[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10827-10831]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02623]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0194; FRL-10017-11-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the West
Virginia Portion for the Charleston, West Virginia Area Comprising
Kanawha and Putnam Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) of the State of West
Virginia. This revision pertains to West Virginia's plan for
maintaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for the Charleston Area (comprising Kanawha and Putnam
Counties). The EPA is approving these revisions to the West Virginia
SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0194. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keila M. Pag[aacute]n-Incle, Planning
& Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2926. Ms. Pag[aacute]n-Incle can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 29, 2020 (85 FR 38816), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPRM, EPA
proposed approval of West Virginia's plan for maintaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS through August 10, 2026, in accordance with CAA
section 175A. The formal SIP revision was submitted by WVDEP on
December 10, 2019.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On July 11, 2006 (71 FR 39001, effective August 10, 2006), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from WVDEP for
the Charleston Area. Per CAA section 175A(b), at the end of the eighth
year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state must also
submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing maintenance of the
standard for an additional 10 years, and in South Coast Air Quality
Management District v. EPA,\1\ the D.C. Circuit held that this
requirement cannot be waived for areas, like the Charleston Area, that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
prior to revocation and that were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria for adequate
maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published longstanding guidance
that provides further insight on the content of an approvable
maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address
five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance
demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air quality monitoring;
(4) a process for verification of continued attainment; and (5) a
contingency plan.\2\ WVDEP's December 10, 2019 SIP submittal fulfills
West Virginia's obligation to submit a second maintenance plan and
addresses each of the five necessary elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 882 F.3d 1138 (DC Cir. 2018).
    \2\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the June 29, 2020, NPRM, consistent with
longstanding EPA's guidance,\3\ areas that meet certain criteria may be
eligible to submit a limited maintenance plan (LMP) to satisfy one of
the requirements of CAA section 175A. Specifically, states may meet CAA
section 175A's requirements to ``provide for maintenance'' by
demonstrating that an area's design values \4\ are well below the NAAQS
and that it has had historical stability attaining the NAAQS. EPA
evaluated WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal for consistency with all
applicable EPA guidance and CAA requirements. EPA found that the
submittal met CAA Section 175A and all CAA requirements, and proposed
approval of the LMP for the Charleston Area (comprising Kanawha and
Putnam Counties) as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. The effect of
this action makes certain commitments related to the maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS federally enforceable as part of the West
Virginia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' from Sally L. Shaver, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), dated November 16, 1994;
``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, dated October 6,
1995; and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS,
dated August 9, 2001.
    \4\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone nonattainment
area is the highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other specific requirements of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal
and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM
and will not be restated here.

III. EPA's Response to Comments Received

    EPA received three comments on the June 29, 2020 NPRM. All comments
received are in the docket for this rulemaking action. A summary of the
comments and EPA's responses is provided herein.
    Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the LMP should not be
approved because of EPA's reliance on the Air Quality Modeling
Technical Support Document (TSD) that was developed for EPA's regional
transport rulemaking. The commenter contends that: (1) The TSD shows
maintenance of the area for three years and not 10 years; (2) the
modeling was performed for transport purposes across state lines and
not to show maintenance of the NAAQS; (3) the modeling was performed
for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS and not the 1997 ozone NAAQS; (4) the
TSD has been ``highly contested'' by environmental groups and that
``other states contend EPA's modeling as flawed;'' and (5) the TSD does
not address a recent court decision that threw out EPA's modeling
``because it modeled to the wrong attainment year. . . .'' The
commenter asserts that the four specific issues it raises with respect
to the modeling means that the TSD is ``flawed, illegal, [and] is being
used improperly for the wrong purpose. . . .'' The commenter states
that ``EPA must retract its reliance on the modeling for the purposes
of this maintenance plan and must find some other way of showing
continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.''
    Response 1: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the approval
of West Virginia's second maintenance plan is not appropriate. The
commenter raises concerns about West Virginia and EPA's citation of air
quality modeling, but the commenter ignores that EPA's primary basis
for finding that West Virginia has provided for maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the Charleston Area is the State's demonstration
that the criteria for a limited maintenance plan has been met. See 85
FR 38816, June 29, 2020. Specifically, as stated in the NPRM, for
decades EPA has interpreted the provision in CAA section 175A that
requires states to ``provide for maintenance'' of the NAAQS to be
satisfied where areas demonstrate that design values are and have been
stable and well below the NAAQS--e.g., at 85% of the standard, or in
this case at or below 0.071 ppm. EPA calls such demonstration a
``limited maintenance plan.''
    The modeling cited by the commenter was referenced in West
Virginia's submission and as part of EPA's proposed approval as
supplementary supporting information, and we do not agree that the
commenter's concerns about relying on that modeling are warranted. The
commenter contends that the modeling only goes out three years (to
2023) and it needs to go out to 10 years, and therefore may not be
relied upon. However, the air quality modeling was only relied upon by
EPA to provide additional support to indicate that the area is expected
to continue to attain the NAAQS during the relevant period. As noted
above, West Virginia primarily met the requirement to demonstrate
maintenance of the NAAQS by showing that they met the criteria for a
limited maintenance plan, rather than by modeling or projecting
emissions inventories out to a future year. We also do not agree that
the State is required to demonstrate maintenance for 10 years; CAA
section 175A requires the State to demonstrate maintenance through the
20th year after the area is redesignated, which in this case is 2026.
    We also disagree with the commenter's contention that because the
air quality modeling was performed to analyze the transport of
pollution

across state lines with respect to other ozone NAAQS, it cannot be
relied upon in this action. We acknowledge that the air quality
modeling at issue was performed as part of EPA's efforts to address
interstate transport pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
However, the purpose of the air quality modeling is fully in keeping
with the question of whether West Virginia is expected to maintain the
NAAQS. The air quality modeling identifies which air quality monitors
in the United States are projected to have problems attaining or
maintaining the 2008 and 2015 NAAQS for ozone in 2023. Because the air
quality modeling results simply provide projected ozone concentration
design values, which are expressed as three-year averages of the annual
fourth high 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentrations, the modeling
results are useful for analyzing attainment and maintenance of any of
the ozone NAAQS that are measured using this averaging time; in this
case, the 1997, 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The only difference between
the three standards is stringency. Taking the Charleston Area's most
recent certified design value as of the proposal (i.e., for the years
2016-2018), the area's design value was 0.067 parts per million (ppm).
What we can discern from this is that the area is meeting the 1997
ozone NAAQS of 0.080 ppm, the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm, and the
2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. The same principle applies to projected
design values from the air quality modeling. In this case, the
interstate transport modeling indicated that in 2023, the Charleston
Area's design value is projected to be 0.060 ppm, which is again, well
below all three standards. The fact that the air quality modeling was
performed to indicate whether the area will have problems attaining or
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.070 ppm) does not make the
modeling less useful for determining whether the area will also meet
the less stringent revoked 1997 standard (i.e., 0.080 ppm).
    The commenter asserts that many groups have criticized EPA's
transport modeling, alleging that the agency used improper emissions
inventories, incorrect contribution thresholds, wrong modeling years,
or that EPA has not accounted for local situations or reductions that
occurred after the inventories were established. The commenter also
alleges that EPA should not rely on its modeling because it ``fails to
stand up to the recent court decisions,'' citing the Wisconsin v. EPA
D.C. Circuit decision.\5\ EPA disagrees that the existence of
criticisms of the agency's air quality modeling render it unreliable,
and we also do not agree that anything in recent court decisions,
including Wisconsin v. EPA, suggests that EPA's air quality modeling is
technically flawed. We acknowledge that the source apportionment air
quality modeling runs cited by the commenter have been at issue in
various legal challenges to EPA actions, including the Wisconsin v. EPA
case. However, in that case, the only flaw in EPA's air quality
modeling identified by the D.C. Circuit was the fact that its analytic
year did not align with the attainment date found in CAA section
181.\6\ Contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the D.C. Circuit upheld
EPA's air quality modeling with respect to the many technical
challenges raised by petitioners in the Wisconsin case.\7\ We therefore
think reliance on the interstate transport air quality modeling as
supplemental support for showing that the Charleston Area will maintain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the end of its 20th-year
maintenance period is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \6\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 313.
    \7\ Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323-331.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove this
maintenance plan because EPA should not allow states to rely on
emission programs such as the Cross-State Air Pollution rule (CSAPR) to
demonstrate maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter alleges
that ``the CSAPR and CSAPR Update and CSAPR Close-out rules were
vacated entirely'' by multiple courts and ``are now illegal programs
providing no legally enforceable emission reductions to any states
formerly covered by the rules.'' The commenter also asserts that
nothing restricts ``big coal and gas power plants from emitting way
beyond there (sic) restricted amounts.'' The commenter does allow that
``If EPA can show that continued maintenance without these rules is
possible for the next 10 years then that would be OK but as the plan
stands it relies on these reductions and must be disapproved.''
    Response 2: The commenter has misapprehended the factual
circumstances regarding these interstate transport rules. Every rule
cited by the commenter that achieves emission reductions from electric
generating units (EGUs or power plants)--i.e., the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule and the CSAPR Update--remains in place and continues to
ensure emission reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2). CSAPR began implementation in 2015
(after it was largely upheld by the Supreme Court) and the CSAPR Update
began implementation in 2017. The latter rule was remanded to EPA to
address the analytic year issues discussed in the prior comment and
response, but the rule remains fully in effect. The commenter is
correct that the D.C. Circuit vacated the CSAPR close-out, but we note
that that rule was only a determination that no further emission
reductions were required to address interstate transport obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; the rule did not itself establish any
emission reductions. We therefore disagree that the legal status of
these rules presents any obstacle to EPA's approval of West Virginia's
submission.
    Comment 3: EPA also received a third comment, which included some
contradictory statements, and much of which is beyond the scope of this
action. However, we summarize a few germane points raised by the
commenter and respond to them herein. The commenter states that EPA
must disapprove the maintenance plan for the Charleston Area because
``this plan does not adequately limit or prevent the harmful effects of
ozone formation.'' The commenter also suggests that approving the
maintenance plan would allow for more ozone pollution. The commenter
raises concerns about the scope of EPA's authority, alleging that EPA's
authority is not unlimited, that EPA must take into account health
effects from harmful ozone, and that EPA is perhaps not using an
``acceptable methodology'' or the ``best available science.''
    Response 3: The NAAQS are standards required by the CAA to be
established by EPA. The CAA identifies two types of NAAQS, primary and
secondary. Primary NAAQS are air quality standards that ``based on such
criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to
protect the public health,'' and secondary NAAQS specify a level of air
quality that ``is requisite to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of
such air pollutant in the ambient air.'' CAA 109(b)(1) and (2). In lay
terms, primary NAAQS ``provide public health protection, including
protecting the health of `sensitive' populations such as asthmatics,
children, and the elderly,'' and secondary NAAQS ``provide public
welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility
and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and

buildings.'' \8\ As stated in the NPRM, on July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856),
EPA revised both the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. EPA set the primary 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set. Thus,
the primary 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS sets a threshold that at the time,
EPA believed to be protective of public health allowing for an adequate
margin of safety.\9\ The Charleston Area is meeting every ozone NAAQS,
and EPA's approval of West Virginia's plan to continue to maintain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (as it has since it was redesignated to
attainment in 2006) is based on EPA's judgment that the emission
limitations in West Virginia's SIP and other federally enforceable
measures have been effective at ensuring that the Charleston Area will
continue to attain the NAAQS. EPA does not agree that it has exceeded
its statutory authority. We also believe that we articulated our
methodology for evaluating West Virginia's submission in the proposal,
and that we have followed that methodology here in the final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
    \9\ The Primary ozone NAAQS has been revised twice since 1997,
most recently on October 26, 2015. 80 FR 65292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS limited maintenance
plan for the Charleston Area (comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties)
as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide 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).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 26, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action pertaining to West Virginia's limited maintenance
plan for the Charleston Area (comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties)
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the
Charleston, West Virginia Area Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties''
at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal      EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                 explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 8-Hour Ozone National         Charleston, West       12/10/2019  2/23/2021, [insert      ..................
 Ambient Air Quality Standard       Virginia Area                      Federal Register
 Second Maintenance Plan for the    Comprising Kanawha                 citation].
 West Virginia Portion of the       and Putnam Counties.
 Charleston, West Virginia Area
 Comprising Kanawha and Putnam
 Counties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-02623 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7412-7413]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0128]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Notice of
Landing Area Proposal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves gathering information from airport
sponsors about any establishment, construction, alteration, or change
to the status or use of an airport. The FAA uses this information to
conduct airport airspace analyses to understand the impact of proposed
actions on existing and planned operating procedures, determine
potential hazardous effects, and identify any mitigating measures
needed to enhance safe air navigation. Additionally, the information
updates the aeronautical charts and maps airports having emergency
landing or landmark values.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Raymond Zee, Airport Engineering Division (AAS-100),
Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Zee by email at:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0036.
    Title: Notice of Landing Area Proposal.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 7480-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 157, Notice
of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports,
requires that each person who intends to establish, construct,
deactivate, or change the status of an airport, runway, or taxiway
notify the FAA of such activity. The FAA uses the information collected
to determine the effect the proposed action will have on existing
airports and on the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft, the
effects on existing airspace or contemplated traffic patterns of
neighboring airports, the effects on the existing airspace structure
and projected programs of the FAA, and the effects that existing or
proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA) and natural objects
within the affected area will have on the airport proposal. This
information also updates aeronautical charts and maps airports having
emergency landing or landmark values. The FAA collects this information
via an online reporting tool available on the FAA website (FAA Form
7480-1).
    Respondents: Approximately 350 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 350 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2019.
Raymond Zee,
Civil Engineer, Airport Engineering Division, Office of Airport Safety
and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2019-03724 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P