[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70798-70799]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2010-0012; OMB No. 1660-0022]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Community Rating System (CRS) Program-
Application Worksheets and Commentary

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 under the emergency
processing procedures in OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.13. FEMA is
requesting that this information collection be approved by December 14,
2012. The approval will authorize FEMA to use the collection through
June 14, 2012. FEMA plans to follow this emergency request with a
request for a 3-year approval. The request will be processed under
OMB's standard clearance procedures in accordance with the provisions
of OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.10. To help us with the timely processing
of the emergency and standard clearance submissions to OMB, FEMA
invites the general public to comment on the proposed collection of
information.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to OMB on or before December 27,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, Office of Management, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-3005,
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
promotes and implements sound local floodplain management. Communities
must adopt minimum floodplain management standards in order to
participate in the NFIP and receive the benefits of flood insurance.
The Community Rating System (CRS), codified in the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, Sec. 541.) was
designed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to encourage
communities to undertake activities that will mitigate flooding and
flood damage beyond the minimum standards for NFIP participation. The
CRS Program ``CRS Coordinator's Manual'' is the key primary explanatory
document used by CRS communities. It provides detailed explanations of
the program and its activities respondents (communities) will select
activities to apply for and receive credit and community certifications
so that proper credit is applied for each. Communities that receive
these credits become eligible for flood insurance premium discounts.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Rating System (CRS) Program-Application Worksheets
and Commentary.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 086-0-35, Community Rating
System Application Letter of Interest and Quick Check Instructional;
FEMA

086-0-35A, Community Rating System Community Certifications; FEMA form
086-0-35B, Environmental and Historic Preservation Certifications.
    Abstract: The CRS Application Worksheet and Commentary are used by
communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program's
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to document the activities that
communities have undertaken to mitigate against future flood losses.
The CRS Application Worksheet and Commentary provide a step-by-step
process for communities to follow in their effort to achieve the
maximum amount of discount on flood insurance premiums. Community
participation in CRS allows flood insurance costs to be reduced as a
result of implementing floodplain management practices, such as
building codes and public education activities. These practices reduce
risks of flooding and promote purchase of flood insurance.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,274.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,748.
    Estimated Cost: There are no recordkeeping, capital, start-up or
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Comments: Written comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether
the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity
of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses. Submit comments to OMB within 30
days of the date of this notice. To ensure that FEMA is fully aware of
any comments or concerns that you share with OMB, please provide us
with a copy of your comments. FEMA will continue to accept comments
from interested persons through January 28, 2013. Submit comments to
the FEMA address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT caption.

Gary Anderson,
Chief Administration Officer, Office of the Chief Administration
Office, Mission Support Bureau, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2012-28665 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 1 NOMINATING PARTY: The United States of America BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF NOMINATION: Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants DOCUMENT NUMBER CUN 2003, US56N10 DATE August 12, 2004 CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. KEY PESTS, AND SPECIFIC REASON FOR METHYL BROMIDE IN MILLS AND FOOD PROCESSORS GENUS AND SPECIES OF MAJOR PESTS FOR WHICH THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IS CRITICAL COMMON NAME SPECIFIC REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NEEDED Tribolium confusum Confused flour beetle Tribolium castaneum Red flour beetle Pest status is due to health hazard: allergens; plus body parts, exuviae, and excretia violate Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) regulations1. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking) so phosphine and heat are not adequate.

Trogoderma variable Warehouse beetle Health hazard: choking and allergens; plus body parts, exuviae, and excretia violate FDA regulations1. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking) so phosphine and heat are not adequate.

Lasioderma serricorne Cigarette beetle Sitophilus oryzae Rice weevil Plodia interpunctella Indianmeal moth Oryzaephilus mercator Merchant grain beetle Cryptolestes pusillus Flat grain beetle Food contamination violates FDA regulations1. Methyl bromide is needed because these insects can occur in areas with electronic equipment and materials that cannot tolerate high temperatures ( i. e. cooking of some products; oils and butter go rancid with heat) so phosphine and heat are not adequate.

1 FDA regulations can be found at: http:// www. fda. gov/ opacom/ laws/ fdcact/ fdcact4. htm and http:// www. cfsan. fda. gov/~ dms/ dalbook. html.

AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED TABLE 2. AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE NOMINATED BY THE U. S. IN 2005 AND 2006. 2005 ( KG) 2006 ( KG) DESCRIPTION 536,328 505,982 The U. S. imposed a reduction in use rate on applicants, and reduced the applicant requests to account for their request for growth in the number of facilities treated. USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 2 FIGURE 1. U. S. TOTAL, REQUESTED, AND NOMINATED MILLS AND FOOD PROCESSORS 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Mills and Food Processors Number Total *

Requested by applicant **

Nominated by US ***

Footnotes: * The total number of facilities ( names and addresses listed in Appendix A) is based on US EPA's Facility Registry System ( FRS) based on Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for Flour Millers, Rice Millers, Pet Foods, and Food Processors. Only facilities with one or more EPA permits are included ( 4475 Facilities). ** Total number of facilities requesting methyl bromide ( 275 Facilities). *** Total number of facilities included in the US Nomination ( 275 Facilities).

ECONOMIC IMPACTS The economic impacts were assessed using four economic parameters: 1. loss per 1000 cubic foot, 2. loss per kilogram of methyl bromide, 3. loss as a percentage of gross revenue, and 4. loss as a percentage of net revenue. This assessment compares methyl bromide to the best available alternative to determine the economic feasibility of using that alternative. A range of alternatives were examined to determine the best available alternative scenario taking into account yield loss estimates and cost increase estimates. The result of the economic impact analysis is presented in the BUNI analysis. In this sector, no alternatives were found to be both technically and economically feasible for the particular circumstances nominated for the CUE.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS Question 1  USA CUN 2003/ 051, USc6N4 For Mills and Processors MBTOC is unable to assess this sector because detailed information regarding the location, size, age, frequency of MB fumigation and historical usage data of each individual mill and plant was not included in the nomination.

Answer   Members of this sector are trying to comply with this request. However, these consortia request more time to compile these data as they need to ask for this information from their members, which in turn need to gather the information from the individual plants and their pest control operators/ fumigation companies.

To illustrate the magnitude of this task, the names and addresses of facilities listed in Appendix A USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 3 were produced from the US EPA's Facility Registry System ( FRS) based on Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for Flour Millers, Rice Millers, Pet Foods, and Food Processors. These facilities have one or more EPA permits. Detailed descriptions of the types of establishments that are included in each SIC codes are available from the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration website located at http:// www. osha. gov/ pls/ imis/ sicsearch. html. EPA's Facility Registry System is publicly available and is located at http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ fii/ ez. html Please note that only a small percentage of the facilities listed in Appendix A ( Filename: CUN2003 Stru 02 Mills & Processors Reply to June 2004 Questions. xls) use methyl bromide to control pests. There is additional concern that release of the exact locations has homeland security issues.

MBTOC Question 2  The Party may wish to adjust the quantity nominated in view of recent registration of one potential alternative ( SF) for this usage.

US Response  There are two factors that will delay the adoption of sulfuryl fluoride ( SF) as a methyl bromide replacement. Although sulfuryl fluoride was registered by U. S. EPA in January of 2004, it was registered only for the mills processing flour and rice that do not manufacture any food mixes or ingredients. In addition, US pesticide registration is a multi part process; registration at the federal level must be followed by a state registration. The California, Florida, and New York state registrations are still pending. Because a lawsuit has been filed over the SF registration, the registration process in the remaining states is likely to be slowed.

A large, but currently unknown, number of mills that process flour also produce partial recipe products that contain such ingredients as sugar, baking soda, leavening agents, hydrogenated oils, etc. The registration of sulfuryl fluoride does not include tolerances for these ingredients and therefore SF could not be legally used in these facilities at this time. It is most likely that adoption of sulfuryl fluoride for some of these mills will be delayed until tolerances for these ingredients are sought by the registrant, reviewed by U. S. EPA, and granted ( if they meet eligibility criteria).

As Figure 1 demonstrates, only a small proportion of the milling and food processing facilities in the US have applied to use methyl bromide. Because the US accelerated the registration of SF as a methyl bromide alternative the use on food additives was not included in the registration. The US will need to collect information on the extent of the number and location of facilities where these types of food additives are used and were included in our original CUE request. At the same time the US will attempt to clarify if any of these products are sold to countries where SF is not yet registered. As a consequence of the factors listed above, we do not believe it would be prudent to adjust the quantity nominated for these uses. However, we are committed to rereviewing the status and market penetration of SF as part of the domestic allocation procedure for 2006, and are committed to reducing the allocation to the extent that, at that time, SF is a viable alternative for the nominated uses.

References 2006 Bromide Usage Numerical Index ( BUNI)   Refined Nomination Package. Attached to U. S. USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 4 Response to Questions as an Excel Spreadsheet. USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 5 Appendix A. Names and Addresses of U. S. Post harvest Facilities A 1. Flour Millers ( SIC Code 2041)

A 2. Rice Millers ( SIC Code 2044)

A 3. Pet Foods ( SIC Codes 2047, 2048)

A 4. Food Processors ( SIC Codes 2043, 2045, 2051, 2052, 2096, 2099)

NOTE: Appendices are contained in the file: CUN2003 Stru 02 Mills & Processors Reply to June 2004 Questions. xls USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 6 Table 3. Number of Mills and Food Processing Facilities by Category Region State Flour Mills Food Processing Pet Foods Rice Eastern Delaware 1 5 Georgia 10 52 159 Kentucky 13 34 57 Maryland 2 47 33 North Carolina 19 45 119 New Jersey 4 64 9 Pennsylvania 29 84 88 South Carolina 10 31 32 Tennessee 14 42 40 1 Virginia 31 30 38 West Virginia 3 2 Sub Total 132 433 582 1 Mountain Alaska 2 Colorado 5 24 50 Idaho 3 6 15 Montana 4 1 7 Nevada 2 3 Utah 8 17 10 Wyoming 1 Sub Total 20 52 86 North East Connecticut 13 3 Massachusetts 4 39 2 Maine 1 6 2 New York 12 42 18 Rhode Island 1 Vermont 2 6 North East Sub Total 17 103 31 Southern Alabama 7 28 69 Arkansas 2 10 50 18 Arizona 10 1 Florida 5 29 21 Louisiana 5 18 22 17 Mississippi 7 12 33 3 New Mexico 3 10 9 Oklahoma 2 12 31 Texas 12 65 61 3 Sub Total 43 194 297 41 Tropical AS 1 GU 1 Hawaii 1 Puerto Rico 7 28 29 2 Sub Total 7 30 30 2 Upper Midwest Iowa 43 54 256 Illinois 24 181 121 1 Indiana 23 29 53 Kansas 33 27 147 Michigan 7 35 7 USA, Post Harvest Use for Food Processing Plants, Response to June 2004 Questions Page 7 Minnesota 21 29 96 Missouri 55 54 147 2 North Dakota 4 4 4 Nebraska 12 29 175 Ohio 23 68 77 South Dakota 2 15 Wisconsin 7 53 52 Sub Total 252 565 1150 3 Western California 22 116 74 31 Oregon 6 18 25 Washington 9 59 42 Sub Total 37 193 141 31 Grand Total 508 1570 2317 78 Footnote: These facilities have one or more EPA permits. Descriptions of the establishments that are included in each SIC codes are available from the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration website located at http:// www. osha. gov/ pls/ imis/ sicsearch. html. EPA's Facility Registry System is publicly available and is located at http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ html/ fii/ ez. html


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33418-33425]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14439]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192; FRL-9929-11-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision to
the New York State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State Implementation Plan revision (SIP) submitted by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation. This revision consists
of a change to New York's November 15, 1992 Carbon Monoxide Attainment
Demonstration that would remove a reference to a limited off-street
parking program as it relates to the New York County portion of the New
York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT Carbon Monoxide
attainment area. The EPA is approving this SIP revision because it will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) in the affected area or with any other
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is consistent
with EPA rules and guidance.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0192. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available,
i.e., 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 either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-
637-4249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
final action, please contact Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (212)
637-3901, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is the EPA taking?

    The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to remove
a reference from the carbon monoxide (CO) SIP to a limited off-street
parking program that only applied in the Manhattan Central Business
District of New York City (CBD). The program limits the number of
parking spaces permitted in newly constructed buildings. The EPA is
approving New York's request to remove a reference to this limited off-
street parking program in New York County because this SIP revision
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment and
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. The EPA has reviewed all the public comments and agrees with
the State and City of New York that there is no evidence that removal
from the SIP will interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS
in the area or with any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition,
New York, in its SIP modeling to support the previously EPA-approved
demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not take credit
for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-
street parking program measures. After removal from the federal SIP,
the limited off-street parking program, which is implemented by the New
York City Department of City Planning and subject to New York City
administrative

procedures will no longer be federally enforceable. Removal of the
limited off-street parking program from the SIP will not change the
program's status under local law.

II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposal and what are the
EPA's responses?

    Our April 12, 2013 proposed approval of the SIP provided for a
public comment period that ran from April 12 through May 13, 2013. We
received comments from the City of New York Law Department and from Mr.
Daniel Gutman, some of which were timely. The City of New York Law
Department submitted a letter dated May 13, 2013. Mr. Gutman provided
several comments to the EPA: A May 13, 2013 letter, a June 7, 2013
electronic mail message, a June 11, 2013 electronic mail message and a
July 26, 2013 letter. All comments, even those from Mr. Gutman that
were received after the close of the public comment period, are
included in the docket for this action. Although we are not required to
respond to Mr. Gutman's late-submitted comments, we are electing to do
so in this final action.
    In general, the City of New York supports the EPA's proposed rule
to approve New York's SIP request to remove a reference to a limited
off-street parking program as it relates to the New York County portion
of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment
area. Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should deny New York State's
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
    A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided
below. Comments from the City of New York Law Department are referred
to as ``the City of New York'' and comments from Mr. Daniel Gutman are
referred to as ``Mr. Gutman.''
    Comment: Mr. Gutman stated that the limited off-street parking
program, with a decline of 20,000 public parking spaces, has been
effective in reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
improving auto and truck vehicle speeds in the Manhattan CBD,
contributing to the ability of New York to meet ozone and fine particle
(PM2.5) NAAQS.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that Mr. Gutman has presented a clear
relationship between the limited off-street parking restrictions and
the ability of New York City to meet the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. While Mr. Gutman cited documents asserting the limited off-
street parking has been reduced, and vehicle speeds have improved, he
has not cited evidence that either, or both, of those events correlate
with the downward trend of CO concentrations. Mr. Gutman has not
provided any information that quantifies the emission reductions he
asserts have been produced or the emission increases that he asserts
would be produced by removal of the program, or that indicates that the
removal of the program will interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS.
The EPA's overall conclusion, as explained by Figures 1-3 and the
narrative addressing emission factors, average speeds and VMT, is that
motor vehicle emissions are going down; any increase in VMT is
outweighed by the decrease in motor vehicle emission rates.
    Based on the EPA's review of the ``1981 Parking Study,'' submitted
by Mr. Gutman along with his comments, the Study found that the number
of parking spaces was not a limiting factor for drivers deciding to
drive into the CBD. The 1981 Parking Study found ``[p]olicies based on
changing auto trip cost and travel time may be ineffective in reducing
auto trips since most of the variations in trip decisions are due to
factors other than trip time and cost.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i). It
also found that ``the air quality impact of economically based parking
management strategies is minimal.'' (1981 Parking Study p. i).
Furthermore, ``during the peak commuter entry hours there is no area of
the CBD where lack of available off-street parking serves to limit auto
entries.'' (1981 Parking Study p. ii). EPA is aware of another study
\1\ which concludes that Boston's cap on off-street parking has
contributed to the excess VMT from people ``cruising'' for on-street
parking spaces. Therefore, the amount of VMT generated due to travel
into cities is a complex function of many variables that includes the
relationship between off-street and on-street parking. In this
situation, the impact of removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program on the precursors to ozone and PM2.5
resulting from motor vehicles is so small as to not be meaningful and,
most important, New York in its SIP modeling to support the previously
EPA-approved demonstrations of attainment of the various NAAQS, did not
take credit for any emission reductions that may be attributed to the
limited off-street parking program measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Cruising for parking,'' Donald C. Shoup, (Transport Policy
13 (2006), pages 479-486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No evidence was provided that a growth in the number of parking
spaces in the CBD of New York City will lead to renewed growth of
traffic, lower traffic speeds and/or higher emissions than assumed in
New York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations. The
EPA therefore disagrees that it should be assumed there is a direct
correlation between growth in the number of parking spaces in the City
of New York and its impact on any baseline assumptions associated with
New York's attainment demonstrations to date.
    In evaluating removal of the reference to the parking restrictions,
the EPA considered New York's SIP revision request to address all
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations
may change as a result of the SIP revision. Regarding the air quality
aspects of motor vehicle emissions and parking restrictions, increased
emissions, if any, from additional motor vehicles in an area would be
primarily CO compared to other criteria pollutants in the Manhattan
CBD. Therefore, of all the criteria pollutants, CO concentrations would
be the pollutant most sensitive to factors associated with the impact
from changes to the existing limited off-street parking program that
limits the number of parking spaces in permitted new construction.
    As presented in our April 12, 2013 proposed rule, CO concentrations
in the New York Metropolitan Area have not violated the NAAQS or come
close to exceeding the NAAQS since 1992 and have trended downward since
that year. Currently, measured CO concentrations show values of
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. Also, as stated in the April 12,
2013, proposed rule, ``This dramatic improvement can be attributed to
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program along with advanced anti-
pollution controls on motor vehicles.'' 78 FR 21867, 21869.
    A comparison of vehicle emission factors between 1990 and 2014
calculated using EPA's mobile source model, MOVES, shows how the rate
of mobile emissions have been reduced. In addition, it also shows how
the other pollutants of interest, including ozone and PM2.5,
referenced by Mr. Gutman are emitted at levels significantly lower than
CO (See Figure 1). The emission factors for 1990 and 2014 were
calculated using default values for New York County (including default
VMT).

These are annual factors combining all vehicle types and road types.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.102

    Reviewing the data submitted as part of the CO maintenance plan for
the New York Metropolitan Area \2\ figure 2, below, shows the average
daily speeds used in modeling. Vehicle speeds have decreased slightly
on highways and increased slightly or remained constant, from 1990 to
the present, on local, major collector, minor arterial and principle
arterial roadways while monitored CO values have decreased
significantly to the levels observed in 2013. The New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CO attainment area, which includes the
Manhattan CBD, is meeting the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ New York Metropolitan Area Carbon Monoxide Limited
Maintenance Plan For 2012-2022, dated December 2012, Appendix C,
Attachment 4 Speed Tables.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.103

    Based on traffic data from the New York State Department of
Transportation, VMT increased from 1985 to 2006 and declined slightly
from 2006 to 2011 (see Figure 3), but this has not affected average
vehicle speeds in Manhattan or monitored CO concentrations which have
decreased over the current period.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN15.104

    When the EPA proposed to approve New York's 2nd CO maintenance plan
on March 25, 2014 (79 FR 16265), the EPA only received comments
supporting the proposal. A final rulemaking approving the CO
maintenance plan was published on May 30, 2014 (79 FR 31045). Based on
the CO maintenance plan, vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD
have not shown much change, while vehicle emissions have decreased
dramatically.
    Therefore, no emission reductions were attributed to this program
in the SIP. The reader is reminded that the limited off-street parking
program is a limited program implemented by New York City Department of
City Planning that applies only in the CBD of Manhattan and applies to
new building construction. While this program applies to a portion of
only one county, the PM2.5 and ozone SIPs cover multiple
counties.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA approved the 1979 SIP,
which included a ``permanent project'' of regulating and restricting
parking in the CBD of Manhattan. Mr. Gutman further commented that, as
a permanent project, continuation of the CBD limited off-street parking
program is a key assumption underlying projected traffic estimates
incorporated into subsequent ozone and particulate matter SIP
revisions. Mr. Gutman stated the EPA should deny New York State's
request to revise the SIP and not approve removal of the limited off-
street parking program reference in the SIP.
    Response: Mr. Gutman maintains that the limited off-street parking
program appears to be discussed as a permanent measure in the SIP.
While a number of SIP actions \3\ have discussed limited off-street
parking programs, the EPA disagrees with Mr. Gutman's interpretation
regarding the permanency of such measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., 44 FR 70754 (Dec. 10, 1979); 45 FR 33981 (May 21,
1980); 45 FR 56369 (Aug. 25, 1980); 46 FR 8477 (Jan. 27, 1981); 67
FR 19337 (April 19, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Gutman's comments place emphasis on the ``permanency'' of
measures in the SIP, suggesting that once a measure is approved into
the SIP, it perpetually remains in the SIP. However, this is not the
case. Section 110 of the CAA generally and section 110(l) specifically
allow for the State to revise its SIP over time to add or remove
control measures, subject to the condition that doing so does not
result in interference with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS or
with any other CAA applicable requirement.\4\ In this action, the EPA
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on
for any associated emissions reductions in any EPA-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In addition, section 193 restricts modification of SIP
requirements that were in effect before November 15, 1990, by
prohibiting such modification in any area which is a nonattainment
area for any air pollutant unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reduction of such air pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New York indicated that it has not relied on any emission
reductions that may be attributed to the limited off-street parking
program measures in any SIP actions.\5\ As discussed in the EPA's April
12, 2013 proposal to approve New York's removal of a reference in the
SIP to a limited off-street parking program, CAA section 110(l) states:
``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501
[171]), or any other applicable requirement of this Chapter.'' Section
110(l) allows New York to request that any measure be removed from the
SIP as long as the state can demonstrate that removal of the measure
complies with this restriction. In fact, section 110(l) would allow a
State to remove a program that it clearly identified as a ``permanent''
control measure, even if the program included associated emission
reductions that were credited to the SIP, so long as the State can
demonstrate continued attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS and so
long as the measure is not required by other provisions of the CAA. For
example, New York's portable fuel container program is a SIP-approved,
enforceable control measure program with associated emission reductions
relied on in the SIP. As important as this program is for New York's
continued attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, New York has the
ability to request removal of this program if New York can demonstrate
such removal would not interfere under section 110(l). In this example,
New York would need to replace the emission reductions associated with
the portable fuel container program with other control measures since
New York relied on the resulting emission reductions. In contrast, New
York cannot replace emission reductions associated with the limited
off-street parking program with another control measure, because there
is no information demonstrating that the measures ever achieved a
reduction in emissions or that the removal of the restrictions would
lead to an increase in emissions, and no emission reductions from the
limited off-street parking program were ever credited towards
attainment of the CO standards. There is no quantifiable emission
increase as a result of removing the limited off-street parking
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated Oct. 5, 2012 from J. Martens, DEC, to J. Enck,
EPA Region 2, including attachment dated August 2012 ``Assessment of
Public Comments on the Proposed Amendment to the New York State
Implementation Plan: Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration: New
York Metropolitan Area, August 2012.'' See, e.g., Response to
Comment 2, 5 and 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the limited off-street parking program's goal was to
reduce vehicle entries to the CBD and thereby improve vehicle speeds
and lower VMT with the idea that this would ultimately reduce CO
emissions from automobiles on the road in the late 1970's and early
1980's. Over the years, VMT has increased and vehicle speeds have been
little changed and emission control technology on vehicles has been
greatly improved and CO concentrations have decreased dramatically to
approximately 20 percent of the NAAQS. This suggests that VMT and
vehicle speeds have a negligible effect in the Manhattan CBD but
emission control efficiency has a large impact on CO emissions in
Manhattan. The other pollutants emitted from automobiles, both in 1990
and 2014, are emitted at rates significantly less than CO and, since
vehicle speeds and VMT in the Manhattan CBD have a negligible effect,
it is expected that there would be no impact on the other automotive
related pollutants. The limited off-street parking program was never
included in any other NAAQS SIP. In this action the EPA is approving
New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a limited off-
street parking program that the State has not relied on for any
associated emissions reductions.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Planning
Commission has proposed new rules that have a target to increase the
number of parking spaces in the City of New York, which he asserts
violates the SIP and he asserts, will lead to renewed growth of
traffic, lower traffic speeds and higher emissions than assumed in New
York's ozone and PM2.5 attainment demonstrations.
    Response: The issue of whether New York City or New York State is
proposing regulations or statutes that may violate the SIP is separate
from the EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal to approve a SIP revision
submitted by the State to remove references to the limited off-street
parking program in the SIP

that apply solely to the Manhattan CBD. If the City of New York or
State adopts regulations or statutes that are different than or
conflict with requirements currently included in the SIP, the EPA will
address those differences when such new rules are submitted by New York
State for EPA review and approval into the SIP. In addition, should
such rules not be submitted as a SIP revision to the EPA for
consideration but get promulgated in conflict with the applicable SIP,
the EPA also has the authority to issue a finding of failure to
implement the SIP, which would require submittal of a SIP revision.
    Mr. Gutman claims that the City of New York's proposed changes to
the parking restrictions will violate the SIP because the changes are
different than the parking restrictions currently contained in the SIP.
However, Mr. Gutman failed to provide any specific references to the
traffic levels or emission levels assumed in New York's SIPs. The state
can always revise its SIP, consistent with the requirements of the CAA.
When submitted as a SIP revision, EPA would be under an obligation to
review the SIP revision on its merits and assess how it would affect
the applicable SIP and attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that since the EPA promulgated a new,
more stringent annual NAAQS for PM2.5 that also requires
that additional monitors be located near roadways, vehicle emissions
are likely to be more important in order for areas to meet the new
PM2.5 annual standard.
    Response: EPA agrees that emissions from vehicle-related activities
could be important considerations as states develop plans for meeting
and maintaining the new PM2.5 annual standard. EPA has
established procedures, separate from this SIP revision action, which
will address attainment of the new PM2.5 annual standard and
the establishment of near roadway monitors. On December 17, 2014 (80 FR
2206), EPA designated areas of the country as meeting or not meeting
the new PM2.5 annual standard, with moderate area attainment
plans for any nonattainment areas to be submitted by the states to EPA
no later than October 15, 2016. New York City was designated
attainment/unclassifiable since air quality data from the existing
ambient air monitoring network shows the New York Metropolitan Area is
currently below the new PM2.5 annual standard. As for the
new near roadway monitors, states are required to phase-in these
monitoring sites beginning in 2015. NYSDEC submitted its 2014 annual
network plan, which provides for near roadway PM2.5
monitors, and EPA approved the plan in a letter dated November 3, 2014.
See Table 1 for the 3-Year design values.

                             Table 1--Annual Design Value Concentrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area ([micro]g/m\3\)
                                                   [The 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                3-Year design values
                  County                           AQS Monitor ID        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             2007-2009       2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK:
    Bronx.................................  36-005-0080/0110/0133.......            13.9            12.5            11.9             9.8             9.6
    Kings.................................  36-047-0122.................            12.2            10.8            10.3             9.9             9.7
    Nassau................................  36-059-0008.................            10.3             9.5             8.9             INC             INC
    New York..............................  36-061-0128/0134............            12.1            12.1            11.7            11.8            11.7
    Orange................................  36-071-0002.................             9.3             8.5             8.2             8.1             7.8
    Queens................................  36-081-0124.................            10.6            10.0             9.4             9.1             8.7
    Richmond..............................  36-085-0055.................            11.6            10.5             9.8             9.7             9.0
    Rockland..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Suffolk...............................  36-103-0002.................             9.7             8.9             8.4             8.4             8.1
    Westchester...........................  36-119-1002.................            10.6             9.6             9.1             INC             INC
NEW JERSEY:
    Bergen................................  34-003-0003.................            11.3             9.8             9.2             9.2             9.1
    Essex.................................  34-0013-003.................             INC             INC             INC             9.5             9.4
    Hudson................................  34-017-2002.................            13.1            11.6            11.1            11.1            11.1
    Mercer................................  34-021-0008.................            10.8            10.0             9.7             9.5             9.4
    Middlesex.............................  34-023-0006.................            10.4             8.8             7.9             8.0             8.2
    Monmouth..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Morris................................  34-027-0004.................             9.6             8.7             8.5             8.4             8.4
    Passaic...............................  34-031-0005.................            11.3             9.8             9.3             9.3             9.3
    Somerset..............................  NM..........................              NM              NM              NM              NM              NM
    Union.................................  34-039-0006/2003............            11.6            10.3             9.6             9.7             9.7
CONNECTICUT:
    Fairfield.............................  09-001-0010.................            11.3            10.0             9.4             9.4             9.3
    New Haven.............................  09-009-1123.................            11.4            10.3             9.6             9.4             9.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INC--Counties listed as INC did not meet 75 percent data completeness requirement for the relevant time period.
NM--No monitor located in county.

    If new monitoring data demonstrates exceedances of the NAAQS, EPA
would work with the State to bring any exceeding areas back into
attainment.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the limited off-street parking
program is a useful reasonably available control measure or RACM and
was so designated in the 1979 [proposed] SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking
program may be a RACM to make progress towards attainment of the NAAQS
for a specific pollutant(s) depending on location specific factors that
can change with time. The State, however, has the flexibility to decide
which measures to include in RACM as a requirement of the SIP based on
the ability of the measure to improve air quality in the given area and
advance the attainment date. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposed action
explained in detail the connection between the limited off-street
parking program and RACM. (See 78 FR 21869). As discussed in the EPA's
April 12, 2013, proposal, New York

could have included the restrictions as a RACM in the subsequent CO SIP
actions, but did not (1992, 2002). New York also never included the
restrictions as part of any other NAAQS attainment demonstrations.
These restrictions were not included because they were not needed to
demonstrate RFP or to meet the attainment date. New York's SIP does not
rely on any emission reductions associated with the parking
restrictions, and all credited emissions reductions are attributed to
other control measures in the SIP. New York is thus able to and has
demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS without relying on the limited
off-street parking program. Therefore the limited off-street parking
program is not necessary to meet or accelerate attainment by the
attainment date.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the New York City Department of
City Planning ``has been seeking to jettison'' rules, which they had
supported in 1982, by proposing in 2004, to rewrite the restrictions
for a large development area within the CBD that they called the Hudson
Yards.
    Response: This comment is not relevant to this SIP action. The EPA
is approving New York's request to remove a reference in the SIP to a
limited off-street parking program which the State has not relied on
for any associated emissions reductions.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman's comments state that the parking program was
part of the SIP and reference a May 5, 2009, Court Order, which was
submitted along with his comments to support his position.
    Response: EPA agrees that the limited off-street parking program is
referenced in the SIP, but also acknowledges that there was some
confusion concerning its scope. New York State decided to address the
issue by formally proposing revisions to the SIP, holding public
hearings and requesting public comments. This action is the result of
the State formally submitting a SIP revision.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that while the CBD parking
regulations may need to be updated and modernized, there is no reason
to gut their essence in the process, or to remove the program from the
SIP, and the EPA should not allow it.
    Response: As stated previously, the subject of the EPA's April 12,
2013, proposal is to act on a SIP revision submitted by the State to
remove references to the limited off-street parking program in the SIP,
based on the EPA's determination that such removal will not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of all NAAQS. Once the limited off-
street parking program is removed from the SIP, it will no longer be
federally enforceable. Removal of the limited off-street parking
program from the SIP will not change the program's status under local
law. Any future changes to the program would be subject to local
administrative procedures and public involvement.
    Comment: Mr. Gutman commented that the EPA should clarify whether
or not removing the limited off-street parking program from the 1992 CO
SIP leaves the program in place as part of the SIP for other
pollutants.
    Response: The EPA is removing the reference to the limited off-
street parking program from the SIP. The EPA's April 12, 2013, proposal
focused on CO because when compared to other pollutants emitted from
motor vehicles, CO emissions far exceed the others (see figure 1).
However, as discussed in previous responses to comments and in the
EPA's April 12, 2013 proposal, the EPA considered and evaluated New
York's SIP revision request to address all criteria air pollutants
whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of
the SIP revision. Regarding the relationship between motor vehicle
emissions, pollutant concentrations and activities that would
theoretically increase motor vehicle activity, on a grams per mile
basis, the mass of increased emissions from additional motor vehicles
in an area would be dominated by CO. Therefore, of all the criteria
pollutants, CO would be the pollutant most affected by hypothetical
activity that results in overall emissions increases and, as discussed
in previous responses to comments, the impact on the area's CO
concentrations would be insignificant. Concentrations of all the other
criteria pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter, would be
affected much less than CO concentrations. By removing the limited off-
street parking program references from the CO SIP, the EPA is removing
the reference from all of the SIP, and instead relying on New York's
more recent SIP revision approvals relating to emission inventories,
RACM, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans for all
pollutants.
    Comment: The City of New York commented that the EPA's proposed
rule will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in
the City of New York.
    Response: The EPA agrees. As stated in previous responses, the EPA
considered and evaluated New York's SIP revision request to address all
criteria air pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations
may change as a result of the SIP revision. While CO concentrations are
the pollutant of most concern in this action, as stated in the April
12, 2013 proposed rule, the EPA considered the impacts of all the
criteria pollutants.
    Comment: New York City commented that the EPA's proposed rule
allows the City of New York to be responsible for its own limited off-
street parking program and that it believes that it is free to amend
the parking regulations under the current SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the finalization of this rule will
allow the City of New York to be responsible for the limited off-street
parking restriction program in appropriate cases. However, until the
references to the limited off-street parking program are removed from
the SIP, the City of New York should continue to coordinate with the
State to determine whether any such amendments are consistent with the
SIP.
    Comment: The City of New York supports the removal of the
``outdated'' parking controls in the SIP and to remove any confusion or
misunderstanding regarding the City of New York's ability to regulate
off-street parking.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the suggestion that the parking
controls discussed in the SIP in the early 1980s could be considered
``outdated'' in lay terms given the subsequent and more recent SIP
revisions submitted by New York and approved by the EPA over the last
three decades and the substantial progress which has been achieved in
reducing air pollutants. New York has revised various emission
inventories, RACMs, attainment demonstrations and maintenance plans at
various times since the earlier references to the limited off-street
parking program. The New York SIP has not and continues to not rely on
the limited off-street parking program as a control measure. However,
the rule is not actually ``outdated'' in a legal sense unless removed
from the SIP, as is being done by this action.

III. What is the EPA's final action?

    The EPA is approving New York's request to remove a reference to a
limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP
because this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS and will not interfere with any other CAA
applicable requirements. In addition, New York did not rely on any
emission reductions from this program in its SIP modeling to support
the demonstration of attainment of the various NAAQS.

    The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York
has revised its SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40
CFR part 51 and all of the EPA's technical requirements for a SIP
revision. Therefore, the EPA is approving the removal of a reference to
a limited off-street parking program in New York County from the SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 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).
    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 the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 2, 2015.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended 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 HH--New York

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
the entry ``Limited off-street parking program'' at the end of the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved New York Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
       Action/SIP element            geographic or         New York      EPA Approval date       Explanation
                                   nonattainment area   submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Limited off-street parking        New York County--          10/05/12   6/12/15 [insert      Removing reference
 program.                          Central Business                      Federal Register     to program from
                                   District.                             citation].           SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-14439 Filed 6-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 56594]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2955-011]

City of Watervliet, NY; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: P-2955-011.
    c. Date filed: February 28, 2020.
    d. Applicant: City of Watervliet, New York.
    e. Name of Project: Normanskill Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Normans Kill in
Guilderland, Albany County, New York. The project does not occupy any
federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Michele E. Stottler, Gomez and Sullivan
Engineers, DPC, 399 Albany Shaker Road, Suite 203, Loudonville, NY
12211;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected] or Joseph
LaCivita, General Manager, The City of Watervliet, 2 Fifteenth Street,
Watervliet, NY 12189;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected]
    i. FERC Contact: Woohee Choi at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: October 8, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-2955-011.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Normanskill Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) A 380-foot-long reinforced concrete Ambursen-type dam
with a 306-foot-long overflow section having a crest elevation of 259
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) surmounted by 3-
foot-high flashboards; (2) a 380-acre reservoir with a gross volume of
3,600 acre-feet at the normal maximum pool elevation of 262 feet
NGVD29; (3) an intake structure and sluiceway; (4) a 700-foot-long, 6-
foot-diameter, concrete-encased steel, buried penstock; (5) a
reinforced concrete underground powerhouse containing a single 1,250-
kilowatt tube-type generating unit; (6) a 600-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt
(kV) transmission line; (7) a 2.4/13.2-kV transformer bank; and (8)
appurtenant facilities.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., scoping document) via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document (P-2955). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued by
the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (202)
502-8659 (TTY).
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Normanskill Hydroelectric Project in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both
site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued
on September 8, 2020.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on
the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20164 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P