Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 36943 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Bookspan Negotiated Service Agreement 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Bank of America Corporation Negotiated 

Service Agreement 

The Bradford Group Negotiated Service 

Agreement 

Part B—Competitive Products 

Competitive Product List 

Express Mail 

Express Mail 

Outbound International Expedited Services 

Inbound International Expedited Services 

Inbound International Expedited Services 1 

(CP2008–7) 

Inbound International Expedited Services 2 

(MC2009–10 and CP2009–12) 

Priority Mail 

Priority Mail 

Outbound Priority Mail International 

Inbound Air Parcel Post 

Royal Mail Group Inbound Air Parcel Post 

Agreement 

Parcel Select 

Parcel Return Service 

International 

International Priority Airlift (IPA) 

International Surface Airlift (ISAL) 

International Direct Sacks—M-Bags 

Global Customized Shipping Services 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates) 

Canada Post—United States Postal Service 

Contractual Bilateral Agreement for 

Inbound Competitive Services (MC2009– 

8 and CP2009–9) 

International Money Transfer Service 

International Ancillary Services 

Special Services 

Premium Forwarding Service 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

Domestic 

Express Mail Contract 1 (MC2008–5) 

Express Mail Contract 2 (MC2009–3 and 

CP2009–4) 

Express Mail Contract 3 (MC2009–15 and 

CP2009–21) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 1 

(MC2009–6 and CP2009–7) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 2 

(MC2009–12 and CP2009–14) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 3 

(MC2009–13 and CP2009–17) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 4 

(MC2009–17 and CP2009–24) 

Express Mail & Priority Mail Contract 5 

(MC2009–18 and CP2009–25) 

Parcel Return Service Contract 1 (MC2009– 

1 and CP2009–2) 

Priority Mail Contract 1 (MC2008–8 and 

CP2008–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 2 (MC2009–2 and 

CP2009–3) 

Priority Mail Contract 3 (MC2009–4 and 

CP2009–5) 

Priority Mail Contract 4 (MC2009–5 and 

CP2009–6) 

Priority Mail Contract 5 (MC2009–21 and 

CP2009–26) 

Priority Mail Contract 6 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–30) 

Priority Mail Contract 7 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–31) 

Priority Mail Contract 8 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–32) 

Priority Mail Contract 9 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–33) 

Priority Mail Contract 10 (MC2009–25 and 

CP2009–34) 

Priority Mail Contract 11 (MC2009–27 and 

CP2009–37) 

Outbound International 

Global Direct Contracts (MC2009–9, 

CP2009–10, and CP2009–11) 

Global Expedited Package Services (GEPS) 

Contracts 

GEPS 1 (CP2008–5, CP2008–11, CP2008– 

12, and CP2008–13, CP2008–18, 

CP2008–19, CP2008–20, CP2008–21, 

CP2008–22, CP2008–23, and CP2008–24) 

Global Plus Contracts 

Global Plus 1 (CP2008–9 and CP2008–10) 

Global Plus 2 (MC2008–7, CP2008–16 and 

CP2008–17) 

Inbound International 

Inbound Direct Entry Contracts With 

Foreign Postal Administrations 

(MC2008–6, CP2008–14 and CP2008–15) 

International Business Reply Service 

Competitive Contract 1 (MC2009–14 and 

CP2009–20) 

Competitive Product Descriptions 

Express Mail 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

Express Mail 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Outbound International Expedited Services 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Inbound International Expedited Services 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Priority 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Priority Mail 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Outbound Priority Mail International 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Inbound Air Parcel Post 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Parcel Select 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

Parcel Return Service 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

International 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

International Priority Airlift (IPA) 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Surface Airlift (ISAL) 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Direct Sacks—M–Bags 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Global Customized Shipping Services 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Money Transfer Service 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Inbound Surface Parcel Post (at non-UPU 

rates) 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Ancillary Services 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Certificate of Mailing 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Registered Mail 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Return Receipt 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Restricted Delivery 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

International Insurance 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Negotiated Service Agreements 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

Domestic 

[Reserved for Product Description] 

Outbound International 

[Reserved for Group Description] 

Part C—Glossary of Terms and Conditions 

[Reserved] 

Part D—Country Price Lists for International 

Mail 

[Reserved] 

[FR Doc. E9–17842 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009–0501; FRL–8934–2] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance; 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion 

of the Southern California Edison, 

Visalia Pole Yard Superfund Site from 

the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region IX, is publishing 

a Direct Final Notice of Deletion for the 

Southern California Edison (SCE), 

Visalia Pole Yard Superfund Site (Site) 

located in northeastern Visalia, Tulare 

County, California, 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 deletion is being published by EPA 

with the concurrence of the State of 

California, through the Department of 

Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), 

because EPA has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective September 25, 2009 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

August 26, 2009. If adverse comment(s) 

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–2009–0501 by one of the 

following methods: 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
36944 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: lane.jackie@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3528. 

• Mail: Jackie Lane, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA 

Region IX (SFD 6–3), 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 

• Phone: (415) 972–3236. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region IX 

(SFD 6–3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Deliveries 

are only accepted during regular office 

days and hours of operation (Monday 

through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.). 

Special arrangements will need to be 

made with EPA staff for deliveries of 

boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2009– 

0501 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 that EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless it 

is provided 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 publicly available docket on 

the Internet. EPA recommends that all 

submittals include your name and other 

contact information (i.e., e-mail and/or 

physical address and phone number). 

Please note that electronic file 

submittals should be free of any 

physical defects and computer viruses 

and avoid the use of special characters 

and any form of encryption. If technical 

difficulties prevent EPA from reading 

your comment and cannot contact you 

for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

some information is not publicly 

available (e.g., CBI or other information 

restricted by disclosure statute). Certain 

other materials, such as copyrighted 

materials, will be publicly available 

only in hard copy. All other publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically http:// 

www.regulations.gov or hard copy at the 

Site Information repositories below: 

U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center, 95 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901, (415) 536– 

2000. 

Tulare County Public Library, 200 West 

Oak Street, Visalia, CA 93291, (818) 

952–0603. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charnjit Bhullar, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. EPA Region IX (SFD 7– 

3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105, (415) 972–3960. 

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 IX is publishing this 

Direct Final Notice of Deletion of the 

Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole 

Yard Superfund Site (EPA ID No. 

CAD980816466), hereinafter VPY or 

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 conditions at a 

deleted site or new information warrant 

such action. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective September 25, 

2009 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 26, 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 

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 the 

procedures that EPA is using for this 

action; Section IV discusses how the 

Southern California Edison, Visalia Pole 

Yard Superfund Site meets the NPL 

deletion criteria; and Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL. 

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: 

(1) Responsible parties or other 

parties have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(2) All appropriate response under 

CERCLA has been implemented, and no 

further response action by responsible 

parties is appropriate; or 

(3) The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, 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 were 

followed for deletion of this Site: 

(1) The EPA consulted with the State 

of California’s Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (DTSC) prior to 

developing this Direct Final Notice of 

Deletion and Notice of Intent to Delete 

being co-published in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of the Federal Register. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 36945 

(2) EPA provided DTSC 30 working 

days for its review and comment of this 

Notice and the Notice of Intent to Delete 

and, following its review, DTSC concurs 

with the deletion of the Site from the 

NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this Direct Final Notice of Deletion, 

a notice of availability of the parallel 

Notice of Intent to Delete is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

the Visalia Times-Delta. 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 has placed copies of 

supporting documents for the proposed 

site deletion in the Deletion Docket and 

made these documents 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 it will not 

take effect; otherwise, 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 it has 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 basis for deleting the Site from 

the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

The VPY Site is located at 432 North 

Ben Maddox Way in northeastern 

Visalia, Tulare County, California. The 

Site is bounded on the north by East 

Goshen Avenue, and on the west by 

North Ben Maddox Way. Visalia is 

located approximately midway between 

Fresno and Bakersfield in the Central 

Valley of California and is a growing 

metropolitan area with a population of 

approximately 110,000. Agriculture is 

the dominant industry in the region and 

walnuts, olives, and citrus are the 

primary crops. 

The geologic strata underlying the 

VPY are composed of alluvial-fan 

deposits from the Kaweah River and its 

distributaries. The three 

hydrostratigraphic units beneath the site 

include: A shallow aquifer (30 to 50 feet 

bgs; dewatered since the 1980s), a 

shallow aquitard (50 to 75 feet bgs), an 

intermediate aquifer (75 to 100 feet bgs), 

an intermediate aquitard (100 to 125 feet 

bgs), and a deep aquifer (125 to about 

180 feet bgs). Both aquitards generally 

consist of silty sand and clay materials, 

whereas the aquifers are composed 

primarily of fine-grained and coarsegrained sands. When saturated, the 

shallow aquitard restricts vertical 

groundwater movement. Aquifer testing 

of the intermediate hydrostratigraphic 

unit indicated a transmissivity of 

approximately 50,000 gallons per day 

per foot (gpd/ft). Short-term pumping 

from the deeper aquifer affects 

hydrostatic water elevation levels in the 

intermediate aquifer. 

From 1925 to 1980, the Southern 

California Edison Company operated a 

fabrication yard to produce wooden 

poles for use in the distribution of 

electricity throughout the utility’s 

service territory. Western red cedar trees 

were logged and transported to the yard, 

debarked, sized, shaped, and chemically 

preserved to resist attack from fungi and 

insects. The chemical preservation 

treatment process consisted of 

immersion of the wooden poles in 

heated tanks of preservative fluid. The 

treatment system consisted of two 

above-grade dip tanks, one in-ground 

full treatment tank, a fluid heating 

system, hot and cold fluid storage tanks, 

and underground product transfer lines. 

SCE primarily used creosote to treat its 

utility poles. However, in 1968, SCE 

began using pentachlorophenol (PCP), 

since PCP treated poles looked 

‘‘cleaner’’ and were felt to be more 

suitable for use in an urban 

environment. A solution of 

pentachlorophenol and diesel 

(petroleum hydrocarbons) was 

substituted as the preservative for the 

wood preservation process, which 

contained low levels of dioxin and furan 

byproduct impurities of the PCP 

manufacturing process. 

During the service life of the VPY, 

significant volumes of chemical 

preservatives were released into 

subsurface soils and groundwater. 

Groundwater contamination was first 

discovered in an on-site well in 1966. 

Hydrogeologic investigations were 

conducted between 1966 and 1975 to 

determine the nature and extent of 

contamination. 

The types of chemicals found at the 

VPY include creosote compounds, PCP, 

and its associated impurities including 

octachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin. The 

sources of chemical release of creosote 

and PCP were primarily leakage from 

piping between the storage tanks and 

treatment tanks and cracks in the 

treatment tanks. 

In 1989, the VPY was added to the 

Federal Superfund National Priorities 

List (NPL) (54 FR 13296) by the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). 

Cleanup activities were first initiated 

in 1975, with the installation of 

extraction wells to remove 

contaminated groundwater and 

discharge to publicly owned treatment 

works (POTW). This action was 

followed by construction of the slurry 

wall in 1976–77, to prevent further 

downgradient migration of Wood 

Treating Chemicals (WTCs) in 

groundwater. In 1981, all treating 

facilities were demolished and 

approximately 2,300 cubic yards of 

contaminated soil were removed and 

disposed of into an off-site Class 1 

disposal facility. Additionally, an onsite water treatment plant (WTP) 

consisting of filtration and adsorption 

system was built in 1985 and was 

successful in removing the chemicals of 

concern (COC) from the treated 

groundwater. The WTP was modified 

with additional filtration and gravity 

separation in 1987, which optimized 

plant performance by minimizing 

hazardous waste generation. The WTP 

pumped, treated, and discharged an 

average of 0.36 million gallons per day 

between 1985 and 1997. In 1997 the 

construction and operation of the 

Visalia Steam Remediation Project 

(VSRP) began and the volume of water 

treated increased to approximately 0.5 

million gallons per day. The treated 

effluent was now discharged to Mill 

Creek under a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit. 

Currently there are no specific 

redevelopment plans for the Site. The 

City of Visalia has purchased all of the 

surrounding property formerly owned 

by SCE and has indicated an interest in 

purchasing the subject property (Site) 

after it is deleted from the NPL. It is 

understood the City would expand their 

current General Services operations to 

include the Site. 

Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility 

Study (FS) 

In 1987, SCE and the State signed an 

agreement requiring the utility to 

perform a study to determine the nature 

and extent of site contamination and to 

recommend alternatives for final 

cleanup action. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
36946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

The Remedial Investigation (RI) 

(Geraghty & Miller, 1992a) found a 

distribution of wood treating chemicals 

(WTCs) in both the vadose zone and 

saturated zone at the VPY. Additionally, 

at that time, a non-aqueous phase diesel 

hydrocarbon plume covered a 

horizontal area approximately 2.1 acres 

in size and extended vertically to 

approximately 125 feet below ground 

surface (bgs). 

WTCs in the vadose zone and were 

found to be concentrated near points of 

release from immersion tanks and 

piping. Horizontal-radial dispersion of 

WTCs is believed to have occurred in 

the shallow vadose zones by capillary 

action of fine grained soils and 

transported laterally from the source 

area occurred during times when the 

vadose zone was saturated. Historical 

water table elevation levels were about 

30 feet bgs and are currently measured 

at approximately 80 feet bgs. Depression 

of the regional water table elevation 

level initially occurred during the statewide drought of the 1980’s, and 

continues to decline from increased 

regional groundwater pumping for 

residential, agricultural, and industrial 

uses. 

The Feasibility Study (FS) (Geraghty 

& Miller, 1992b) recommended 

enhanced in-situ biodegradation (EISB) 

in addition to continuing the pump-andtreat system as the recommended 

remedial action alternative. 

Selected Remedy 

The remedial action objectives for the 

site are: 

• Prevent the migration of pole 

treating chemicals, present in 

unsaturated soil, to groundwater; 

• Prevent occupational exposure to 

soil with constituent concentrations 

exceeding health-based concentrations; 

• Prevent residential and 

occupational exposure to groundwater 

with chemical concentrations above 

remediation goals; and 

• Prevent dermal occupational 

exposure to groundwater with chemical 

concentrations above remediation goals. 

The State approved a Remedial 

Action Plan (RAP) in 1994 and EPA 

signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on 

June 10, 1994. The major components of 

the selected remedy described in the 

ROD include: In-situ bioremediation, 

pilot test of steam remediation, property 

access restrictions, and deed 

restrictions. The goals of the remedy are 

to remediate soils to industrial/ 

commercial use levels and to remediate 

groundwater to drinking water 

standards. The contaminants of concern 

for both soil and groundwater are 

Pentachloropenol (PCP), 

Benzo(a)Pyrene, and TCDDeqv. 

Response Actions 

In 1997, before implementing the 

remedy, the Visalia Steam Remediation 

Project (VSRP), a pilot study approved 

by DTSC and concurred by EPA, was 

initiated which used steam injection 

technique called Dynamic Underground 

Stripping (DUS) to mobilize chemicals 

of concern (COCs). The pilot study 

operated in two phases between May 

1997 and June 2000. Phase 1 operations 

focused on the intermediate aquifer, 

with injection and extraction wells 

screened between 80 and 100 feet bgs. 

Phase 2 operations began in November 

1998 and included steam injection and 

extraction below the intermediate 

aquitard, with injection wells screened 

between 125 and 145 feet bgs. Phase 2 

operations continued until the COC 

removal rate precipitously dropped in 

June 2000. 

Following cessation of the VSRP, an 

enhanced biological degradation system 

was installed and operated (SCE, 2001) 

to augment existing physical processes 

that were initiated by DUS and to 

encourage natural biological processes 

to flourish. This system was in 

operation from June 2000 until March 

2004 and included vadose zone 

bioventing and saturated zone 

biosparging coupled with continued 

groundwater pump-and-treat operation. 

Construction completion of the 

enhanced biological degradation system 

was documented in the 2001 

Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR). 

A post-remediation surface soil 

investigation was conducted at the Site 

in November 2004. Results for 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 

were detected at slightly above Site 

cleanup standard at four locations. As a 

result, and following recommendations 

of the 2005 Five-Year Review, 

contaminated surface soils between zero 

and ten feet below grade were removed 

in July 2006 and remaining soils were 

verified with confirmatory sampling to 

be below ROD cleanup standards. 

Cleanup Goals 

The cleanup goals from the ROD are 

the following: 

Soil (mg/kg) Ground water 

(μg/L) 

Petanchlorophenol (PCP) ................................................................................................................................ 17 1 

Benzo(a)Pyrene ............................................................................................................................................... 0 .39 0 .2 

TCDDeqv ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 .001 30 

The QA/QC program used throughout 

the design, construction, and operation 

of the remediation systems was outlined 

in a DTSC and EPA approved Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This 

program enabled EPA to determine that 

all analytical results reported were 

accurate and adequate and ensure 

satisfactory execution of the remedial 

action requirements consistent with the 

ROD. 

Duplicate soil and groundwater 

samples were collected in accordance 

with the QAPP. Matrix spike, duplicate, 

and blank samples were analyzed by the 

laboratory, and the resulting data were 

provided to DTSC and EPA. The QA/QC 

program was also used for the quarterly 

groundwater monitoring program and 

cleanup standard attainment 

demonstration period. 

During VSRP operations, the various 

forms of WTC removal or destruction 

were documented through continuous 

monitoring systems and regular volume 

measurements. These included: 

• Non-aqueous Phase Product 

recovery 

• Vapor-phase removal 

• Liquid-phase removal 

Non-aqueous Phase product was 

recovered from both dissolved air 

flotation and oil-water separation 

methods and transferred to storage tanks 

where the volume measurements were 

made. Vapor-phase recovery was 

measured as both total hydrocarbons 

and CO2 equivalents of oxidized 

hydrocarbons via continuous emissions 

analyzer systems. Liquid phase removal 

was measured through a total organic 

carbon analyzer. 

Quarterly groundwater monitoring 

was conducted from 1985 through June 

2007 within, and outside the boundaries 

of the area subjected to steam 

remediation operations. Monitoring of 

extraction wells within and on the edge 

of the WTC plume was used as a tool 

to assess the success of WTC removal. 

Monitoring of offsite wells was 

conducted to ensure WTCs were not 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 36947 

escaping the groundwater extraction 

system. 

Groundwater monitoring data from 

June 2004 through June 2007 were used 

to verify that all ROD groundwater 

cleanup standards had been met. 

The Remedial Action Completion 

Report (SCE, 2008) documented that the 

post-remediation groundwater 

monitoring and soil removal actions 

performed met the ROD cleanup 

standards for soil and groundwater. 

The Final Close Out Report (FCOR) 

was signed on May 19, 2009. 

Operation and Maintenance 

A ‘‘Covenant to Restrict Use of 

Property, Environmental Restriction’’, 

between Southern California Edison and 

the Department of Toxic Substances 

Control (DTSC), was recorded in Tulare 

County, California on May 23, 2007. 

This Covenant satisfies the ROD 

requirement for property access 

restrictions and a deed restriction. The 

Covenant outlines use restrictions (as 

well as Site operation and maintenance 

(O&M) activities). As remedial action 

objectives are based on industrial 

cleanup standards, prohibited Site uses 

include: Residences, human hospitals, 

schools, and day care centers for 

children. Prohibited activities include: 

Soil disturbance greater than ten feet 

bgs, and the installation of water wells 

for any purpose. The Covenant requires 

the Site owner to conduct an annual 

inspection of the property and prepare 

an Annual Inspection Report, describing 

how all of the site restrictions are being 

complied with. The Annual Report must 

certify that the property is being used in 

a manner consistent with the Covenant, 

and must be submitted to DTSC by June 

15th of each year. 

Five-Year Review 

A statutory Five-Year Review was 

completed in September 2005 (DTSC/ 

USEPA, 2005), pursuant to EPA’s 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance (OSWER No. 9355.7–03B–P, 

June 2001). The Five-Year Review 

concluded that remedial actions taken at 

the Site were protective of human 

health and the environment in the short 

term, and institutional controls were 

needed in order to ensure long term 

human health protectiveness. A 

‘‘Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, 

Environmental Restriction’’, between 

SCE and DTSC, was recorded in Tulare 

County, California on May 23, 2007. 

The Five-Year Review also 

recommended an evaluation of 

contaminated surface soil; soils which 

were later removed and any remaining 

soils were verified with confirmatory 

sampling to be below the cleanup 

standards prescribed in the ROD. The 

next Five-Year Review will be 

completed by September 2010. 

Community Relations Activities 

Community involvement activities 

included the development of a 

Community Relations Plan (CRP), prior 

to initiation of the RI/FS activities. The 

CRP included development of a 

community profile and a list of key local 

contacts. The community profile 

indicated the surrounding area was 

mainly businesses which had little 

interest in the site cleanup activities. 

Notification of the issuance of the Draft 

ROD was made and copies of the Draft 

ROD were made publicly available at 

the local public library, DTSC and 

USEPA Region IX Superfund Records 

Center. A Public Notice was also placed 

in the local newspaper. A Public 

Meeting was held in Visalia, California 

on October 13, 1993, to provide 

information on the proposed cleanup. 

There were no members of the public in 

attendance at the meeting. A meeting 

was also held with members of the 

Visalia City Council, to apprise them of 

the proposed site cleanup activities. The 

Council members were supportive of the 

proposed cleanup actions and deletion 

of this site from the NPL. 

Notification to the public of the 

initiation and completion of the 2005 

Five-Year Review was made through a 

Public Notice in the Visalia Times-Delta 

newspaper. A copy of the completed 

Five-Year Review was placed in the 

Tulare County Library, USEPA Region 

IX Superfund Records Center. 

Public participation activities for this 

Site have been satisfied as required in 

CERCLA 113(k) and Section 117. All 

documents and information which EPA 

relied on or considered in 

recommending this deletion are 

available for the public to review at the 

information repositories identified 

above. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion From the NCP 

This site meets all the site completion 

requirements specified in OSWER 

Directive 9320.2–09–A–P, Close Out 

Procedures for National Priorities List 

Sites. Specifically, that the following 

actions specified in the ROD have been 

implemented: (1) SCE applied an 

aggressive steam remediation 

technology to remove COCs in Site soils 

and groundwater beneath the site; (2) a 

post-remediation soil investigation 

verified meeting soil cleanup standards 

prescribed in the ROD; (3) groundwater 

has been monitored on a site-wide basis, 

and the monitoring results from June 

2004 through June 2007 show that 

cleanup standards specified in the ROD 

have been met, and; (4) a Land Use 

Covenant between DTSC and SCE has 

been recorded with Tulare County that 

restricts site uses and activities. 

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 California, 

DTSC, 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 repositories. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of California, DTSC, 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 25, 

2009 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by August 26, 2009. 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 its 

effective date of deletion, and it will not 

take effect; otherwise, 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 15, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ 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, 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES
36948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 142 / Monday, July 27, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 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’’). 

2 In this Order, we adopted only the proposals 

concerning International Fixed Public Radio and 

International High Frequency Broadcast Stations 

raised in paragraphs 55 and 56 in the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the FY 2008 

Report and Order. The remaining outstanding 

matters stemming from the August 8, 2008 Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may, however, be 

decided at a later time in a separate Report and 

Order. See FY 2008 Report and Order. 

3See 47 CFR Part 23. 

4See 47 CFR Part 73, Subpart F. 

5FY 2008 Report and Order at paragraph 55. 

6FY 2008 Report and Order at paragraph 55. 

7FY 2008 Report and Order at paragraph 56. 

8 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(3). 

9 47 U.S.C. 159(b)(4)(B). 

10The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. has been 

amended by the Contract With America 

Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–121, 

110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the 

CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). 11 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 12 5 U.S.C. 601(6). 13 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the 

definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in Small 

Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

601(3), the statutory definition of a small business 

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after consultation with 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration and after opportunity for public 

comment, establishes one or more definitions of 

such term which are appropriate to the activities of 

the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 

Federal Register.’’ 14Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. 15See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA), Public Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 

857 (1996). 

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Southern 

California Edison Co. (Visalia) Visalia, 

CA.’’ 

[FR Doc. E9–17562 Filed 7–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket No. 08–65; FCC 09–38] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2008 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, pursuant to 

section 9(b)(3) of the Communications 

Act, we eliminate two international 

regulatory fee categories from our 

Schedule of Regulatory Fees— 

International Public Fixed and 

International High Frequency (HF) 

Broadcast Stations. 

DATES: Effective August 18, 2009, which 

is 90 days from the date of notification 

to Congress pursuant to section 9(b)(3) 

of the Communications Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel Daly, Office of Managing Director 

at (202) 418–1832. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order, 

MD Docket 08–65, FCC 09–38, adopted 

on May 11, 2009 and released on May 

14, 2009. The full text of this document 

is available on the Commission’s 

Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is 

also available for inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY– 

A257), 445 12th St., SW., Washington, 

DC 20554. The full text of this 

document also may be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplication 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY– 

B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone 

(202) 488–5300; fax (202) 488–5563; 

e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Order to Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Summary of the Report and Order 

1. In our FY 2008 Report and Order,1

we sought comment on eliminating 

several categories of services from our 

schedule of regulatory fees.2 We 

received no comments on these 

proposals. For the reasons set forth 

below, we eliminate the regulatory fee 

categories for International Public Fixed 

Radio 3 and International High 

Frequency Broadcast Stations.4

2. There is only one licensee in the 

International Public Fixed Radio 

category. In the FY 2008 Report and 

Order we stated that we did not expect 

any additional licensees or applications 

in this fee category, and that this 

category did not generate any regulatory 

fee revenue for the Commission in FY 

2008.5 As a result, we proposed in our 

FY 2008 Report and Order to eliminate 

this category from our schedule of 

regulatory fees in order to reduce the 

administrative burden on the 

Commission in assessing this regulatory 

fee category.6 We received no comments 

on this issue. We, therefore, eliminate 

this category from the regulatory fee 

schedule. 

3. There are only 25 licensed stations 

in the International High Frequency 

Broadcast Stations category. In FY 2008, 

two entities made payments in this fee 

category totaling $1,720. In the FY 2008 

Report and Order we observed that most 

of these licensees are tax-exempt 

organizations (and exempt from paying 

regulatory fees), and as a result, we 

proposed to eliminate this category from 

our schedule of regulatory fees in order 

to reduce the administrative burden on 

the Commission.7 We did not receive 

any comments on this issue. We, 

therefore, eliminate this category from 

the regulatory fee schedule. 

4. Pursuant to section 9(b)(3) of the 

Act, we eliminate the International 

Public Fixed Radio and International 

High Frequency Broadcast Station fee 

categories from our schedule of 

regulatory fees.8 Section 9(b)(4)(B) of the 

Act requires us to notify Congress 90 

days before the effective date of this rule 

change.9 In letters dated May 20, 2009, 

we provided Congress notification of 

this Order. These permitted 

amendments to our fee schedule will 

become effective on August 18, 2009, 

which is 90 days after notification to 

Congress, if there is no Congressional 

objection. 

5. A final regulatory flexibility 

certification for the changes adopted in 

the Order herein is contained below. 

The Commission will send a copy of the 

Order, including the final regulatory 

flexibility certification, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Certification 

6. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended (RFA) 10 requires that 

a regulatory flexibility analysis be 

prepared for rulemaking proceedings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ 11 The RFA generally defines 

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same 

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’ 

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction.’’ 12 In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act.13 A small business 

concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA).14

7. As required by the RFA,15 an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES