```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32084-32088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15801]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0146; FRL-8926-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; 
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the Wilson Farm Superfund 
Site (Site) from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 2, is publishing a direct final notice of deletion 
of the Site, located in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, 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 final Notice of Deletion is being 
published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, 
through the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). EPA and 
NJDEP have determined that all appropriate remedial actions under 
CERCLA, including operation and maintenance, have been implemented.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 8, 2009 
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by August 6, 2009. If 
significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of this 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-2009-0146, by one of the following methods:
    Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail: [email protected].
    Fax: To the attention of Michael Zeolla at (212) 637-4393.
    Mail: To the attention of Michael Zeolla, Remedial Project Manager, 
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
    Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, 
New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (Monday to 
Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0146; EPA' policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the 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 CBI 
or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or via 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 comments. If you 
send comments to EPA via e-mail, your e-mail address will be included 
as part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available 
on the Web Site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM that 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 comments. 
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 can be available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

[[Page 32085]]

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records 
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: (212) 
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and
    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 401 East State 
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0410, Phone: 609-777-3373.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Zeolla, Remedial Project 
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New 
York 10007-1866, telephone at (212) 637-4376; fax at (212) 637-4393; or 
e-mail at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of 
the Wilson Farm Superfund Site (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, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible 
for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, this action will be effective September 8, 2009 unless EPA 
receives significant adverse comments by August 6, 2009. Along with 
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing the Notice 
of Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rule'' section of today's 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 Site and demonstrates how it 
meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete 
the Site from the NPL unless significant 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 parties have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been 
implemented, and no further 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, 
implementing remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of this 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 of New Jersey thirty (30) working 
days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to 
Delete prior to their publication today, and the State of New Jersey, 
through the NJDEP, 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, the 
Ocean County Observer. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public 
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from 
the NPL.
    (4) 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. If appropriate, 
EPA may then continue with the deletion process based on 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 summary provides the Agency's rationale for the 
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site consists of 10 acres within a 218-acre property and is 
located one-quarter mile southwest from the intersection of State 
Highway Route 528 (New Egypt-Lakewood Road) and Hawkin Road (State 
Highway Route 640) in Plumsted Township, Ocean County, New Jersey. The 
Site is situated in a predominantly rural area with some residential 
homes to the south. The 10-acre site, bordered on the north side by 
cultivated land which is part of the Wilson Farm property, is wooded 
and unoccupied. A dirt road runs through the center of the Site, which 
allows access into the property from Hawkin Road. The Site has a number 
of unimproved roadways in and around it and is used mainly for hunting. 
Colliers Mills Wildlife Management Area is east of the Site and 
consists of forested undeveloped property that runs north and south 
along Hawkin Road. Borden Run Creek runs west and south of the site and 
flows into Colliers Mills Lake. At the northern edge of the Site 
towards New Egypt/Lakewood Road is an active farm field and beyond that 
a small residential neighborhood. The Site is

[[Page 32086]]

located within the boundaries of a national reserve known as the 
``Pinelands.'' The Pinelands reserve is separated into ``Management 
Areas.''
    The Wilson Farm property was one of seven sites used to dispose of 
liquid and drummed chemical waste from the Thiokol Corporation facility 
during the 1960's and early 1970's. The property on which the Site is 
located is privately owned and has been posted with ``No Trespassing 
Signs.''
    The Site was inspected by the Ocean County Health Department and 
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in February 
1980, which led to the implementation of an Immediate Removal Action in 
September 1980. Approximately 620 cubic yards of mixed chemical waste 
material and soils were removed from the Site. Prior to the Immediate 
Removal Action, NJDEP had installed and sampled six groundwater 
monitoring wells in July 1980. Groundwater from these monitoring wells 
was found to contain chemical contamination.
    In December 1982, the NJDEP scored the Site utilizing the Hazard 
Ranking System. Based on this ranking, the Site was added to the NPL on 
September 21, 1984 (FRL-2646-2).
    In 1986, the NJDEP established a Well Restriction Area (WRA) on the 
Site and surrounding properties in order to protect any new drinking 
water wells which might be installed near the Site. The WRA required 
that all new wells within approximately a 2,000-foot radius of the Site 
be installed to a depth of at least 150 feet. The purpose of this 
action was to ensure that new wells were not impacted by contamination 
in the shallow aquifer.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In July 1986, the NJDEP directed Morton Thiokol Inc. (Thiokol 
merged with Morton Norwich Corporation) to make payments to the NJDEP 
for the cost of conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 
Study (RI/FS) at the Site. On December 3, 1987, the NJDEP and Morton 
Thiokol Inc. (MTI) entered into an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) 
in which MTI agreed to comply with this Directive (Directive No. 1).
    In January 1987, Acres International Corporation (Acres) was 
contracted by the NJDEP to perform the RI/FS. After initial site 
investigations were performed, NJDEP determined that further remedial 
studies were necessary. In January 1990, the NJDEP directed Morton 
International Incorporated (MII) and the Thiokol Corporation (after 
Directive No. 1 was issued, MTI split into MII and Thiokol) to pay for 
the additional studies. MII complied and the RI/FS was completed by 
Acres in March 1992.
    The RI/FS identified that approximately six to twelve cubic yards 
of industrial waste, including a black rubbery tar-like substance and 
miscellaneous laboratory glassware, to a depth of six inches, still 
remained at the Site. No buried waste was encountered. The RI/FS found 
that this waste did not present a risk to human health or the 
environment.
    On August 23, 1991, the NJDEP and MII entered into a second ACO for 
the removal of the remaining contaminated surface waste materials at 
the Site. MII prepared and submitted an Interim Removal Action Plan to 
the NJDEP and EPA in October 1991. The final removal activities were 
agreed to between NJDEP and MII in May 1992.
    The surficial waste removal activities were conducted at the Site 
between June and July 1992. Approximately 645 cubic yards of waste/soil 
material was removed and transported for treatment and disposal to a 
federally permitted hazardous waste landfill. A comparison of the post-
excavation soil sample analytical results to the NJDEP proposed cleanup 
goals for residential surface soils confirmed the effectiveness of the 
removal work. In October 1993, MII restored all areas disturbed by the 
removal activities through back-filling and grading soils and re-
vegetating. A final surficial waste removal report was submitted by MII 
in February 1994.
    After completing the Interim Removal Action, EPA conducted a 
baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human 
health and the environment for residual contaminants in the soil, 
groundwater, surface water and sediments. EPA issued the final Risk 
Assessment Report on May 3, 1993.

Selected Remedy

    Based on this Risk Assessment Report, EPA concurred on a ``No 
Further Action'' Record of Decision (ROD) which was issued by NJDEP on 
August 2, 1993. The selected remedy included implementing a 
groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring program for five 
years to ensure that any residual contamination remained below levels 
of concern and confirmed the no action determination. Visual inspection 
of the Site during monitoring was also conducted to ensure that no 
further waste materials were present. Lastly, the ROD called for 
continuation of the WRA for a minimum of five years to ensure the 
protection of area drinking water supplies.

Response Action

    Pursuant to the remedy selected in the ROD, MII and the NJDEP 
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on August 25, 1994, to 
perform post-remediation monitoring activities. A Post-Remediation 
Monitoring Work Plan was submitted by MII in October 1994. A final 
post-remediation monitoring work plan was approved in January 1995.
    The five years of monitoring, as outlined in the ROD, began in May 
1995 with the first quarterly sampling event and continued until 
September 1999. The monitoring consisted of collecting samples at ten 
monitoring wells and three surface water and sediment locations on a 
quarterly basis in the first year and on an annual basis in 1996, 1997, 
1998 and 1999. During each sample event, the Site was inspected for any 
evidence of remaining surface waste material that would then be 
removed.
    After five years of monitoring, site contaminants remained below 
Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Since the Site is located in 
New Jersey's Pinelands Protection Area, the aquifer is classified by 
the NJDEP as Class I-PL under its Groundwater Quality Criteria 
Standards (GWQS). Class I-PL standards are defined as the higher of the 
Practical Quantitative Levels (PQLs) or background levels. NJDEP 
requires groundwater sample results to indicate concentrations are 
below the PQL. The GWQS establish anti-degradation policies that are 
designed to protect the existing and designated uses of the State of 
New Jersey ground waters and are not considered health-based Federal 
MCLs.
    A review of the post-remediation monitoring results revealed that 
lead in MW-5S, and chloroform in MW-8S were present above the PQLs for 
all sampling events. Lead concentrations were detected above the PQL of 
10 ppb (5 ppb is now the current standard) in MW-5S and ranged from 
14.5 ppb (2nd sample event) to 94.9 ppb (6th sample event). Chloroform 
concentrations were detected above the PQL of 1 ppb and ranged from 1.2 
ppb (7th sample event) to 6.2 ppb (2nd sample event). Due to these 
groundwater concentrations above the PQL, NJDEP recommended that Rohm 
and Haas (which acquired MII) conduct additional investigative 
activities including soil and groundwater sampling around MW-5S and MW-
8S for lead and chloroform, respectively.
    A Supplemental Groundwater Investigation (SGI) was conducted by 
ENSR (on behalf of the Rohm and Hass Company which acquired MII) in 
October 2004. The SGI consisted of

[[Page 32087]]

collecting sixteen subsurface soil samples around MW-5S and MW-8S, four 
groundwater samples from temporary wells MW-5S-5, MW-5S-6, MW-8S-2 and 
MW-8S-4, and four surface water and sediments samples in Borden Run 
Creek. The results of sampling found non-detect levels of Site 
contaminants in the surface water, sediments and soils. In a March 18, 
2005 letter, NJDEP concluded that no further monitoring of the Site 
surface water, sediments or soils was required but recommended that a 
Classification Exemption Area (CEA) be proposed for the Site 
groundwater. The SGI results are summarized as follows:
    (1) Subsurface soil samples collected from the area around MW-5S 
(for lead) and MW-8S (for chloroform) did not have lead or chloroform 
detected above the New Jersey Residential Direct Contact, Non-
Residential Direct Contact or the Impact to Groundwater Soil Cleanup 
Criteria. The data also found field screening results showing no 
detectable concentrations of lead and chloroform are present in soils. 
NJDEP concluded that the subsurface soil data for the area around MW-5S 
and MW-8S indicate that the soils are not impacted and a no further 
action for the soils is appropriate;
    (2) Groundwater samples collected from MW-5S-5 and MW-5S-6 (for 
total and dissolved lead analysis), and MW-8S-2 and MW-8S-4 (for 
chloroform analysis) found no detectable levels of lead above the 
method detection limit or chloroform above the GWQS of 6 ppb, and 
neither above the Federal MCLs. Chloroform did, however, exceed the PQL 
criteria of 1 ppb at three locations (MW-8S-2, MW-8S-4, and MW-8S-4D);
    (3) Surface water samples collected found that chloroform, toluene, 
lead and zinc did not exceed the NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards 
(SWQS) or EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC). However, 
zinc concentrations were found slightly above the background levels; 
and
    (4) Sediment sample-analyses did not detect chloroform or toluene 
above the analytical detection limits. However, the detection limits 
were above the NJDEP Guidance for Sediment Quality Evaluations (SQE) 
and EPA Region 5 Ecological Screening Levels (ESLs). NJDEP believes 
that neither toluene nor chloroform is problematic in sediments. Lead 
and zinc concentrations did not exceed the SQE and ESLs but were 
detected above the background level at the two most down gradient 
sediment locations.
    NJDEP's review of the current and historical surface water and 
sediment data concluded that additional sampling is not necessary and 
no further action for this area of concern is appropriate.
    In December 2005 and November 2006, ENSR re-sampled MW-5S and MW-
8S. The analytical results indicated that lead and chloroform 
concentrations continued to be above the Class I-PL groundwater 
standards (or PQL). Because of the historical concentrations of lead in 
MW-5S and chloroform in MW-8S exceeding the PQL, NJDEP requested that 
Rohm and Haas propose a CEA at the Site.

Institutional Controls

    At the time of the ROD, a WRA was in place and recognized by the 
ROD as a temporary measure along with continued monitoring for five 
years. NJDEP indicates that the WRA is still in place. Since the 
groundwater currently meets federal and state standards for public 
consumption, it does not appear that the WRA provides any specific 
purpose at the Site.
    Although not required by the 1993 ROD remedy, the NJDEP required 
the institution of a CEA at the Site due to limited groundwater 
contaminant levels continuing to exceed PQLs. The CEA was submitted in 
October 2006. As part of the CEA requirements, Rohm and Hass proposed 
several actions to reduce the length of time the CEA would remain in 
effect. Those actions included installing a replacement well that would 
evaluate the possibility that the elevated lead concentrations were an 
artifact of some unexpected problem at MW-5S and performing a one-day 
high vacuum groundwater extraction in order to remove chloroform 
impacted groundwater and soil vapors from MW-8S.
    ENSR replaced MW-5S with MW-5R and performed the high vacuum 
groundwater extraction at MW-8S on May 7, 2007. MW-5S was 
decommissioned. Following these field activities, ENSR collected 
groundwater samples from MW-5R and MW-8S on June 6 and September 5, 
2007. The results indicate that lead concentrations in MW-5R were no 
longer detected but the chloroform concentrations in MW-8S continue to 
exceed the PQL but not the MCL. Based on these results, the NJDEP 
issued a no further action for lead at MW-5R on April 13, 2008, and 
requested that the CEA be revised for chloroform at MW-8S. Rohm and 
Haas will continue to monitor MW-8S until chloroform is not detected at 
concentrations above the PQL for two consecutive quarterly sampling 
events.
    NJDEP has accepted the Rohm and Hass proposal of no further action 
with a CEA for chloroform at MW-8S, without the need of a WRA 
designation. Rohm and Haas submitted the final revised CEA proposal in 
January 2009. Once approved by the NJDEP, the CEA will continue until 
chloroform is below the PQL for two consecutive quarterly sampling 
events. The NJDEP will issue a no further action for chloroform at MW-
8S when two consecutive quarterly sampling events results in chloroform 
detection below the PQL concentration.
    Since contaminant levels in all media are below risk based levels, 
no institutional controls are required at this Site under CERCLA.

Cleanup Goals

    Post-excavation sampling conducted as part of the removal actions 
verifies that the Site soils were below the NJDEP cleanup standards for 
residential properties. Groundwater CERCLA cleanup standards were 
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level 
Goal (MCLG).

Operations and Maintenance

    No operation and maintenance was required for the Site property, 
where mixed surface waste and contaminated soils were removed for off-
site disposal, and post-excavation sampling confirmed that remediation 
goals were achieved. Post-remediation groundwater monitoring was 
conducted for five years and all contaminants are below MCLs.

Five-Year Review

    There were two five-year reviews of the selected remedy for this 
Site. The first review was issued on May 12, 2000. A second five-year 
review was signed on June 3, 2005. The June 2005 Five-Year Review 
Report found that the no further action remedy protects human health 
and the environment at this Site. It indicates that no future five-year 
reviews will be necessary if the Site is found to be suitable for 
unlimited use without restriction and that finding is part of the 
deletion process or is contained within an appropriate EPA decision 
document. The deletion process has determined that the Site is suitable 
for unlimited use without restriction. Therefore, no future five-year 
reviews will be conducted at this Site.

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

[[Page 32088]]

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 ``all 
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, 
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.'' 
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence from the State of 
New Jersey, through NJDEP, believes that this criterion for deletion 
has been met and the Site is available for use without restriction. 
Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents 
supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has 
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA 
have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is 
appropriate. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and 
routine, EPA is deleting the Site without prior publication. This 
action will be effective September 8, 2009 unless EPA receives adverse 
comments by August 6, 2009. If adverse comments are received within the 
30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of this Direct Final Deletion before the effective date of 
the deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if 
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 received. In such a case, 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: June 25, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble Part 300 Title 40 of Chapter I 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
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--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Wilson 
Farm, Plumsted Township, NJ.''

[FR Doc. E9-15801 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```