19490 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices

prepared and certified by LACOSAN in

1997 pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A

portion of the effluent pipeline

alignment between Clearlake Oaks and

LACOSAN’s Southeast Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant has also

been evaluated in a previous CEQA

document prepared by the Clearlake

Oaks County Water District in 1997. The

environmental assessment covered by

this notice will incorporate information

and findings from both previous

environmental documents where

relevant and appropriate.

ALTERNATIVES

The alternatives to be evaluated in the

environmental assessment include:

1. The proposed action as described

above. The proposed action is based on

two previous alternatives analyses: (a)

Alternative effluent disposal methods

examined in LACOSAN’s previous EIR

for improvements to the Northwest

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant;

and (b) an evaluation of alternative

wetland sites in the Lyons Creek and

Nice-Burns Valley project areas

prepared by LACOSAN in 1998 during

project planning.

2. Construction and operation of the

FCF and effluent pipeline without the

establishment of associated wetlands.

3. No action.

Scoping Process

The scope consists of a range of

proposed actions and their potential

impact on the surrounding community

to be considered in the environmental

assessment. It is the intent that there

shall be an early and open process for

determining the scope of issues to be

addressed and for identifying the

significant environmental issues related

to the proposed action. Although

scoping meetings are not required for

environmental assessments, EPA and

LACOSAN will hold a public scoping

meeting on Friday, May 29, 1998, at

1:00 PM in the Lake County Board of

Supervisors Chambers, Lake County

Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes Street,

Lakeport, CA. At this meeting the public

will be invited to present issues and

concerns they would like to see

addressed in the environmental

assessment.

Proposed Date of release

The draft environmental assessment is

scheduled for release in October 1998.

Responsible Official

Felicia Marcus, Regional

Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Dellinger, Resources Manager/

Project Manager, Lake County

Sanitation District, 230A Main Street,

Lakeport, CA 95453, telephone 707/

263–2273, e-mail mark—

d@co.lake.ca.us; or Kristin Gullatt, U.S.

EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

Mail Code WTR–10, San Francisco, CA

94105, telephone 415/744–1937, e-mail

Gullatt.Kristin@epamail.epa.gov.

Mike Schulz,

Acting Director, Region 9, Water Division.

[FR Doc. 98–10223 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5998–7]

Notice of Proposed Revisions to the

Approved Program To Administer the

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permitting

Program in New York Resulting in Part

From Adoption of the Water Quality

Guidance for the Great Lakes System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has received for review and

approval revisions to the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) program in New York. Most of

the proposed revisions were adopted to

comply with section 118(c) of the Clean

Water Act and 40 CFR 132.4, although

in some cases, the State has also

proposed revisions that are not related

to those required by section 118(c) of

the CWA and 40 CFR 132.4. EPA invites

public comment on whether EPA

should approve these revisions pursuant

to 40 CFR 123.62 and 132.5.

DATES: Comments on whether EPA

should approve the revisions to New

York’s NPDES program must be

received in writing by May 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on these

documents may be submitted to

Kathleen C. Callahan, Director, Division

of Environmental Planning and

Protection, Attn: GLI Implementation

Procedures, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New

York, New York 10007. In the

alternative, EPA will accept comments

electronically. Comments should be sent

to the following Internet E-mail address:

jackson.wayne@epamail.epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

in an ASCII file avoiding the use of

special characters and any form of

encryption. EPA will print electronic

comments in hard-copy paper form for

the official administrative record. EPA

will attempt to clarify electronic

comments if there is an apparent error

in transmission. Comments provided

electronically will be considered timely

if they are submitted electronically by

11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) May 20, 1998.

Interested persons may request a

public hearing regarding whether EPA

should approve, pursuant to 40 CFR

123.62, and 132.5(g), those portions of

the States’ submissions that revise the

States’ approved National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permitting program. EPA will determine

based on requests received if there is

significant interest to warrant a public

hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne Jackson, Community and

Ecosystems Protection Branch, Division

of Environmental Planning and

Protection, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New

York, New York, 10007, or telephone

him at (212) 637–3807.

Copies of the rules adopted by New

York, and other related materials

submitted by the State in support of

these revisions, are available for review

at: EPA, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 24th

Floor, New York, New York; and,

NYSDEC, 50 Wolf Road, Room 310 C,

Albany, New York. To access the docket

material in New York, call Wayne

Jackson at (212) 637–3807 between 8

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Eastern time)

(Monday-Friday); in Albany, New York,

call Teresa Deihsner at 518–457–7937

between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (Eastern

time) (Monday-Friday).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

23, 1995, EPA published the Final

Water Quality Guidance for the Great

Lakes System (Guidance) pursuant to

section 118(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act,

33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2). (March 23, 1995,

60 FR 15366). The Guidance, which was

codified at 40 CFR Part 132, requires the

Great Lakes States to adopt and submit

to EPA for approval water quality

criteria, methodologies, policies and

procedures that are consistent with the

Guidance. 40 CFR 132.4. & 132.5. EPA

is required to approve the State’s

submission within 90 days or notify the

State that EPA has determined that all

or part of the submission is inconsistent

with the Clean Water Act or the

Guidance and identify any necessary

changes to obtain EPA approval. If the

State fails to make the necessary

changes within 90 days, EPA must

publish a notice in the Federal Register

identifying the approved and

disapproved elements of the submission
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