 represents a 34% decrease in VOCs (excluding biogenic
emissions) over the demonstration period. There is a slight difference
in the 2019 data comparison (RFG versus conventional gasoline) of VOCs
excluding biogenic emissions. This difference of 0.5 tons per typical
summer day (a 0.9% difference) is the result of differences in the
mobile emissions generated with the MOVES model for 2019, one run
assuming RFG in the southern seven counties, and the second for the
same year assuming conventional gasoline in all nine modeled counties.
Even with this slight increase for the single 2019 modeled year, the
data show a decline in emissions between each modelled inventory year.
    The technical analysis of NOX emissions for all source
categories demonstrates a continuous decline from 2014/2015 to 2023
both with and without the required use of RFG in the southern Maine
counties (Table 2). The decrease from 91.55 tons per typical summer day
in 2014/2015 to 55.44 in 2023 represents a 39% decrease in
NOX emissions over the demonstration period. There is a
slight difference in the 2019 data comparison (RFG versus conventional
gasoline). This difference of 0.1 tons per typical summer day (a 0.1%
difference) is the result of differences in the on-road emissions
generated with the MOVES model for 2019, one run assuming RFG in the
southern seven counties, and the second for the same year assuming
conventional gasoline in all nine modeled counties. Even with this
slight increase for the single 2019 modeled year, the data show a
decline in emissions between each modelled inventory year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The totals in the columns for all tables in this notice may
differ slightly from the submittal due to how the decimal places
were truncated.

      Table 1--VOC Emissions (All Data Categories Without Biogenic Emissions)--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            8.13            5.55            5.76            5.79            5.07
Cumberland......................           22.05           17.62           17.23           17.34           15.81
Hancock.........................            6.19            4.49            4.50            4.50            3.61
Kennebec........................           10.29            6.93            6.92            6.99            5.82
Knox............................            4.48            3.70            3.55            3.63            3.26
Lincoln.........................            3.39            2.79            2.60            2.68            2.37
Sagadahoc.......................            4.13            2.61            2.76            2.82            2.31
Waldo...........................            3.05            2.33            2.40            2.40            2.07
York............................           13.95           11.11           10.62           10.69            9.58
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \10\..................           75.66           57.13           56.36           56.86           49.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Table 2--NOX Emissions (All Data Categories)--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            7.88            5.81            5.57            5.58            4.86
Cumberland......................           29.18           26.00           22.50           22.52           18.69
Hancock.........................            7.67            5.35            5.20            5.20            3.87
Kennebec........................           10.93            8.41            7.40            7.41            5.92
Knox............................            7.43            6.27            6.53            6.53            6.48
Lincoln.........................            2.94            2.57            2.27            2.27            1.96
Sagadahoc.......................            4.12            3.01            2.80            2.84            2.27
Waldo...........................            3.24            2.98            2.63            2.63            2.27
York............................           18.16           13.70           11.90           11.91            9.12
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           91.55           74.10           66.80           66.90           55.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions categories impacted by the removal of the RFG
requirements for the southern Maine counties are the mobile source on-
road and non-road. The MOVES modeling for these sectors show a steady
decline in on-road emissions of VOC with and without the use of RFG in
the southern Maine counties (Table 3), from 21.39 tons per summer day
in 2015 to 10.99 in 2023, a 49% decrease in on-road VOC emissions over
the demonstration period. There was a difference in the 2019 modeled
data, with the conventional gasoline scenario resulting in emissions
that were 0.1 tons per typical summer day less than the scenario
assuming RFG use in the southern Maine counties. The MOVES model
results show a steady decline in non-road emissions of VOC with and
without the use of RFG in the southern Maine counties (Table 4). From
19.81 tons per summer day in 2015 to 15.61 in 2023, there was a 21%
decrease in VOC emissions over the demonstration period. There was a
slight difference of 0.58 tons per typical summer day in the 2019
modeled data scenario assuming RFG in the southern Maine counties
compared to the scenario assuming conventional gasoline statewide, with
the conventional gasoline scenario showing a 3.5% increase in
emissions.

                          Table 3--On-Road VOC Emissions--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            2.18            1.68            1.41            1.41            1.11
Cumberland......................            6.21            4.79            4.03            3.98            3.18
Hancock.........................            1.37            1.05            0.88            0.88            0.69
Kennebec........................            3.13            2.43            2.05            2.05            1.62
Knox............................            0.85            0.66            0.55            0.55            0.43
Lincoln.........................            0.82            0.63            0.53            0.53            0.41
Sagadahoc.......................            0.89            0.68            0.58            0.57            0.45
Waldo...........................            0.86            0.67            0.56            0.56            0.44
York............................            5.08            3.96            3.36            3.32            2.66
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           21.39           16.55           13.93           13.84           10.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 4--Non-Road VOC Emissions--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            1.05            0.94            0.87            0.90            0.85
Cumberland......................            5.99            5.47            5.11            5.26            5.00
Hancock.........................            2.60            2.23            2.19            2.19            1.82
Kennebec........................            2.14            1.89            1.70            1.77            1.61
Knox............................            1.51            1.34            1.20            1.28            1.12
Lincoln.........................            1.64            1.47            1.34            1.42            1.30
Sagadahoc.......................            0.77            0.68            0.61            0.67            0.60
Waldo...........................            0.71            0.62            0.67            0.67            0.59
York............................            3.40            3.05            2.79            2.90            2.72
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           19.81           17.69           16.49           17.07           15.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MOVES modeling for the mobile source on-road and non-road
sectors also show a steady decline in on-road emissions of
NOX with and without the use of RFG in the southern Maine
counties (Table 5), from 52.17 tons per summer day in 2015 to 22.64 in
2023, a 57% decrease in on-road NOX emissions over the
demonstration period. There was a slight difference in the 2019 modeled
data, with the conventional gasoline scenario resulting in emissions
that were 0.1 tons per typical summer day greater (a 0.31 percent
increase) than the scenario assuming RFG use in the southern Maine
counties. For the non-road sector, the MOVES model results show a
steady decline in non-road emissions of NOX with and without
the use of RFG in the southern Maine counties (Table 6). From 11.52
tons per summer day in 2015 to 8.08 in 2023, there was a 30% decrease
in NOX emissions over the demonstration period. There was no
difference in the 2019 modeled data scenario assuming RFG in the
southern Maine counties and the scenario assuming conventional gasoline
statewide.

                          Table 5--On-Road NOX Emissions--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            4.17            3.03            2.39            2.40            1.63
Cumberland......................           15.80           12.00            9.67            9.70            6.91
Hancock.........................            2.98            2.16            1.68            1.68            1.09
Kennebec........................            8.11            6.20            5.08            5.09            3.72
Knox............................            1.53            1.11            0.86            0.86            0.56
Lincoln.........................            1.64            1.19            0.92            0.93            0.60
Sagadahoc.......................            2.66            2.02            1.63            1.67            1.17
Waldo...........................            1.68            1.22            0.95            0.95            0.62
York............................           13.60           10.48            8.60            8.62            6.35
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           52.17           39.40           31.79           31.89           22.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 6--Non-Road NOX Emissions--Shown in Tons per Summer Day
                                                      [TSD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 7.0 psi RVP (RFG)                 9.0 psi RVP (conv. gasoline)
             County              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2015            2017            2019            2019            2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin....................            0.94            0.81            0.71            0.71            0.60
Cumberland......................            3.71            3.28            2.96            2.96            2.56
Hancock.........................            1.09            0.99            1.07            1.07            0.95
Kennebec........................            1.14            1.00            0.90            0.90            0.76
Knox............................            0.95            0.86            0.79            0.79            0.69
Lincoln.........................            0.64            0.59            0.55            0.55            0.49
Sagadahoc.......................            0.53            0.46            0.41            0.41            0.36
Waldo...........................            0.63            0.54            0.50            0.50            0.41
York............................            1.90            1.66            1.48            1.48            1.26
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           11.52           10.19            9.37            9.37            8.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The point and area VOC and NOX inventories are not
impacted by the removal of the federal RFG requirements from the
southern Maine counties.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Please reference Maine's full noninterference demonstration
titled ``Revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP):
Noninterference Demonstration for the Removal of Reformulated
Gasoline (RFG) Requirement, 2020'' available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Noninterference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, southern Maine counties
were divided into three separate ozone nonattainment areas under the 1-
hour ozone standard: The Portland area which is comprised of York,
Cumberland and Sagadahoc Counties; the Lewiston-Auburn area which is
comprised of Androscoggin and Kennebec counties; and the Knox and
Lincoln County area. Maine DEP opted the southern Maine counties into
the federal RFG requirements for high ozone season gasoline to help
bring the area into attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As explained
in section II of this notice, the use of MTBE in RFG at that time led
to concerns over ground-water contamination, and therefore the State
petitioned EPA, and EPA approved, to replace the RFG requirements with
a low-RVP fuel program with an effective date of April 5, 2002 (67 FR
10099).). In 2015, Maine decided to remove the 7.8 psi RVP gasoline
requirement from its SIP due to limited supply, and with MTBE no longer
being added to RFG, opted back into the federal RFG program as an
alternative ozone control strategy. Subsequently, EPA approved the
removal of the State's regulation that established the 7.8 psi RVP
standard on July 19, 2017 (82 FR 33012) and the requirement for 7.8 psi
RVP ceased to be in Maine's SIP. In addition, EPA approved the State's
request to opt into RFG on February 6, 2015 with an effective date of
June 1, 2015 for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (80 FR
6658). This sequence of fuel programs has contributed to the lowering
of VOC and NOX emissions in the southern Maine counties.
Implementation of other federal control measures such as Tier 3 Motor
Vehicle Emissions and Fuel Standards,\12\ Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements,\13\
Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and
Fuel \14\ and Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines
and Equipment \15\ along with fleet turnover, further reduced
NOX and VOC emissions in the area. As a result, the
nonattainment areas within the southern Maine counties were
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The southern Maine counties are continuing to meet
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, even though
these NAAQS have been revoked,\16\ and the entire State of Maine was
designated as attainment/unclassifiable for both the 2008 and 2015
ozone standards. (77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012) (82 FR 54232; November 16,
2017). The trend in

monitoring levels for ozone for the ozone monitors in the southern
Maine counties is shown in Table 7, with the current monitoring levels
for the Androscoggin, Cumberland, Kennebec, Knox, and York monitors for
the period of 2017-2019 being 0.057 ppm, 0.064 ppm, 0.060 ppm, 0.061
ppm, 0.064 ppm, respectively. These 3-year design values are below the
8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm. In addition, quality controlled and
quality assured ozone data that are available in EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS), but not yet certified for 2018-2020 show that the
Southern Maine counties continue to meet the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The preliminary design value for 2018-2020 data in Kennebec County is
not listed due to the data completeness requirement not being met for
the monitor. The data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%,
and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in
Appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 79 FR 23414.
    \13\ 66 FR 5002.
    \14\ 69 FR 38958.
    \15\ 73 FR 59034.
    \16\ 70 FR 44470 and 80 FR 12264, respectively.
    \17\ This table includes monitor information for all ozone
monitors located in the southern Maine counties, or the highest
monitor if more than one monitor is located per county. No ozone
monitors are located in either Lincoln or Sagadahoc counties.

                                        Table 7--Monitoring Level Concentrations for the Southern Maine Counties
                                                                       [ppm] \17\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               4th Highest 8-hour ozone value (ppm)                 3-Year design values (ppm)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 County                       Site ID                                                                                2018-2020
                                                               2017            2018            2019          2016-2018       2017-2019     (preliminary)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Androscoggin............................     23-001-0014           0.062           0.059           0.050           0.059           0.057           0.053
Cumberland..............................     23-005-2003           0.064           0.067           0.062           0.062           0.064           0.062
Kennebec................................     23-011-2005           0.067           0.060           0.054           0.066           0.060             n/a
Knox....................................     23-013-0004           0.062           0.064           0.059           0.063           0.061           0.060
York....................................     23-031-2002           0.062           0.068           0.064           0.066           0.064           0.064
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and
NOX precursor emissions and whether it is reasonable to
conclude that the requested removal of the RFG requirements in southern
Maine counties during the high ozone season would cause the area to
violate any ozone NAAQS. Table 7 shows that there is an overall
downward trend in ozone concentrations in the southern Maine counties.
This decline can be attributed to federal and state programs in
addition to those mentioned above that have led to significant
emissions reductions in ozone precursors, such as the federal
interstate transport rule known as the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR), and state implemented reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for stationary sources of VOCs including both major sources and
sources for which EPA has issued a control technique guideline (CTG).
EPA last approved a CTG into Maine's state implementation plan on
August 7, 2019.\18\ Given the results of Maine's emissions analysis,
the downward trend in precursor emissions, and the current ozone
concentrations in the southern Maine counties as seen in Table 2, EPA
concludes that removing reliance on RFG requirements in York,
Cumberland, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc
counties will not interfere with Maine's ability to maintain the 2008
and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 84 FR 38558.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the continued downward trend of ozone levels, as supported
by the preliminary design values for Maine monitoring sites shown in
Table 7, EPA proposes to find that removing reliance on RFG
requirements in York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec,
Knox, and Lincoln Counties will not interfere with Maine's ability to
continue attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the southern Maine counties
area.

c. Noninterference Analysis for the Carbon Monoxide NAAQS

    EPA initially established NAAQS for CO on April 30, 1971 (36 FR
8186). The standards were set at 9 ppm as an 8-hour average and 35 ppm
as a 1-hour average, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. On
November 6, 1971 (56 FR 56694), EPA designated areas for the 8-hour CO
NAAQS. The southern Maine counties have never been designated
nonattainment for any CO NAAQS. EPA retained the 1-hour and 8-hour CO
NAAQS on August 31, 2011, and Maine has continued to maintain
compliance with the NAAQS due to non-RFG federal control measures put
in place. In 2019, Maine operated three CO monitors, including one in
Cumberland County. The 2018-2019 8-hr design value for the Cumberland
County monitor is 0.9 ppm. The 2018-2019 1-hr design value for the
Cumberland County monitor is 1.2 ppm. Both of these values are
significantly below the respective standards of 9 ppm and 35 ppm. RFG
requirements will have little to no impacts on CO emissions because, as
mentioned earlier, the RFG program was developed to address emissions
of the ozone precursors, NOX and VOC. As a result, EPA
proposes to find that removing reliance on RFG in York, Cumberland,
Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln Counties will not
interfere with Maine's ability to continue attaining the CO NAAQS.

d. Noninterference Analysis for the Particulate Matter NAAQS

    The main precursor pollutants for PM2.5 are
NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. As mentioned above,
the federal RFG requirements result in emissions benefits for VOC,
NOX and air toxics. EPA first established NAAQS for PM in
1971, based on the original Air Quality Criteria Document
(AQCD).19 20 Over the course of several years, EPA has
reviewed and revised the PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On
July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA retained the primary
annual PM10 standard and revised the form of the primary 24-
hour PM10 standard to be based on the 99th percentile of 24-
hour PM10 concentrations at each monitor in an area. See 62
FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On December 22, 2000, EPA removed

the vacated 1997 PM10 standards, and the pre-existing 1987
PM10 standards remained in place.\19\ On September 21, 2006,
EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based
again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The 1997 Primary
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS has been revoked for all purposes
effective October 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010) in all areas that were
designated as attainment for that NAAQS and in all areas that were
initially designated as nonattainment areas and have been redesignated
to attainment with an approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan. On
December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS
to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. EPA retained the existing primary 24-
hour PM10 standard, with its level of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and its
one-expected-exceedance form on average over three years. See 78 FR
3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 65 FR 80776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The southern Maine counties have never been designated
nonattainment for any PM NAAQS. In 2019, Maine operated five
PM2.5 monitors, including one in Cumberland County and one
in Androscoggin County. The annual mean design values for
PM2.5 for Cumberland and Androscoggin counties 2017-2019 are
7.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and 6.0 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. Both of these values
are below the annual PM2.5 standard of 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The
design values for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Cumberland and
Androscoggin counties in 2017-2019 are 17 [mu]g/m\3\ and 15 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. Both of these values are significantly below the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Maine operated nine
PM10 monitors in 2019, including two in Cumberland County,
and one in Androscoggin County. There were no average estimated
exceedances of the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\
for monitors in the southern Maine counties in 2019. Opting out of the
RFG requirements in the southern Maine counties will have little to no
impact on the precursor emissions as indicated by the decline in VOC
and NOX emissions in Tables 1 and 2 above. Based on this
information, the monitoring data, and the current attainment status of
all Maine counties, EPA proposes to find that removing reliance on RFG
requirements in York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec,
Knox, and Lincoln Counties will not interfere with Maine's ability to
maintain the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

e. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    The annual NO2 NAAQS was established in 1971, and EPA
retained the NO2 standards on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474).
All of the counties in Maine were designated unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532).
There are both primary and secondary standards for NO2. The
primary NAAQS is an annual arithmetic mean that must not exceed 53
parts per billion (ppb). A 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
daily maximum 1-hr averages must not exceed 100 ppb. The secondary
standard is an annual arithmetic mean that must not exceed 53 ppb. In
2019, Maine operated three NO2 monitors, including one in
Cumberland County, and one in Kennebec County. The 2017-2019 1-hr
average design value for the Cumberland County NO2 monitor
is 40 ppb, with an annual mean of 6.96 ppb. The 1-hr average design
value for Kennebec County in 2017-2019 is 27 ppb, with an annual mean
of 2.8 ppb. Both of these values are significantly below the respective
standards of 100 ppb and 53 ppb. Based on the technical analysis in
Maine's August 20, 2020 noninterference demonstration, as shown in
Table 2, there is a reduction in NOX emissions from 2014/
2015 to the 2023 ``out year'' from 91.55 tons per typical summer day
(tsd) to 55.44 tsd, representing a 39% decrease in NOX
emissions. As mentioned above and shown in Table 5, in the on-road
NOX emissions analysis submitted by Maine, there is a 0.1%
increase in emissions for the modeled year 2019. Even with the slight
increase for the single 2019 modeled year, the data show a decline in
emissions between each modelled inventory year.
    Based on the amount of NOX reductions, the use of
pollution control devices on power plants, industrial boilers, fleet
turnover, and other federal control measures for motor vehicles, EPA
proposes to find that removing reliance on RFG requirements in York,
Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln
Counties will not interfere with Maine's ability to continue attaining
the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the southern Maine counties area.

f. Noninterference Analysis for the SO2 NAAQS

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA revised the SO2
standard. There are both primary and secondary standards for
SO2. The primary SO2 NAAQS is a 3-year average of
the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour concentration not to
exceed 75 ppb. The secondary standard is a 3-hour concentration not to
exceed 0.5 ppm more than once per year. In 2019, Maine operated four
SO2 monitors, including one in Cumberland County, and one in
Kennebec County. Both Cumberland and Kennebec County SO2
monitors have a 2016-2019 design value of 5 ppb for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Based on the monitoring data, EPA proposes to
find that removing reliance on RFG requirements in York, Cumberland,
Sagadahoc, Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln Counties will not
interfere with Maine's ability to maintain the SO2 NAAQS
because both RFG and conventional gasoline are subject to the same
sulfur limit which was established in the Tier 3 vehicle emission and
fuel standards final rule. (See 79 FR 23414, April 28, 2014.)

g. Noninterference Analysis for the Pb NAAQS

    In the atmosphere, lead (Pb) is emitted as particles, mainly from
smelters, ore and metal processing facilities, waste incinerators,
public utilities and lead-acid manufacturers. Since tetraethyl lead was
removed from motor vehicle fuel, the ambient levels of lead in Maine
dropped significantly and concentrations are currently at or below
minimum detection limits for most Pb monitors. On November 12, 2008 (73
FR 66964), EPA revised the primary Pb standard to a rolling 3 month
average of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ and revised the secondary standard to be
identical in all respects to the revised primary standard. On December
27, 2010 (75 FR 81126). EPA published a final rule revising Pb
monitoring requirements that require lead monitoring at NCore sites in
large urban areas (identified as Core Based Statistical Areas, or CBSA)
with a population of 500,000 people or more.\20\ The Bar Harbor NCore
site is designated as a rural site, so there is no requirement for Pb
monitoring in Maine. On October 18, 2016 (81 FR 71906), EPA retained
the primary and secondary standards for Pb. As such, EPA proposes to
find that removing reliance on RFG in York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc,
Androscoggin, Kennebec, Knox, and Lincoln Counties

will not interefere with Maine's ability to continue attaining the Pb
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The NCore network that formally began in January 2011, is a
subset of the state and local air monitoring stations network that
is intended to meet multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., long-term
trends analysis, model evaluation, health and ecosystem studies, as
well as NAAQS compliance). The complete NCore network consists of 63
urban and 15 rural stations, with each state containing at least one
NCore station; 46 of the states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico
have at least one urban station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maine's revision to its SIP and
corresponding noninterference determination, submitted on August 20,
2020, in support of Maine's separate petition to opt-out of the federal
RFG requirements for in York, Cumberland, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Knox,
Lincoln, and Sagadahoc counties. Specifically, EPA proposes to find
that this change in removing reliance on the federal RFG requirements
for the southern Maine counties will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. Maine's August 20, 2020, SIP revision updates the Maine C.M.R.
ch. 119 Motor Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits that is approved into
Maine's SIP and adopts Maine statute at 38 M.R.S. Sec.  585-N as
amended by Public Law 2019, c. 55, Sec.  1 to reflect Maine's request
to opt out of the federal RFG requirements. EPA is proposing to find
that Maine's August 20, 2020, SIP revision is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the CAA, including section 110(l). In this
action, EPA is not acting on the State's opt-out petition to the EPA
Administrator to remove the federal RFG requirement for York,
Cumberland, Kennebec, Androscoggin, Knox, Lincoln, and Sagadahoc
counties. Any decision by the Administrator on the opt-out petition
would occur in a separate action. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These
comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested
parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into Maine's SIP Maine's revisions to C.M.R. ch. 119 Motor
Vehicle Fuel Volatility Limits that remove the State's requirement for
the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties and concurrently
adopting Maine statute at 38 M.R.S. Sec.  585-N as amended by Public
Law 2019, c. 55, Sec.  1, which repealed the State's requirement for
the sale of RFG in the southern Maine counties effective November 1,
2020, as discussed in section I. The EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 17, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-05939 Filed 3-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51877-51878]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2558-046]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Recreation Plan.
    b. Project No: 2558-046.
    c. Date Filed: May 31, 2016, as supplemented July 21, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Otter Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on Otter Creek in Addison and
Rutland counties, Vermont.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. John Greenan, Principal Environmental
Engineer, Green Mountain Power Corporation, 1252 Post Road, Rutland, VT
05701,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Kevin Anderson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: August 29, 2016.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/

ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2558-046.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed a recreation plan for
Commission approval pursuant to articles 401 and 405 of the license
order issued October 23, 2014. The proposed plan provides for the
construction, enhancement, and continued operation of recreation
facilities at each of the project's four developments, including picnic
areas, parking areas, interpretive signage, portages, and an
observation deck. The proposed plan includes preliminary design
drawings, an implementation schedule, and a provision for revising the
plan, as needed, over the license term. Contrary to Article 405, the
licensee proposes to not relocate the boat barrier at the Huntington
Falls Development and, instead, would maintain the boat barrier in its
current location and provide a portage take-out on the northern
shoreline of Otter Creek upstream of the bridge on Morgan Horse Farm
Road.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: July 27, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18576 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 9, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22620

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (DELTA) filed 9/29/05, as
supplemented on 10/3/05 and 10/17/05 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) Atlanta, Georgia, and Acapulco, Mexico; (2) Atlanta, Georgia
and Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Mexico; (3) Boston, Massachusetts, and Cancun,
Mexico; (4) Los Angeles, California, and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico; (5)
Los Angeles, California, and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; (6) Los Angeles,
California, and Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Mexico; and (7) Washington, D.C.,
and Cancun, Mexico, and to integrate this authority with Delta’s
existing exemption and certificate authority, consistent with applicable
international agreements.  Delta proposes to offer year-round service in
these markets.

Applicant rep: Alexander Van der Bellen<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst: Thuy
H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted Atlanta-Acapulco and Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo exemption
authority, including                  corresponding route integration
authority (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Deferred on Delta’s request for exemption authority to serve the
Boston-Cancun, Los

	Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets,
including corresponding route integration authority (see remarks, below)

XX  Deferred on Delta’s request for certificate authority to serve the
Atlanta-Acapulco, Atlanta-

	Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Boston-Cancun, Washington, D.C.-Cancun, Los
Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, and Los
Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets (see remarks, below)

The above action granting exemption authority to Delta for
Atlanta-Acapulco and Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo services, including
corresponding route integration authority was effective when taken:
December 9, 2005, through December 9, 2007.

The above action deferring on Delta’s request for exemption authority
to serve the Boston-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San
Jose del Cabo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, and Washington,
D.C.-Cancun markets, including corresponding route integration authority
was effective when taken: December 9, 2005.

The above action deferring on Delta’s certificate requests was
effective when taken: December 9, 2005.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period for the new exemption authority granted will begin on Delta’s
proposed start-up dates for the subject services, as follows: March 11,
2006, for the Atlanta-Acapulco market, and March 18, 2006, for the
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo market.

The route integration authority granted to Delta is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award
of the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Delta notifies the Department of its intent to serve such
a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary
carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be
authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by
any such carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included
in Delta’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority
granted here, but that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of
such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing
any preference for Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding
to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at
issue.

Responsive Pleadings/Remarks:  Currently, under the U.S.-Mexico Air
Transport Agreement, up to a total of two U.S. carriers may be
designated to provide direct-carrier (own-aircraft) services in a given
city-pair market.  With the exception of the Atlanta-Acapulco and
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets, either two U.S. carriers are already
authorized to provide direct-carrier services on the subject routes or
applications have been received from U.S. carriers in excess of
available designation opportunities.  On September 21, 2005, the United
States and Mexico reached an ad referendum agreement on certain
amendments to the U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement, providing for the
expansion of services between the two countries for both combination and
all-cargo air transportation services including combination services in
the Boston-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del
Cabo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, and Washington, D.C.-Cancun
markets.  However, the agreement has not yet been signed.  In the
circumstances presented, we defer action on the applicant’s request
for authority with respect to the Boston-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto
Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo, Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo,
and Washington, D.C.-Cancun markets.

No party has opposed Delta’s request to serve the Atlanta-Acapulco and
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets, no U.S. carrier is currently
designated to serve these routes, and the authority is available under
the current agreement.  Thus, we will grant the requested
Atlanta-Acapulco and Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo exemption authority
herein.

We will handle Delta’s request for certificate authority for the
Atlanta-Acapulco, Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo, Boston-Cancun, Washington,
D.C.-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta, Los Angeles-San Jose del Cabo,
and Los Angeles-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo markets separately.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp U.S. Carrier Exemption
Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

   On October 3, 2005, Delta supplemented its application to add
Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo to the list of routes for which Delta seeks
authority to serve.  On October 17, 2005, Delta further supplemented its
application to confirm, among other things, its proposed start-up dates
in the subject markets.  By letter dated November 22, 2005, Delta
modified certain of its earlier-proposed start-up dates for its Cancun
services, as a result of the damage Hurricane Wilma inflicted on Cancun.

   Delta requests that its exemption authority for these markets be
awarded under the Department’s streamlined licensing procedures.  To
the extent that Delta is seeking certificate authority for these
markets, we will handle that request subsequently.

   No U.S. carrier is currently authorized to provide direct-carrier
services on either the Atlanta-Acapulco or Atlanta-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo
route.

   We note that, on October 20, 2005, United filed a consolidated
motion, including in the present docket, outlining proposed procedures
for awarding authority under the amended agreement.  A number of
responsive pleadings were filed to United’s motion addressing such
procedures, and United filed a reply.  Because our action here grants
authority pursuant to the current agreement only (an issue not addressed
in United’s motion), we will not consider United’s October 20 motion
here.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2