Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5957 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-(3-carboxy-1-oxosulfopropyl)-w-hydroxy-, 

(C10–C12)-alkyl ethers, disodium salts, polyoxylene content averages 4–5 moles (CAS Reg. No. 68815–56–5).

Not to exceed 0.125% for seed 

treatment use only.

Surfactant. 

Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-(3-carboxy-1-oxosulfopropyl)-w-hydroxy-, 

(C10–C16)-alkyl ethers, disodium salts, polyoxyethylene content averages 5 moles (CAS Reg. No. 68954–91–6).

Not to exceed 0.125% for seed 

treatment use only.

Surfactant 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–02072 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9922– 

37–Region–2] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the Fulton Terminals 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Fulton Terminals 

Superfund site (Site), located in the City 

of Fulton, Oswego County, New York, 

consists of an ‘‘On-Property’’ portion, an 

approximately 1.5-acre parcel of land 

bounded on the west by First Street, on 

the south by Shaw Street, on the east by 

New York State Route 481, and on the 

north by a warehouse, and an ‘‘OffProperty’’ portion, defined by the area 

between the On-Property portion’s 

western property boundary to the 

Oswego River (approximately 50 feet). 

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region 2, is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Partial Deletion (NOPD) 

of the On-Property portion of the Site 

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 partial deletion is being published 

by EPA with the concurrence of the 

State of New York, through the New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 

because EPA has determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA have been completed at the 

On-Property portion of the Site and that 

the soil on the On-Property portion of 

the Site and the groundwater beneath 

the On-Property portion of the Site no 

longer pose a threat to public health or 

the environment. The NOPD pertains to 

the On-Property portion of the Site. The 

Off-Property portion of the Site will 

remain on the NPL. Because residual 

groundwater contamination remains in 

the Off-Property portion of the Site, 

groundwater monitoring and five-year 

reviews will still be required for this 

area. The partial deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final partial deletion 

will be effective April 6, 2015 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

March 6, 2015. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this direct final NOPD in 

the Federal Register, informing the 

public that the partial 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: 

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

Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

Email: tsiamis.christos@epa.gov. 

Fax: To the attention of Christos 

Tsiamis at 212–637–3966. 

Mail: To the attention of Christos 

Tsiamis, Remedial Project Manager, 

Emergency and Remedial Response 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th 

Floor, New York, NY 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 Record Center’s 

normal hours of operation (Monday to 

Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). 

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 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 via 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 

comments. If you send comments to 

EPA via email, your email 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 

comments and with any disks or CD– 

ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot 

read your comments because of 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comments fully. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters and any form of 

encryption and should 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 hard 

copy. Publicly-available Docket 

materials can be obtained either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

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 

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Fulton Public 

Library, 160 South First Street, Fulton, 

NY 13069, Phone: 315–592–5159, 

Hours: Tue–Thu: 9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m., 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Fri: 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Sat: 10:00 

a.m.–3:00 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christos Tsiamis, Remedial Project 

Manager, by mail at Emergency and 

Remedial Response Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866; telephone 

at 212–637–4257; fax at 212–637–3966; 

or email at tsiamis.christos@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct 

final NOPD of the On-Property portion 

of the Site from the NPL. The NPL 

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR 300, 

which is the NCP, which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of 

CERCLA, as amended. EPA maintains 

the NPL as the list of releases that 

appear to present a significant risk to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment. The releases on the NPL 

may be the subject of remedial actions 

financed by the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion 

of the Site is proposed in accordance 

with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is 

consistent with the Notice of Policy 

Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed 

on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 

55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 

Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site 

deleted from the NPL remains eligible 

for Fund-financed remedial action if 

future conditions at the site warrant 

such actions. 

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 On-Property portion of 

the Site and demonstrates how it meets 

the deletion criteria. Section V discusses 

EPA’s action to delete the On-Property 

portion of the Site from the NPL unless 

adverse comments are received during 

the public comment period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. responsible parties or other 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 (RI) has 

shown that the release of hazardous 

substances 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 apply to the 

deletion of the On-Property portion of 

the Site. 

(1) EPA consulted with the State of 

New York prior to developing this direct 

final NOPD and the NOIPD also 

published today in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of the Federal Register. 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this notice 

and the parallel NOIPD prior to their 

publication today, and the State, 

through the NYSDEC, has concurred on 

the deletion of a portion of the Site from 

the NPL. 

(3) Concurrent with the publication of 

this direct final NOPD, a notice of the 

availability of the parallel NOIPD is 

being published in a major local 

newspaper, the Palladium-Times. The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

NOIPD of the On-Property portion of the 

Site from the NPL. 

(4) EPA placed copies of documents 

supporting the proposed partial deletion 

in the Deletion Docket and made these 

items available for public inspection 

and copying at the Site information 

repositories identified above. 

If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this partial deletion action, 

EPA will publish a timely notice of 

withdrawal of this direct final NOPD 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process based on the 

NOIPD and the comments received. 

Deletion of a portion of a site from the 

NPL does not itself create, alter, or 

revoke any individual’s rights or 

obligations. Deletion of a portion 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’s 

management of sites. Section 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the 

deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

preclude eligibility for further response 

actions should future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

the Agency’s rationale for deleting the 

On-Property portion of the Site from the 

NPL. 

Site Background and History 

The Site (NYD980593099) includes an 

approximately 1.5-acre parcel of land 

situated approximately 10 miles 

southeast of the City of Oswego and 22 

miles north-northwest of the City of 

Syracuse. The On-Property portion of 

the Site is bounded on the west by First 

Street, on the south by Shaw Street, on 

the east by New York State Route 481, 

and on the north by a warehouse. 

The On-Property portion of the Site is 

located in an industrial section of the 

City of Fulton, within 50 feet of the 

Oswego River, which is used for 

recreation. Residences, city and county 

offices and several businesses are 

located within a 1,500-foot radius of the 

Site. 

From 1936 to 1960, the primary 

activity at the Site was the 

manufacturing of roofing materials, 

which involved the storage of asphalt in 

above-ground tanks and fuel oil storage 

in underground tanks. From 1972 to 

1977, the Site was used by Fulton 

Terminals, Inc. as a staging and storage 

area for solvents and other materials 

that were scheduled for incineration at 

the Pollution Abatement Services 

facility located in Oswego, New York. 

Operations at the Site resulted in the 

contamination of the groundwater, soil, 

and sediments with volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). 

From 1981 to 1983, Fulton Terminals, 

Inc. removed several tanks as part of a 

voluntary cleanup program. These 

activities ceased in 1983 after the 

facility operator was fined by NYSDEC 

for the improper disposal of 

polychlorinated biphenyls. The Site was 

listed on the NPL in 1982. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5959 

EPA and certain potentially 

responsible parties (PRPs) conducted 

removal activities at the Site in 1986, 

consisting of the following: Constructing 

a seven-foot perimeter fence around the 

Site, posting warning signs, removing 

two above-ground tanks and two 

underground tanks, removing 

approximately 300 cubic yards of 

visibly-contaminated soil and tar-like 

wastes, and excavating storm drains that 

were acting as a conduit for 

contaminated runoff to enter the 

Oswego River during storm events. An 

additional removal action was 

performed in 1990 which involved the 

construction of earthen barriers for the 

prevention of surface runoff from the 

Site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

From 1985 to 1987, NYSDEC’s 

contractor, URS Company, Inc., 

performed a RI/feasibility study (FS) at 

the Site. The RI/FS report that was 

generated from these efforts was 

declared invalid by NYSDEC because of 

problems associated with the laboratory 

analyses. A revised RI/FS report, based 

on additional sampling, was prepared 

by NYSDEC’s contractor in 1988. EPA 

concluded, however, that the revised RI/ 

FS report did not fully characterize the 

Site. Accordingly, EPA performed a 

Supplemental RI/FS. The conclusions 

set forth in the Supplemental RI/FS, 

completed in 1989 by EPA’s contractor, 

Ebasco Services, Inc., indicated that 

various VOCs were present in the 

unsaturated soil (above the water table) 

and in the groundwater at the Site. An 

Endangerment Assessment for the Site, 

which was also completed in 1989, 

contained conclusions that minimal 

human health risks were associated 

with the existing Site conditions. 

However, the Supplemental RI/FS 

process revealed that the leaching of 

VOCs from the contaminated on-site soil 

into the groundwater posed a risk to the 

environment. 

Selected Remedy 

The remedial action objectives 

selected for the Site include: 

• prevent contact with contaminated 

soil; 

• prevent migration of contaminated 

soil via surface water runoff and 

erosion; 

• ensure protection of groundwater 

and surface water from the continued 

release of contaminants from soils; and 

• restore groundwater to levels 

consistent with state and federal water 

quality standards. 

On September 29, 1989, a Record of 

Decision (ROD) was signed, in which 

EPA selected excavation and low 

temperature thermal desorption (LTTD) 

to treat approximately 4,000 cubic yards 

(CY) of contaminated soils located 

above the water table, and pumping, air 

stripping, carbon adsorption, and 

reinjection as the treatment method of 

the contaminated groundwater. The 

remediation goal of the soil remedy was 

to reduce the concentrations of VOCs in 

the soils to levels which would not 

cause the groundwater quality to exceed 

groundwater standards as a result of 

percolation of precipitation through the 

unsaturated soils. 

Remedy Implementation 

A consent decree was signed by the 

PRPs in 1990, in which they agreed to 

design and implement the remedy 

called for in the ROD. The consent 

decree became effective in 1991. 

Soil Remediation 

The remedial design (RD) of the soil 

excavation and treatment was initiated 

by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL), 

the contractor for the PRPs, in 1991. 

Pre-RD sampling revealed the 

presence of a significant amount of 

contamination in the deep soil (from the 

water table down to bedrock). Because 

the contaminated soil below the water 

table would continue to leach 

contaminants to the groundwater, EPA 

concluded that remediating this soil 

would be beneficial to the long-term 

groundwater cleanup. 

Remedial alternatives to address the 

contaminated soils below the water 

table were evaluated in a focused 

feasibility study (FFS) completed by 

BBL in 1993 (amended in 1994). The 

FFS determined that specialized 

methods for stabilizing the deep 

excavation area would be required for 

removal of the contaminated soils 

because of the excavation depth, the 

need for control of groundwater 

infiltration into the excavation area, and 

the close proximity of the Site to the 

Oswego River. 

Based on the results of the pre-RD 

sampling effort and the findings of the 

FFS, EPA modified the soil remedy in 

a 1994 Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD). The ESD called for 

the excavation of the VOC-contaminated 

soils in the saturated zone (below the 

water table), followed by the treatment 

of the excavated soils by LTTD. 

Following the completion of the plans 

and specifications related to the soil 

remedy in 1995, BBL initiated 

construction of the soil remedy. Because 

of the proximity of the Site to the 

Oswego River, a ‘‘freeze wall’’ was used, 

which is a construction process 

whereby the ground is frozen at depth 

to allow the dry excavation of 

contaminated soils below the water 

table. The excavation, treatment, and 

backfilling were completed in 1996. The 

total amount of contaminated source 

material that was remediated was 

10,200 cubic yards. Post-excavation soil 

sampling results indicated that residual 

levels of VOCs in soils were well below 

the target cleanup levels. 

Groundwater Remediation 

The groundwater remedy called for in 

the ROD required the reduction of VOC 

concentrations to groundwater 

standards by pumping groundwater 

from the saturated sand and gravel zone 

underlying the Site, treating the 

groundwater by air stripping and carbon 

adsorption, and reinjecting the water 

into the saturated sand and gravel zone. 

The design of the groundwater 

remediation was performed from 1991 

to 1994. Initiation of the groundwater 

remedial action (RA) was, however, 

postponed until all soil RA activities at 

the Site were completed. At that time, 

a horizontal extraction well system 

consisting of a gallery of perforated 

piping and a collection manhole was 

installed at the base of the excavation. 

Given the overall effectiveness of the 

soil remedy, it was determined that 

groundwater standards could be 

achieved within a relatively short time 

frame if the groundwater extraction 

could be effected immediately. Utilizing 

a mobile treatment system, an expedited 

pumping of the contaminated 

groundwater took place between 

February and May 1997. The operation 

of the groundwater extraction and 

treatment system (including 

groundwater reinjection/surface water 

discharge), as well as the weekly 

influent/effluent monitoring, was 

performed by Clean Harbors. 

During the 12-week operation period, 

8.8 million gallons of groundwater were 

extracted and treated. Subsequently, a 

groundwater monitoring program was 

implemented by Roux Associates to 

assess the effectiveness of the soil 

remediation in combination with the 

expedited groundwater remedy. 

Residual subsurface ice from the freeze 

wall precluded an accurate evaluation 

of the groundwater remedy performance 

(two downgradient monitoring wells 

were frozen). Following the forced thaw 

of the freeze wall (via steam injection) 

by the PRPs in 1998, the temperature of 

the groundwater and the concentrations 

of contaminants were monitored. 

Groundwater samples collected in 1999 

indicated that the freeze wall was no 

longer intact (i.e., the two monitoring 

wells were free of ice) and that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5960 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

contamination levels in these wells 

were showing a decreasing trend. 

Following the collection of 

groundwater quality samples in 1999, 

EPA determined that the ROD 

requirements for the groundwater 

remedy had been substantially met and 

no further response, other than longterm groundwater monitoring, was 

anticipated. 

Monitoring 

Six monitoring wells located in the 

On-Property portion of the Site were 

abandoned in 2004 because 

contaminants had not been detected in 

these wells for multiple sampling 

periods. A monitoring well located 

downgradient of the On-Property 

portion of the Site on the western 

property boundary is the only well that 

continues to show volatile organic 

compounds above groundwater 

standards. During the latest sampling in 

2013, cis-1,2-dichloroethylene was 

detected at 12.9 micrograms per liter 

(mg/L), which is marginally above this 

contaminant’s groundwater standard of 

5 mg/L, and vinyl chloride was detected 

at 2.18 mg/l, which is slightly above its 

groundwater standard of 2 mg/L. 

Five-Year Review 

Hazardous substances remain at the 

Site in one monitoring well above levels 

that would allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. Therefore, 

pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), 

EPA is required to conduct a review of 

the remedy at least once every five 

years. Five-year reviews were conducted 

in 2004, 2009 and 2014. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities for the 

Site have been satisfied as required 

pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k) 

and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. As 

part of the remedy selection process, the 

public was invited to comment on the 

proposed remedy. All other documents 

and information that 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 

All of the completion requirements 

for the On-Property portion of the Site 

have been met, as described in the 

September 1996 soil Remedial Action 

Report, the September 1999 Preliminary 

Close-Out Report, and the 2004, 2009, 

and 2014 five-year review reports. The 

State of New York, in a September 29, 

2014 letter, concurred with the 

proposed partial deletion of the OnProperty portion of the Site from the 

NPL. 

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 of the State of New York, 

through NYSDEC, believes that this 

criterion for the deletion of the OnProperty portion of the Site has been 

met in that that the soil on the OnProperty portion of the Site and the 

groundwater beneath the On-Property 

portion of the Site no longer pose a 

threat to public health or the 

environment. Consequently, EPA is 

deleting the On-Property portion of the 

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 York through the New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, has 

determined that all appropriate 

responses under CERCLA have been 

completed at the On-Property portion of 

the Site and that the soil and the 

groundwater beneath the On-Property 

portion of the Site no longer pose a 

threat to public health or the 

environment. Therefore, EPA is deleting 

the On-Property portion of the Site from 

the NPL. Because residual groundwater 

contamination remains in the OffProperty portion of the Site (west of the 

On-Property’s property boundary to the 

Oswego River), the Off-Property portion 

of the Site is not being deleted from the 

NPL. Groundwater monitoring and fiveyear reviews will still be required for 

this area. The partial deletion does not 

preclude future action under CERCLA. 

Because EPA considers this action to be 

noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking this action without prior 

publication. This action will be effective 

April 6, 2015 unless EPA receives 

adverse comments by March 6, 2015. 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 NOPD 

before the effective date of the partial 

deletion and the deletion will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

NOIPD 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 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: January 6, 2015. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2. 

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. 

9601–9675; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 

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

3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by revising the entry under 

‘‘Fulton Terminals Site,’’ ‘‘New York’’ to 

read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/County Notes (a) 

*******

NY .................... Fulton Terminals ..................................... Fulton/Oswego ........................................ P 

*******


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 5961 

(a) * * * 

* P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–02266 Filed 2–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket Nos. 10–90 and 13–184; FCC 

14–189] 

Modernization of the Schools and 

Libraries ‘‘E-rate’’ Program and 

Connect America Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) takes the next critical 

steps to modernize the Universal 

Service Fund’s Schools and Libraries 

program, known as E-rate. Building on 

the E-rate Modernization Order, the 

Commission adopted in July, the 

improvements to the program that the 

Commission adopts in this Order seek to 

close the high-speed connectivity gap 

between rural schools and libraries and 

their urban and suburban counterparts, 

and provide sufficient and certain 

funding for high-speed connectivity to 

and within all eligible schools and 

libraries. The Commission takes these 

actions to ensure the continued success 

of the E-rate program as it transitions 

from supporting legacy services to 

focusing on meeting the high-speed 

broadband connectivity needs of 

schools and libraries consistent with the 

recently adopted program goals and 

long-term connectivity targets. In the 

Order on Reconsideration, the 

Commission grants in part the petitions 

for reconsideration of the areas 

designated as urban for purposes of the 

E-rate program. The Commission also 

denies petitions for reconsideration of 

the document retention period, the 

phase out of support for telephone 

components and other services, and 

funding commitments that cover 

multiple years. At the same time, the 

Commission clarifies our cost 

effectiveness test for individual data 

plans and the cost allocation rules for 

circuits carrying voice services. 

DATES: Effective March 6, 2015, except 

for amendments to §§ 54.313(e)(2) and 

(f)(1), 54.503(c)(1), and 54.504(a)(1)(iii), 

which are subject to the PRA and OMB 

approval of the information collection 

requirements. FCC will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date. The 

amendments to §§ 54.308(b), 54.309(b), 

54.505(b)(3) introductory text and 

(b)(3)(i), and 54.507(a) introductory text, 

(a)(1), and (c) are effective on July 1, 

2015; and amendments to §§ 54.505(b) 

introductory text, (c), and (f) and 54.518 

are effective on July 1, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Dumouchel, Wireline Competition 

Bureau, Telecommunications Access 

Policy Division, at (202) 418–7400 or 

TTY: (202) 418–0484. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order and Order on 

Reconsideration, in WC Docket Nos. 10– 

90 and 13–184; FCC 14–189, adopted on 

December 11, 2014 and released on 

December 19, 2014. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection during regular business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. Or at the 

following Internet address: https://

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/

FCC-14-189A1.pdf. 

I. Introduction 

1. In the Second E-rate Modernization 

Report and Order (Order) and Order on 

Reconsideration, we take the next 

critical steps to modernize the Universal 

Service Fund’s Schools and Libraries 

program, known as E-rate. Building on 

the E-rate Modernization Order we 

adopted in July, the improvements to 

the program that we adopt in this Order 

seek to close the high-speed 

connectivity gap between rural schools 

and libraries and their urban and 

suburban counterparts, and provide 

sufficient and certain funding for highspeed connectivity to and within all 

eligible schools and libraries. We take 

these actions to ensure the continued 

success of the E-rate program as it 

transitions from supporting legacy 

services to focusing on meeting the 

high-speed broadband connectivity 

needs of schools and libraries consistent 

with the recently adopted program goals 

and long-term connectivity targets. 

2. Through the changes we make to 

the E-rate program, we take further steps 

forward in our effort to modernize the 

program and place it on firm footing to 

meet the program goals. As the changes 

made in this Order and the E-rate 

Modernization Order are implemented, 

we will continue to identify additional 

steps that can to be taken to further 

modernize the E-rate program and 

achieve our goals of: (1) ensuring 

affordable access to high-speed 

broadband; (2) maximizing the costeffectiveness of spending for E-rate 

supported purchases; and (3) making 

the E-rate application process and other 

E-rate processes fast, simple, and 

efficient. We recognize that these 

changes will require adjustments by 

applicants, service providers, and other 

stakeholders, and in conjunction with 

USAC we commit to ensure that 

sufficient training and educational 

resources are provided to assist these 

groups during this transition. Finally, as 

always, we welcome feedback from 

applicants, service providers, teachers, 

librarians, state and local governments, 

and all other stakeholders on additional 

measures to reach our goals faster and 

improve the E-rate program. 

II. Maximizing Schools’ and Libraries’ 

Options for Purchasing Affordable 

High-Speed Broadband Connectivity 

3. We focus in this section on 

providing schools and libraries, 

particularly those in rural areas, more 

options for purchasing affordable highspeed broadband connections. We agree 

with the many commenters who make 

clear that in order to meet the 

Commission’s connectivity targets, in 

addition to increased funding, we must 

make changes to the program to meet 

the need for affordable high-speed 

connectivity to schools and libraries. 

The CoSN Survey identifies the monthly 

cost of recurring Internet access services 

and an inability to pay for the capital or 

non-recurring costs to get high-speed 

connections as the two biggest barriers 

to increasing connectivity to schools. 

Likewise, the American Library 

Association (ALA), the Public Library 

Association, and others indicate that 

lack of access to broadband 

infrastructure and the high costs of 

recurring services hamper libraries’ 

ability to meet our E-rate goals. As ALA 

has explained, our nation’s libraries 

depend on affordable, scalable, highcapacity broadband in order to complete 

education, jumpstart employment and 

entrepreneurship, and foster individual 

empowerment and engagement. To meet 

the connectivity targets we adopted in 

the E-rate Modernization Order, 

substantial numbers of schools and 

libraries will need to find vendors 

willing and able to provide affordable 

high-speed connections to their 

buildings and be able to afford the 

recurring costs of those high-speed 

connections. 

4. Over the course of the last 18 years, 

the Commission has recognized the 

importance of giving local school 

districts and libraries the flexibility to 

purchase E-rate supported services that 

meet their needs. With rare exceptions, 

however, the program has not adopted 

new tools for applicants to use in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES