Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 152 / Wednesday, August 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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.

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

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 provisions that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the provisions. 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 PM10 LMP, ADEC included maintenance plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to meet the PM10
NAAQS. The Mendenhall Valley LMP
describes a process and a timeline to identify, evaluate and select appropriate contingency measures from a list of potential measures in the event of a quality assured violation of the PM10
NAAQS. Within 120 days following a violation of the PM10 NAAQS an assessment team will evaluate the events contributing to the violation and identify the appropriate measures 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:48 Aug 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

identified contingency measures may be adopted and implemented in coordination with the ADEC
Commissioner, City Manager and assembly.
The contingency provisions submitted in the Mendenhall Valley 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 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 PM10 NAAQS and meets all the LMP
requirements as described in this action.
If finalized, the EPAs approval of this LMP will satisfy the section 175A CAA
requirements for the second 10-year period for the Mendenhall Valley PM10
area.
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. 7410k; 40 CFR 52.02a.
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPAs 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:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993 and 13563 76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 3 The remainder of the November 10, 2020 State of Alaska SIP submission the Eagle River Second 10-year PM10 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 9990

43987

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. 1044;
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 subject to requirements of Section 12d 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 5, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
FR Doc. 202117099 Filed 81021; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 656050P

E:FRFM11AUP1.SGM

11AUP1