[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43984-43987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17099]



[[Page 43984]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0649; FRL-8788-01-R10]


Air Plan Approval; AK; Juneau's Mendenhall Valley Second 10-Year 
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the Juneau, Mendenhall Valley, Alaska (AK) limited maintenance 
plan (LMP) submitted on November 10, 2020, by the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation (ADEC or ``the State''). This plan addresses 
the second 10-year maintenance period beyond redesignation for 
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 
nominal 10 micrometers (PM<INF>10</INF>). A LMP is used to meet Clean 
Air Act (CAA) requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas 
that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA is proposing to 
determine that Alaska's LMP meets CAA requirements. The plan relies 
upon control measures contained in the first 10-year maintenance plan 
and the determination that the Mendenhall Valley area currently 
monitors PM<INF>10</INF> levels well below the PM<INF>10</INF> National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``the standard'').

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2020-0649, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (360) 753-9081, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8ccddcac7c1dbc3c186cbc0dac1dbdcc1e8cdd8c986cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="610514030e08120a084f02091308121508210411004f060e17">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
III. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Attainment Inventory
    C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
    D. Verification of Continued Attainment
    E. Contingency Provisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA designated the City of Juneau, 
Mendenhall Valley area (Mendenhall Valley) as a PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment area (NAA) due to measured violations of the 24-hour 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS (52 FR 29383). The publication announcing the 
designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments was published on 
March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 6, 1991, the Mendenhall 
Valley NAA was subsequently classified as moderate under sections 
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA (56 FR 56694). ADEC worked with the 
City of Juneau and the community of Mendenhall Valley to develop a plan 
to bring the area into attainment no later than December 31, 1994. The 
State submitted the plan to the EPA on June 22, 1993, as a moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> State Implementation Plan (SIP) under section 189(a) of 
the CAA. The primary control measures the plan relied on were a wood 
smoke control program and paving unpaved roads to control fugitive 
dust. The EPA took final action to approve the State's moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP on March 24, 1994 (59 FR 13884).
    On May 8, 2009, the State requested the EPA redesignate the 
Mendenhall Valley NAA to attainment for PM<INF>10</INF> and submitted 
the Mendenhall Valley PM<INF>10</INF> LMP to the EPA for approval. On 
July 16, 2010, the EPA determined the Mendenhall Valley NAA had 
attained the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS as of the extended attainment date 
of December 31, 1995 (75 FR 41379). On May 9, 2013, the EPA took direct 
final action to approve the LMP submitted by the State for the 
Mendenhall Valley NAA and concurrently redesignated the area to 
attainment for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS (78 FR 27071).
    The purpose of the State's November 10, 2020 LMP is to fulfill the 
second 10-year planning requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS compliance through 2033.

II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance 
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a plan to demonstrate 
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years 
after an area is redesignated to attainment. The state must then submit 
a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that the area will continue to 
attain for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. On 
September 4, 1992, the EPA issued guidance on the content of a 
maintenance plan (Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing Requests to 
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (Calcagni Memo)).\1\ The Calcagni 
Memo states that a maintenance plan should include the following 
provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance 
demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a commitment to 
maintain the existing monitoring network; (4) verification of continued 
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to prevent or correct future 
violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Memorandum from the EPA's Air Quality Management 
Division Director to EPA Regional Air Directors entitled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo) can be found 
at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19920904_calcagni_process_redesignation_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined 
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM<INF>10</INF> 
nonattainment areas (see Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality 
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan 
Option for Moderate PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option 
memo).\2\ The LMP Option memo

[[Page 43985]]

contains a statistical demonstration states can use to show that areas 
are meeting certain air quality criteria with a high degree of 
probability and therefore will maintain the standard 10 years into the 
future. By providing this statistical demonstration, the EPA can 
consider the maintenance demonstration requirement of the CAA to be 
satisfied for the moderate PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area meeting 
this air quality criteria. If the tests described in section IV of the 
LMP Option memo are met, the EPA will treat that as a demonstration 
that the area will maintain the NAAQS. Consequently, it follows that 
future year emission inventories for these areas, and some of the 
standard analyses to determine transportation conformity with the SIP 
are no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate 
PM<INF>10</INF> Nonattainment Areas'' Memo outlines the criteria for 
development of a PM<INF>10</INF> limited maintenance plan and can be 
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the LMP Option, a State must demonstrate the area 
meets the following criteria. First, the area should have attained the 
PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. Second, the most recent five years of air 
quality data at all monitors in the area, called the 24-hour average 
design value, should be at or below 98 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\). Third, the State should expect only limited growth in on-
road motor vehicle PM<INF>10</INF> emissions and should have passed a 
motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the LMP Option 
Memo identifies core provisions that must be included in all limited 
maintenance plans. These provisions include an attainment year 
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule 
(set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR parts 51 
and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by 
an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an 
acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action conforms to 
the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the 
planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to 
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity 
without conforming to an emissions budget. Under the LMP option, 
emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the 
length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect 
that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that 
period that a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS would result. For 
transportation conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that 
emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period 
and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required. 
Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could 
be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR 93.158 
(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are essentially 
considered to be unlimited.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP option 
are not subject to the budget test (see 40 CFR 93.109(e)), the areas 
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of 
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization 
(MPO) in the area or the state must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely 
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal 
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. conformity of transportation plans is determined no less 
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and 
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing 
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as 
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon 
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with 
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as 
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    If the EPA approves the second 10-year LMP, the Mendenhall Valley 
maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional 
emissions analysis but must meet project-level conformity analyses as 
well as the transportation conformity criteria described above.

III. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    As discussed in Section II.A. of this preamble, the LMP Option Memo 
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify for an LMP. First, the 
area should be attaining the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. The PM<INF>10</INF> 
NAAQS is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year 
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ is equal to 
or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). We have evaluated the most recent 
ambient air quality data for the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS and 
determined that the Mendenhall Valley area continues to attain the 
NAAQS with zero annual exceedances for the period 2018 through 2020. 
Table 1 of this preamble shows the Mendenhall Valley area has not 
exceeded the standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour maximum 
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations measured at the Floyd Dryden monitoring 
site from 2010-2020.

   Table 1--Floyd Dryden 24-Hour Maximum PM10 Concentrations 2010-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      24-Hr    Number of
                                                       max       days
                        Year                          [mu]g/   exceeding
                                                        m3       NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010...............................................       30           0
2011...............................................       24           0
2012...............................................       26           0
2013...............................................       33           0
2014...............................................       38           0
2015...............................................       21           0
2016...............................................       34           0
2017...............................................       30           0
2018...............................................       24           0
2019...............................................       64           0
2020...............................................       35           0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 24-hour average design value for the most recent five 
years of monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value 
of 98 [mu]g/m\3\ for the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. The critical design 
value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten 
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The 5-year average design value for 
Mendenhall Valley, based on PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring data from 2014 
through 2018, is 49 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition, the EPA calculated the 5-
year average design value for the Mendenhall Valley based on 
PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring data from 2016 through 2020 and found the 
most conservative average design value estimate to be 62 [mu]g/m\3\, 
which is below the critical design value of 98 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA's 
attainment and average design value evaluation used to determine if the 
area qualifies for the LMP option is included in the docket

[[Page 43986]]

for this action. The EPA reviewed the data and methodology provided by 
the State and the most recent 5-year average design value and finds 
that the Mendenhall Valley area's 5-year average design value is below 
the critical design value of 98 [mu]g/m\3\ outlined in the LMP Option 
Memo. Therefore, the EPA finds that the Mendenhall Valley area meets 
the design value criteria outlined in the LMP Option Memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions 
analysis test described in the LMP Option Memo. The State submitted an 
analysis showing that growth in on-road mobile PM<INF>10</INF> 
emissions sources was minimal and would not threaten the assumption of 
maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. Using the EPA's methodology, 
the State calculated total projected growth in on-road motor vehicle 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions through 2033 (the end of the maintenance 
planning period) for the Mendenhall Valley area. This calculation is 
derived using Attachment B of the EPA's LMP Option Memo, where the 
projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled over the next 
ten years (VMT<INF>pi</INF>) is multiplied by the on-road mobile 
portion of the attainment year inventory (DV<INF>mv</INF>), including 
re-entrained road dust. This test is met when (VMT<INF>pi</INF> x 
DV<INF>mv</INF>) plus the design value for the most recent five years 
of quality assured data is below the margin of safety (MOS) for the 
relevant PM<INF>10</INF> standard in [micro]g/m\3\ for a given area. 
This MOS value can be 98 [micro]g/m\3\ or a site-specific value 
computed from data collected at the site of interest using methods 
outlined in Attachment A of the LMP Option Memo. The 24-hour average 
design value of 49 [micro]g/m\3\ was used to compute a MOS selected for 
the Floyd Dryden monitoring site in Mendenhall Valley of 50.2 [micro]g/
m\3\, which is below the MOS value of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. See the 
Mendenhall Valley LMP, Section III.D.3.4 and associated appendix, 
placed in the docket for this action, for details of this computation. 
The EPA reviewed the calculations in the State's LMP submittal and 
concurs with the determination that the area meets the motor vehicle 
regional emissions analysis test.
    As described above, the Mendenhall Valley PM<INF>10</INF> 
maintenance area meets the qualification criteria set forth in the LMP 
Option Memo and accordingly qualifies for the LMP option. To ensure 
these requirements continue to be met, the State commits to evaluate 
monitoring data annually to ensure the area continues to qualify for 
the LMP option. However, if after performing the annual recalculation 
of the area's average design value in a given year, the State 
determines that the area no longer qualifies for the LMP, the State 
will take action to attempt to reduce PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations 
enough for the area to requalify for the LMP. One possible approach the 
State could take is to implement a contingency measure found in its 
SIP. See Section III.D.3.9 of the State's submittal, placed in the 
docket for this action, for a description of the contingency measures.

B. Attainment Inventory

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the State's submission should 
include an emissions inventory, which can be used to demonstrate 
attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The inventory should represent 
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality 
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability 
requirements of the LMP option. The State should review its inventory 
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the 
inventory if necessary.
    Alaska's Mendenhall Valley PM<INF>10</INF> LMP includes an 
emissions inventory, with a base year of 2017. The assumptions, methods 
and computations used to generate the 2017 emissions inventory are 
described in detail in Appendix III.D.3.6 of the Mendenhall Valley LMP 
submittal in the docket for this action. The 2017 base year represents 
the most recent emissions inventory data available, is representative 
of the level of emissions during a period of time used to calculate the 
area is attaining the NAAQS, and is consistent with the data used to 
determine applicability of the LMP option (i.e., having no violations 
of the NAAQS during the five-year period used to calculate the design 
value).
    Like the first 10-year LMP, four main source categories were 
inventoried for the second 10-year LMP. These include (1) On-Road; (2) 
Non-Road; (3) Area Sources; and (4) Point Sources. The same assumptions 
and methods used to develop the first 10-year LMP were used to develop 
the 2017 base year PM<INF>10</INF> emissions inventory for the second 
10-year LMP. The analysis of the emissions inventory for the second 10-
year LMP indicates that that the PM<INF>10</INF> emissions in the 
maintenance area declined by about 78% between 2004 and 2017 and shows 
paved roads remain the most significant source of fugitive emissions in 
the maintenance area. Fugitive dust from paved roads accounted for 
46.2% of the overall inventory; fugitive dust from unpaved roads 
accounted for 0.53%; and emissions from wood burning accounted for 8.4% 
of the overall inventory.
    Efforts by the City and Borough of Juneau and the State to pave 
sections of unpaved roads and sweeping and sanding mitigation programs 
in the Valley, as well as the woodsmoke control program, have led to 
significant reduction in PM<INF>10</INF> emissions. In accordance with 
the LMP Option Memo, all controls relied on to demonstrate attainment 
and continued maintenance will remain in place, and ADEC asserts that 
no additional control measures are necessary to maintain the NAAQS.
    The submittal meets the EPA guidance for purposes of an attainment 
emissions inventory, and the emissions inventory data supports the 
State's conclusions that the existing control measures will continue to 
protect and maintain the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS.

C. Air Quality Monitoring Network

    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an 
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to 
verify the attainment status of the area. From 1986 until the present, 
Alaska has operated a PM<INF>10</INF> monitor at the Floyd Dryden 
Middle School in the Mendenhall Valley NAA. The Floyd Dryden monitor 
was sited and maintained in accordance with Federal siting and design 
criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in consultation with the EPA Region 10. 
On June 26, 2020, ADEC submitted the 2020 Annual Monitoring Network 
Plan, which the EPA approved on January 25, 2021. ADEC's network plan 
and the EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this 
action.
    The State commits to continued operation of at least one EPA-
approved PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring site in the Mendenhall Valley 
maintenance area through the end of the maintenance planning period, 
2033, and will continue to operate the monitor consistent with the EPA-
approved ADEC annual network plan in order to meet the EPA requirements 
at 40 CFR part 58.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The level of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS is 150 [micro]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average concentration. The NAAQS is attained when the expected 
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 
above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). As 
stated in Section III.D of this preamble, ADEC commits to continue to 
operate a regulatory monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 
58. In addition, ADEC commits to verifying continued attainment of the 
PM<INF>10</INF> standard through the maintenance plan period with the 
operation of an appropriate PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring network.

[[Page 43987]]

In developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, ADEC evaluated the 
most recent three years of complete, quality-assured data for the 
Mendenhall Valley NAA (2017 through 2019) to verify continued 
attainment of the standard.

E. Contingency Provisions

    The CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include 
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of 
any violation of the NAAQS, which may occur after redesignation of the 
area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option Memo and the 
Calcagni Memo, these contingency provisions are an enforceable part of 
the federally approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly 
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and 
implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision(s) 
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the 
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the 
provision(s). The LMP Option Memo and the Calcagni Memo state that the 
EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a case-by-case 
basis. At a minimum, it must require that the state implement all 
measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan for the area 
prior to redesignation.
    In the Mendenhall Valley PM<INF>10</INF> LMP, ADEC included 
maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to 
meet the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. The Mendenhall Valley LMP describes a 
process and a timeline to identify, evaluate and select appropriate 
contingency measure(s) from a list of potential measures in the event 
of a quality assured violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS. Within 120 
days following a violation of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS an assessment 
team will evaluate the events contributing to the violation and 
identify the appropriate measure(s) that may need to be implemented. 
Contingency measures that may be implemented to address the source and 
circumstances causing the violation and reduce emissions are listed in 
Section III.D.3.9 of the Mendenhall Valley LMP in the docket for this 
action. The identified contingency measure(s) may be adopted and 
implemented in coordination with the ADEC Commissioner, City Manager 
and assembly.
    The contingency provisions submitted in the Mendenhall Valley 
PM<INF>10</INF> LMP are adequate to meet CAA section 175A requirements 
and the contingency provisions as outlined in the LMP Option Memo.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM<INF>10</INF> 
limited maintenance plan for Juneau, Mendenhall Valley submitted by the 
State of Alaska.\3\ The EPA has reviewed the air quality data for the 
Mendenhall Valley area and determined that the area continues to show 
attainment of the PM<INF>10</INF> NAAQS and meets all the LMP 
requirements as described in this action. If finalized, the EPA's 
approval of this LMP will satisfy the section 175A CAA requirements for 
the second 10-year period for the Mendenhall Valley PM<INF>10</INF> 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The remainder of the November 10, 2020 State of Alaska SIP 
submission (the Eagle River Second 10-year PM<INF>10</INF> LMP; the 
2019 Emission Limit Control Measures; and the 2019 Adoption by 
Reference Updates and Standard Permit Conditions) will be addressed 
in separate EPA rulemaking actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
    <bullet> Does not provide the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated 
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the 
proposed 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-17099 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>