[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44430-44434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22066]


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

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 
CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate.
    EPA is proposing today to add to the Montrose Chemical Corporation 
National Priorities Listing certain DDT-and 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 
SUPER- [email protected]. 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

[[Page 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,

[[Page 44432]]

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 well-defined 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This memorandum is titled ``Management of EPA Superfund 
Response Activities as Part of EPA 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.

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

[[Page 44433]]

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

[[Page 44434]]

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