I've never read this, but from the description on Amazon, etc, it appears to be non-epic. Do you consider it epic?
But still, since I've never heard of it, my point stands. I've never heard of an epic fantasy where the world (or continent or region or whatever) was not in peril. Of course, I think that's kinda' part of the definition of "epic". The issues and conflicts have to affect more than just the mundane.
Even so, although this has made me incredibly self-conscious of my own epic fantasy, it hasn't dissuaded me at all from it.
When I read it I thought it was pretty epic. But that's using the pedestrian definition of "epic." As far as stories go, I think there's two kinds of "epic". There's depth or gravity "epic" and there's size or scale "epic." The Last Dragonlord is, I feel, very depth-epic, but it's not very scale-epic.
Depth-epic is harder to do. It takes more effort from the writer. It means the reader really has to be invested in the characters, worldbuilding, and plot. Possibly in that order. Depth-epic requires more writing skill to achieve. Because of this, if a book has the depth-epic but not the scale-epic, it can still be very good, even great. Good examples of depth-epic would be The Last Dragonlord or Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, although the latter has shades of scale-epic as well. Scale-epic, on the other hand, is very easy to do because it has a much lower skill floor than depth-epic does. All one has to do is increase the size of the story or artificially increase the stakes. Because of this, stories that have scale-epic without the depth-epic to support it tend to fall flat. Examples of scale-epic without much or any depth-epic at all behind it would be Eragon and Transformers 2. However, when a writer can pull off depth-epic and scale epic together, the result is glorious. Lord of the Rings and the latter Codex Alera books would be examples.