Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40085 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide 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 EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 13, 2009. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

This action to approve the Scranton/ 

Wilkes-Barre revised maintenance plan 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

for the Scranton/Wilkes Barre, PA Area 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional 

explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 

2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area: Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe and Wyoming Counties.6/12/07 11/14/07, 72 FR 64948.

4/21/08 8/11/09, [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–18867 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–8942–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final Notice of Deletion of 

the Delilah Road Landfill, Superfund 

Site from the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Delilah Road Landfill, Superfund Site 

(Site), located in Egg Harbor Township, 

New Jersey, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR part 

300. This direct final deletion is being 

published by EPA with the concurrence 

of the State of New Jersey, through the 

New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, because EPA 

has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective October 13, 2009 unless EPA 

receives significant adverse comments 

by September 10, 2009. If significant 

adverse comments are received, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect, and will 

continue with the deletion process on 

the basis of the Notice of Intent To 

Delete. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2005–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: loney.natalie@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (212) 637–4445. 

• Mail: Natalie Loney, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 26th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Records Center, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, 

New York, New York 10007–1866. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– 

0011, EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 2 Records Center, 290 

Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, Building hours are 

Monday to Friday 9 a.m.–5 p.m., 

Telephone number is (212) 637–4308, or 

The Atlantic County Library, Egg Harbor 

Township Branch, 1 Swift Avenue, Egg 

Harbor Township, New Jersey 08234, 

Building hours are Monday to Thursday 

9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Friday and Saturday 9 

a.m. to 5 p.m., Telephone number is 

(609) 927–8664. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya Mitchell, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, (212) 637–4362, e-mail: 

mitchell.tanya@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Delilah 

Road Landfill, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 

300, which is the Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP), which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective October 13, 2009 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by September 10, 2009. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 

Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. If significant 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Delilah Road Landfill 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the state, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40087 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the state of 

New Jersey prior to developing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion and the 

Notice of Intent to Delete co-published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the state 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel Notice of Intent to 

Delete prior to their publication today, 

and the state, through the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, has concurred on the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a 

notice of the availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

Shore News Today. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the Site from the 

NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If significant adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period on this deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely notice of 

withdrawal of this direct final Notice of 

Deletion before its effective date and 

will prepare a response to comments 

and continue with the deletion process 

on the basis of the Notice of Intent to 

Delete and the comments already 

received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The Delilah Road Landfill Site is 

located southwest of Delilah Road in 

Egg Harbor Township, Atlantic County, 

New Jersey, and is designated as Block 

901, part of Lot 1 and all of Lots 2 and 

52 on the Municipal Tax Map of Egg 

Harbor Township. This area is 

immediately northeast of the 

intersection of the Garden State 

Parkway and the Atlantic City 

Expressway (Exit 38 of the Garden State 

Parkway). The surrounding area is a 

suburb of Atlantic City, comprised of 

residential areas, small businesses, and 

warehouses. The regional topography is 

generally flat. The Site consists of 

approximately 52 acres of land at an 

average elevation of 50 feet above mean 

sea level. 

The Atlantic City Reservoir is about a 

mile and a half north of the Site. The 

closest surface water is Jarrets Run, 

located 1,000 feet to the north of the 

landfill. This small and often dry creek 

runs into Absecon Creek, which flows 

into Absecon Bay. The New Jersey 

Water Company’s public water supply 

wells are located to the northwest, 

northeast, southeast and southwest of 

the landfill and less than a mile away 

from the Site. 

The Site was originally used for sand 

and gravel excavation. It was later 

converted into a solid waste disposal 

area. In 1972, NJDEP issued a Certificate 

of Registration for the operation of a 

sanitary landfill. At present, no future 

reuse/development is known. Deed 

restrictions at the Site stipulate no 

residential development is permitted. 

Landfill operations ceased in 1980, 

when fill material reached the final 

design elevation. NJDEP records suggest 

that the landfill was not operated 

properly and not closed correctly. 

Several violations of NJDEP regulations 

were reported by NJDEP inspectors 

during the years of landfill operations 

and after operations ceased. These 

included emissions of foul odors, 

windblown paper and other material, 

and other operational and closure 

inadequacies. A 1982 preliminary 

assessment report prepared by EPA 

indicated that the landfill may have a 

potential impact on groundwater. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

On October 4, 1984, the Delilah Road 

Landfill Site was placed on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites 

(49 FR 40320). In June of 1985, Camp 

Dresser and McKee initiated a remedial 

investigation and feasibility study (RI/ 

FS) to investigate the nature and extent 

of hazardous substances present at the 

Site. The RI/FS activities were 

conducted under state authority in 

accordance with New Jersey Regulations 

for Oversight of Contaminated Sites, 

N.J.A.C 7:26C. A field investigation of 

the Site was initiated in February 1986 

to evaluate remedial alternatives to 

mitigate public health and 

environmental impacts associated with 

the landfill. 

The Phase I RI/FS activities and the 

Phase II RI/FS activities conducted in 

1986 and 1988 did not identify the 

presence of any organic compounds in 

the soil samples from under the fill 

material in the landfill which needed to 

be addressed. Metals were found at 

levels typical of background 

concentration of natural soils. 

Groundwater monitoring data for wells 

located upgradient, downgradient and 

side gradient to the landfill indicated 

the presence of several metals 

(chromium, lead, nickel, mercury, 

aluminum and zinc) in concentrations 

that exceeded the New Jersey Ground 

Water Quality Standards. The metal 

concentrations were consistent with 

background levels and no site related 

contamination was found in 

groundwater that warranted action. The 

RI/FS concluded that no response action 

was required under CERCLA. New 

Jersey, in accordance with New Jersey 

Regulations for Oversight of 

Contaminated Sites, N.J.A.C 7:26C, 

selected a remedy that would provide 

proper closure of the landfill and 

require closure monitoring and controls 

be enforced by the responsible parties. 

Selected Remedy 

On September 28, 1990, NJDEP issued 

a ROD in accordance with New Jersey 

Regulations for Oversight of 

Contaminated Sites, N.J.A.C 7:26C, 

which presented the selected remedy for 

the Site that included: Placement of an 

impermeable layer cap on the landfill; 

installation of a surface water control 

system; installation of a landfill gas 

collection and treatment system based 

on design studies to confirm the need 

for this system; implementation of an air 

and groundwater monitoring program; 

fencing of the Site; and establishment of 

an appropriate deed restriction. Since 

the RI/FS determined that response 

under CERCLA was not required, the 

EPA did not concur on the remedy. 

In March 1993, the Delilah Road 

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) 

group implemented a groundwater 

investigation at the Site in order to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
40088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

determine if the impermeable layer cap 

was needed and to evaluate the longterm impact of the landfill on 

groundwater conditions further. The 

results of groundwater sampling 

conducted in October 1993 found that 

groundwater quality had not 

significantly changed from the RI/FS 

groundwater sampling events conducted 

in 1986 and 1988. Since the uncapped 

landfill was not shown to be degrading 

groundwater quality (beyond the extent 

observed in 1986 and 1988) and 

downgradient water users were utilizing 

a public water supply, NJDEP 

determined that a soil cap, rather than 

a synthetic membrane as presented in 

the ROD would provide sufficient 

protection for the Site. 

NJDEP issued an ESD in September 

1998 which substituted the soil cap for 

the impermeable cap. Under the 

modified remedy, the landfill soil cap 

would consist of 18 inches of soil cover 

over approximately 47 acres. The 

modified remedy includes all of the 

other elements of the selected ROD 

including: Fencing of the Site and 

establishment of appropriate deed 

restrictions; a groundwater quality 

monitoring program; installation of a 

surface water runoff control system; and 

installation of a landfill gas collection 

and treatment system subject to design 

studies confirming the need for such a 

system. 

Response Actions 

The PRP Group, composed of 

American Cyanamid Company (now 

Wyeth Holdings Corporation), Lenox 

Incorporated, and Atlantic City Electric 

Company, prepared a Remedial Action 

Work Plan Outline (RAWPO) which 

described the remedial design (RD) and 

RA activities needed to complete the 

project. The RAWPO was approved by 

NJDEP in accordance with New Jersey 

Regulations for Oversight of 

Contaminated Sites, N.J.A.C 7:26C and 

was included in the ACO, executed by 

the PRP Group and NJDEP, and became 

effective October 12, 1994. 

In accordance with the RAWPO and 

the ACO, a Phase I RAWP was prepared 

and submitted to NJDEP to present the 

Site investigation activities proposed to 

support the design of the soil cap at the 

Site. A revised RAWP was approved by 

NJDEP February 1999. The Site 

investigation activities included: 

Delineation of the lateral extent of the 

landfill waste; determination of the 

existing cover depth within the landfill; 

and monitoring along the landfill 

perimeter for landfill gas. The lateral 

extent of the landfill waste was found to 

be limited to Block 901 Lots 2 and 52, 

and a small area of Lot 1. The extent of 

the existing soil cover within the 

interior of the landfill ranged from a few 

inches to 1.5 feet, and lateral migration 

of the landfill gas was detected in only 

one localized area beneath E. Atlantic 

Avenue. 

The results of the Phase I 

investigation provided the basis for the 

soil cap design. The landfill waste 

delineation determined the necessary 

extent of the soil cap to be constructed, 

the landfill cover thickness information 

supported the soil cap grading 

requirements, and the landfill gas 

monitoring verified that a passive gas 

migration control/venting system would 

be necessary in a localized area of the 

landfill adjacent to E. Atlantic Avenue. 

NJDEP approved the June 16, 1999 

Phase I Remedial Action Report (RAR) 

August 1999. 

The PRP Group’s consultant engineer, 

Environmental Resources Management 

(ERM), prepared remedial design plans 

and specifications, which NJDEP 

approved May 30, 2001 in the Phase II 

RAWP. ERM also served as the 

construction quality assurance (CQA) 

consultant to the PRP Group. On 

November 1, 2001, the PRP Group 

selected Envirocon, Inc. as the RA 

contractor for the construction of the 

soil cap. The contractor started 

construction in December of 2001. 

The Phase II remedial actions 

included: Modification of existing 

groundwater monitoring well risers 

located within the areal extent of the 

cap system; regrading of the Site to 

achieve designed subgrade elevations; 

construction of an 18-inch soil cap over 

the subgrade, which included the 

placement of 12 inches of general fill 

(cover soil) and 6 inches of topsoil; 

hydroseeding of disturbed areas; 

installation of slope bench drains, 

downslope drains, and construction of 

three percolation basins; construction of 

a passive trench gas migration control/ 

venting system parallel with and 

adjacent to East Atlantic Avenue; 

installation of a site security fence 

around the Site perimeter; and, 

construction of access roads. 

EPA accompanied NJDEP during a 

pre-final Site inspection held on June 

26, 2002. Minimal deficiencies were 

found and few punch list items were 

identified. Activities at the Site were 

found to be completed and in 

accordance with Close Out Procedures 

for National Priorities List Sites 

(OSWER Directive 9320.2–09A–P). 

Construction of the soil cap system was 

completed July 2002. The NJDEP 

approved the October 30, 2002 Phase II 

RAR on March 7, 2003. 

Cleanup Goals 

There were no cleanup goals required 

under CERCLA. The construction was 

performed under NJDEP oversight. 

NJDEP has determined that the RA was 

constructed consistent with the ROD as 

amended by the ESD and the Phase II 

RAWP and issued a No Further Action 

(NFA) determination on August 18, 

2006. 

Community Involvement 

Community involvement relative to 

the landfill remedial action was 

solicited throughout the RI/FS and RD/ 

RA process. The RI and FS Reports 

(prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee 

Inc.), which include the proposed 

remedial action alternative for the Site, 

were released to the public August 25, 

1989. These documents were made 

available to the public at two 

information repositories: The Egg 

Harbor Township Municipal Building, 

Bargaintown, New Jersey and the 

Atlantic County Library, Bargaintown, 

New Jersey. Additional documentation 

regarding the remedy selection was 

made available within the 

administrative record for the remedy, 

which was placed in the NJDEP 

Division of Hazardous Site Mitigation, 

Bureau of Community Relations, in 

Trenton, New Jersey. The notice of 

availability for these documents was 

sent to residents, state, county, and local 

officials, and was published in local 

newspapers. In addition, a public 

meeting was held on August 18, 1989. 

At this meeting, representatives from 

NJDEP and EPA answered questions 

concerning the contamination and 

conditions at the Site and the remedial 

alternatives under consideration. 

Community concerns regarding the 

landfill have remained at a moderate to 

low level throughout the remedial 

action activities. The major concern had 

been contamination of residential and 

business water supply wells. However, 

this concern was mitigated by the 

installation of a public water supply 

system proximate to the Site for area 

wide contamination of groundwater. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

One of the three criteria for site 

deletion is that ‘‘the remedial 

investigation has shown that the release 

poses no significant threat to public 

health or the environment and, 

therefore, the taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate.’’ The 

contribution to that risk from exposure 

to soil was estimated to be 7 × 10–6, 

which is within the acceptable risk 

range. Since then, the landfill has been 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40089 

1See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 

Fees for Fiscal Year 2009, MD Docket No. 09–65, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 24 FCC 

Rcd 5966 (2009) (FY 2009 NPRM and Order). 

2 47 U.S.C. 159(a). 

3See Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 

111–8, for the FY 2009 appropriations act language 

for the Commission establishing the amount of 

$341,875,000 of offsetting collections to be assessed 

and collected by the Commission pursuant to 

section 9 of the Communications Act. 

4See FY 2009 NPRM and Order. 

5See Appendix A for the list of commenters and 

abbreviated names. 

6See comments from American Association of 

Paging Carriers (AAPC); Coalition of CanadianBased Service Providers (Coalition); Independent 

Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance 

(ITTA); and United States Telecom Association 

(USTelecom). 

7See Assessment and Collection of Regulatory 

Fees for Fiscal Year 2008, MD Docket No. 08–65, 

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 6389 (2008) (FY 2008 

Report and Order). 

capped, thereby eliminating direct 

contact with contaminated soil. The site 

is also fenced, prohibiting trespassing. 

Exposure to groundwater contributed a 

risk of 3 × 10–4 and an HI of 3.3 to the 

overall risk and hazard calculations for 

the site. If the groundwater risk 

assessment were performed today, 

following the practices for calculating 

an exposure point concentration (an 

upper bound estimate of the mean 

concentration) described in the Risk 

Assessment Guidance for Superfund, 

Part A (1989), and later clarified in the 

‘‘Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: 

Calculating the Concentration Term’’ 

(1992), the risk and hazard estimates 

would be within the acceptable risk 

range. Therefore, EPA determined that 

no response action under CERCLA was 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of New Jersey through the New 

Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, have been completed. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective October 13, 2009 

unless EPA receives significant adverse 

comments by September 10, 2009. If 

significant adverse comments are 

received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and it will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: July 27, 2009. 

George Pavlou, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Delilah 

Road’’, ‘‘Egg Harbor Township, NJ.’’ 

[FR Doc. E9–19066 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 09–65; MD Docket No. 08– 

65; FCC 09–62] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2009 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, we amend 

our Schedule of Regulatory Fees to 

collect $341,875,000 in regulatory fees 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, pursuant to 

section 9 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended (the Act). These fees 

are mandated by Congress and are 

collected to recover the regulatory costs 

associated with the Commission’s 

enforcement, policy and rulemaking, 

user information, and international 

activities. 

DATES: Effective September 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Daly, Office of Managing Director 

at (202) 418–1832, or Roland Helvajian, 

Office of Managing Director at (202) 

418–0444. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Report and Order we 

conclude the Assessment and Collection 

of Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 

2009 proceeding 1 to collect 

$341,875,000 in regulatory fees for FY 

2009, pursuant to section 9 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act). Section 9 regulatory 

fees are mandated by Congress and are 

collected to recover the regulatory costs 

associated with the Commission’s 

enforcement, policy and rulemaking, 

user information, and international 

activities.2 The annual regulatory fee 

amount to be collected is established 

each year in the Commission’s annual 

appropriations act which is adopted by 

Congress and signed by the President 

and which funds the Commission.3 In 

this annual regulatory fee proceeding, 

we retain many of the established 

methods, policies, and procedures for 

collecting section 9 regulatory fees 

adopted by the Commission in prior 

years. Consistent with our established 

practice, we intend to collect these 

regulatory fees during a filing window 

in September 2009 in order to collect 

the required amount by the end of our 

fiscal year. 

II. Report and Order 

2. On May 14, 2009, we released a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Order (FY 2009 NPRM and Order, 74 FR 

26329, June 2, 2009) seeking comment 

on regulatory fee issues for FY 2009.4

The section 9 regulatory fee proceeding 

is an annual rulemaking process to 

ensure the Commission collects the fee 

amount required by Congress each year. 

In the FY 2009 NPRM and Order, we 

proposed to largely retain the section 9 

regulatory fee methodology used in the 

prior fiscal year except as discussed 

below. We received nine comments and 

two reply comments.5 We address the 

issues raised in our FY 2009 NPRM and 

Order below. 

A. FY 2009 Regulatory Fee Assessment 

Methodology—Development of FY 2009 

Regulatory Fees 

3. We note at the outset that in the 

context of their comments on the FY 

2009 regulatory fee proceeding, 

commenters 6 discussed the 

Commission’s Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, which 

accompanied the FY 2008 regulatory fee 

Report and Order (FY 2008 Report and 

Order, 73 FR 50285, August 26, 2008).7

Through that proceeding the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES