Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34513 

environment. The only remaining 

activity to be performed are Five-Year 

Reviews, monitoring, and O&M 

activities described above. A 

bibliography of all reports relevant to 

the completion of this Site under the 

Superfund program is in the 

administrative record for this deletion. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous waste, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator, Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15622 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9981– 

02—Region 1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Old Southington Landfill 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is 

issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the 

Old Southington Landfill Superfund 

Site (Site) located at Old Turnpike Road, 

Southington, Connecticut (CT), from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL was 

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). The EPA and 

the State of Connecticut, through the CT 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), 

have determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation and maintenance, 

monitoring, and five-year reviews, have 

been completed. However, this deletion 

does not preclude future actions under 

CERCLA. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2005–0011, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Online: http://

www.regulations.gov—Follow on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

• Email: silva.almerinda@epa.gov or 

Purnell.ZaNetta@epa.gov. 

• Mail: 

Almerinda Silva, U.S. EPA, Region 1— 

New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–07–4, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912 

ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, Region 1— 

New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSSR–ORA01– 

1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 

• Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, Region 

1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA. 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–2005– 

0011. 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 website 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, i.e., 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 1—New England, 

Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office 

Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, 

Phone: 617–918–1440, Hours: Monday– 

Friday: 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Saturday 

and Sunday—Closed. 

Southington Public Library, 255 Main 

Street, Southington, CT, Phone: 860– 

628–0947, Hours: Monday–Thursday 

9:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m., Friday–Saturday 

9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., and Sunday 

Closed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Almerinda Silva, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1—New England 

OSRR07–4, 5 Post Office Square, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, Phone: (617) 

918–1246, email silva.almerinda@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34514 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 1 announces its intent to 

delete the Old Southington Landfill 

Superfund Site from the National 

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public 

comment on this proposed action. The 

NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 300 which is the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), promulgated 

by EPA 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 should future 

conditions warrant such actions. EPA 

will accept comments on the proposal to 

delete this site for thirty (30) days after 

publication of this document in the 

Federal Register. 

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 Old Southington 

Landfill Superfund Site and 

demonstrates how it meets the deletion 

criteria. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA have 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 it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the Hazard Ranking 

System. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion: 

(1) EPA consulted with the State 

before developing this Notice of Intent 

to Delete; 

(2) EPA has provided the State 30 

working days for review of this notice 

prior to publication of it today; 

(3) In accordance with the criteria 

discussed above, EPA has determined 

that no further response is appropriate; 

(4) The State has concurred with 

deletion of the Site from the NPL; 

(5) Concurrently with the publication 

of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the 

Federal Register, a notice is being 

published in a major local newspaper, 

The Southington Observer. The 

newspaper notice announces the 30-day 

public comment period concerning the 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from 

the NPL; and 

(6) 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. 

If comments are received within the 

30-day public comment period on this 

document, EPA will evaluate and 

respond appropriately to the comments 

before making a final decision to delete. 

If necessary, EPA will prepare a 

Responsiveness Summary to address 

any significant public comments 

received. After the public comment 

period, if EPA determines it is still 

appropriate to delete the Site, the 

Regional Administrator will publish a 

final Notice of Deletion in the Federal 

Register. Public notices, public 

submissions and copies of the 

Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, 

will be made available to interested 

parties and in the Site information 

repositories listed above. 

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 

CERCLIS ID: CTD980670806 

The Old Southington Landfill 

Superfund Site is in the Town of 

Southington, Hartford County, 

Connecticut, and is approximately 13 

miles southwest of Hartford, 

Connecticut. From 1920 to 1967, 

residents and area businesses used 

portions of the landfill for disposal of 

waste materials. During this time frame, 

the landfill was known as the Old 

Turnpike Landfill. Based upon 

historical information, Remedial 

Investigation (RI) data, and differences 

in ownership between the northern and 

southern portion of the Site, it is clear 

that the northern and southern portions 

of the landfill were used for distinct and 

separate purposes. The northern portion 

of the landfill was a ‘‘stump dump’’ that 

was used for the disposal of wood and 

construction debris. The southern 

portion of the landfill was used 

throughout the period the landfill was 

in operation for the co-disposal of 

municipal and industrial waste. 

Historical information, interviews with 

current and past Town employees, and 

information contained in public 

documents on disposal practices 

indicate that for a short period of time 

(1964–1967) two areas (SSDA 1 and 

SSDA 2) in the southern portion of the 

landfill were used for disposal of semisolid industrial wastes. In 1967 (or 

shortly thereafter), the landfill was 

‘‘closed’’ consisting of: Compacting 

disposed material, covering with 2 feet 

of clean fill, and seeding for erosion 

control. 

Between 1973 and 1980, the landfill 

property was subdivided and sold for 

residential and commercial 

development. Several residential and 

commercial buildings were built on the 

Site and on adjacent areas. 

The landfill is located approximately 

700 feet southeast of the former 

Production Well No. 5, which was 

installed in 1965 by the Town of 

Southington Water Department and was 

used as a public water supply. The 

Connecticut Department of Public 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34515 

Health and Addiction Services (then the 

Department of Health Services) sampled 

Well No. 5 on several occasions between 

December 1978 and March 1979. 

Analyses of the samples indicated the 

presence of chlorinated volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs). Because of the 

detection of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) 

at levels that exceeded State standards, 

Well No. 5 was closed in August 1979. 

The well has been permanently closed 

since that time. A more detailed 

description of the Site history can be 

found in Section 1 of the Supplemental 

Remedial Investigation (SRI) Report 

(Kleinfelder, May 2006). 

1. History of CERCLA Enforcement 

Activities 

In February 1980, EPA authorized a 

hydrogeologic investigation aimed at 

defining the nature and extent of 

contamination in groundwater in the 

vicinity of Well No. 5. Analysis of 

groundwater samples collected from 

two monitoring wells installed between 

the landfill and Well No. 5 indicated the 

presence of VOCs (Warzyn Engineering, 

Inc., 1980). In November 1980, the 

Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection (now the CT 

DEEP) collected soil samples from a 

manhole excavation within the 

industrial park located on land that had 

previously been part of the landfill. 

Analysis of the soil samples indicated 

the presence of chlorinated and nonchlorinated VOCs. 

The Old Southington Landfill was 

formerly known as the Old Turnpike 

Landfill. Based on the above findings 

and a hazardous ranking evaluation 

performed in 1982, EPA subsequently 

proposed the Site be placed on the 

National Priorities List (NPL), pursuant 

to Section 105(8)(b) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9605(8)(b). On 

September 8, 1983, the Site was 

proposed to the NPL (48 FR 40674) and 

on September 21, 1984, the Old 

Turnpike Landfill was final listed on the 

NPL as the Old Southington Landfill 

Superfund Site (49 FR 37070). The Site 

includes two Operable Units (OUs); 

OU1 includes the landfill cap and 

permanent relocation of all on-site 

homes and businesses; and OU2 

includes the groundwater. 

In 1987, EPA entered into an 

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) 

with three Potentially Responsible 

Parties (PRPs) to define the nature and 

extent of Site contamination. In 1993, 

the PRPs prepared a Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study report 

(ES&E, 1993) that provided results of the 

RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment 

(HHRA), an Ecological Risk Assessment 

(ERA), and a Feasibility Study (FS). EPA 

issued an Addendum to the RI/FS 

Report in 1994. 

In September 1994, EPA issued the 

Interim Remedial Action for Limited 

Source Control Record of Decision 

(ROD) that addressed the landfill and 

included the following major remedy 

components and remedy objectives: 

• Relocation of existing residences 

and businesses located on top of the 

landfill; 

• Construction of a synthetic cap over 

the landfill to prevent human contact 

with contaminated subsurface soils, 

stop rainwater infiltration through the 

soil to the groundwater, and allow for 

the containment and collection of 

landfill gas; 

• Excavation and consolidation of a 

highly contaminated area ‘‘hot spot’’ in 

a lined cell underneath the landfill cap; 

• Removal of all buildings from the 

landfill; 

• Installation of a soil gas collection 

system; 

• Performance of long-term operation 

and maintenance (O&M); 

• Performance of long-term 

monitoring; 

• Development and implementation 

of institutional controls to ensure the 

remedy integrity by controlling future 

Site use and access; and 

• Five-Year Reviews. 

The remedy selected in the 1994 ROD 

also required additional groundwater 

studies be undertaken concurrent with 

the implementation of the cap on the 

landfill. In addition, because it was 

uncertain if the landfill gas collection 

system would be effective and 

protective of human health, the 1994 

ROD required that an additional 

evaluation be conducted. 

In 1998, a Consent Decree (CD) was 

entered between EPA and 

approximately 320 PRPs; two PRPs 

became the Performing Settling 

Defendants (PSDs) while the remainder 

were Contributing Settling Defendants. 

Pursuant to the CD, the PSDs were 

required to implement the remedy 

selected in the 1994 ROD. Construction 

of the remedy selected in the 1994 ROD 

was completed in 2001. Operation and 

maintenance as well as long-term 

monitoring are currently being 

conducted by the Performing Settling 

Defendants (PSDs). Institutional 

controls, consisting of Environmental 

Land Use Restrictions (ELURs), were 

implemented in 2010 and 2018 for 

parcels occupied by the landfill cap. 

Five-Year Reviews are being conducted 

by EPA. In June 1999, EPA entered into 

two additional settlements: One with six 

parties and the other with 119 de 

minimis parties who all agreed to 

contribute to the cost of the remedial 

action in the 1994 ROD. Per the 1994 

ROD, the PSDs performed the additional 

groundwater studies (i.e., a second RI/ 

FS) to address the remaining issues at 

the Site under the 1998 CD. 

Accordingly, in 1999, the PSDs initiated 

the Supplemental Groundwater 

Investigations (SGI) which was 

completed in 2006. The 2006 SRI and 

the Amended Feasibility Study (AFS), 

(EPA, 2006) were completed in June 

2006. In September 2006, a Final ROD 

was issued to address potential vapor 

intrusion risks from contaminants 

located in shallow groundwater 

(Operable Unit 2 [OU2]). 

The 2009 CD required the PSDs to 

develop the Remedial Design and 

construct the selected remedy for the 

2006 ROD. As part of the Remedial 

Design, a vapor intrusion groundwater 

investigation was completed for two 

properties immediately downgradient of 

the landfill that determined only vinyl 

chloride slightly exceeded a proposed 

State groundwater quality commercial/ 

industrial volatilization criterion. 

Institutional controls in the form of 

ELURs would be implemented to 

prevent construction of new buildings 

to prevent future vapor intrusion risks 

(LEA, 2014). The ELURs were 

completed during 2017. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

1. 1993 Remedial Investigation 

Results from the 1993 RI concluded 

that the primary sources of groundwater 

contamination at the Site are wastes, 

including liquid organic solvents and 

semi-solid organic sludges, deposited in 

the landfill during its operation. 

Deposition of limited amounts of metalcontaining wastes has also contributed 

to localized areas of elevated levels of 

certain metals in groundwater beneath 

the landfill. 

Overall, the RI results indicated that 

industrial-related chemical waste was 

deposited primarily in the southern 

portion of the landfill. VOCs were 

detected in soils at sporadically high 

concentrations throughout this portion 

of the landfill. VOCs were detected in 

shallow, intermediate, and deep 

overburden groundwater exceeding the 

federal Maximum Contaminant Levels 

(MCLs). 

Low to moderate concentrations of 

several other contaminants, including 

semi-volatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs) [primarily polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAHs)], polychlorinated 

biphenyl compounds (PCBs) and some 

metals, were also detected. The 1993 RI 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34516 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

also identified two areas (SSDA 1 and 

SSDA 2), where semi-solid industrial 

waste materials contaminated with 

relatively high levels of VOCs and/or 

SVOCs were deposited. EPA determined 

that SSDA 1 was to be considered a ‘‘hot 

spot’’ due to contaminants levels being 

substantially higher than those found 

throughout the landfill, whereas levels 

of contamination in SSDA 2 were 

consistent with those found throughout 

the southern portion of the landfill. Past 

records and results also indicated that 

the northern portion of the landfill was 

primarily used as a dump for stumps 

and demolition debris with waste 

materials including wood, ash, cinders, 

and some brick and asphalt. Moderate 

concentrations of PAHs were detected 

in soils at certain locations in the 

northern portion of the landfill. 

Approximately one third of the waste in 

the southern portion of the landfill 

remains below the water table. 

2. 2006 Supplemental Remedial 

Investigation (OU2) 

The results of the 2006 SRI confirmed 

that groundwater flow beneath the 

landfill is westerly; however, as 

groundwater flows away from the 

landfill towards the Quinnipiac River, 

the flow becomes northwesterly. 

Groundwater present near the Site 

includes an overburden aquifer and a 

bedrock aquifer. Overall, groundwater 

flow was postulated to generally follow 

the bedrock topography, flowing along a 

west-northwest trending bedrock 

trough, with the impact of the bedrock 

topography being potentially greater on 

the flow in the deeper portions of the 

aquifer. Hydrogeologic evaluations also 

indicated that the bedrock surface rises 

in the western part of the area studied, 

pinching out the overburden 

groundwater aquifer west of the 

Quinnipiac River. 

Groundwater migrating westward 

from the Site contains dissolved 

contaminants derived from the waste 

disposed in the southern portion of the 

Site, and flows relatively quickly 

downward into the deeper overburden 

aquifer. This phenomenon appears to be 

due to significant differences in the 

relatively low permeability of the waste 

versus the high permeability of the 

underlying sand and gravel layer. 

Contaminants are then transported at 

depth to the west by regional 

groundwater flow. Contaminants from 

the northern portions of the landfill 

move downward more slowly and 

migrate greater distances through the 

shallow aquifer immediately west and 

northwest of the landfill. 

3. 1994 Feasibility Study (OU1) 

Using the information gathered from 

the 1993 RI, HHRA, and other technical 

documents, EPA identified several 

source control response objectives to 

use in developing alternatives to 

prevent or minimize the release of 

contaminants from the Site. A 

comprehensive evaluation of 

containment and management of 

contaminated groundwater migration 

from the landfill was addressed by the 

final response action. A presumptive 

remedy for CERCLA municipal landfills 

was selected, which consisted primarily 

of containment (capping) of the landfill 

waste and gas collection/treatment. 

Capping of the landfill waste along with 

collection of landfill gases, and if 

necessary, treatment, was the 

presumptive containment remedy 

selected in the FS for this Site. In this 

FS, the remedy was combined with 

other remedial actions that addressed 

source control of the landfill wastes. 

The presumptive remedy did not 

address exposure pathways outside the 

source area (landfill) such as 

groundwater. The following 2006 

Amended Feasibility Study addressed 

groundwater. 

4. 2006 Amended Feasibility Study 

(OU2) 

In 2006, an Amended Feasibility 

Study (AFS) developed remedial 

alternatives for the remediation of 

groundwater, provided a detailed 

evaluation on the remedial alternatives, 

and performed a comparative analysis of 

the two remedial alternatives identified 

as (1) Alternative GW–1: No Action, and 

(2) Alternative GW–2: Institutional 

Controls/Groundwater Monitoring/ 

Building Ventilation/Vapor Barriers. 

Alternative GW–2 was chosen as the 

selected groundwater remedy for the 

Site. 

Selected Remedies 

The September 1994, ROD for the 

Interim Remedial Action for Limited 

Source Control addressed the following 

Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs): 

• Minimize the current and future 

effects of landfill contaminants on 

groundwater quality, specifically, 

reducing to a minimum the amount of 

precipitation allowed to infiltrate 

through the unsaturated waste column 

and contaminate the groundwater; 

• eliminate potential future risks to 

human health through direct contact 

with landfill contaminants by 

maintaining a physical barrier; 

• control surface water run-on, runoff, and erosion at the Site; 

• prevent risks from uncontrolled 

landfill gas migration and emissions; 

• comply with state and federal 

applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirements (ARARs); and 

• minimize potential impacts of 

implementing the selected limited 

source control alternative on adjacent 

surface waters and wetlands. 

Additional groundwater studies 

followed and in September 2006, EPA 

issued a ROD for the final selected 

remedy that addresses potential risks 

from vapor intrusion into buildings 

above the shallow VOC plume in 

groundwater (2006 ROD). This remedy 

addressed the following remedial action 

objective (RAO): Prevent inhalation of 

VOCs by occupants of residential/ 

commercial/industrial buildings 

resulting from volatilization of VOCs in 

groundwater, in excess of 10 ¥4 to 10 ¥6

cancer risk, a Hazard Index >1, and/or 

comply with applicable or relevant and 

appropriate volatilization criteria. 

Response Actions 

1. 1994 ROD Findings & Remedial 

Activities 

The remedial action selected in the 

1994 ROD (for OU1, the landfill) was 

based principally upon EPA’s 

Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA 

Municipal Landfill Sites, EPA Document 

No. 540–F–93–035. (Presumptive 

Remedy Guidance) (EPA, 1993). The 

1994 ROD addressed all affected media 

(i.e., soil, soil gas, surface water, and 

sediment) at the landfill, at the adjacent 

Black Pond, and at the Unnamed Stream 

across Old Turnpike Road west of the 

landfill. By July 2001 physical 

construction of the OU1 (landfill) 

remedy was substantially completed 

and the operation and maintenance 

(O & M) activities and long-term 

monitoring (LTM) had started. 

The northern 4-acre portion of the 

landfill Site was redeveloped for passive 

recreational use. This part of the landfill 

is landscaped with trees and shrubs 

along its perimeter and abuts Black 

Pond. It is regularly mowed by the 

Town of Southington (a PSD). There is 

a 3-foot high chain link fence that 

encircles this part of the landfill along 

Old Turnpike Road to the west and 

Rejean Road to the north. The fence has 

an opening, which allows for pedestrian 

access. People can walk their dogs, sit 

and watch the naturally existing 

wildlife, and/or take their kayak or 

canoe out onto Black Pond. The 

southern portion of the landfill is 

secured with a 6-foot high chain link 

fence and public access is not allowed. 

The reason for prohibiting public access 

to this part of the landfill is to prevent 

potential damage to the lowpermeability cap, which could in turn 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34517 

allow rainwater infiltration and direct 

contact with highly contaminated 

industrial waste. 

The 2006 SRI determined that there 

were no receptors downgradient of the 

Site that could be affected by the plume 

and that Site-related groundwater 

contaminants of concern (COCs) 

downgradient of the Site do not 

adversely impact environmental media 

other than groundwater. Groundwater 

COCs are transported as a narrow plume 

in the lower portion of the aquifer, 

remain in the lower portion of the 

aquifer, with ultimate discharge into the 

Quinnipiac River Basin west-northwest 

of the Site. The also determined that 

non-VOC COCs from the Site in 

groundwater do not exceed applicable 

regulatory criteria. Based on the SGI’s 

hydraulic studies, it was determined 

that contaminated groundwater 

underlying the landfill does not 

discharge into Black Pond or the 

unnamed stream and wetlands. 

Confirmation of the passive landfill 

gas collection system’s effectiveness was 

conducted through several means. After 

the gas collection system was installed 

and the landfill was capped, three 

rounds of seasonal vapor data were 

collected directly from the landfill gas 

vents and a risk assessment was 

conducted. The data results indicated 

that the gas vents were operating 

effectively and there was no risk found 

to human health or to the environment. 

As part of the 2010 Five-Year Review, 

a helium tracer study was conducted in 

the northern part of the landfill to 

simulate potential landfill gas 

migration, low levels of helium were 

detected outside the landfill. Therefore, 

as a precautionary measure, the PSDs 

installed an impermeable vertical gas 

barrier trench that extends into the 

water table just outside the landfill cap 

to prevent possible landfill gas from 

migrating off-Site to the northern 

neighborhood. The PSDs performed a 

similar evaluation of the gas vents data 

in the southern portion of the landfill 

and found no risk being posed to human 

health or the environment. All vents 

continue to be periodically checked 

through long-term monitoring (LTM) 

and O&M programs. 

2. 2006 ROD Findings & Remedial 

Activities 

This ROD memorialized the remedy 

to reduce potential risks from the 

migration of volatile contaminants to 

indoor air within buildings located 

above groundwater contamination. The 

components of this remedy complement 

those in the1994 ROD. 

The major components of the 2006 

ROD are as follows: 

i. Institutional controls, in the form of 

Environmental Land Use Restrictions 

(ELURs) as defined in Connecticut’s 

Remediation Standard Regulations (CT 

RSRs) will be placed on properties or 

portions of properties where 

groundwater Volatile Organic 

Compound (VOC) concentrations 

exceed the CT RSR volatilization criteria 

for residential or commercial/industrial 

use, or criteria listed in Table L–1 of the 

2006 ROD. Periodic inspections are 

required to ensure compliance with the 

institutional controls and to ensure 

proper notification to EPA and the State, 

as necessary. 

ii. Building ventilation (sub-slab 

depressurization systems or similar 

technology) will be used in existing 

buildings located over portions of 

properties where VOCs in groundwater 

exceed the CT RSR’s volatilization 

criteria or criteria listed in Table L–1 of 

the 2006 ROD to prevent migration of 

VOC vapors into buildings. Similarly, 

vapor barriers (or similar technology) or 

sub-slab depressurization (or similar 

technology) will be used to control 

vapors in new buildings. 

iii. Groundwater monitoring will be 

conducted in areas where the potential 

for vapor intrusion is a concern. Such 

areas include, but are not limited to, the 

two parcels that are the initial focus of 

this remedial action Chuck & Eddy’s 

(C&E) and the Radio Station. 

Compliance wells will be installed at 

appropriate locations, to collect 

groundwater to evaluate long-term 

fluctuations in accordance with the 

monitoring requirements of the CT RSRs 

and other federal requirements to ensure 

the protectiveness of the remedy in the 

future. 

iv. Conduct operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring of engineering and 

institutional controls to ensure remedial 

measures are performing as intended 

and continue to protect human health 

and the environment in the long-term. 

v. Five-year reviews. 

The 2006 ROD addresses the threat 

presented by vapor intrusion through 

engineering controls, institutional 

controls, long-term monitoring, and 

Five-Year Reviews to prevent potential 

exposure to contamination that presents 

an unacceptable risk to human health. 

Engineering controls (i.e., vapor 

mitigation systems) will only be 

installed in the future if criteria listed in 

Table L–1 of the 2006 ROD are exceeded 

and/or if new buildings are constructed 

on properties of concern. 

In August 2010 further testing was 

performed at the Highland Hills 

neighborhood and the results confirmed 

that there is no vapor intrusion risk to 

this neighborhood and thus no further 

action is necessary in this area. To 

confirm that any groundwater 

contamination that far from the landfill 

edge would be at depths greater than 15 

feet and not pose a vapor intrusion risk, 

groundwater samples were collected 

sequentially in discrete vertical 

intervals and analyzed and compared to 

criteria presented in Table L–1 of the 

2006 ROD. Groundwater samples from 

two consecutive 1 foot intervals and 

subsequently every 5 feet down to 60 

feet were collected and analyzed. There 

were no exceedances of any of the 

volatilization criteria in the upper 30 

feet of the aquifer. These results confirm 

the conceptual Site model that there is 

no vapor intrusion pathway in 

groundwater below the Highland Hills 

subdivision and therefore no vapor 

intrusion risk. 

An investigation was conducted by 

the PSDs with EPA oversight in 2011 to 

confirm that the Site’s groundwater 

plume was not migrating towards the 

portion of the aquifer classified by the 

State as GA [potable], situated to the 

south and southwest of the landfill. The 

investigation results demonstrated that 

the groundwater that is moving through 

the Landfill moves in a west/northwest 

direction, which continues to support 

the conceptual Site model for 

groundwater flow and contaminant 

transport. Thus, the Site groundwater 

plume does not flow toward or impact 

the GA aquifer. A more detailed 

description of this investigation and 

findings can be found in the GA 

Boundary Investigation Report (LEA, 

September 2011). 

A Vapor Intrusion Groundwater 

Investigation was performed by the 

PSDs during 2011 to assess the potential 

for vapor intrusion at the C&E’s 

Property, the Radio Station Property, 

and at two locations along Nunzio Drive 

and Barbara Lane (located southwest of 

the Site). Soil boreholes were advanced 

at select locations and monitoring wells 

were installed. Soil and groundwater 

samples were collected from these 

locations for analysis. Soil vapor probes 

were installed in occupied structures at 

the C&E’s Property and the Radio 

Station Property. Four quarterly rounds 

of soil vapor and groundwater samples 

were collected from June 2010 through 

September 2011. Only vinyl chloride 

was identified as slightly exceeding the 

criteria presented in Table L–1 of the 

2006 ROD. No VOCs were detected at 

concentrations exceeding the State RSRs 

for soil vapor (LEA, 2014). Therefore, 

construction of remedial vapor 

mitigation systems for existing 

structures at the C&E’s Property and the 

Radio Station Property identified in the 

2006 ROD was unnecessary. However, a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34518 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

passive vapor barrier was installed 

under the concrete slab for a new 

structure built in 2010 at the C&E’s 

Property. 

Residents and businesses have been 

permanently relocated from the landfill. 

The landfill has been properly capped 

and a soil gas collection system and 

impermeable gas barrier have been 

installed at the landfill. Therefore, there 

is no risk to human health or the 

environment from coming in contact 

with the landfill soil or landfill gas. In 

addition, everyone who lives or works 

in the area over the groundwater plume 

is connected to a municipal water 

supply, and so there is no ingestion or 

dermal contact with the contaminated 

groundwater. The route of potential 

exposure to human health is through 

vapor intrusion in the shallow 

groundwater that could potentially 

migrate into buildings. The 2006 

remedy addresses this issue through 

long-term monitoring and 

implementation of vapor intrusion 

engineering controls and institutional 

controls. The components of 1994 and 

the 2006 remedies are functioning 

effectively as designed. 

Cleanup Levels 

Attainment of Groundwater 

Restoration Cleanup Levels is not a 

Remedial Action Objective at this Site. 

The final groundwater remedy is not 

designed to clean up or restore 

groundwater but to address potential 

risks from vapor intrusion into 

buildings located above shallow 

groundwater contaminated from the Site 

(EPA, 2006). 

Operation and Maintenance 

There is an ongoing O&M program 

instituted for the 1994 remedy that 

includes landfill cover maintenance, 

cap effectiveness monitoring 

(groundwater monitoring and gas vent 

monitoring), and landfill inspection. An 

Operation and Maintenance Plan was 

prepared in 2001 that details the 

inspections, maintenance, and 

monitoring activities (CRA, 2001). An 

inspection plan was developed to 

ensure integrity of the cover system. 

Routine inspections of the Site include 

observing and recording the height of 

grass cover and areas of settlement and/ 

or ponding. A security inspection that 

includes a fence perimeter inspection 

and a visual inspection of trespasser or 

disturbance activity is also conducted 

periodically. The PSDs’ contractor 

performs the cap effectiveness 

monitoring, inspections, non-routine 

maintenance. One PSD (Town of 

Southington) performs the soil cover 

maintenance on a routine basis (removal 

of debris and grass cutting). 

For the 2006 remedy, it was 

determined that no sub-slab vapor 

mitigation system was required for 

either the existing C&E property or the 

Radio Station buildings. However, as a 

preventative measure any new 

construction of new buildings or 

additions to existing buildings would 

require sub-slab and/or engineering 

vapor intrusion mitigation measures. In 

2010, a pre-fabricated building was 

constructed at the C&E property with 

the placement of a passive vapor barrier. 

This barrier was installed under the 

direction of the C&E property owner 

without EPA or CT DEEP oversight. As 

a result, in 2011 a second geomembrane 

was proposed for installation under the 

concrete slab as a passive vapor 

intrusion barrier. EPA and CT DEEP 

reviewed and approved the design. The 

installation with oversight, was 

approved by EPA and CT DEEP. A 

Vapor Intrusion Inspection Plan (VIIP) 

was developed by LEA in March 2018 

that specifies inspection frequency on a 

biennial basis with mitigation steps as 

necessary. The VIIP is included in 

Appendix N of the Remedial Action 

Completion Report (LEA, 2018). 

Institutional Controls Implemented 

Institutional controls have been 

implemented for properties that 

comprise the Site and two properties 

located downgradient of the capped 

landfill to prevent consumption of 

groundwater, prevent activities that 

would compromise the integrity of the 

landfill cap, and restrict construction of 

structures over contaminated 

groundwater that exceed state 

groundwater standards with regard to 

preventing vapor intrusion exposures. 

These institutional controls address the 

requirements of both the 1994 and 2006 

RODs. The institutional controls are 

environmental restrictions in the forms 

of ‘‘Declarations of Land Use Restrictive 

Covenants or ‘‘Declarations of 

Environmental Land Use Restrictions 

(ELURs)’’. 

The September 14, 2010 ELURs were 

executed by the Town of Southington 

for the three Town-owned parcels 

located in the northern area of the 

capped landfill. In the ELURs, the Town 

agreed to: (1) Place notice of the 

restrictions on the deed, title, or other 

instrument and have it continue into 

perpetuity; (2) prohibit any use of any 

portion of the property that will disturb 

any of the remedial measures (except for 

maintenance and repair upon prior 

approval by EPA); (3) prohibit any 

activities that could result in exposure 

to contaminants in the subsurface soils 

and groundwater; (4) prohibit any future 

residential and commercial 

development on the property; (5) 

prohibit use or consumption of 

contaminated groundwater underlying 

the property; and (6) grant access to 

EPA, including its contractors, and the 

State for the purpose of conducting any 

activity related to the CDs. Finally, EPA, 

the State, and/or the PSDs have the right 

to enforce the ELURs. The April 9, 2018 

ELURs were implemented for one 

Town-owned parcel located in the 

southern area of the capped landfill, 

which has the same restrictions as the 

September 14, 2010 ELURs. 

In September 17, 2015 ELURs were 

implemented by the CT DEEP for the 

remaining 9 state-owned parcels of the 

landfill. These ELURs have the same six 

restrictions as those described in the 

September 14, 2010 ELURs, plus an 

additional restriction that requires any 

new structure to be constructed in 

accordance to a plan approved by EPA 

that minimizes the risk of inhalation of 

contaminants. In addition, this ELUR 

indicates EPA and/or the PSDs have the 

right to enforce the restriction. 

The April 19, 2017 ELUR was 

recorded by the owners of the Radio 

Station Property. In this ELUR, the 

owners agreed to: (1) Restrict the 

construction of a building over 

groundwater at the Subject Area where 

volatile organic compounds 

concentrations exceed the RCSA Section 

22a–133k–1(75) Volatilization Criteria 

(unless a release is obtained from the CT 

DEEP); (2) allow no action or inaction 

which would allow a risk of pollutant 

migration, or potential hazard to human 

health or the environment; or result in 

the disturbance of structural integrity of 

engineering controls used to contain 

pollutants or limit human exposure; (3) 

in the event of an emergency, notify the 

CT DEEP, implement measures to limit 

actual or potential risks to human health 

and the environment, implement a plan 

to ensure restoration of the property to 

conditions prior to the emergency; (4) 

not allow alterations to the property 

inconsistent with the ELUR until a 

release is approved by the CT DEEP; (5) 

allows access to the CT DEEP agents 

that perform pollution remediation 

activities; (6) allow access onto the 

property by the CT DEEP upon 

reasonable notice; and (7) require the 

property owner to notify any future 

interests of the ELUR requirements. This 

ELUR is enforceable by the CT DEEP. 

The June 22, 2017 Declaration of 

ELUR was recorded by the owner of the 

property where the C&E’s Used Auto 

Parts business is located. This ELUR has 

the same seven restrictions as described 

in the April 2017 ELUR. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34519 

Five-Year Review 

Hazardous substances will remain at 

the Site above levels that allow 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure 

after the completion of the action. 

Pursuant to CERCLA § 121(c) and as 

provided in the current guidance on 

Five-Year Reviews (OSWER Directive 

9355.7–03B–P, June 2001), EPA must 

conduct statutorily required Five-Year 

Reviews. The first Five-Year Review 

was conducted in September 2005. The 

second and third Five-Year Reviews 

were completed in September 2010 and 

in September, 2015, respectively. The 

September 2015 Five-Year Review 

found the Site remedy currently 

protective of human health and the 

environment. There was one issue and 

recommendation, to complete the 

Institutional Controls at the C&E 

property and the Radio Station Property. 

The PSDs continued to work 

collaboratively with CT DEEP and the 

property owners at these two properties 

and in June 2017 institutional controls, 

in the form of ELURs, were finalized. 

These actions completed the 2015 FiveYear Review recommendation. The 

remedy is protective of human health 

and the environment. The next FiveYear Review is scheduled for September 

2020. 

Community Involvement 

From approximately 1988 through 

2002, community concern and 

involvement was high at this Site. EPA 

kept the community and other 

interested parties apprised of the Site’s 

activities through informational 

meetings, fact sheets, press releases and 

public meetings. In October 1988, EPA 

released a community relations plan 

that outlined a program to address 

community concerns to keep citizens 

informed and involved with remedial 

activities. On December 14, 1988, EPA 

held an informational meeting in the 

Southington Public Library to describe 

the plans for the Remedial Investigation 

and Feasibility Study. In January 1993, 

a $50,000 technical assistance grant was 

awarded by EPA to a local group of 

citizens who called themselves, 

Southington of Landfill Victims, (SOLV) 

to hire a technical consultant to help 

them better understand the Site’s 

technical data and information. This 

consultant provided the group technical 

assistance in interpreting technical 

documents relating to the remedial 

investigation, human and ecological risk 

assessments, remedial design, and 

remedial action. On May 23, 1994, EPA 

completed the administrative record 

which included documents that were 

used by EPA to propose the remedy for 

the Site. These documents were 

available for public review at EPA’s 

offices in Boston, Massachusetts and at 

the Site Repository at the Southington 

Public Library, Southington, CT. 

The Proposed Plan was made 

available to the public on May 23, 1994. 

On June 14, 1994, EPA held a public 

meeting to discuss the results of the 

Remedial Investigation, the cleanup 

activities presented in the FS and to 

present the Agency’s Proposed Plan. 

This was followed by a 30-day comment 

period. On June 29, 1994 residents 

requested an additional 30-day 

comment period to August 13, 1994, 

which was granted by EPA. 

On July 12, 1994, the Agency held a 

public hearing to discuss the Proposed 

Plan and to accept oral comments. A 

transcript of this hearing and comments, 

along with the Agency’s response to 

comments are included in the 

Responsiveness Summary found in 

Appendix A of the 1994 ROD. 

In June 2006 EPA issued a second 

Proposed Plan with a 60-day comment 

period from June 22, 2006 through 

August 24, 2006 for the final remedy to 

address vapor intrusion at properties 

downgradient of the landfill. On July 6, 

2006 a public hearing was conducted to 

accept verbal comments. All comments 

were addressed in the responsiveness 

summary included in PART 3 of the 

2006 ROD. 

After the 1994 ROD remedy was 

implemented, community involvement 

and interest decreased significantly. 

EPA continues to conduct community 

outreach through its Five-Year Reviews 

or any time there is new information to 

share with the public. 

EPA has worked closely with CT 

DEEP and the PSDs throughout the 

preparation of documentation for the 

deletion process. The community is 

being notified of EPA’s intent to delete 

the Site from the NPL through the 

publication of this Notice of Intent to 

Delete and the public will be provided 

with a 30-day comment period. EPA 

will take all of received comments into 

consideration and in consultation with 

CT DEEP, and will respond, as 

appropriate, to the comments in a 

responsiveness summary. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

All Remedial Design and Remedial 

Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site 

were consistent with the 1994 ROD, the 

2006 ROD, as well as all respective EPA 

Statements of Work provided by the 

PSDs. All selected remedial and 

removal action objectives and associated 

cleanup levels are consistent with 

agency policy and guidance. RA plans 

for all phases of construction included 

Quality Assurance Project Plans 

(QAPPs) which incorporated all EPA 

quality assurance and quality control 

procedures and protocols (where 

necessary). All procedures and 

protocols were followed for soil, 

groundwater, surface water, sediment, 

soil gas, and fish tissue sampling. EPA 

analytical methods were used for all 

validation and monitoring during all RA 

activities. EPA has determined that the 

analytical results were accurate to the 

degree needed to assure satisfactory 

execution of the RAs, and were 

consistent with the RODs and RD/RA 

plans and specifications. 

All Institutional Controls are in place 

and currently EPA expects that no 

further Superfund response is needed to 

protect human health and the 

environment, other than future FiveYear Reviews, ongoing long-term 

monitoring, O&M, and inspections. 

Confirmatory groundwater monitoring 

and institutional controls provide 

further assurance that the Site no longer 

poses any threats to human health or the 

environment. Operation and 

maintenance activities were agreed 

upon by EPA, in consultation with CT 

DEEP, and the PSDs in the 2001 O&M 

Plan and the 2018 Vapor Intrusion 

Monitoring Plan (VIIP). 

EPA has followed the procedures 

required by 40 CFR 300.425(e). The Site 

meets all Site completion requirements 

as specified in OSWER Directive 

9320.2–09–A–P, Close Out Procedures 

for National Priorities List Sites. All 

cleanup actions specified in the 1994 

and 2006 RODs have been achieved for 

all pathways of exposure. Therefore, no 

further Superfund response is needed to 

protect human health and the 

environment. 

A bibliography of all reports relevant 

to the completion of this Site under the 

Superfund program are included in the 

administrative record for this deletion. 

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, and Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34520 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: July 9, 2018. 

Alexandra Dunn, 

Regional Administrator Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15628 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2, 25 and 30 

[GN Docket No. 14–177; WT Docket No. 10– 

112; FCC 18–73] 

Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz 

for Mobile Radio Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) seeks comment on 

proposed service rules to allow flexible 

fixed and mobile uses in additional 

bands and on refinements to the 

adopted rules in this document. A Final 

rule document for the Third Report and 

Order (3rd R&O) related to this 

document for the Third Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (3rd FNPRM) is 

published in this issue of this Federal 

Register. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 10, 2018; reply comments are 

due on or before September 28, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 14–177, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People With Disabilities: Contact 

the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov, 

phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418– 

0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Schauble of the Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 

Broadband Division, at (202) 418–0797 

or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha 

of the Office of Engineering and 

Technology, Policy and Rules Division, 

at 202–418–2099 or Michael.Ha@

fcc.gov, or Jose Albuquerque of the 

International Bureau, Satellite Division, 

at 202–418–2288 or Jose.Albuquerque@

fcc.gov. For information regarding the 

PRA information collection 

requirements contained in this PRA, 

contact Cathy Williams, Office of 

Managing Director, at (202) 418–2918 or 

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Report and Order (3rd FNPRM), GN 

Docket No. 14–177, FCC 18–73, adopted 

on June 7, 2018 and released on June 8, 

2018. The complete text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday 

through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 

11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC 

Reference Information Center, 445 12th 

Street SW, Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text is available on the Commission’s 

website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by 

using the search function on the ECFS 

web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ 

ecfs/. Alternative formats are available 

to persons with disabilities by sending 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (tty). 

Comment Filing Procedures 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: https://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

website for submitting comments. In 

completing the transmittal screen, filers 

should include their full name, U.S. 

Postal Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket number, GN Docket 

No. 14–177. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, 

Annapolis MD 20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington DC 20554. 

People With Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 888– 

835–5322 (tty). 

Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the 

Commission’s rules, this 3rd FNPRM 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS