[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49278-49283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18844]


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

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 (PM<INF>10</INF>). 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> levels well below the PM<INF>10</INF> National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``the standard'').

[[Page 49279]]


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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#234756414c4a50484a0d404b514a50574a634653420d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd99889f92948e9694d39e958f948e8994bd988d9cd39a928b">[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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> nonattainment area (NAA) due to 
measured violations of the 24-hour PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF>, 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> and submitted the 
Eagle River first 10-year PM<INF>10</INF> LMP to the EPA for approval. 
On October 19, 2010, the EPA determined that the Eagle River NAA had 
attained the PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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 that 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 
([micro]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-

[[Page 49280]]

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 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 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 [micro]g/m\3\ is equal 
to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). The Eagle River area continues to 
attain the standard for PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations measured at 
the Parkgate monitoring site from 2010-2020, which are consistently 
below the NAAQS.

                          Table 1--Parkgate 24-Hour Maximum PM Concentrations 2010-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 2nd highest 24-
                              Year                                 24-hour max   hour [micro]g/   Number of days
                                                                  [micro]g/m\3\       m\3\       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 [micro]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 
Eagle River, based on PM<INF>10</INF> monitoring data from 2014 through 
2018, is 96 [micro]g/m\3\. In addition, the EPA also calculated the 5-
year average design value for Eagle River based on PM<INF>10</INF> 
monitoring data from 2016 through 2020 and found the most conservative 
design value estimate to be 93.4 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the 
critical design value of 98 [micro]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 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

[[Page 49281]]

[micro]g/m\3\ 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 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 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 (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 computed site-
specific MOS selected for the Parkgate monitoring site in Eagle River 
is 125.7 [micro]g/m\3\ (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 [micro]g/m\3\, when adjusted for growth, are below the 
calculated site-specific critical design value, or MOS, of 125.7 
[micro]g/m\3\. 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 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 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 PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations fails, or if it 
succeeds but in future years it becomes necessary again to address 
increasing PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> LMP includes an emissions 
inventory, with a base year of 2017. In the past, the highest 
PM<INF>10</INF> concentrations have typically occurred during spring 
break-up 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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Spring break-up (March,       Fall freeze-up
                        Source category                            April) (tons/day)       (October, November)
                                                                       (percent)           (tons/day) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paved Roads...................................................              3.71 (56.3)              1.06 (48.6)
Wind-blown Dust from Paved Roads, Parking Lots and Un-                      2.48 (37.6)              0.73 (33.4)
 Vegetated Areas..............................................
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........................             0.026 (0.39)             0.027 (1.23)
from Motor Vehicles...........................................
Non-Road Equipment Emissions..................................            0.0135 (0.20)            0.0132 (0.60)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................               6.58 (100)               2.18 (100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 49282]]

    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 PM<INF>10</INF> mitigation 
program in Eagle River that lead to significant reduction in 
PM<INF>10</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 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 non-rural, residential properties in the 
MOA can be found in Section 21.08.050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1985 until present, 
Alaska has operated a PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 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. 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 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 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 PM<INF>10</INF> 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 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 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 
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 Eagle River PM<INF>10</INF> area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We intend to address the remainder of the November 10, 2020 
State of Alaska SIP submission (the Juneau, Mendenhall Valley 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) in separate EPA actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735,

[[Page 49283]]

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 a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <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 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


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