Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 43529 

V. Conclusion 

Therefore, tolerances are established 

for residues of acetamiprid, N 1-[(6- 

chloro-3-pyridyl)methyl]- N 2-cyano- N 

1-methylacetamidine, in or on asparagus 

at 0.80 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, 

subgroup 5B at 15 ppm; turnip greens at 

15 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 

at 0.20 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10–10 

at 0.50 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11–10 

at 1.0 ppm; and Brassica, head and 

stem, subgroup 5A at 1.20 ppm. 

Also, due to the tolerances established 

in this unit by this document, the 

following existing tolerances are 

removed as unnecessary: Fruit, citrus, 

group 10; fruit, pome, group 11; 

vegetable, fruiting, group 8; and 

vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This final rule establishes tolerances 

under FFDCA section 408(d) in 

response to a petition submitted to the 

Agency. The Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) has exempted these types 

of actions from review under Executive 

Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Because this final rule 

has been exempted from review under 

Executive Order 12866, this final rule is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

entitled ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This final rule does not 

contain any information collections 

subject to OMB approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require 

any special considerations under 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

Since tolerances and exemptions that 

are established on the basis of a petition 

under FFDCA section 408(d), such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. 

This final rule directly regulates 

growers, food processors, food handlers, 

and food retailers, not States or tribes, 

nor does this action alter the 

relationships or distribution of power 

and responsibilities established by 

Congress in the preemption provisions 

of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, 

the Agency has determined that this 

action will not have a substantial direct 

effect on States or tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States or tribal 

governments, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government or between 

the Federal Government and Indian 

tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined 

that Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) and Executive Order 13175, 

entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply 

to this final rule. In addition, this final 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 17, 2012. 

Daniel J. Rosenblatt, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.578 is amended by 

removing the entries for ‘‘fruit, citrus, 

group 10’’; ‘‘fruit, pome, group 11’’; 

‘‘vegetable, fruiting, group 8’’; and 

‘‘vegetable, Brassica, leafy, group 5’’ and 

by alphabetically adding the following 

entries to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 180.578 Acetamiprid; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) General. (1) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Asparagus ..................................... 0.80 

* * * * * 

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A ................................... 1.20 

Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 

5B .............................................. 15 

* * * * * 

Fruit, citrus, group 10–10 ............. 0.50 

Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ............. 1.0 

* * * * * 

Turnip greens ............................... 15 

* * * * * 

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 .... 0.20 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–18059 Filed 7–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9703–4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 2 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Fort Dix Landfill Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Pemberton 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 an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
43530 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

final deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

New Jersey, through the NJ Department 

of Environmental Protection, because 

EPA has determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, and fiveyear reviews, have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective September 24, 2012 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 24, 2012. If 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. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1987–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov . Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: karas.alida@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (212) 637–3256. 

• Mail: Alida M. Karas, Remedial 

Project Manager, Federal Facilities 

Section, Emergency & Remedial 

Response Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 2, 18th floor, 

290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Records 

Center, 290 Broadway, 18th floor, New 

York, NY 10007. 

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–1987– 

0002. 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 email. 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 statue. 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: 

U.S. EPA Region 2 Records Center, 

290 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, 

NY 10007 Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday. Phone: 212– 

637–4308; and Burlington County 

Library, 5 Pioneer Boulevard, 

Westampton, New Jersey 08060. 

Hours: Monday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 

Tuesday–Friday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 

Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Sunday 

1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.; July and August: 

close at 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, closed on 

Sundays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alida M. Karas, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 18th floor, 290 

Broadway, New York, NY 10007; email: 

karas.alida@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 Fort Dix 

Landfill (Site), 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 September 24, 

2012 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 24, 2012. 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 

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 Fort Dix 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 

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 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 43531 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and 

the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

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 the major local newspaper, 

the Burlington County Times. 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 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 Fort Dix Landfill is now named 

the ‘‘Dix Area Sanitary Landfill’’ due to 

the formation of the Joint Base McGuire 

Dix Lakehurst (JBMDL). The Dix Area 

Sanitary Landfill is located in the 

southwest section of the JBMDL in 

Pemberton Township, Burlington 

County, New Jersey. The landfill covers 

approximately 126 acres and is located 

about 2,200 feet from the post boundary. 

Two streams flow near the landfill: 

Cannon Run is located on the east side 

of the landfill, and flows south into the 

North Branch of Rancocas Creek; and an 

unnamed stream is located northwest of 

the landfill, and flows to the west into 

the North Branch of Rancocas Creek. A 

swamp that drains into Budd’s Run is 

located to the west of Pipeline Road. 

The area immediately surrounding the 

Dix Area Sanitary Landfill consists of a 

hardwood swamp and densely vegetated 

hardwood forest. The town of Browns 

Mills is immediately to the east of the 

Military Reservation. To the south of the 

Dix Area Sanitary Landfill are two 

abandoned farms, approximately 12 

homes, several county buildings, the 

County Hospital, and the Burlington 

County Juvenile Detention Center and 

shelter. Pemberton Township municipal 

buildings, sewage disposal plant, public 

water supply wells, and several homes 

are located to the southwest of the 

landfill. The surficial aquifer consists of 

a fine to silty sand unit (Cohansey and 

Kirkwood Formations) that overlies the 

fine grained silts and clays of the 

Manasquan, Hornerstown, and Navesink 

Formations. The Cohansey and 

Kirkwood Formations form a single 

unconfined aquifer at the site. 

Groundwater flow in this aquifer is to 

the south and southwest. The 

underlying Manasquan, Hornerstown, 

and Navesink Formations form a 

confining layer that limits downward 

vertical groundwater flow from the 

landfill site. 

The Dix Area Sanitary Landfill began 

operation in 1950; it was officially 

closed on July 6, 1984. Prior to landfill 

development, the area was used for 

Army training. Between 1950 and 1984, 

the landfill was used and operated by 

the Fort Dix Military Reservation. 

McGuire Air Force Base also used the 

landfill from 1968 until it was closed. 

Access to the landfill was not controlled 

until 1980; therefore, records of disposal 

practices, waste types, and quantities 

are incomplete. Wastes that have been 

reportedly disposed of at the landfill 

include domestic waste, paints and 

thinners, demolition debris, ash, and 

solvents. 

An interim New Jersey Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) 

permit was issued for the Dix Area 

Sanitary Landfill on May 29, 1984. On 

July 6, 1984, the Army ceased the 

disposal of waste at the landfill in 

compliance with the landfill closure 

date. The landfill was proposed for 

inclusion on the NPL on October 15, 

1984 (49 FR 40320). On September 16, 

1985, the Army entered into an 

Administrative Consent Order (ACO) 

with the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The 

ACO required the Army to conduct a 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) and to implement the 

selected remedial alternative approved 

by NJDEP and United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). The Dix Area Sanitary 

Landfill Site was placed on the NPL on 

July 22, 1987 (52 FR 27620). 

On July 19, 1991, the Army entered 

into an interagency agreement, under 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Section 120, known as 

the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) 

with USEPA. The FFA superseded the 

ACO and provided the formal basis for 

selection of the remedy and the 

implementation of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) at the Dix Area Sanitary 

Landfill Site at JBMDL. 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

The Remedial Investigation/ 

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed 

in 1987. The RI/FS included a risk 

assessment to determine the potential 

for impact to public health and the 

environment, which may result if the 

contamination associated with the Dix 

Area Sanitary Landfill, was not 

controlled. In conducting this 

assessment, the focus was on the human 

health and environmental effects that 

could result from exposure to 

contaminants associated with the 

landfill in various media (air, surface 

water, sediment, soil, and groundwater). 

During the evaluation of site risks, 

chemicals detected at the site were 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
43532 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

screened to select indicator chemicals 

for the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill site. 

These chemicals were selected as most 

representative of site conditions and 

expected to contribute the greatest risks 

to human health and the environment. 

The indicator chemicals for the site 

include: 1,2-dichloroethane, benzene, 

vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, 

tetrachloroethylene, chlorobenzene, 2- 

butanone, toluene, trans-1,2- 

dichloroethylene, bis(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4- 

dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 

ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury, 

cadmium, zinc, chromium, and 

manganese. Based on an evaluation of 

the data obtained during the RI, the 

ROD summarizes the following remedial 

objectives: 

• To prevent contaminants migrating 

from the landfill from affecting drinking 

water supplies of the local population; 

• To prevent landfill contaminant 

migration/exposure via Cannon Run and 

Budd’s Run (swamp) from restricting 

State-designated downstream surface 

water uses on the North Branch of 

Rancocas Creek (i.e., fishing, swimming, 

and future water supply); 

• To protect people who perform 

military-related or unauthorized 

recreational activities on the JBMDL 

property from potentially harmful 

effects due to landfill contaminants; 

• To satisfy all appropriate local, 

State, and Federal requirements for 

landfill closure; 

• To prevent significant adverse 

environmental impacts on the 

surrounding flora and fauna caused by 

contaminant release from the Dix Area 

Sanitary Landfill; and 

• To satisfy all site-specific 

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate 

Requirements (ARARs) as practicable. 

Selected Remedy 

The Record of Decision (ROD), signed 

on September 24, 1991, consists of the 

following requirements: 

• Installation of a cap on the southern 

53 acres of the landfill consisting of 

vegetative, drainage, and lowpermeability layers. Maintenance of 2 ft 

of existing final cover on the remaining 

portion of the landfill. 

• Installation of a landfill gas venting 

and air monitoring system to determine 

if methane gas and VOC emissions 

require treatment. 

• Installation of a chain link fence 

around the perimeter of the landfill to 

restrict access. 

• Implementation of landfill closure 

requirements in accordance with New 

Jersey Closure Requirements, New 

Jersey Administration Code (NJAC) 

7:26–2A et seq., and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

guidance. 

• Perform long-term groundwater, 

surface water, sediment and air 

monitoring (30 years) pursuant to the 

New Jersey State closure requirements. 

Perform a yearly statistical analysis on 

the chemical analysis results to 

determine the trend of the overall 

contamination levels. 

• Long-term O&M to provide 

inspection of and repairs to the landfill 

cap. 

• Implementation of ICs in the form 

of deed and water restrictions on future 

uses of the landfill and groundwater in 

the immediate vicinity of the landfill. 

• Development and implementation 

of a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 

Plan in accordance with the Soil 

Erosion and Sediment Control Act 

Regulations of 1975—New Jersey 

Statutes Annotated (NJSA) 4:24–40 et 

seq., and NJAC 2:90–1.1 et seq. 

• Using the data obtained in the 

monitoring program, review the risk 

assessment and subsequently revise the 

risk assessment if the trend shows 

significant changes in water quality. 

These reviews and revisions will be 

performed within three years of 

commencement of a remedial action and 

at least every five years thereafter. Any 

changes in actual exposure scenarios 

will be addressed in the revised risk 

assessments. Risk assessments will use 

USEPA guidance and policy effective at 

the time of the review. 

• Except for monitoring, no 

groundwater remedy was specified 

because the contaminant plume could 

not be defined beyond isolated ‘‘hot 

spots’’. 

Response Actions 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) acted on behalf of the Army at 

Fort Dix for both phases of the project 

and supervised all engineering and 

construction contracts required for 

completion of the work. Professional 

engineering services’ for both phases 

were provided by Law Engineering and 

Environmental Services, Inc. (Law 

Environmental). 

Phase I encompassed the 

approximately 126 acre Landfill with a 

six-foot perimeter chain link fence and 

provided two feet of soil cover to the 

northernmost 73 acres, This was 

completed early in fiscal year (FY) 1992. 

The contractor for Phases I and II was 

the George Hanus Co. 

Phase II included covering of the 

southernmost 50 acres with a multilayer 

impermeable cap. The contract for the 

construction requirements of Phase II 

Remedial Action was awarded on June 

30, 1994. Construction was completed 

in FY 97. In September, 1997 Law 

Environmental provided a Construction 

Completion Report to USACE. It was 

prepared and certified by C. Keith 

Brasher, a Professional Engineer 

licensed in the State of New Jersey. 

The remedial design, work plans, 

performance standards, construction 

quality control measures, O&M, and 

long-term monitoring plans (LTMPs) 

were submitted to and approved by 

USEPA and NJDEP. The Army, its 

design contractor, the USACE, NJDEP, 

and USEPA reviewed, monitored, and 

inspected all design and construction 

activities, and have determined all 

activities were completed in accordance 

with the approved documents. USEPA 

made a final inspection of the 

completed work on March 28, 1998. 

Institutional Controls in the form of 

Master Plan Amendments that are 

equivalent to deed restrictions on future 

uses of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill 

have been implemented since the 

property is under the control and 

ownership of the Federal government. 

The Dix Area Master Plan restricts Army 

use of the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill 

site including the surrounding impacted 

areas. In the event the landfill property 

were no longer under the control and 

ownership of the Federal Government, 

implementation of appropriate deed 

notices or additional remediation to 

meet non-restricted use standards 

would be required to ensure the remedy 

remains protective of human health and 

the environment. In addition to the Dix 

Area Master Plan, the site will be 

enrolled in the NJDEP Classification 

Exception Area (CEA) program upon 

deletion from the NPL. The CEA 

program is established as a groundwater 

land use control (LUC) that serves to 

restrict the use of groundwater until 

regulatory standards have been 

achieved. 

Cleanup Goals 

The 1991 ROD including long term 

monitoring for contaminated 

groundwater outside the landfill unit 

boundary. The indicator chemicals for 

the site include: 1,2-dichloroethane, 

benzene, vinyl chloride, 

trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, 

chlorobenzene, 2-butanone, toluene, 

trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, bis(2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,4- 

dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 

ethylbenzene, nickel, mercury, 

cadmium, zinc, chromium, and 

manganese. These contaminants were 

evaluated in groundwater samples and 

compared to EPA MCLs and state 

standards, as appropriate. The method 

used to determine the appropriate 

groundwater screening criteria is a 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 43533 

comparison of the NJDEP groundwater 

quality standards (NJGWQS) and the 

USEPA maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) values. The more stringent of the 

values is used. 

Inorganic Groundwater Monitoring 

Results 

Based on groundwater monitoring 

conducted to date, nutrient metals are 

the only analytes exceeding screening 

criteria and exhibiting increasing 

concentration trends according to the 

Mann-Kendall Analysis. These 

exceedances and increasing trends 

occur both upgradient and 

downgradient of the landfill. In 

reviewing historical analytical data for 

this site, it has been noted that nutrient 

metals have been consistently present at 

concentrations above screening criteria. 

In an effort to understand the 

geochemical make-up of the local 

hydrogeology, several studies were 

reviewed. Following this review, it was 

evident that several naturally-occurring 

characteristics of the local hydrogeology 

are contributing to the elevated 

concentrations of nutrient metals in 

groundwater. 

Fresh, uncontaminated groundwater 

in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer 

system has naturally-occurring low pH. 

During the groundwater sampling 

program, pH levels were measured 

between 3 and 6 at both upgradient and 

downgradient locations. In the 

Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer, calcium 

and bicarbonate are usually dominant 

ions in solution, with smaller amounts 

of sodium, potassium, magnesium 

sulfate, manganese and chloride. The 

surficial aquifer underlying and 

adjacent to the Dix Area Sanitary 

Landfill exhibits persistent exceedances 

of calcium, magnesium, manganese, 

sodium, and potassium that are 

attributed to this naturally-occurring 

condition. In 1988, the USEPA 

determined that concentrations of iron 

and manganese present a problem near 

the water table because the groundwater 

tends to have a low pH. Elevated 

concentrations of manganese and iron 

are also attributed to reductive 

dissolution by metal reducing bacteria 

feeding on petroleum contaminants. The 

reduced form of both iron and 

manganese are more water soluble than 

their oxidized counterparts. During the 

Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 sampling 

events, water quality data collected 

indicated a sporadic distribution of 

anaerobic and aerobic groundwater 

conditions. The data show both acid 

leaching and anaerobic degradation of 

gasoline contamination that is a waste of 

concern at the landfill, leading to 

elevated concentrations of manganese 

and iron. As a result of these 

evaluations, the Addendum to the 2005 

CERCLA Five-Year Review concluded 

that manganese is naturally occurring 

and was removed as a COC from the 

site. 

Organics 

In 1979 and 1982, a series of 

groundwater monitoring wells were 

installed around the perimeter of the 

landfill. Reports indicated volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) were 

detected in many of the groundwater 

samples taken in 1982. The two major 

VOCs exceeding the NJDEP groundwater 

limits were methylene chloride and 

trichloroethylene. In December 1983, 

eight additional groundwater 

monitoring wells were installed to 

further define groundwater 

contamination. Eleven additional wells 

were installed in May 1984 as part of a 

groundwater investigation performed by 

the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways 

Experiment Station. VOCs and heavy 

metals were detected in the 

groundwater samples collected from 

wells located immediately to the south, 

southeast, and southwest of the landfill. 

These compounds included methylene 

chloride, dichloroethane, 

trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 

tetrachloroethylene, methyl ethyl 

ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, 

mercury, cadmium, and other heavy 

metals. Based on the 2010 five year 

review recommendations, eight sentinel 

wells were evaluated and established 

downgradient of the landfill cap. These 

groundwater monitoring locations were 

sampled for eight continuous quarters 

(September 2009 to July 2011) and 

groundwater was analyzed for all 

contaminants of concern (COCs). With 

the exception of manganese (which was 

removed as a site COC), the results show 

no screening criteria exceedances were 

observed downgradient of the landfill 

and that COCs are below screening 

criteria at the landfill unit boundary. 

After the evaluation of the proposed 

sentinel wells, JBMDL proposed nine 

alternative wells, closer to the landfill, 

that are currently in the LTMP, to make 

up the sentinel well network. Wells 

LTM–9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 34 & 36 

are now designated as sentinel wells 

and shall be used for compliance 

determination. 

Operation and Maintenance 

In general, O&M of the Dix Area 

Sanitary Landfill consists of the 

collection and analysis of groundwater, 

sediment, and surface water samples; 

routine mowing; limiting erosion; and 

maintaining site security. 

Air Monitoring 

With concurrence from USEPA and 

NJDEP, the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill 

gas venting and air monitoring system is 

no longer sampled and analyzed after it 

was determined there was no longer a 

need to monitor for methane gas or VOC 

emissions. Approval to terminate the air 

monitoring was received by NJDEP and 

USEPA in 2000. 

Surface Water Monitoring 

The majority of the surface water 

location samples that exceed analyte 

concentrations contain nutrient metals 

that are not COCs for surface water at 

the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill. 

As part of the five-year review process 

an Ecological Risk Assessment was 

completed evaluating surface water 

analytical data up to and including 

September 2009. With the exception of 

manganese and mercury, there have 

been no COC screening criteria 

exceedances at the landfill in the last 

three years. The Addendum to the 2005 

CERCLA Five-Year Review (Plexus, 

2009) concluded that manganese is 

naturally occurring and was removed as 

a COC from the program. During the 

Spring 2010 and Fall 2010 sampling 

events, mercury exceeded screening 

criteria at three surface water locations 

(SW–1, SW–2, and SW–9). All three of 

these locations are situated northwest of 

the Dix Area Sanitary Landfill, along 

Budd’s Run and immediately 

downgradient of the PDO Landfill, 

where mercury is the main COC. The 

issue of mercury exceedances along 

Budd’s Run (the body of water that 

contains these surface water locations) 

has been addressed in the 2005 CERCLA 

Five-year Review Addendum. The five 

year review addendum concluded that 

the mercury exceedances are attributed 

to a separate site upgradient of the Dix 

Area Sanitary Landfill. The results of 

the ERA illustrate that in September 

2009 only one COC (zinc) at SW–2 

exceeded ecological screening criteria 

(ESC). Since this ESC exceedance, the 

concentration of zinc at SW–2 has 

reduced in concentration below the 

ESC. 

Sediment Monitoring 

The majority of the sediment location 

samples that exceed analyte 

concentrations contain nutrient metals 

that are not COCs for sediment at the 

Dix Area Sanitary Landfill. As part of 

the five-year review process an 

Ecological Risk Assessment was 

completed evaluating sediment 

analytical data up to and including 

September 2009. With the exception of 

chlorobenzene, manganese and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
43534 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

mercury, there have been no COC 

screening criteria exceedances at the 

landfill in the last three years. Although 

chlorobenzene exceeds the screening 

criteria, it does not exceed its respective 

ecological benchmark. The Addendum 

to the 2005 CERCLA Five-Year Review 

(Plexus, 2009) concluded that 

manganese is naturally occurring and 

was removed as a COC from the 

program. Since April 2010 the only 

sample location that exceeds screening 

criteria is SD–9. SD–9 is situated 

northwest of the Dix Area Sanitary 

Landfill, along Budd’s Run and 

immediately downgradient of the PDO 

Landfill, where mercury is the main 

COC. The issue of mercury exceedances 

along Budd’s Run (the body of water 

associated with this sediment location) 

has been addressed in the 2005 CERCLA 

Five-year Review Addendum. The five 

year review addendum concluded that 

the mercury exceedance is attributed to 

a separate site upgradient of the Dix 

Area Sanitary Landfill. 

Low-level pesticide exceedances of 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

(DDE) and 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

occur at locations SD–5 and SD–6, but 

do not occur at the landfill boundary. 

DDE and DDT are ubiquitous to Fort Dix 

and are not considered COCs for the Dix 

Area Sanitary Landfill. The results of 

the ERA illustrate that in September 

2009 only one COC (mercury) at SD–9 

exceeded ESC. Since this ESC 

exceedance, the concentration of zinc at 

SW–2 has reduced in concentration 

below the ESC. The 2005 CERCLA Fiveyear Review Addendum concluded that 

the mercury exceedances at this location 

are attributed to a separate site 

upgradient of the Dix Area Sanitary 

Landfill. 

Site Inspections 

Site inspections are performed by a JB 

MDL representative every 30 days and 

after large rain events or episodes of 

severe weather. The O&M contractor 

also performs a separate inspection on 

a quarterly basis. A compilation of these 

quarterly inspection reports is 

submitted to the regulatory agencies for 

review on annual basis. For areas that 

do not have a landfill cap installed, 

visual observations are made to ensure 

run-on and runoff controls are 

performing as intended. Any exposed 

waste in these areas is covered with 

compacted soil. 

Cap Maintenance 

On the landfill cap, tree and brush 

growth is not allowed for protection of 

the cap’s liner system. Areas of 

settlement and damage by burrowing 

animals are repaired as needed. The 

sediment and erosion control features 

are maintained by cleaning debris and 

accumulated sediment to maintain 

proper infiltration and prevent clogging 

of the outlet control structure and 

emergency spillway. Since the last Fiveyear Review, there has been evidence of 

minor burrowing activity; however, the 

effects of the burrowing activity have 

not impacted the landfill cap or the 

protectiveness of the remedy. When 

located, burrows are routinely destroyed 

during the inspection process. 

NJDEP will assume lead regulatory 

responsibility for all future O&M, 

implementation of ICs, and ensuring 

that the remedy remains protective into 

the future. Site LUCs will continue 

under the current NJDEP CEA program 

for the site. Long Term Monitoring of 

groundwater, surface water and 

sediment will continue in accordance 

with Long-Term Monitoring Plan. 

Five-Year Review 

The third five year review was 

completed September 15, 2100. The 

technical assessment summary 

concluded that the remedy is 

functioning as intended and remains 

protective of human health and the 

environment. There were three issues 

highlighted in the review. Evidence of 

erosion along the western slope of the 

landfill was identified. This erosion was 

stabilized and vegetation cover was 

restored. A fallen tree along the 

northern boundary perimeter fence was 

removed, and the fence was restored. 

There was a lack of sentinel wells to 

delineate groundwater COCs. Sentinel 

wells have been selected or installed. 

The next Five-year Review for the Dix 

Area Sanitary Landfill is required by 

September 2015. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities for this 

Site have been satisfied as required in 

CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 

U.S.C. 9613 (k) and 9617. Throughout 

the removal and remedial process, EPA 

and the NJDEP have kept the public 

informed of the activities being 

conducted at the Site by way of public 

meetings, progress fact sheets, and the 

announcement through local newspaper 

advertisement on the availability of 

documents such as the RI/FS, Risk 

Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and 

Five-Year Reviews. Notices associated 

with these community relations 

activities were also mailed out to the 

area residents and other concerned 

parties on the mailing list for the Site. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion From the NCP 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if 

‘‘responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required ’’ as stated in 

40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the 

concurrence from the State of New 

Jersey, through NJDEP, dated May 3, 

2012, believes that this criterion for 

deletion has been met. Consequently, 

EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. 

Documents supporting this action are 

available in the Site files. 

The Site meets all the site completion 

requirements as specified in the ROD, 

and all of the remedial actions at the site 

have been implemented. The 

implemented remedy achieves the 

degree of clean-up and protection 

specified in the ROD for all pathways of 

exposure. Continued implementation of 

the ICs and LTMP will ensure the longterm protectiveness of the remedy. 

Currently, none of the COCs outlined in 

the ROD have migrated past the landfill 

unit boundary as evidenced by 

groundwater, surface water and 

sediment data collected. 

No further Superfund response is 

needed to protect human health and the 

environment. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of New Jersey through the NJ 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, monitoring and five-year 

reviews 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 September 24, 

2012 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 24, 2012. If 

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 

waste, Hazardous substances, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 43535 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: July 9, 2012. 

Judith Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

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. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Fort Dix 

(Landfill Site)’’, ‘‘Pemberton Township’’ 

under NJ. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18136 Filed 7–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 2 

[FCC 12–60] 

Grantee Codes for Certified 

Radiofrequency Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document modifies the 

rules to remove the restriction that 

grantee codes must consist of only three 

characters. This action will permit the 

Commission to issue longer grantee 

codes, thus greatly increasing the 

supply of available codes and ensuring 

that it will continue to have new ones 

to assign to parties that wish to certify 

new equipment. 

DATES: Effective August 24, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hugh Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–7506, email: 

hugh.vantuyl@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, 

FCC 12–60, adopted June 13, 2012 and 

released June 13, 2012. The full text of 

this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. 

Summary of the Order 

1. The Commission operates an 

equipment authorization program for 

radiofrequency (RF) devices under part 

2 of its rules. This program is one of the 

primary means that the Commission 

uses to ensure that the multitude of RF 

devices used in the United States 

operates effectively without causing 

harmful interference and otherwise 

complies with the rules. RF devices that 

are subject to the ‘‘certification’’ 

procedure of the equipment 

authorization program must be labeled 

with an FCC identifier (‘‘FCC ID’’) that 

is unique to the device. This FCC ID 

includes a Commission-issued code 

identifying the grantee of the 

certification (‘‘grantee code’’). By this 

action, the Commission modifies 

§§ 2.925 and 2.926 of the rules to 

remove the restriction that grantee codes 

must consist of only three characters. 

This action will permit the Commission 

to issue longer grantee codes, thus 

greatly increasing the supply of 

available codes and ensuring that it will 

continue to have new ones to assign to 

parties that wish to certify new 

equipment. 

2. Authorized equipment must be 

labeled to show that it complies with 

the rules prior to being imported into or 

marketed within the United States. The 

label for a device subject to certification 

must include an FCC ID that conforms 

to a format defined in the rules. The 

FCC ID consists of two parts: a threecharacter alphanumeric grantee code 

assigned by the Commission to the party 

that applies for equipment 

authorization, and a one- to 14- 

character product code selected by the 

applicant. Once a party obtains a 

grantee code from the Commission, the 

party may use the same grantee code, 

but must use a different product code, 

each time it applies for a new 

equipment certification from the 

Commission or a TCB. The Commission 

adopted a three-character format for 

grantee codes in 1979 and codified that 

format in the rules. 

3. Due to the large number of grantee 

codes that have already been assigned to 

manufacturers and other parties 

responsible for equipment compliance, 

the Office of Engineering and 

Technology anticipates that the 

Commission may run out of unassigned 

grantee codes in the near future. If that 

were to occur, parties that did not 

already have a grantee code would not 

be able to apply for certification of RF 

equipment. The Commission therefore 

finds it necessary to modify the rules to 

increase the supply of grantee codes to 

accommodate all parties that wish to 

obtain a grantee code and apply for 

equipment certification in the future. 

4. Specifically, the Commission is 

eliminating the requirement in 

§ 2.926(c) that grantee codes must 

consist of three alphanumeric 

characters, and it is replacing it with a 

requirement that grantee codes will 

consist of alphanumeric or other 

characters in a format specified by the 

Commission’s Office of Engineering and 

Technology. The Commission is not 

codifying a particular grantee code 

format in the rules in order to allow the 

Office of Engineering and Technology 

the flexibility to modify the format in 

the future if necessitated by changing 

technology or other factors. The 

Commission also eliminated the text in 

§ 2.925(a)(1) that shows an example of a 

three character grantee code. 

5. While three characters was an 

adequate code length for grantee codes 

when the rules were originally adopted 

and for many years thereafter, the 

Commission finds that it is now 

necessary to permit longer codes to 

allow for a significantly greater number 

of possible combinations. In particular, 

the Commission notes that the Office of 

Engineering and Technology is planning 

to issue new five-character grantee 

codes in the format described in 

Appendix B of the Order. Using this 

code length and format, the Commission 

calculates that there will be 

approximately 8 million additional 

grantee codes. The Commission 

currently assigns approximately 1000 

grantee codes per year, so even if the 

rate of assignment increases 

substantially in the future, the supply of 

five-character codes will last for many 

years. Parties that have been assigned 

three-character grantee codes may 

continue to use those codes indefinitely 

for future applications and for 

equipment that is already approved. The 

five-character codes will be assigned 

only to future applicants for grantee 

codes once the new rules are effective. 

The Commission is not changing the 

requirements for the product code 

format. 

6. The changes adopted in the Order 

do not require prior notice and an 

opportunity for comment under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Section 553(b) of the APA establishes 

exceptions to the notice-and-comment 

requirement, and one of those 

exceptions is for cases in which the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES