Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76947

thermal desorption to vaporize and

destroy the PCB’s;

2. Allowing the University to restrict

access to the three disposal sites with

soil PCB levels which ranged between

10 and 25 ppm PCBs rather than

consolidating this soil; and

3. Requiring the University to perform

a review of the effectiveness of the

remedial action three years after

completion of the remedy rather than

three years after the approval of the

remedial action clean-up plan.

In order to operate a thermal

destruction unit in the State of

Minnesota, the MPCA issued the

University an ‘‘ Authorization to Install

and Operate a Thermal Destruction

Unit, University of Minnesota

Rosemount Research Station,’’

(Authorization to Burn) on December

27, 1991. The Authorization to Burn

was modified on February 3, 1992, and

August 17, 1992. These modifications

reduced the scope of the Authorization

to Burn based on additional information

received from the University and from

Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston), the

University’s clean-up contractor.

The University chose to destroy the

PCBs using the on-site incineration

option. Weston began site activities on

June 30, 1992; began incinerating

contaminated soil at the Site in March

1993; and completed the thermal

destruction of soil and concrete in July

1993.

The MPCA approved the shutdown of

the pump and treatment system on

October 30, 1991. This was in part due

to the Minnesota Department of Health

(MDH) changing its Recommended

Allowable Limit (RAL) for chloroform

from 5 to 57 ppb. The groundwater was

also found to meet other state

groundwater drinking water criteria.

On June 1, 1993, the University

requested that it be allowed to

consolidate PCB contaminated soil

which ranged between 10 and 25 ppm

at GUE as originally described in the

ROD. The University decided that it was

now more feasible to consolidate the

soil than was envisioned at the time of

the first ESD. The ESD also indicated

that all remaining soil contaminated

with one to 10 ppm PCBs will be

covered with 10 inches of clean fill in

order to comply with the TSCA PCB

Spill Policy and to provide unrestricted

access to these areas. The MPCA

prepared a second ESD to address these

changes and EPA concurred with the

ESD on October 1, 1993.

On September 24, 1993, the EPA and

the MPCA performed the preliminary

site inspection. At that time, the remedy

was substantially complete with the

exception of consolidating a small

amount of soil into the GUE depression

and also transporting a small quantity of

soil to an off-site landfill. A final site

inspection was conducted on September

20, 1994, and all construction activities

were found to be completed.

V. Action

The remedy selected for this Site has

been implemented in accordance with

the Record of Decision and subsequent

Explanation of Significant Difference.

The remedy has resulted in the

significant reduction of the long-term

potential for release of contaminants,

therefore, human health and potential

environmental impacts have been

minimized. EPA and the State of

Minnesota find that the remedies

implemented continue to provide

adequate protection of human health the

environment.

The MPCA concurs with EPA that the

criteria for deletion of releases have

been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the

Site from the NPL.

This action will be effective February

6, 2001. However, if EPA receives

dissenting comments by January 8,

2001, EPA will publish a document that

withdraws this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Elissa Speizman,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region

5.

Part 300, title 40 of chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

Part 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR.,

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to Part 300

is amended by removing the site for

‘‘University of Minnesota Rosemount,

Res Cen, Rosemount, Minnesota.’’

[FR Doc. 00–31191 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2681, MM Docket No. 00–97; RM–

9865]

Digital Television Broadcast Services;

Richmond, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Central Virginia Educational

Telecommunications Corporation,

licensee of noncommercial station

WCVE–TV, substitutes DTV Channel

*42 for station WCVE–TV’s assigned

DTV Channel *24a at Richmond,

Virginia. See 65 FR 36808, June 12,

2000. DTV Channel *42 can be allotted

to Richmond at coordinates ( 37–30–46

N. and 77–36–06 W.) with a power of

100, HAAT of 327 meters and with a

DTV service population of 1097

thousand.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

DATE: Effective January 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–97,

adopted November 30, 2000, and

released December 1, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Digital television broadcasting,

Television.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336.

§ 73.622 [Amended]

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of

Digital Television Allotments under

Virginia, is amended by removing DTV

Channel *24d and adding DTV Channel

*42 at Richmond.

76948 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–30972 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

[MM Docket Nos. 98–204 and 96–16, FCC

00–338]

Revision of Broadcast and Cable EEO

Rules and Policies

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification; petition

for partial reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document grants in part,

and denies in part, both one petition for

partial reconsideration and clarification

and one petition for expedited

clarification of the Commission’s new

broadcast and cable Equal Employment

Opportunity (EEO) rules and policies.

The document also considers certain

issues pertaining to the EEO rules on the

motion of the Commission, primarily as

a result of informal inquiries from the

public. In addition, the document

amends the EEO rules to clarify that

data concerning the gender, race and

ethnicity of a broadcaster’s or cable

entity’s workforce will not be used to

assess its compliance with the rules.

The intended effect is to clarify the

Commission’s EEO rules for the

broadcasting and cable industries.

DATE: Effective January 8, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EEO

Staff, (202) 418–1450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. This is

a synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order

(MO&O) in MM Docket Nos. 98–204 and

96–16, adopted September 11, 2000, and

released November 22, 2000. The

complete text of this MO&O is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Information, Courtyard Level,

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC,

and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., at 202–857–3800, CY–B400, 445

12th St., SW., Washington, D.C.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order

2. In this MO&O, the Commission

addresses petitions for reconsideration

and clarification of the Report and

Order in this proceeding, 65 FR 7448,

February 15, 2000, in which it adopted

new broadcast and cable EEO rules and

policies consistent with the D.C.

Circuit’s decision in Lutheran Church—

Missouri Synod v. FCC, 141 F.3d 344

(D.C. Cir. 1998), pet. for reh’g denied,

154 F.3d 487, pet. for reh’g en banc

denied, 154 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

The EEO rules include broad and

inclusive outreach requirements

designed to ensure that all qualified

applicants have the opportunity to

compete for jobs in the broadcast and

cable industries on an equal basis.

3. Under Option A of the

Commission’s EEO rules, broadcasters

are required to implement two

supplemental recruitment measures: (1)

Notification of job vacancies to any

recruitment organization that requests

such notification; and (2) outreach

activities such as job fairs, internship

programs, training programs,

scholarship programs, mentoring

programs, and participation in

educational and community activities

relating to broadcast employment.

Broadcasters with five to ten full-time

employees must perform two activities

every two years, while larger

broadcasters must perform four

activities every two years. The MO&O

clarifies that broadcasters may

implement half of two activities and

combine the two halves to count as one

of the four required activities (or two in

the case of stations with five to ten

employees), e.g., by combining

attendance at two (rather than four) job

fairs and sponsorship of one (rather than

two) community events.

4. The MO&O reiterates that a

broadcaster may use the internet as one

of several recruitment tools, but not as

its only recruitment source. It also

retains the requirement that

broadcasters with web sites post their

public file report on those sites, and

clarifies that there is no requirement

that the public file report include the

names of interviewees or applicants.

5. The MO&O clarifies the filing

schedule for the initial statement of

compliance (FCC Form 397) so that

beginning in 2001, all radio and

television stations will file a statement

of compliance on the second, fourth or

sixth anniversary of the filing of their

last renewal application. Beginning

February 1, 2001, low power television

stations and Class A television stations

with five or more full-time employees

will file statements of compliance in

accordance with the schedule for

television stations.

6. The MO&O also clarifies that

broadcasters and cable entities have the

discretion of electing either Option A or

B of the Commission’s EEO rules, and

any state law interpreted as removing

that discretion would be inconsistent

with the rules. The MO&O further

clarifies the extent to which

broadcasters may engage in joint

recruitment measures under Option A.

In addition, the MO&O clarifies that

broadcasters have good faith discretion

in defining what constitutes an

applicant and their market/community

under the EEO rules. The MO&O also

addresses how the Commission will

monitor religious broadcasters’

compliance with the EEO rules.

7. Finally, the MO&O retains the

requirement that broadcasting and cable

entities file annual employment reports

which include data on the gender, race

and ethnic status of the entity’s

workforce. The MO&O reiterates that the

data will be used only for purposes of

analyzing industry trends and reporting

to Congress, and not for assessing an

entity’s compliance with the

Commission’s EEO rules. Accordingly,

the MO&O amends the rules to reflect

this fact.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

The actions contained in this

Memorandum Opinion and Order have

been duly analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and

found to impose no new or modified

information collection requirements.

Final Regulatory Flexibility

Certification

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended

by the Contract with America

Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA),

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847

(1996), requires that a final regulatory

flexibility analysis be prepared for

rulemaking proceedings, unless the

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,

if promulgated, have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’ (Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996). The RFA generally defines the

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same

meaning as the term ‘‘small business

concern’’ under the Small Business Act,

15 U.S.C. 632. A small business concern

is one which: (1) Is independently

owned and operated; (2) is not

dominant in its field of operation; and

(3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration. In addition to stating

various clarifications to the