49278 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

library or archives to which the 

preemptive opt out applies and shall be 

signed by a person with the authority 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The library or archives must 

also provide a point of contact for future 

correspondence, including phone 

number, mailing address, and email 

address and shall notify the Copyright 

Claims Board if this information 

changes. 

(3) The Copyright Claims Board will 

accept the facts stated in the submission 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section, unless they are implausible 

or conflict with sources of information 

that are known to the Copyright Claims 

Board or the general public. 

(4) If a federal court determines that 

an entity described in paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section does not qualify for the 

limitations on exclusive rights under 

section 108 of title 17, that entity must 

inform the Copyright Claims Board of 

that determination and submit a copy of 

the relevant order or opinion, if any, 

within fourteen days after the 

determination is issued. 

(5) A library or archives may rescind 

its preemptive opt-out election under 

this section, such that it may participate 

in Copyright Claims Board proceedings, 

by providing written notification to the 

Copyright Claims Board in accordance 

with such instructions as are provided 

on the Copyright Claims Board website. 

A library or archives may submit no 

more than one such rescission 

notification per calendar year. 

(6) The notification described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be 

submitted to the Copyright Claims 

Board in accordance with such 

instructions as are provided on the 

Copyright Claims Board website. 

(b) Review of eligibility. (1) The 

Copyright Claims Board will maintain 

on its website a public list of libraries 

and archives that have preemptively 

opted out of Copyright Claims Board 

proceedings pursuant to paragraph (a) of 

this section. If the Register determines 

pursuant to paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section that an entity does not qualify 

for the preemptive opt-out provision, 

the Office will communicate to the 

point of contact described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section that it does not 

intend to add the entity to the public 

list, or that it intends to remove the 

entity from that list, and will allow the 

entity to provide evidence supporting 

its qualification for the exemption 

within thirty days. If the entity fails to 

respond, or if, after reviewing the 

entity’s response, the Register 

determines that the entity does not 

qualify for the limitations on exclusive 

rights under section 108 of title 17, the 

entity will be not be added to, or will 

be removed from, the public list. If the 

Register determines that the entity 

qualifies for the limitations on exclusive 

rights under section 108 of title 17, the 

entity will be added to, or remain on, 

the libraries and archives preemptive 

opt-out list. This provision does not 

limit the Office’s ability to request 

additional information from the point of 

contact listed pursuant to paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(2) A party seeking to assert a claim 

under this section against a library or 

archives that it believes is improperly 

included on the public list described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section may file 

the claim with the Copyright Claims 

Board pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1506(e) and 

applicable regulations. The claimant 

must include in its statement of material 

facts allegations sufficient to support 

that belief. If the Copyright Claims 

Board determines, as part of its review 

of the claim pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

1506(f), that the claimant has alleged 

facts sufficient to support the 

conclusion that the library or archives is 

ineligible for the preemptive opt-out, 

and the claim is otherwise complaint, 

the claimant will be instructed to 

proceed with service of the claim. The 

respondent may include in its response 

any factual statements in support of its 

eligibility. 

(3) Any determination made under 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall 

constitute final agency action under 5 

U.S.C. 704. 

(c) Authority. Any person with the 

authority to take legally binding actions 

on behalf of a library or archives in 

connection with litigation may submit a 

notification under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Multiple libraries and archives in 

a single submission. A notification 

under paragraph (a) of this section may 

include multiple libraries or archives in 

the same submission if each library or 

archives is listed separately in the 

submission and the submitter has the 

authority described under paragraph (c) 

of this section to submit the notification 

on behalf of all libraries and archives 

included in the submission. 

§ 223.3 Class action opt-out procedures. 

(a) Opt-out or dismissal procedures. 

Any party to an active proceeding before 

the Copyright Claims Board who 

receives notice of a pending or putative 

class action, arising out of the same 

transaction or occurrence as the 

proceeding before the Copyright Claims 

Board, in which the party is a class 

member, shall either opt out of the class 

action or seek written dismissal of the 

proceeding before Copyright Claims 

Board within fourteen days of receiving 

notice of the pending class action. If a 

party seeks written dismissal of the 

proceeding before Copyright Claims 

Board, upon notice to all claimants and 

counterclaimants, the Copyright Claims 

Board shall dismiss the proceeding 

without prejudice. 

(b) Filing requirement. A copy of the 

notice indicating a party’s intent to opt 

out of a class action proceeding must be 

filed with the Copyright Claims Board 

within fourteen days after the filing of 

the notice with the court. 

(c) Timing. The time periods provided 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

may be extended by the Copyright 

Claims Board for good cause shown. 

Dated: August 24, 2021. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18567 Filed 9–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2020–0648; FRL–8787–01– 

R10] 

Air Plan Approval; AK; Eagle River 

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 Eagle River, 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 after redesignation 

for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). An 

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 submittal meets the CAA 

requirements. The plan relies upon 

control measures contained in the first 

10-year maintenance plan and the 

determination that the Eagle River area 

currently monitors PM10 levels well 

below the PM10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or ‘‘the 

standard’’). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49279 

1The 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. 

2The ‘‘Limited Maintenance Plan Option for 

Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas’’ Memo 

outlines the criteria for development of a PM10

limited maintenance plan and can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 

06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2020–0648, 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 

duboiski.christi@epa.gov. 

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 Community of Eagle 

River (Eagle River) as a PM10

nonattainment area (NAA) due to 

measured violations of the 24-hour PM10

NAAQS (52 FR 29383). The notice 

announcing the designation upon 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments was published on March 

15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November 

6, 1991, the Eagle River NAA was 

subsequently classified as moderate 

under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) 

of the CAA (56 FR 56694). After Eagle 

River was designated nonattainment for 

PM10, ADEC and the Municipality of 

Anchorage (MOA) worked with Eagle 

River 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 October 15, 1991, as a 

moderate PM10 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) under section 189(a) of the 

CAA. The primary control measure that 

the plan relied on was a comprehensive 

road paving program throughout the 

Eagle River NAA. The EPA took final 

action to approve the State’s moderate 

PM10 SIP on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 

43084). 

On September 29, 2010, the State 

requested that the EPA redesignate the 

Eagle River NAA to attainment for PM10

and submitted the Eagle River first 10- 

year PM10 LMP to the EPA for approval. 

On October 19, 2010, the EPA 

determined that the Eagle River NAA 

had attained the PM10 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date of December 

31, 1994 (75 FR 64162). On January 7, 

2013, the EPA took direct final action to 

approve the first 10-year LMP submitted 

by the State for the Eagle River NAA 

and concurrently redesignated the area 

to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS (78 

FR 900). 

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. Eight years 

into the first maintenance period, the 

state must submit a second maintenance 

plan demonstrating that the area will 

continue to attain for the following 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. 

On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued 

guidance on streamlined maintenance 

plan provisions for certain moderate 

PM10 nonattainment areas (see Memo 

from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air 

Quality Standards and Strategies 

Division, entitled ‘‘Limited Maintenance 

Plan Option for Moderate PM10

Nonattainment Areas’’ (LMP Option 

Memo).2 The LMP Option memo 

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 PM10

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. 

To qualify for the LMP option, a State 

must demonstrate that the area meets 

the following criteria. First, the area 

should have attained the PM10 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 (mg/m3). Third, the State 

should expect only limited growth in 

on-road motor vehicle PM10 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 EPAVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:43 Sep 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02SEP1.SGM 02SEP1

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
49280 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 PM10 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 Eagle River 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 PM10 NAAQS. 

The PM10 NAAQS is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar 

year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 mg/m3 is equal 

to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). The 

Eagle River area continues to attain the 

standard for PM10 despite exceedances 

of the standard for the 24-hour average 

concentration in 2010, 2013 and 2019. 

We have evaluated the most recent 

ambient air quality data for the 24-hour 

PM10 NAAQS and determined that the 

Eagle River area continues to attain the 

standard with the number of annual 

exceedances equal to 0.4 for the period 

2018 through 2020. Table 1 of this 

preamble shows the 24-hour maximum 

PM10 concentrations measured at the 

Parkgate monitoring site from 2010– 

2020, which are consistently below the 

NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—PARKGATE 24-HOUR MAXIMUM PM10 CONCENTRATIONS 2010–2020 

Year 24-hour 

max μg/m3

2nd highest 

24-hour 

μg/m3

Number of 

days exceeding 

NAAQS 

2010 ........................................................................................................................................... 207 92 1 

2011 ........................................................................................................................................... 108 70 0 

2012 ........................................................................................................................................... 81 77 0 

2013 ........................................................................................................................................... 174 78 1 

2014 ........................................................................................................................................... 111 109 0 

2015 ........................................................................................................................................... 90 70 0 

2016 ........................................................................................................................................... 110 105 0 

2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 63 59 0 

2018 ........................................................................................................................................... 62 61 0 

2019 ........................................................................................................................................... 168 79 1 

2020 ........................................................................................................................................... 56 45 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 mg/m3 for the 

PM10 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 Eagle River, based on PM10

monitoring data from 2014 through 

2018, is 96 mg/m3. In addition, the EPA 

also calculated the 5-year average design 

value for Eagle River based on PM10

monitoring data from 2016 through 2020 

and found the most conservative design 

value estimate to be 93.4 mg/m3, which 

is below the critical design value of 98 

mg/m3. 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 

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 Eagle 

River area’s 5-year average design value 

is below the critical design value of 98 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49281 

mg/m3 outlined in the LMP Option 

Memo. Therefore, the EPA finds that the 

Eagle River area meets the design value 

criteria outlined in the LMP options 

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 

PM10 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 PM10

emissions through 2033 (the end of the 

20-year maintenance period) for the 

Eagle River 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 

(VMTpi) is multiplied by the on-road 

mobile portion of the attainment year 

inventory (DVmv), including reentrained road dust. This test is met 

when (VMTpi × DVmv) plus the design 

value for the most recent five years of 

quality assured data is below the margin 

of safety (MOS) for the relevant PM10

standard in mg/m3 for a given area. This 

MOS value can be 98 mg/m3 or a sitespecific value computed from data 

collected at the site of interest using 

methods outlined in Attachment A of 

the LMP Option Memo. The computed 

site-specific MOS selected for the 

Parkgate monitoring site in Eagle River 

is 125.7 mg/m3 (the critical design value 

for all the empirical data). See the Eagle 

River LMP, Section III.D.2.5 and 

associated appendix, placed in the 

docket for this action, for details of this 

computation. The motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test results 

of 109.6 mg/m3, when adjusted for 

growth, are below the calculated sitespecific critical design value, or MOS, of 

125.7 mg/m3. The EPA has reviewed the 

calculations in the State’s Eagle River 

LMP submittal and proposes to find that 

the area meets the motor vehicle 

regional emissions analysis test. 

As described above, the Eagle River 

PM10 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 PM10

concentrations enough for the area to 

requalify for the LMP. One possible 

approach the State may take is to 

implement a contingency measure 

found in its SIP. See Section III.D.2.10 

of the State’s submittal, placed in the 

docket for this action, for a description 

of the contingency measures. If the 

attempt to reduce PM10 concentrations 

fails, or if it succeeds but in future years 

it becomes necessary again to address 

increasing PM10 concentrations in the 

area, the area will no longer qualify for 

the LMP option. 

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 Eagle River PM10 LMP 

includes an emissions inventory, with a 

base year of 2017. In the past, the 

highest PM10 concentrations have 

typically occurred during spring breakup and fall freeze-up. For this reason, 

the emissions inventories reflect 

conditions and activity levels (e.g., 

amount of silt loading on roads and 

residential wood heating rates) that 

commonly occur during these two times 

of the year. The same assumptions and 

methods used to develop the first 10- 

year LMP were used to develop the 2017 

base year PM10 emissions inventory for 

the second 10-year LMP and are 

described in detail in the Appendix to 

III.D.2.6 of the Eagle River 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). 

Unlike the first 10-year LMP, where 

five sources of PM10 emissions were 

identified and inventoried, the second 

10-year LMP inventoried six sources as 

shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The 

first 10-year LMP assumed emissions 

from non-road equipment were zero, 

however, the second 10-year LMP 

calculated these emissions to be less 

than 1% of the 2017 emissions 

inventory. The most significant of the 

PM10 emission sources for the Eagle 

River area are still paved road dust, 

windblown dust, and residential wood 

combustion. Like the emission 

inventory prepared for the first 10-year 

LMP, unpaved roads emissions are not 

included in the inventory for the second 

10-year LMP. This is because since 

2007, all the unpaved roads in Eagle 

River have been paved with either hot 

asphalt paving or surfaced with recycled 

asphalt product. 

TABLE 2—2017 EMISSIONS INVENTORY IN TONS/DAY AND % OF TOTAL EMISSIONS

Source category 

Spring break-up 

(March, April) 

(tons/day) 

(percent) 

Fall freeze-up 

(October, November) 

(tons/day) 

(percent) 

Paved Roads ........................................................................................................................... 3.71 (56.3) 1.06 (48.6) 

Wind-blown Dust from Paved Roads, Parking Lots and Un-Vegetated Areas ....................... 2.48 (37.6) 0.73 (33.4) 

Fireplaces and Wood Stoves .................................................................................................. 0.35 (5.31) 0.35 (16.0) 

Natural Gas Combustion ......................................................................................................... 0.009 (0.13) 0.009 (0.41) 

Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear Emissions ..............................................................................

from Motor Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 0.026 (0.39) 0.027 (1.23) 

Non-Road Equipment Emissions ............................................................................................. 0.0135 (0.20) 0.0132 (0.60) 

Total .................................................................................................................................. 6.58 (100) 2.18 (100) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
49282 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3The control measures are fully implemented and 

continue to apply after the SIP commitment was 

fulfilled. The Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 

Title 21 was reorganized and recodified, State 

effective January 1, 2014. The AMC Title 21section 

that requires paved road improvements for nonrural, residential properties in the MOA can be 

found in Section 21.08.050. 

4We intend to address the remainder of the 

November 10, 2020 State of Alaska SIP submission 

(the Juneau, Mendenhall Valley Second 10-year 

PM10 LMP, the 2019 Emission Limit Control 

Measures, and the 2019 Adoption by Reference 

Updates and Standard Permit Conditions) in 

separate EPA actions. 

In accordance with the LMP Option 

Memo, all controls relied on to 

demonstrate attainment and continued 

maintenance will remain in place (e.g., 

the required paved road improvements 

for non-rural, residential properties in 

the Municipality of Anchorage).3 Efforts 

by the Municipality of Anchorage 

(MOA) to pave all streets except those 

in low density residential areas was the 

primary PM10 mitigation program in 

Eagle River that lead to significant 

reduction in PM10 emissions. By 2007 

all 22 miles of local gravel roads were 

paved with either traditional hot asphalt 

paving or surfaced with recycled asphalt 

product (RAP). The MOA is committed 

to continued maintenance of these 

roads, and the MOA and the Alaska 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities are committed to 

maintaining sand specifications that 

allow no more than 2% fines or silt 

allowed in winter traction sand. 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 PM10 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 1985 

until present, Alaska has operated a 

PM10 monitor at the Parkgate Business 

Center (Parkgate monitor) in the Eagle 

River NAA. The Parkgate 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 that 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 

PM10 monitoring site in the Eagle River 

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 PM10 NAAQS is 150 

mg/m3, 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 mg/m3 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 PM10

standard through the maintenance plan 

period with the operation of an 

appropriate PM10 monitoring network. 

In developing the second 10-year 

maintenance plan, ADEC evaluated the 

most recent three years of complete, 

quality-assured data for the Eagle River 

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 Eagle River PM10 LMP, ADEC 

included maintenance plan contingency 

provisions to ensure the area continues 

to meet the PM10 NAAQS. The Eagle 

River LMP describes a process and a 

timeline to identify, evaluate and select 

the appropriate contingency measure(s) 

from a list of measures in the event of 

a quality assured violation of the PM10

NAAQS. The contingency measures that 

may be implemented to reduce 

emissions are listed in Section III.D.2.10 

of the Eagle River LMP in the docket for 

this action. Within 30 days following a 

violation of the PM10 NAAQS, the MOA 

will convene an assessment team to 

evaluate the events contributing to the 

violation and identify control 

measure(s) that appropriately address 

the source(s) and circumstances causing 

the violation. Within 120 days of the 

violation, the assessment team will 

prepare a report that identifies the cause 

or causes of the violation and 

recommend appropriate measures for 

mitigating future violations. The report 

will be presented to the Anchorage 

Metropolitan Area Transportation 

Solutions Policy Committee for review 

and adoption and will then be 

forwarded to ADEC for approval. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

the contingency provisions submitted in 

the Eagle River PM10 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 PM10 limited 

maintenance plan for Eagle River 

submitted by the State of Alaska.4 The 

EPA’s review of the air quality data for 

the Eagle River area indicates that the 

area continues to show attainment of the 

PM10 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 Eagle River PM10 area. 

VI. 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 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, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 168 / Thursday, September 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules 49283 

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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• 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 25, 2021. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18844 Filed 9–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 282 

[EPA–R07–UST–2021–0345; FRL–8775–01– 

R7] 

Kansas: Final Approval of State 

Underground Storage Tank Program 

Revisions, Codification, and 

Incorporation by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 

or Act), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the State of Kansas’s 

Underground Storage Tank (UST) 

program submitted by the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment 

(KDHE). This action is based on the 

EPA’s determination that these revisions 

satisfy all requirements needed for 

program approval. This action also 

proposes to codify EPA’s approval of 

Kansas’s State program and incorporate 

by reference those provisions of the 

State regulations that we have 

determined meet the requirements for 

approval. The provisions will be subject 

to EPA’s inspection and enforcement 

authorities under sections 9005 and 

9006 of RCRA Subtitle I and other 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

provisions. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received on or before October 

4, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by EPA–R07–UST–2021– 

0345, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: mance.cassandra@epa.gov. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–UST–2021– 

0345. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

available online at https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through https://

www.regulations.gov, or email. The 

Federal https://www.regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means the EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through https://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and also with 

any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties, and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. EPA encourages electronic 

submittals, but if you are unable to 

submit electronically, please reach out 

to the EPA contact person listed in the 

document for assistance. You can view 

and copy the documents that form the 

basis for this codification and associated 

publicly available materials either 

through www.regulations.gov or by 

contacting Cassandra Mance at (913) 

551–7355 or mance.cassandra@epa.gov. 

Out of an abundance of caution for 

members of the public and our staff, the 

EPA Region 7 office will be closed to the 

public to reduce the risk of transmitting 

COVID–19. Please call or email the 

contact listed above if you need access 

to material indexed but not provided in 

the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cassandra Mance, Tanks, Toxics, and 

Pesticides Branch, Land, Chemical, and 

Redevelopment Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219; (913) 551–7355; 

mance.cassandra@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has 

explained the reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule published in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Authority: This proposed rule is issued 

under the authority of sections 2002(a), 

7004(b), and 9004 of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 

6991c, 6991d, and 6991e. 

Dated: August 24, 2021. 

Edward H. Chu, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

7. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18913 Filed 9–1–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1