Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices 19491

and a final rule identifying the

provisions of Part 132 that shall apply

for discharges within the State.

The U.S. EPA received a submission

from New York on February 27, 1998.

The bulk of this submission consists of

new, revised or existing water quality

standards which EPA is reviewing for

consistency with the Guidance in

accordance with 40 CFR 131 and 132.5.

EPA is not soliciting comments on the

following portions of this submission:

water quality criteria and

methodologies, use designations,

antidegradation, and 40 CFR Part 132,

Appendix F: Implementation

Procedures 1 (‘‘Site Specific

Modifications’’); and 3 (‘‘Addivity’’)

because those requirements constitute

parts of the State’s water quality

standards, not its NPDES program. EPA

also is not soliciting comment on the

Guidance itself.

Instead, EPA is only requesting

comment on whether it should approve,

pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62, and

132.5(g), those portions of this

submission that revise the State’s

approved National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permitting

program. These revisions generally

relate to the following provisions of 40

CFR Part 132, Appendix F: Procedure 2

(‘‘Variances’’); Procedure 3 (‘‘Total

Maximum Daily Loads, Wasteload

Allocations for Point Sources, Load

Allocations for Nonpoint Sources,

Wasteload Allocations in the Absence of

a TMDL, and Preliminary Wasteload

Allocations for Purposes of Determining

the Need for Water Quality Based

Effluent Limits’’); Procedure 5

(‘‘Reasonable Potential’’); Procedure 6

(‘‘Whole Effluent Toxicity’’); Procedure

7 (‘‘Loading Limits’’); Procedure 8:

(‘‘Water Quality-based Effluent

Limitations Below the Quantification

Level’’); and Procedure 9 (‘‘Compliance

Schedules’’).

The revisions are found in the

following: Technical Operational

Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.2.1:

Industrial Permit Drafting; TOGS 1.3.1:

Procedures for developing TMDLs and

Water Quality-based Effluent Limits;

and TOGS 1.3.2: Toxicity Testing in the

SPDES Program, a supplemental

analysis to support the State’s toxicity

testing program as being as protective as

the Guidance, 6 NYCRR § 702.17, and

the Amended NPDES Memorandum of

Agreement between NYSDEC and EPA

Relating to the Implementation of the

Requirements of the Great Lakes Water

Quality Guidance in the Great Lakes

Basin.

Under 40 CFR 123.62(b)(2) and

132.5(e), whenever EPA determines that

a proposed revision to a State NPDES

program is substantial, EPA must

provide notice and allow public

comment on the proposed revisions.

The extent to which the States have

modified their NPDES programs to be

consistent with the Guidance varies

significantly, depending on the extent to

which their existing programs already

were ‘‘as protective as’’ the

implementation procedures in the

Guidance. EPA has not conducted a

State-by-State review of the submissions

to ascertain for each state individually

whether their changes constitute

substantial program modifications.

However, in light of the fact that the

states have modified these programs in

response to the explicit statutory

mandate contained in section 118(c) of

the Clean Water Act, EPA believes that

it is appropriate to consider the NPDES

component of the States’ submission to

be substantial program modifications,

and therefore has decided to solicit

public comment regarding those

provisions.

Based on General Counsel Opinion

78–7 (April 18, 1978), EPA has long

considered a determination to approve

or deny a State NPDES program

submission to constitute an adjudication

because an ‘‘approval’’, within the

meaning of the APA, constitutes a

‘‘license’’, which, in turn, is the product

of an ‘‘adjudication’’. For this reason,

the statutes and Executive Orders that

apply to rulemaking action are not

applicable here. Among these are

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. Under

the RFA, whenever a federal agency

proposes or promulgates a rule under

section 553 [of the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA)], after being

required by that section or any other law

to publish a general notice of proposed

rulemaking, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis for the

rule, unless the Agency certifies that the

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. If the Agency

does not certify the rule, the regulatory

flexibility analysis must describe and

assess the impact of a rule on small

entities affected by the rule.

Even if the NPDES program

modification were a rule subject to the

RFA, the Agency would certify that

approval of the State’s modified

program would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. EPA’s action

to approve an NPDES program

modification merely recognizes

revisions to the program which have

already been enacted as a matter of State

law; it would, therefore, impose no

additional obligations upon those

subject to the State’s program.

Accordingly, the Regional

Administrator would certify that this

program modification, even if a rule,

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

William Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.

[FR Doc. 98–10401 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1195–DR]

Florida; Amendment to Notice of a

Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Florida, (FEMA–1195–DR), dated

January 6, 1998, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Florida, is hereby amended to include

the following areas among those areas

determined to have been adversely

affected by the catastrophe declared a

major disaster by the President in his

declaration of January 6, 1998:

Bay County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used

for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537,

Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora

Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis

Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services

Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment

Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression

Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family

Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public

Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing

Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,

Deputy Associate Director, Response and

Recovery Directorate.

[FR Doc. 98–10337 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P