17066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9908– 

42–Region–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Moyer’s Landfill Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region III is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Moyer’s Landfill Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Lower Providence Township, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 

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 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), 

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 May 27, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 28, 

2014. 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–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: fang.sharon@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (215) 814–3002, Attn: Sharon 

Fang. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, Attn: 

Sharon Fang (3HS21), 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, Attn: 

Sharon Fang (3HS21), 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, Phone: 

215–814–3018, Business Hours: Mon. 

thru Fri.–9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 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–1983– 

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 statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in the hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region III, Superfund Records 

Center, 6th Floor, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) 

814–3157, Monday through Friday 

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

The Lower Providence Township 

Building, 100 Parkland Drive, 

Eagleville, PA 19403; phone (610) 

539–8020. Monday through Friday 

8:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Fang, Remedial Project Manager 

(3HS21), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029; (215) 

814–3018; email: fang.sharon@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 III is publishing this 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Moyer’s Landfill Superfund Site from 

the National Priorities List (NPL). The 

NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 300, which is the National 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 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective May 27, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 28, 2014. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing 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 the Moyer’s 

Landfill Superfund Site and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17067 

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 Commonwealth, 

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 

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 such action 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 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prior to 

developing this direct final Notice of 

Deletion and the Notice of Intent to 

Delete the Site co-published today in 

the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of the 

Federal Register. 

(2) EPA provided the Commonwealth 

30 working days for review of this 

notice and the parallel Notice of Intent 

to Delete prior to their publication 

today, and the Commonwealth, through 

PADEP, 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 Pottstown Mercury. 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, as 

appropriate, 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 

Moyer’s Landfill (EPA Identification 

Number (PAD980508766) is a 65-acre 

inactive privately owned landfill 

located at Moyer Road in Collegeville, 

Lower Providence Township, 

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The 

Site is about twenty-seven (27) miles 

northwest of Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. According to the 2010 

Census, Lower Providence Township 

has a population of 25,436. 

The Site consists of open land 

surrounded by wooded areas on steep 

slopes. The landfill is fenced off and 

covered with vegetation. Located on the 

Site are leachate collection tanks and a 

wooden storage shed in the south 

valley. Runoff is directed towards 

stormwater basins around the perimeter 

of the landfill and routed off the landfill 

cap. The Skippack Creek is located 

about 350 feet north-west of the landfill. 

The Skippack Creek then discharges 

into the Perkiomen Creek which 

eventually discharges into the 

Schuylkill River. 

The current owner of the landfill 

property is Grange Environmental. 

There are no current development 

plans, though the Township has 

expressed interest in purchasing the 

property to preserve it as open space. 

The landfill is bounded on the north 

and west by Evansburg State Park, on 

the east by a single original home and 

a new housing development (Valley 

High Estates) and on the south by the 

new housing development and 

undeveloped land. The Skippack Creek 

flows through Evansburg State Park and 

has, in the past, been stocked with trout. 

Groundwater in the Site area occurs 

in an aquifer which has poor water 

yields. Most of the residents in the 

vicinity of the landfill are on public 

water; however, there are approximately 

ten residential wells along Moyer Road 

and Visitation Road, which are 

upgradient and east of the Site. There 

are no residential wells between the 

landfill and Skippack Creek. 

The Moyer’s Landfill property 

operated as a municipal landfill from 

the early 1940s until April 1981. The 

original unlined landfill area was 

approximately 39 acres in size. In the 

late 1970s, the landfill owners 

submitted a request to expand the 

landfill boundaries to the northwest. 

Site preparation work began on a new 

area in 1977, and included installation 

of an asphalt liner prior to filling. 

Landfilling was reportedly limited to 

this new, lined area from the late 1970s 

to early 1981, at which time an order 

from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Resources (PADER), now 

PADEP, closed the facility. 

Originally, there was no management 

of leachate from the landfill and the 

discharge either seeped into 

groundwater or discharged directly to 

Skippack Creek. In the early 1970’s 

PADER developed and implemented 

more comprehensive landfill 

regulations. As a result, a leachate 

collection system was constructed and 

began operating in 1972. However, 

leachate still overflowed continuously 

from several collection pits located on 

the property. 

In 1981, PADEP closed the facility. 

The Moyer’s Landfill became a 

Superfund Site when it was listed on 

the National Priorities List, (48 FR 

40658) on September 8, 1983. The 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study were performed by EPA and 

financed by the Fund. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

In the early 1980s, on-site leachate 

and seep samples were collected and 

analyzed. The samples were 

contaminated with eighty-six (86) 

priority pollutants and sixteen (16) 

metals, nearly all contaminants of 

concern. The landfill surface showed a 

number of leachate and seep locations 

which served as a continuous source of 

pollution to ground and surface waters. 

There was no evidence of any detectable 

level of air pollution. 

Surface water samples were taken 

from Skippack Creek and the Perkiomen 

Creek, and fish and sediment samples 

were taken from Skippack Creek. 

Contaminants were detected in low 

concentrations in both surface water, 

sediment, and fish. The contaminants 

were attributable to the landfill. 

Off-site residential wells bordering 

the landfill were sampled for priority 

pollutants, metals, organics, PCBs, 

dioxins, and beta radiation. These wells 

did not show any detectable levels of 

organic or inorganic pollution. The 

residential groundwater met all EPA 

Drinking Water Standards at the time. 

Shallow monitoring wells installed 

around the periphery of the landfill 

showed concentrations of contaminants 

in the groundwater above risk-based 

numbers. 

The groundwater contamination was 

mostly due to surface water percolation 

through the landfill and into the 

groundwater. The groundwater level is 

lower than the bottom of the landfill. 

Site contaminants were transported 

directly to the surface water bodies via 

surface water runoff and indirectly 

through contaminated groundwater 

(upper aquifer) discharged to the creeks. 

The deeper aquifer was not 

contaminated. 

Selected Remedy 

The Record of Decision (ROD) 

identified the following contaminants 

which were above acceptable levels in 

leachate and seep samples: Arsenic, 

barium, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, 

beta radiation, trichloroethylene (TCE), 

toluene, xylene, di-n-octylphthalate, 2- 

hexanone, 2-butanone, bis (2- 

ethylhexyl) phthalate, and acetic acid. 

The ROD for the Moyer’s Landfill Site 

dates from before the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986 (SARA) and states the Remedial 

Action Objectives in the following 

manner: ‘‘The overall strategy is to 

mitigate and minimize harm to the 

public health and the environment. This 

should include minimizing further 

upper aquifer contamination and the 

possibility of direct contact with the 

waste. Leachate control is an integral 

part of the overall scheme in order to 

eliminate the continuing migration of 

contaminants across the Site and off the 

Site to the Skippack Creek.’’ Because 

EPA is responsible for protecting human 

health and the environment, EPA has 

conducted remedial actions such as 

capping the landfill and collecting 

landfill leachate and routing it for 

treatment. These actions prevent direct 

contact with the waste and 

contaminated leachate and prevent offsite migration of contamination via 

surface runoff and groundwater 

movement. 

The 1985 ROD identified a primary 

and a contingent remedy. The 

implementation of the primary remedy 

depended on the success of the gas 

generation/recovery program. Since the 

gas recovery system was not feasible 

due to diminishing gas generation, the 

contingency alternative was 

implemented. The major components of 

the contingency remedy included: 

• Miscellaneous work preparatory to 

installation of the RCRA cap: Grading, 

flattening of steep slopes, retaining 

walls and installation of rip-rap at areas 

that are most likely to be eroded; 

• Construction of the RCRA cap; 

• Gas venting and gas monitoring; 

• Surface water collection and 

discharge to Skippack Creek; 

• Security/fencing measures; 

• Leachate collection and on-site 

treatment that will meet the 10¥6 risk 

level in the groundwater and discharge 

requirements in the stream; and 

• Operation and Maintenance: 

Ground and surface water monitoring, 

maintenance of the cap and treatment of 

leachate on-site. 

In January 2000, EPA issued an 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD) which modified the leachate 

treatment portion of the remedy. The 

ESD changed the leachate treatment 

portion of the remedial action from onsite leachate treatment to leachate 

collection with treatment at an existing 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

(POTW). This change better protected 

the surface waters and the environment 

from the potential failure of an 

undersized treatment plant. In addition, 

routing the leachate to the POTW was 

shown to be more cost effective than 

building and operating a leachate 

treatment facility. 

In September 2009, EPA issued a 

second ESD to require Institutional 

Controls (ICs) as part of the remedy. ICs 

are non-engineered instruments, such as 

administrative and legal controls, that 

are necessary to protect the integrity of 

the remedial measures on-site to ensure 

long-term protection of human health 

and the environment. ICs play an 

important role in site remedies because 

they reduce exposure to contamination 

by limiting land or resource use and 

guiding human behavior at a site. 

Response Actions 

EPA executed an Interagency 

Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) for the design of the 

remedial action, which was completed 

on April 20, 1989. EPA executed 

another Interagency Agreement with the 

USACE for the construction of the 

remedial action. After USACE began 

construction, local residents expressed 

concerns regarding truck traffic. In 

response, EPA then directed USACE to 

redesign a partial cap (instead of a full 

cap) with a perimeter leachate 

collection trench. A partial cap meant 

that less fill was needed for 

construction, thus reducing the truck 

traffic. Less cover, however, also led to 

steeper slopes for the redesigned landfill 

cap. The redesign was completed in 

November 1992 and construction of the 

redesigned landfill cap was completed 

in November 1994. The Remedial 

Action Report for the landfill cap, 

Operable Unit 1 (OU1) was completed 

in December 1996. 

EPA identified the leachate collection 

and treatment portion of the remedial 

action as Operable Unit 2 (OU2). In 

January 2000, EPA issued the first ESD 

which changed the leachate treatment 

portion of the remedial action from onsite leachate treatment to leachate 

collection with treatment at an existing 

POTW. The modified remedial action 

was considered infeasible at the time of 

the ROD because the sewer line was not 

available near the Site when the ROD 

was issued. The construction of the OU2 

remedial action was initiated in 2000 

and completed in August 2002. OU2 

responsibility was divided as follows: 

(1) Montgomery County constructed the 

municipal interceptor, (2) EPA via 

USACE constructed the necessary 

leachate equalization tanks, and (3) 

PADEP was responsible for collecting 

and transferring the leachate to the 

equalization tanks and from the tanks to 

the municipal interceptor. The 

Remedial Action Report for the leachate 

collection and treatment at the POTW 

(OU2) was completed in April 2004. 

EPA and PADEP conducted a final 

inspection of the entire Site on August 

30, 2002 and determined that the 

remedy had been constructed in 

accordance with the Remedial Design 

plans and specifications and that no 

further response was anticipated for this 

Site. The Moyer’s Landfill Superfund 

Site achieved construction completion 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17069 

when the Preliminary Close-out Report 

was signed on September 17, 2002. 

Performance standards attained during 

the remediation were documented in 

the Remedial Action Completion 

Reports dated December 19, 1996 and 

April 4, 2004. 

In October 2011, the Lower 

Providence Township approved an 

ordinance which serves as the IC for the 

Moyer’s Landfill Site. The ordinance 

prohibits activities including, but not 

limited to, the following: 

• Digging in or disturbance of the 

landfill cap, tampering with the 

hardware or equipment associated with 

the gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate 

collection and conveyance systems, or 

the security fencing. 

• Any use of leachate generated at the 

Property including, without limitation, 

any activities that could cause exposure 

to contaminants in the leachate via 

ingestion, vapor inhalation or dermal 

contact. 

• Digging in or disturbance of the 

landfill cap including, without 

limitation, any activities that could 

result in contact with contaminants in 

soils at the Property through ingestion, 

inhalation, or dermal contact. 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 

The USACE was responsible for 

maintenance of the landfill for the first 

eighteen months. A Site Maintenance 

Plan, dated January 1991, documented 

the expected activities to maintain and 

monitor the integrity of the Site, 

including monitoring the leachate, the 

groundwater in both the shallow and 

deep zones, and the gas vents on a 

quarterly basis, and visual inspections 

of the cap area and associated drainage/ 

collection systems with corrective 

actions for identified problems. 

However, the plan stated that ‘‘the 

number of monitoring locations, 

analytical parameters, and sampling 

frequencies may be modified during the 

maintenance period by PADER. . . .’’ 

PADEP took responsibility for the 

landfill cap maintenance in May 1996. 

The responsibility for operation and 

maintenance (O&M) of the leachate 

storage and transfer system has always 

been with PADEP. EPA provided 

training on the system for PADEP and 

PADEP has been operating the system 

since start-up. The leachate currently is 

permitted by the Oaks POTW to meet 

their pretreatment program standards. 

PADEP currently reports O&M status 

and issues to EPA. PADEP O&M 

consists of the following activities: 

• Site Inspections: Once per month. 

• Leachate Collection Inspections: 

Twice per month. 

• Leachate Monitoring: Monthly 

reading of the leachate volume 

discharged to the POTW, and reporting 

information on total gallons per month 

and average daily flow rate to the POTW 

on a monthly basis, by the 15th of the 

month. 

• Grass cutting: Twice per year. The 

landfill cap and surface water 

management features are inspected prior 

to each mowing. 

• Repairs of Cap, Perimeter Road, 

Fence: As needed, as noted during site 

inspections. 

• Tree removal: As needed, as noted 

during site inspections. 

• Sampling of groundwater and air 

monitoring/gas vent: Every other year. 

Five monitoring wells, and the leachate 

sump in the South Valley are analyzed 

for volatile organics, TAL metals, and 

cyanide. The leachate may also be 

analyzed for other parameters requested 

by the POTW. Eight Summa canisters 

are deployed around the landfill 

(upwind and downwind) in order to 

record concentrations of volatile organic 

compounds. In addition, the 

Department also deploys up to six 

smaller, silica-lined Summa canisters to 

sample directly from active gas vents on 

the Site. 

Five-Year Review 

EPA has conducted two (2) Five-Year 

Reviews for this Site. Since the remedial 

action for Moyer’s Landfill was selected 

before the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) 

was enacted, EPA conducts these FiveYear Reviews as a matter of policy due 

to the fact that hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remain at 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. These reviews are conducted 

pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 

U.S.C. 9621(c), and as provided in the 

current guidance on Five-Year Reviews. 

The first Five-Year Review for the Site 

was completed on September 26, 2007, 

and the second Five-Year Review was 

completed on August 10, 2012. The next 

Five-Year Review for the Site is required 

by August 2017. 

The second Five-Year Review for the 

Site found that the remedy has been 

constructed in accordance with the 

requirements of the ROD and is 

functioning as designed. The immediate 

threats have been addressed though 

capping the landfill and collecting and 

properly disposing of the leachate. 

Since the remedial actions at both 

Operable Units are protective, the Site is 

protective of human health and the 

environment. Long-term protectiveness 

of the remedy will be maintained by 

continuing to perform operation and 

maintenance of the landfill cap and 

leachate collection system; monitoring 

the groundwater and ambient air; and 

enforcing the institutional controls. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and 

CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Documents in the deletion docket which 

EPA relied on for recommendation of 

the deletion from the NPL are available 

to the public in the information 

repositories. 

EPA notified local officials about 

upcoming Five-Year Reviews and 

placed notices in the Times Herald to 

inform the public that the Five-Year 

Reviews were being conducted and 

when the findings of each would be 

available. 

Determination That the Criteria for 

Deletion Have Been Met 

No further response action under 

CERCLA is appropriate. EPA has 

determined based on the investigations 

conducted that all appropriate response 

actions required have been 

implemented at the Site. Through the 

second Five-Year Review, EPA has also 

determined that the remedy is 

considered protective of human health 

and the environment and, therefore, 

additional remedial measures are not 

necessary. Other procedures required by 

40 CFR 300.425(e) are detailed in 

Section III of this direct Final Notice of 

Deletion. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 

through PADEP has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action 

noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective May 27, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by April 28, 2014. 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, as appropriate, on the 

basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete 

and the comments already received. 

There will be no additional opportunity 

to comment. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
17070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: February 27, 2014. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 3. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 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 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘PA’’, ‘‘Moyers Landfill’’, ‘‘Eagleville’’. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06811 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 11–42; DA 14–303] 

Guidance to Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers on the 

Process To Elect USAC To Perform 

Lifeline Recertification 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) 

provides guidance regarding the process 

for eligible telecommunications carriers 

(ETCs) to elect the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC) to 

perform Lifeline recertification for their 

subscribers in 2014. 

DATES: Effective March 27, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Lechter, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, (202) 418–7387 or TTY: (202) 

418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s document 

in WC Docket No. 11–42; DA 14–303, 

released March 5, 2014. The complete 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 

12th Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 

378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile 

(202) 863–2898, or via the Internet at 

http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov/document/

guidance-etcs-regarding-2014-usaclifeline-recertification-process. 

1. In the 2012 Lifeline Reform Order, 

77 FR 12784, March 2, 2012, the 

Commission required ETCs to recertify 

the eligibility of ETCs’ base of 

subscribers ‘‘annually.’’ Starting in 

2013, ETCs had the option of having 

USAC conduct the annual 

recertification process on their behalf. 

The Commission delegated to the 

Bureau the authority to establish, in 

coordination with USAC, a process for 

USAC to recertify subscribers. This 

process for 2013 was described in detail 

in the 2013 Recert Notice, 78 FR 35632, 

June 13, 2013, and, as explained below, 

remains largely the same for 2014. 

2. ETCs must provide notice to USAC 

by April 1, 2014 if they intend to have 

USAC perform the recertification 

process on their behalf for 2014. Any 

ETC that used USAC to perform 

recertification in 2013 will be presumed 

to elect USAC to perform recertification 

in 2014 unless the carrier notifies USAC 

otherwise by April 1, 2014. ETCs that 

did not elect to use USAC last year and 

that do not make an election by April 

1, 2014 will be responsible for 

conducting recertification of their 

subscribers. 

3. ETCs should perform their election 

or revocation by sending an email to 

USAC at LiVerifications@usac.org. 

USAC will provide guidance to ETCs 

regarding format of the information in 

the email. 

4. Consistent with the process in 

2013, USAC will recertify subscribers by 

mailing each subscriber a letter that 

provides the subscriber the notice 

required by § 54.405(e)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, informing the 

subscriber that the subscriber has 30 

days to recertify the subscriber’s 

continued eligibility to receive Lifeline 

service or the subscriber will be deenrolled from the Lifeline program. The 

letter will also explain the 

recertification process and how the 

subscriber may confirm his or her 

eligibility. Subscribers will also receive 

a call or text message during the 30-day 

period to prompt a response. Any 

subscriber response submitted after the 

30-day deadline will not be processed, 

and the subscriber will be considered 

ineligible for the program and will be 

de-enrolled. 

5. USAC will provide subscribers 

with three methods to respond to the 

letter and recertify their eligibility. First, 

USAC will accept consumer calls made 

to a toll-free number, during which 

consumers will be able to recertify 

eligibility through an Inter-Active Voice 

Response (IVR). Second, USAC will 

allow consumers to verify their identity, 

read the certification language, and 

submit a response indicating they are 

recertifying their eligibility through a 

Web site maintained by USAC. Third, 

subscribers may also recertify by signing 

a recertification form provided by USAC 

and mailing the signed form to a 

receiving address designated by USAC. 

6. ETCs that elect to have USAC 

recertify their Lifeline subscribers must 

provide USAC with their subscriber list 

by May 1, 2014. Consistent with the 

Commission’s recertification 

requirements, the subscriber list must be 

based on the ETC’s February 2014 FCC 

Form 497 and must be sent to USAC in 

a standardized format as instructed by 

USAC. To the extent that a state agency 

conducts recertification for all or a 

portion of an ETC’s subscribers, the ETC 

may not elect to utilize USAC for 

recertifying those subscribers subject to 

recertification by the state agency. 

Therefore, prior to transmittal to USAC, 

the ETC should remove from its 

subscriber list those subscribers that are 

subject to the state agency’s 

recertification process. Each ETC that 

elects USAC to perform the 

recertification process will provide a 

toll-free number that USAC can provide 

to the ETC’s consumers who have 

questions about their service. 

7. USAC will complete the 

recertification process over a series of 

months, by grouping the ETCs that elect 

to have USAC complete the process into 

phases so that the influx of responses 

can be staggered. This grouping will be 

done randomly and staggered based 

upon USAC capacity. 

8. USAC will compile the responses 

and provide each ETC with a record of 

the subscriber recertification. USAC will 

provide each ETC with a list of 

subscribers that did not recertify, and 

therefore must be de-enrolled, and 

provide ETCs with sufficient 

information to compile their FCC Form 

555 at least 30 days before the annual 

January 31 due date. ETCs must deenroll subscribers within five days of 

receiving notice from USAC that the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES