44430 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the

purpose of establishing volatile organic

compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxides

(NOX) reasonably available control

technology (RACT) for two major

sources located in Pennsylvania. In the

final rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the

Commonwealth’s SIP revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial SIP revision and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule and the

accompanying technical support

document. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If adverse comments are received that

do not pertain to all documents subject

to this rulemaking action, those

documents not affected by the adverse

comments will be finalized in the

manner described here. Only those

documents that receive adverse

comments will be withdrawn in the

manner described here.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by September 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to David J.

Campbell, Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, Mailcode 3AT22, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107; and the Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Quinto, (215) 566–2182, at the EPA

Region III office or via e-mail at

quinto.rose@epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information pertaining to this action,

VOC and NOX RACT determinations for

individual sources located in

Pennsylvania, provided in the direct

final action of the same title which is

located in the Rules and Regulations

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: July 22, 1997.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–22063 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5878–4]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Amendment of

Montrose Chemical Corporation Site

Listing.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) requires that

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(‘‘NCP’’), found at 40 CFR part 300,

include a list of national priorities

among the known releases or threatened

releases of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants throughout

the United States. The National

Priorities List (‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this

list. The NPL is found in Appendix B of

40 CFR part 300.

The principal mechanism for placing

sites on the NPL is the Hazard Ranking

System (HRS). Under the HRS various

conditions at a site (for example,

volumes of waste present or relative

toxicity of pollutants) are assigned

numerical values to develop a total

score that measures the relative risk at

a site compared with other sites. The

HRS is found in Appendix A of 40 CFR

part 300. A site with a total score in

excess of 28.5 under the HRS is eligible

for listing on the NPL.

The NPL is intended primarily to

guide the Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in

determining which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may

be appropriate.

EPA is proposing today to add to the

Montrose Chemical Corporation

National Priorities Listing certain DDTand PCB-contaminated sediments found

on the seafloor off the coast of the Palos

Verdes Peninsula in Southern

California. EPA is also soliciting

comments from the public on this

proposal consistent with 40 CFR

300.425(d)(5)(i).

DATES: Comments on this proposal must

be submitted (postmarked) on or before

October 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: By Mail: Mail original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M

Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460;

(703) 603–9232.

By Overnight Mail: Send original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway; Crystal Gateway #1, First

Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format

only may be mailed directly to SUPERFUND.DOCKET@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

E-mailed comments must be followed

up by an original and three copies sent

by mail or Federal Express.

If you wish to view documents

themselves, requests for appointments

or copies of the background information

from the public docket should be

directed to:

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters,

U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail

Code 5201G); Crystal Gateway #1, 1st

Floor; 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway;

Arlington, VA 22202. Phone: (703) 603–

9232; Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday excluding

Federal holidays. (Please note this is the

viewing address only. Do not mail

documents to this address.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn Douglas, NPL Coordinator, U.S.

EPA Region 9, (415) 744–2343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

III. Executive Order 12866

IV. Unfunded Mandates

V. Effect on Small Businesses

I. Introduction

The Palos Verdes Shelf area that is

subject to this rulemaking is an

extremely important commercial and

recreational fishing area and an area of

high marine productivity that has

become highly contaminated with
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44431

hazardous substances that have the

potential to severely impact human

health and the environment. This area

has been the subject of intense

investigation by federal agencies

charged with protection of human

health and the environment and has

generated complex litigation.

In view of the serious potential public

health and environmental risks

associated with this area, EPA is

proposing to add the Palos Verdes Shelf

contamination to the existing Montrose

Chemical Corporation National

Priorities Listing. A discussion of

background on this issue follows.

Statutory and Regulatory Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA was amended on October 17,

1986, by the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’),

Public Law No. 99–499, stat. 1613 et

seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA

promulgated the revised National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR Part

300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180),

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237,

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets forth the

guidelines and procedures needed to

respond under CERCLA to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

EPA has revised the NCP on several

occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA

requires that the NCP include ‘‘criteria

for determining priorities among

releases or threatened releases

throughout the United States for the

purpose of taking remedial action.

* * *’’

Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA

has promulgated a list of national

priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. That list,

which is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part

300, is the National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’).

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines

the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ and as a

list of the highest priority ‘‘facilities.’’

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also

requires that the NPL be revised at least

annually. A site may undergo remedial

action financed by the Trust Fund

established under CERCLA (commonly

referred to as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only

after it is placed on the NPL, as

provided in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(b)(1).

However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not

imply that monies will be expended.’’

EPA may pursue other appropriate

authorities to remedy the releases,

including enforcement action under

CERCLA and other laws. Further, the

NPL is only of limited significance, as

it does not assign liability to any party

or to the owner of any specific property.

See Report of the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works, Senate

Rep. No. 96–848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.

60 (1980), quoted at 48 FR 40659

(September 8, 1983).

Three mechanisms for placing sites on

the NPL are included in the NCP at 40

CFR 300.425(c). Under 40 CFR

300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on

the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on

the Hazard Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’),

which EPA promulgated as Appendix A

of 40 CFR Part 300. On December 14,

1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated

revisions to the HRS partly in response

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four

pathways: ground water, surface water,

soil exposure, and air.

The HRS serves as a screening device

to evaluate the relative potential of

uncontrolled hazardous substances to

pose a threat to human health or the

environment. Those sites that score

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible

for the NPL.

Under a second mechanism for

adding sites to the NPL, each State may

designate a single site as its top priority,

regardless of the HRS score. This

mechanism is provided by the NCP at

40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). Statutory

authority for this provision is provided

in CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) which

provides that, to the extent practicable,

the NPL include one facility designated

by each State representing the greatest

danger to public health, welfare, or the

environment among known facilities in

the State.

The third mechanism for listing,

included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be

listed regardless of their HRS score, if

all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a

health advisory that recommends

dissociation of individuals from the

release.

• EPA determines that the release

poses a significant threat to public

health.

• EPA anticipates that it will be more

cost-effective to use its remedial

authority (available only at NPL sites)

than to use its removal authority to

respond to the release.

EPA promulgated an original NPL of

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR

40658). The NPL has been expanded

since then, most recently on April 1,

1997 (62 FR 15572).

The NPL serves primarily

informational purposes, identifying for

the States and the public those facilities

and sites or other releases which appear

to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of

a facility or site on the NPL does not

require an owner or operator to

undertake any action, nor does it assign

liability to any person. Separate

government action in the form of

remedial or removal actions or

enforcement actions would be necessary

in order to do so, and these actions

would be attended by all procedural

safeguards required by law.

The purpose of the NPL is primarily

to serve as an informational and

management tool. The identification of

a site on the NPL is intended primarily

to guide EPA in determining which sites

warrant further investigation to assess

the nature and extent of the public

health and environmental risks

associated with the site and to

determine what CERCLA response

actions, if any, may be appropriate. The

NPL also serves to notify the public of

sites that EPA believes warrant further

investigation and potentially, cleanup

activities.

The Palos Verdes Shelf

General History. From 1947 until

1982, Montrose Chemical Corporation of

California, Inc. (Montrose) operated a

manufacturing facility in Los Angeles

for the production of dichloro-diphenyl

trichloroethane (DDT), an agricultural

pesticide. During this period, Montrose

was among the largest producers of DDT

in the United States.

There were numerous releases of DDT

and other hazardous substances from

the Montrose plant as a result of spills

of contaminated wastewater, storage and

disposal of contaminated wastewater in

an unlined pond, surface water runoff,

and aerial dispersion. In addition,

Montrose discharged process

wastewater containing large quantities

of DDT into the sewer system

maintained by County Sanitation

District No. 2 of Los Angeles County

(LACSD). This contaminated wastewater

flowed to a wastewater treatment plant

owned by LACSD and was discharged to

the Pacific Ocean through submarine

outfalls on the Palos Verdes Shelf,
44432 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1This memorandum is titled ‘‘Engineering

Evaluation and Cost Analysis Approval

Memorandum for Addressing Contaminated Marine

Sediments on the Palos Verdes Shelf,’’ from

Andrew Lincoff and Michael Montgomery,

Remedial Project Managers, to Keith Takata, Acting

Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,

EPA Region 9.

2This memorandum is titled ‘‘Management of

EPA Superfund Response Activities as Part of EPA

resulting in DDT contamination of the

sediments on the Shelf.

DDT and other hazardous substances

from the Montrose plant also reached

the Pacific Ocean via surface water

runoff that was carried via stormwater

channels to the Consolidated Slip in the

Los Angeles harbor.

EPA began investigating releases from

the Montrose plant in 1982. In 1984

EPA proposed to add the Montrose

Chemical Corporation site to the NPL.

(49 FR 40320, October 15, 1984)

Following further investigation, on

October 4, 1989, EPA issued a final

regulation amending the NPL to add

several sites, including the Montrose

Chemical Corporation Site (Montrose

NPL Site). (54 FR 41015) The

administrative record supporting the

1989 listing decision includes an EPA

study concluding that the DDT

contamination on the Palos Verdes Shelf

resulted from the DDT releases at the

Montrose plant:

Montrose sewer discharges (which have

now been controlled) have created a large

‘‘reservoir’’ of the pesticide in offshore

sediment * * *.

According to recent EPA estimates * * *

consumption of seafood from the Whites

Point area may present an elevated health

risk due to DDT contamination.

United States EPA Region 9, Toxics

and Waste Management Div.,

Investigative Report, No. C (83) E002

(April 11, 1983) at 7, included in U.S.

EPA Hazard Ranking Package and

Support Document for the Montrose

NPL Site (Reference 13). Also in the

administrative record for the 1989

listing decision is an October 7, 1970,

Los Angeles Times article attributing

75% of the DDT contamination in the

Santa Monica Bay to the Montrose

plant.

The PCB contamination in sediments

on the Palos Verdes Shelf originated, in

part, at a plant operated in Los Angeles

County by Westinghouse Electric

Corporation (Westinghouse). From 1956

to the mid-1990’s, Westinghouse

manufactured and repaired electrical

equipment at this plant. Like DDT from

the Montrose Chemical plant, PCBs

from the Westinghouse plant and other

plants in the Los Angeles area entered

the LACSD sewer system, flowed to the

LACSD treatment plant, and were

discharged to the Pacific Ocean via

outfalls located on the Palos Verdes

Shelf.

In June, 1990, the United States and

the State of California filed suit in U.S.

district court in California against

various parties associated with the

Montrose and Westinghouse plants

under Section 107 of CERCLA. United

States v. Montrose Chemical

Corporation of California, et al., No. CV

90–3122–AAH(Jrx) (C.D. Cal.). Two

claims are asserted in that action. First,

federal and state natural resource

trustees—e.g., the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the

National Park Service, the California

Department of Fish and Game, the

California State Lands Commission and

the California Department of Parks and

Recreation—seek to recover natural

resource damages for injury to trust

resources as a result of DDT and PCB

contamination on the Palos Verdes Shelf

and other marine areas. Second, EPA is

seeking compel the implementation of

response actions and to recover

response costs incurred and to be

incurred by the United States under

CERCLA in connection with the releases

from the Montrose plant and related

operations to the soil, groundwater, and

the stormwater and sewer pathways.

Several response actions are currently

underway to address these releases.

Montrose is performing an RI/FS

concerning contaminated soil and

groundwater at and in the vicinity of the

Montrose plant. EPA is conducting a

removal action to identify and excavate

DDT-contaminated fill in several nearby

residential properties and has begun an

investigation of DDT dust that may have

been released from the Montrose plant

and deposited in nearby residential and

commercial/industrial areas. EPA is also

conducting an investigation of the

historic and current stormwater

pathway from the Montrose plant to the

Consolidated Slip in Los Angeles

Harbor. EPA is pursuing removal of

DDT-contaminated sediments in the

LACSD sewer lines adjacent to and

downstream from the Montrose plant.

While EPA has been conducting

response actions at and in the vicinity

of the Montrose plant, the federal and

state CERCLA natural resource trustees

(the trustees) have conducted an

investigation of DDT and PCB

contamination on the Palos Verdes Shelf

and of the impact of this contamination

on natural resources in the area. The

results of the trustees’ damage

assessment investigation, including

extensive expert evaluations, were made

available to EPA and the public in

October 1994.

These studies indicate that there are

approximately 100 metric tons of DDT

and 10 metric tons of PCBs in a welldefined deposit of sediment covering a

16 square mile area on the shelf and

adjacent continental slope in the

vicinity of the LACSD wastewater

outfall. These studies further confirm

extremely elevated levels of DDT and

PCBs in the tissue of fish and eggs of

birds in this offshore area.

After reviewing the federal and state

natural resource trustees’ damage

assessment reports, EPA in December

1994 began to consider whether it

should undertake response actions

directed at the DDT and PCB

contamination on the Palos Verdes

Shelf. EPA had long been addressing

DDT contamination at and emanating

from the Montrose plant, including

contamination through the groundwater,

through stormwater runoff channels,

into neighboring properties, through the

sewer system, and into the consolidated

slip. The information in the trustees’

damage assessments confirmed that the

DDT and PCBs on the Palos Verdes

Shelf pose a continuing threat to natural

resources in the area.

In July 1996, EPA initiated its own

CERCLA investigation of the Palos

Verdes Shelf. In a memorandum, dated

July 9, 1996 and approved on July 10,

1996, EPA decided to initiate a

Superfund removal investigation,

known as an Engineering Evaluation

and Cost Analysis (EE/CA), to evaluate

the need for action and to evaluate

alternatives for addressing the

contaminated sediment on the Palos

Verdes Shelf. 1 This memorandum

extensively documents the threat to

human health and the environment

posed by the DDT and PCB

contamination on the Palos Verdes

Shelf. By this memorandum, EPA staff

was authorized to gather information

regarding whether response activities

should be undertaken to address the

contamination on the Palos Verdes Shelf

and, if so, to evaluate possible cleanup

actions.

At the same time EPA also decided

that the investigation of the Palos

Verdes Shelf should be managed as part

of the response activities being

conducted by EPA in connection with

the Montrose NPL Site. Finding that the

majority of the DDT present on the Palos

Verdes Shelf originated at the Montrose

plant, EPA concluded that a

consolidated management approach

would facilitate the funding, staffing,

and administration of its investigation.

The memorandum memorializing this

decision was issued at the same time as

the memorandum approving the EE/

CA. 2
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules 44433

Response Actions Taken in Connection With the

Montrose Chemical NPL Site,’’ from Andrew

Lincoff and Michael Montgomery, Remedial Project

Managers, to Keith Takata, Acting Director,

Hazardous Waste Management Division, EPA

Region 9.

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

EPA is proposing to amend the

Montrose Chemical Corporation

National Priorities Listing to include the

DDT and PCB contamination on the

Palos Verdes Shelf, discussed above.

EPA’s proposal is based on an HRS

score for the Palos Verde Shelf of 50,

well above the HRS score of 28.50

necessary for NPL eligibility. However,

rather than proposing the Palos Verdes

Shelf as a separate site, EPA is instead

proposing to amend the existing

Montrose Chemical Corporation

National Priorities Listing to include the

DDT and PCB contamination on the

Palos Verdes Shelf. In this regard, EPA

is applying its site aggregation policy.

The site aggregation policy is discussed

in a memorandum to the file, from

Carolyn Douglas, NPL Coordinator, EPA

Region 9, dated August 13, 1997, which

is included in the listing package.

By this proposed rulemaking, EPA

intends to make clear to the public that

the Agency believes there are immediate

and serious public health and

environmental risks associated with the

Palos Verdes Shelf, as reflected in the

HRS evaluation, and that the Agency

believes the Palos Verdes Shelf should

be designated as part of the Montrose

Chemical Corporation National

Priorities Listing.

Public Comment

The documents that form the basis for

EPA’s evaluation and scoring of sites in

this rule are contained in dockets

located both at EPA Headquarters and in

EPA Region 9. The dockets are available

for viewing, by appointment only, after

the appearance of this proposed rule.

The hours of operation for the

Headquarters docket are from 9:00 a.m.

to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday

excluding Federal holidays. The hours

of operation of the Region 9 docket are

from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.

EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail

Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 1st

Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603–9232.

(Please note this is the viewing address

only. Mail comments to address listed

in ADDRESSES section above.)

Carolyn Douglas SFD5, U.S. EPA,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744–2343.

The Headquarters docket for this

rulemaking contains the following

information for the Palos Verdes Shelf:

HRS score sheets; a Documentation

Record describing the information used

to compute the score; pertinent

information regarding application of the

EPA Aggregation Policy in this matter;

and a list of documents referenced in

the Documentation Record. The Region

9 docket in this matter contains all of

the information in the Headquarters

docket, plus the actual reference

documents containing the data

principally relied upon and cited by

EPA in calculating the HRS score for the

Palos Verdes Shelf.

The Headquarters docket also

contains an ‘‘Additional Information’’

document which provides a general

discussion of the statutory requirements

affecting NPL listing, the purpose and

implementation of the NPL, and the

economic impacts of NPL listing.

EPA will consider all comments

received during the comment period.

During the comment period, comments

are placed in the Headquarters docket

and are available to the public on an ‘‘as

received’’ basis. A complete set of

comments will be available for viewing

in the Region 9 docket approximately

one week after the formal comment

period closes. Comments received after

the comment period closes will be

available in the Headquarters and

Regional dockets on an ‘‘as received’’

basis. EPA cannot delay its final

decision in this matter solely to

accommodate late comments.

Comments that include or rely on

complex or voluminous reports, or

materials prepared for purposes other

than HRS scoring, should point out the

specific information that EPA should

consider and how it affects the

individual HRS factor values. See

Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas,

849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will

make its final decision in this matter

after considering the relevant comments

received during the comment period.

III. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. When a written

statement is needed for an EPA rule,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (within the meaning of Title

II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. Nor

does it contain any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This

is because today’s listing decision does

not impose any enforceable duties upon

any of these governmental entities or the

private sector. Inclusion of a site on the

NPL does not itself impose any costs. It

does not establish that EPA necessarily

will undertake remedial action, nor does

it require any action by a private party

or determine its liability for site

response costs. Costs that arise out of

site responses result from site-by-site

decisions about what actions to take, not

directly from the act of listing itself.

Therefore, today’s rulemaking is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202, 203 or 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act.

V. Effect on Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires EPA to review the impacts of

this action on small entities, or certify

that the action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial
44434 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 162 / Thursday, August 21, 1997 / Proposed Rules

number of small entities. By small

entities, the Act refers to small

businesses, small government

jurisdictions, and nonprofit

organizations.

While this rule proposes to revise the

NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical

regulatory change since it does not

automatically impose costs. As stated

above, adding sites to the NPL does not

in itself require any action by any party,

nor does it determine the liability of any

party for the cost of cleanup at the site.

Further, no identifiable groups are

affected as a whole. As a consequence,

impacts on any group are hard to

predict. A site’s inclusion on the NPL

could increase the likelihood of adverse

impacts on responsible parties (in the

form of cleanup costs), but at this time

EPA cannot identify the potentially

affected businesses or estimate the

number of small businesses that might

also be affected.

EPA does not expect the listing of this

site to have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would

occur only through enforcement and

cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes

at its discretion on a site-by-site basis.

EPA considers many factors when

determining enforcement actions,

including not only a firm’s contribution

to the problem, but also its ability to

pay. The impacts (from cost recovery)

on small governments and nonprofit

organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby

certify that this proposed rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore, this

proposed regulation does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

materials, Intergovernmental relations,

Natural resources, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: August 14, 1997.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 97–22066 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–180, RM–9105]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Hawthorne, WI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by Bruce

Elving proposing the allotment of

Channel 293A to Hawthorne,

Wisconsin, as that community’s first

local broadcast service. There is a site

restriction 5.4 kilometers (3.3 miles)

west of the community at coordinates

46–29–37 and 91–55–34. Canadian

concurrence will be requested for the

allotment of Channel 293A at

Hawthorne.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before October 6, 1997, and reply

comments on or before October 21,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Bruce Elving,

P.O. Box 336, Esko, MN 55733–0336.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–180, adopted August 6, 1997, and

released August 15, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–22112 Filed 8–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–177; RM–9131]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Kenova,

WV

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Billy R.

Evans proposing the allotment of

Channel 250A at Kenova, West Virginia,

as the community’s first local aural

transmission service. Channel 250A can

be allotted to Kenova in compliance

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements with a

site restriction of 2.5 kilometers (1.6

miles) south to avoid a short-spacing to

the licensed site of Station WZQQ(FM),

Channel 250C3, Hyden, Kentucky. The

coordinates for Channel 250A at Kenova

are North Latitude 38–22–38 and West

Longitude 82–34–33.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before October 6, 1997, and reply

comments on or before October 21,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as

follows: Billy R. Evans, 111 Picardy Ct.,

Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701

(Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–177, adopted August 6, 1997, and

released August 15, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The