Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39545

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health risks or safety

risks that may disproportionately affect

children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Industrial process cooling

towers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 12, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–19406 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6128–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

McColl site from the National Priorities

List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces the

intent to delete the McColl Site (‘‘the

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), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(DTSC) have determined that the

remedial action for the site has been

successfully executed.

DATES: Comments on this site may be

submitted to EPA on or before August

24, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Keith Takata, Director, Superfund

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

Mailstop SFD, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Comprehensive information on this

site is available through the Region 9

public docket, which is available for

viewing by appointment only.

Appointments for copies of the

background information from the

Regional public docket should be

directed to the EPA Regional 9 docket

office at the following address:

SUPERFUND Records Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 95 Hawthorne Street, Suite

403S, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901

(415) 536–2000.

The deletion docket is also available

for viewing at the following location:

Fullerton Public Library, Local History

Room, 353 W. Commonwealth Avenue,

Fullerton, CA 92633, (714) 738–6333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patti

Collins, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

Mailstop SFD–7–3, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–2229.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces its

intent to delete the McColl site in

Orange County, California, 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), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of these

sites. EPA and the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

(DTSC) have determined that the

remedial action for the site has been

successfully executed.

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 the

procedures EPA is using for this action.

Section IV discusses the McColl site and

explains how the site meets the deletion

criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e)(1) of the NCP

provides that releases may be deleted

from, or recategorized on the NPL where

no further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the state,

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

Responsible parties or other parties have

implemented all appropriate actions

required; All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and no

further action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

The remedial investigation has shown that

the release poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, taking remedial measures is not

appropriate.

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL,

where hazardous substances, pollutants,

or contaminants remain at the site above

levels that allow for unlimited use and

restricted exposure, EPA’s policy is that

a subsequent review of the site will be

conducted at least every five years after

the initiation of the remedial action at

the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. If at any time, new

information becomes available which

indicates a need for further action, EPA

may initiate additional remedial actions.

Whenever there is a significant release

from a deleted site form the NPL, the

site may be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazardous Ranking

System.

In the case of this site, the selected

remedy is protective of human health

and the environment. The responsible

parties are currently and will continue

to perform operation and maintenance

of the site, with the oversight of EPA.

EPA will conduct the first five-year

review of the final remedy in 2001, and

will also perform future five-year

reviews.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this site: (1)

all appropriate response under CERCLA

has been implemented and no further

action by EPA is appropriate; (2) DTSC

has concurred with the proposed

deletion decision; (3) a document has

been published in the local newspaper

and has been distributed to appropriate

federal, state, and local officials and

other interested parties announcing the

commencement of a 30-day public

comment period on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant

documents have been made available in

the local site information repository.

Deletion of the site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

informational purposes and to assist

Agency management. As mentioned in
39546 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

section II of this document,

§ 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.

For deletion of this site, EPA’s

Regional Office will accept and evaluate

public comments on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary to address any significant

public comments received.

A deletion occurs when the Regional

Administrator places a final document

in the Federal Register. Generally, the

NPL will reflect deletions in the final

update following the document. The

Regional Office will make public notices

and copies of the Responsiveness

Summary available to local residents.

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

The following site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the proposal

to delete this site from the NPL.

A. Site Background and History

The twenty-two acre McColl site (the

site) is located in Fullerton, Orange

County, California, approximately 25

miles southeast of Los Angeles. Housing

developments border the site to the east

and south. Developed but open areas of

a golf course and a regional park border

the site to the west. An oil field

occupies an open area to the north.

One parcel of the site is referred to as

‘‘The Ramparts’’ and the other the ‘‘Los

Coyotes’’ area. The Ramparts area

contains six sumps, referred to as sumps

R–1 through R–6. The Los Coyotes area

also contains six sumps, referred to as

sumps L–1 through L–6. From 1942

through 1946, approximately 72,600

cubic yards of waste sludge was placed

in the 12 Ramparts and Los Coyotes

sumps. In an attempt to mitigate site

odors during the 1950s and early 1960s,

three sumps (R–1, R–2, and R–4) in the

Ramparts area were covered with

drilling mud. Additional arseniccontaining waste of an unknown date

and origin was later placed in Ramparts

sump R–1. Additional soil cover was

placed over the sumps in the Ramparts

area in September 1983. The Los

Coyotes sumps were covered with

natural fill materials during the

construction of the Los Coyotes Country

Club golf course in the late 1950s.

In 1980, Congress enacted the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (CERCLA),

in response to the dangers of

uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous

waste sites. To implement CERCLA, the

EPA promulgated on July 16, 1982 the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40

CFR part 300. Section 105(a)(8)(A) of

CERCLA requires that the NCP include

criteria for ‘‘determining priorities

among releases or threatened releases

throughout the United States for the

purposes of taking remedial action and,

to the extent practicable taking into

account the potential urgency of such

action.’’ Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA

requires those criteria be used to

prepare a list of national priorities

among the known releases or threatened

releases of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants throughout

the United States. The list, which is

Appendix B of the NCP and revised

annually, is the National Priorities List

(NPL). The Hazard Ranking System

(HRS) which EPA promulgated as

Appendix A of the NCP is the principal

tool upon which the EPA relies to

determine the priority sites for possible

remedial actions under CERCLA. Based

on the HRS, the McColl site was added

to the NPL in September 1982. The basis

for deletion of a site from the NPL is

stated in the NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)).

B. Waste Material in the Sumps

The waste material contained within

the sumps occurs as distinct types of

materials, segregated by depth. These

types are considered distinct based on

their physical characteristics. The

largest portion of the waste consists of

a hard organic waste material (char) that

occurs mainly in the bottom layer of all

sumps. In the middle of the sumps is

the tar waste (soft material), however

the location of the tar within the sumps

is quite variable. The upper portion of

the sumps is comprised of varying

thickness of soil or a combination of soil

and drilling mud. There are an

estimated 100,000 cubic yards of waste

and contaminated materials at the site.

The waste has a pH of less than 2 and

contains various organic compounds

including benzene, toluene and xylene,

inorganic chemicals including arsenic

and chromium, and sulfur compounds

including sulfur dioxide. The risk

assessment identified sulfur dioxide,

benzene, and arsenic as the primary

chemicals of concern. Prior to

implementation of the remedy, releases

of the wastes through the soil cover and

onto the surface of the ground had been

regularly observed on the sump

surfaces. No significant removal actions

were taken at the site.

To fully study and undertake

response activities, EPA divided the site

into two operable units. The operable

units were designated to address the

sump areas (i.e., source areas) and the

groundwater. Following a remedial

investigation and feasibility study

conducted by the McColl Site Group oil

companies, EPA proposed in 1984 an

excavation and redisposal remedy to

address the source areas. The State of

California was designated the lead

agency for the site but was later

enjoined by a state court from

implementing the remedy. EPA

undertook additional feasibility study

work at the site, and, having assumed

the lead in 1989, proposed a waste

excavation and incineration remedy.

Following public comment and field

testing on the proposed incineration

remedy, EPA reevaluated remedial

alternatives. In August 1992, pursuant

to section 117 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.

9617, EPA published its updated

feasibility study, called the

Supplemental Reevaluation of

Alternatives II, and issued a proposed

plan identifying soft-material

solidification as the preferred remedy

for the material in the sumps. This

proposed plan also identified

installation of a Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) equivalent

closure system as a contingency remedy

in the event that soft-material

solidification was determined not to be

feasible. The requirements of the

contingency remedy for the source area

operable unit are embodied in the

Source ROD executed on June 30, 1993.

On September 28, 1995 EPA, following

extensive performance testing of softmaterial solidification, concluded that

this technology was not feasible, and

selected the contingency remedy of a

RCRA equivalent closure.

C. Groundwater

From September 1993 to April 1996,

the McColl Site Group oil companies,

under EPA’s oversight, undertook a

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility

Study (‘‘RI/FS’’) for the groundwater

operable unit, pursuant to CERCLA and

the National Contingency Plan, 40 CFR

part 300. Low levels of site-related

contamination were detected in an

isolated, intermittently present,

perched, shallow groundwater zone.

Due to the intermittent nature and low

yield of this perched zone, it was

concluded that it would not yield a

reliable quantity of water to sustain a

domestic water supply. Groundwater

use in the area was investigated and it

was found that a regional aquifer

located at a depth 200 feet greater than

the perched zone is used as drinking

water source by the City of Fullerton.

No site-related contaminants have been

detected in the regional aquifer or in

drinking water wells. EPA published

notice of the completion of the

Feasibility Study Report, Groundwater
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39547

Operable Unit and of the proposed plan

for remedial action on February 15,

1996, and provided opportunity for

public comment on the proposed

remedial action. EPA selected

infiltration controls with long-term

monitoring of the groundwater as a

preventive measure. The specific

requirements are described in the

Groundwater ROD executed on May 15,

1996.

D. Response Actions

The contingency remedy selected by

EPA required that a RCRA equivalent

closure be implemented. As defined in

the Source OU and Groundwater OU

ROD, the primary remedial objectives

for the McColl site are: long-term

isolation of the waste material;

minimization of infiltration of rain

water into the waste; control of any

gases emitted from the wastes; control of

surface water infiltration into the waste;

and provision of adequate bearing

capacity for the end use of the site.

To meet the remedial objectives, the

design of cover system was based on

RCRA-equivalency for a landfill closure

cap, which includes, at a minimum,

from bottom to top: a low hydraulic

conductivity geomembrane/soil layer

with a maximum hydraulic conductivity

of 1 × 10-7 cm/sec; a drainage layer with

a minimum hydraulic conductivity of 1

× 10-2cm/sec; and a top vegetative/soil

layer of a minimum 24 inches thickness

graded to a slope between 3 and 5

percent.

As part of the waste containment

system, a subsurface vertical slurry cutoff wall was designed to control lateral

liquid and gas migration. A design

criterion was established at a maximum

saturated hydraulic conductivity of less

than 1 × 10-7 cm/sec for the cut-off wall

barrier. A gas collection and treatment

system was also designed to collect and

treat the gas from the contained waste

sumps.

The remedial construction activities

were initiated by the McColl Site Group

of oil companies, in July 1996 and

completed in November 1997. The

construction activities included the

construction of two separate slurry

cutoff walls surrounding each group of

sumps, at Los Coyotes and Ramparts.

The RCRA-equivalent cover system was

constructed over each of the two sump

areas and is tied into the cutoff walls.

The primary functions of the cover

system are to control infiltration of

surface water, collect any gas migrating

from the sumps, and contain and

restrain any vertical migration of mobile

waste and waste by-products. The cover

also serves as a barrier to mechanical or

intrusion by animals or plants and

provides a tensile-reinforced layer to

withstand differential settlement and

enhance bearing capacity. Within the

cover system, perforated gas collection

piping was installed and connected to

two separate valve boxes that are

connected to a gas treatment system.

The gas treatment system is comprised

of a blower that induces the flow of

atmospheric air into the gas collection

piping and reinforced sand layer

immediately above the sump

foundation. Air is swept across the sand

layer with the collected gases into

carbon adsorption vessels, treated. Then

the clean air is vented to the

atmosphere. The control the infiltration

of surface water infiltration was

implemented as part of the groundwater

remedy, including: redirecting and

managing of surface water coming on to

and off of the site; grading of areas

adjacent to the closure containment

system to control water flow, and lining

of onsite drainage channels with low

permeability materials.

An additional feature of the McColl

site remedy was restoration of the golf

course. The restored golf course was

constructed over the Los Coyotes and

Upper Ramparts sumps. The Lower

Ramparts was planted as open space

outside the golf course area of play. The

design and construction of the golf

course included grading to control

surface water drainage as specified in

the Groundwater ROD.

During the remedy construction at the

site, continuous, daily oversight was

provided by the US Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) through an

Interagency Agreement with EPA.

USACE personnel closely monitored

construction activities to insure

compliance with the RODs, design

plans, workplans, and construction

Quality Control and Quality Assurance

requirements.

EPA and the California Department of

Toxic Substances Control conducted a

final site inspection of the McColl site

on November 13, 1997. EPA has

determined that the responsible parties

for both OUs, constructed the remedies

in accordance with the approved

remedial design plans and

specifications and that the remedial

actions had been successfully executed.

The remedy constructed at the McColl

site is consistent with the objectives of

the NCP and will provide protection to

human health and the environment

using an engineered waste containment

system. Operations and maintenance for

the remedy will be necessary, in

perpetuity. It will include monitoring

and maintenance of the cap and cut-off

wall, site security, and routine site

maintenance.

E. Operations and Maintenance

The Operations and Maintenance

(O&M) activities consist of routine

inspections, surveys, routine

maintenance, monitoring, security and

any necessary repairs. With the

exception of operation and maintenance

of the Gas Collection and Treatment

System and groundwater monitoring, all

long-term O&M activities at the site are

and will continue to be performed by

McAuley LCX Corporation, the owner of

the restored golf course. The McColl

Site Group of oil companies is and will

continue to be responsible for the longterm O&M requirements associated with

the Gas Collection and Treatment

System and semi-annual groundwater

monitoring. All O&M activities are being

conducted with oversight from EPA.

Inspections are routinely undertaken

to visually observe the components of

the remediated site. Examples of

components visually inspected include

site fencing and signage, groundwater

monitoring wells, gas collection system

and vents, irrigation systems, drainage

systems, and the surface of the caps and

subsurface barrier walls. Surveys are

conducted to monitor settlement within

the cover system. These survey results

will be used to determine the need for

any repairs due to subsidence or other

structural disturbances in the cover

system.

Routine maintenance is performed on

the landscaping to prevent erosion of

the cover system, the reinforced earth

structures, and site slopes. Routine

maintenance is also performed on the

Gas Collection Treatment System to

maintain adequate carbon adsorption

capacities and prevent condensation

build-up, on the site drainage systems to

prevent interruptions of surface water

runoff control, and on the groundwater

monitoring system to insure optimum

performance of groundwater pumps.

As part of Operation and Maintenance

requirements, a comprehensive longterm monitoring program has been

established to verify continued

compliance with the remedial action

objectives. The Operations and

Maintenance program consists of the

following elements:
39548 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Remedial action objectives Routine monitoring elements

Long-term isolation of waste materials .............................................................................. Cover System Inspections.

Cover System Settlement Inspections.

Reinforced Earth Structure Inspections.

Monument Survey Records.

Minimization of infiltration of rain water into waste ........................................................... Groundwater Monitoring.

Cover System Inspections.

Control of any gases emitted from the waste ................................................................... Gas Flow Indicator Monitoring.

Gas Perimeter Probe Monitoring System and Testing.

Carbon Adsorber Exhaust Monitoring.

Carbon Changeout/Servicing.

Provision of adequate bearing capacity for the end use of the site ................................. Routine Cover System Inspections. Surface Water

Drainage System Inspections.

In addition to these requirments, the

golf course maintenance staff performs

daily inspections of the remediated site

as part of the normal golf course

operations.

Data generated from ongoing

operations and maintenance activities,

which include monument and

settlement surveys, inspections of the

cover containment system, operation of

the gas collection and treatment system,

and the surface water drainage controls

indicate that the remedy is functioning

as designed.

Under the Interim Groundwater

Monitoring Program (IGMP), semiannual groundwater monitoring is being

conducted to evaluate the effectiveness

of the infiltration controls constructed

as part of the integrated source and

groundwater remedy. Eleven

groundwater wells are currently

monitored in accordance with the

requirements of Groundwater OU ROD.

These monitoring requirements include:

(1) water level measurements; (2)

sampling and analysis of groundwater

chemistry; (3) quality assurance review

of analytical results; (4) review of

chemical results; and (5) preparation of

a semi-annual groundwater monitoring

report for EPA review. The IGMP will

continue for a period of five years after

remedy construction completion.

Following this 5-year period, the IGMP

will be reviewed and a Final

Groundwater Monitoring Program will

be established.

F. Five-Year Review

Section 121(c) of CERCLA requires

that EPA review, no less often than

every five years, any remedial action

selected that results in any hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remaining at the site. Five-year reviews

will be conducted for each OU pursuant

to OSWER Directive 9355.7–02,

Structure and Components of Five-Year

Reviews to document the effectiveness

of the controls. The first five-year

review for the site is scheduled for July

2001.

G. Community Involvement

The site initially was brought to the

attention of the regulatory agencies as a

result of odor and health complaints

received from residents beginning in

July 1978. Community concern

increased gradually through 1980. Due

to the increasing community concerns,

DTSC organized a public hearing in the

fall of 1980. Peter Weiner, the

Governor’s special assistant on Toxic

Substances Control, chaired the hearing

and a panel of state agency

representatives also participated.

Individual members of the

community continued to be involved in

discussions and decisions related to the

site through 1984, when EPA and DTSC

announced that the site would be

remediated using the excavation and

redisposal alternative. Community

comments received at the first public

hearing indicated strong community

support for this decision. Following the

state court injunction blocking the state

from implementing the remedy, some

community members expressed

increasing frustration at delays in the

clean-up process. This frustration led to

the formation of the McColl Action

Group. This neighborhood committee

participated actively in decisions

related to the site from 1985 through

1991. EPA and DTSC often were invited

to make presentations to the group. The

group disbanded in 1991. Another

community group was formed in 1991,

the Fullerton Hills Community

Association. This group has had input

into site-related decisions from the time

of its formation through the final

remedy construction.

Starting in 1986 and through remedial

construction activities, EPA and DTSC

have held regular meetings with the

Interagency Committee, comprised of

several local agencies and elected

officials. These agencies consist of the

City of Fullerton, South Coast Air

Quality Management District, City of

Buena Park, Orange County

Environmental Health, and California

Regional Water Quality Control Board,

California Department of Health

Services’ Drinking Water Branch, and

California Environmental Protection

Agency’s Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment. The elected

officials include the 39th Congressional

District (formerly held by

Representative Dannemeyer and

currently held by Representative

Edward Royce). All elected officials in

the area remain on the mailing list for

the site, and receive all information

related to site activities.

Community participation has

continued to be important in the

decision-making process over the last

several years. Throughout remedial

construction, EPA and the McColl Site

Group conducted a variety of

community relations activities in

accordance with the McColl Site

Community Relations Plan. These

activities have included public

meetings, small group meetings, regular

fact sheet mailings to community

members, informational ‘‘lemonade

stands’’, maintenance of a toll-free

information line, on-site open houses,

and regular contact with the media to

provide information.

EPA will continue to work closely

with the community throughout the

ongoing operation and maintenance

period to keep residents informed about

the status of the constructed remedy.

EPA will also continue to monitor

community interests and concerns, and

will conduct community involvement

activities as needed to address those

concerns.

H. Applicable Deletion Criteria

As specified under § 300.425(e)(1) of

the NCP, if EPA, in consultation with

the state, determines that any of the

three criteria for site deletion has been

met, then the site is considered eligible
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 141 /Thursday, July 23, 1998 / Proposed Rules 39549

for deletion from the NPL. In the case

of the McColl site, EPA believes that the

following criteria for site deletion has

been met:

All appropriate response under

CERCLA has been implemented, and no

further action by the responsible parties

is appropriate.

EPA, with the concurrence of DTSC,

believes that this criterion for deletion

have been met. Subsequently, EPA is

proposing deletion of this site from the

NPL. Documents supporting this action

are available from the docket.

I. State Concurrence

The California Department of Toxic

Substances Control concurs with the

proposed deletion of the McColl

Superfund site from the NPL.

Dated: July 16, 1998.

Keith A. Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 98–19653 Filed 7–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 97–21 and 96–45; DA 98–

1336]

Federal Universal Service Support

Mechanisms

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission seeks comment on the

Report and Proposed Plan of

Reorganization (Plan) filed on July 1,

1998 by the Universal Service

Administrative Company (USAC), the

Schools and Libraries Corporation

(SLC), and the Rural Health Care

Corporation (RHCC). The Plan proposes

a revised administrative structure of the

federal universal service support

mechanisms. RHCC filed a Separate

Statement of the Rural Health Care

Corporation and Request for Three

Changes in the Plan, dissenting from

certain provisions of the proposed Plan.

In this document, the Commission also

seeks comment on other issues

regarding the administration of the

federal universal service support

mechanisms, including processes for

Commission review of actions by USAC,

SLC, and RHCC.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

August 5, 1998 and Reply Comments are

due on or before August 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: One original and six copies

of all comments and reply comments

should be sent to the Commission’s

Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington,

D.C. 20554. All filings should refer to

USAC Plan of Reorganization, CC

Docket Nos. 97–21 and 96–45, and DA

98–1336. Parties also may file comments

electronically via the Internet at: <http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. Only

one copy of an electronic submission

must be submitted. In completing the

transmittal screen, commenters should

include their full name, Postal Service

mailing address, and the lead docket

number for this proceeding, which is

Docket No. 97–21. Parties not

submitting their comments via the

Internet are also asked to submit their

comments on diskette. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Sheryl Todd, Accounting Policy

Division, 2100 M Street, N.W., Room

8606, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

format using WordPerfect 5.1 for

Windows or compatible software. The

diskette should be accompanied by a

cover letter and should be submitted in

‘‘read only’’ mode. The diskette should

be clearly labelled with the party’s

name, proceeding (including the lead

docket number in this case, Docket No.

97–21), type of pleading (comment or

reply comment), date of submission,

and the name of the electronic file on

the diskette. Each diskette should

contain only one party’s pleadings,

preferably in a single electronic file. In

addition, parties must send copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Webber, Attorney, Common

Carrier Bureau, Accounting Policy

Division, (202) 418–7400 or Adrian

Wright, Common Carrier Bureau,

Accounting Policy Division, (202) 418–

7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

document released on July 15, 1998.

The full text of this document and the

Plan are available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,

20554. An electronic copy of the

complete plan of reorganization also

may be found on the Commission’s

Universal Service Web Page at

<www.fcc.gov/ccb/universallservice/

usacjuly.pdf>.

Background

1. In connection with supplemental

appropriations legislation enacted on

May 1, 1998, Congress requested that

the Commission propose a single entity

to administer the support mechanisms

for schools and libraries and rural

health care providers. In its Report to

Congress, the Commission proposed to

merge the Schools and Libraries

Corporation (SLC) and the Rural Health

Care Corporation (RHCC) into the

Universal Service Administrative

Company (USAC) as the single entity

responsible for administering the

universal service support mechanisms

for schools, libraries and rural health

care providers by January 1, 1999. The

Commission indicated that USAC, SLC

and RHCC would be required jointly to

prepare and submit a plan of

reorganization, for approval by the

Commission.

2. On July 1, 1998, SLC, RHCC and

USAC filed a Report and Proposed Plan

of Reorganization (Plan) for revising the

administrative structure of the federal

universal service support mechanisms.

RHCC filed a Separate Statement of the

Rural Health Care Corporation and

Request for Three Changes in the Plan

(RHCC Statement), proposing certain

modifications to the Plan. In this

document, we seek comment from

interested parties on issues raised by the

Plan and the RHCC Statement. We also

seek comment on other issues regarding

the administration of the federal

universal service support mechanisms,

including processes for Commission

review of actions by USAC, RHCC and

SLC, divestiture of USAC from the

National Exchange Carrier Association

(NECA), and compensation limitations.

Issues for Comment

Revised Administrative Structure

3. USAC, SLC, and RHCC have

proposed a plan to merge SLC and

RHCC into USAC as the single entity

responsible for administering the

universal service support mechanisms

for schools, libraries and rural health

care providers by January 1, 1999. As

described more fully in the Plan, USAC

would consist of three divisions—the

High Cost & Low Income Division, the

Schools and Libraries Division, and the

Rural Health Care Division. The current

USAC Board consists of seventeen

members representing a cross-section of

industry and beneficiary interests.

Under the revised administrative

structure, the USAC Board of Directors

(the Board) would consist of seventeen