35384 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1Note that the words ‘‘unit’’ and ‘‘reactor’’ are

used interchangeably by EPA. A petroleum refinery

may consider a unit to be made up of a number of

reactors. Our concern is with the proper

classification of a spent catalyst from or generated

from a single specific vessel based on the function

performed by the catalyst, regardless of the

configuration or terminology used by individual

refineries.

hydrocracking and the other two petroleum

hydroprocessing operations is to rely on

definitions provided in the Department of

Energy’s (DOE) Petroleum Supply Annual

(PSA). The PSA contains operational

definitions of hydrotreating and

hydrocracking for purposes of submitting

form EIA–820 to DOE. EPA rejected reliance

on other methods of differentiation, such as

specific percentages of the feed that are

reduced in molecular size for each of the

operations.

The Agency’s interpretation of the final

listing determinations for spent

hydroprocessing catalysts is that spent

catalysts from petroleum hydroprocessors

performing hydrotreating or hydrorefining

operations are captured by the listings,

regardless of whether hydrocracking also

occurs in a dual purpose unit. This is

because the final rule, as well as the PSA,

defines a spent catalyst as hydrotreating or

hydrocracking on the basis of the type of

hydroprocessing operation in which the

catalyst was used. This is consistent with the

intent of the listing to identify wastes

containing the hazardous constituents that

are removed by catalytic hydrotreating or

hydrorefining, regardless of whether

hydrocracking also is occurring.

In addition, there may be a

misunderstanding involving whether

refineries may self-classify spent catalyst

from dual purpose hydroprocessors as

hydrocracking catalyst, by merely identifying

a unit as a hydrocracking unit when

reporting to DOE. The final rule should not

be interpreted as allowing petroleum

refineries to classify ‘‘dual purpose’’ units as

hydrocracking units and in doing so claim

that the spent catalysts removed from these

units are spent hydrocracking catalysts

(which are not listed hazardous wastes). In

the preamble to the final rule, EPA explained

that relying on the PSA is the ‘‘simplest’’ way

to differentiate among the processes and that,

if a refinery has been classifying its

hydroprocessor as a hydrocracker, the unit

would generally not be covered by K171 or

K172. Rather, as noted above, EPA relied on

the PSA definitions because they are

operational definitions. Thus, the rule does

not permit refineries to avoid identifying

spent catalysts from dual purpose units as

listed hazardous wastes simply because they

classified (or reclassified) the unit from

which the catalyst is removed as a

hydrocracking unit, based solely on the fact

that some hydrocracking takes place in the

presence of the catalyst. Catalysts that

perform a hydrotreating function, regardless

of whether hydrocracking is performed in the

same unit, are listed hazardous wastes, when

spent. Consequently, as explained above, the

Agency’s position with regard to spent

catalysts removed from dual purpose reactors

is that these spent catalysts are listed

hazardous wastes.

As you know, in addition to correctly

classifying spent catalysts as solid and/or

hazardous wastes, generators also are

required to determine if spent catalysts that

are hazardous wastes (either because they

meet the definitions of listed wastes K171 or

K172 or because the spent catalyst exhibits

a characteristic of hazardous waste) have to

be treated to meet the land disposal

restrictions standards before being land

disposed. Please note that treatment of spent

catalysts that are listed hazardous wastes

K171 and K172 may require a combination of

thermal treatment (to oxidize sulfides and

vanadium), vanadium recovery, and

stabilization (without improper dilution) to

achieve the applicable land disposal

restrictions.

Should you have any questions with regard

to this issue, please feel free to contact

Patricia Overmeyer of my staff at (703) 605–

0708.

cc:

Mr. Ralph Colleli, American Petroleum

Institute,

Mr. John W. Hilbert III, The Ferroalloys

Association

Association of State and Territorial Solid

Waste Management Officials

Appendix B: June 1, 2000

Memorandum on Spent Dual Purpose

Catalysts

Memorandum

Subject: Spent Catalysts From Petroleum

Refining ‘‘Dual Process’’ Reactors

From: Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director, Office

of Solid Waste (5301W).

To: RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, Regions I–

X.

On November 29, 1999, I sent you a

memorandum entitled ‘‘Spent Catalysts from

Petroleum Refining ‘Dual Process’ Units.’’ In

that memorandum, I described the Agency’s

position on the regulatory status of certain

spent hydroprocessing catalysts. I stated that,

in response to questions raised regarding the

regulatory status of spent catalysts removed

from ‘‘dual purpose’’ reactors 1 in petroleum

refineries, EPA considers spent catalysts from

such units to be listed hazardous wastes (i.e.,

K171, K172).

After this memorandum was distributed to

stakeholders, the Agency received questions

from interested parties regarding its potential

scope. A primary concern raised was that the

wording of the memorandum may be

interpreted by Regional and State officials in

a way that would define virtually all spent

hydroprocessing catalysts generated by the

petroleum refining industry as listed

hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C.

There was concern that because some

hydrotreating may occur in all

hydroprocessing reactors, regulators would

conclude that any hydrotreating occurring in

a reactor would cause the spent catalyst

removed from the reactor to be considered a

listed hazardous waste. This was not our

intention.

I would like to clarify that we do not

consider spent catalysts from a petroleum

hydroprocessing reactor to be a listed

hazardous waste (meeting the definitions of

either K171 or K172) solely because some

incidental and minimal amount of

hydrotreatment of feeds occurs in such unit.

These catalysts are, however, subject to

evaluation against the existing hazardous

characteristics. We recognize that some

minimal amount of hydrotreating may occur

in any hydroprocessing reactor, even reactors

that hydrocrack feedstreams containing very

low levels of sulfur, nitrogen, and metals. As

a general rule, we consider the definitions

provided in the Department of Energy’s

Petroleum Supply Annual (PSA) to be the

best way to identify processes that hydrotreat

and processes that hydrocrack. The

definitions used in the PSA define

hydroprocessing in terms of the function

performed. A more complete description of

these definitions is provided in the preamble

to the petroleum refining listing

determination (63 FR 42110, August 6, 1998,

see Pp. 42155–42156).

Again, the November 29, 1999

memorandum was directed more at alerting

Regional and State officials to the issue of the

status of spent catalysts removed from

reactors that both hydrotreat and hydrocrack

petroleum feedstreams in a single reactor. We

are alerting all interested parties that we

continue to stand by the determination in the

November 29 memorandum that such ‘‘dual

purpose’’ reactors generate spent catalysts

that are listed hazardous wastes subject to

regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. At the

same time, we also are clarifying that spent

catalysts from hydrocracking reactors that do

only minimal and incidental hydrotreating

are not listed hazardous wastes. However, as

noted previously, spent catalysts from

hydrocracking reactors are subject to

evaluation against the hazardous waste

characteristics.

If you should have any questions regarding

this clarification, please feel free to contact

either Rick Brandes at (703) 308–8871 or

Patricia Overmeyer at (703) 605–0708.

cc:

Mr. Ralph Colleli, American Petroleum

Institute

Mr. John W. Hilbert III, The Ferroalloys

Association

Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Association of State

and Territorial Solid Waste Management

Officials

[FR Doc. 01–16685 Filed 7–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–7003–6]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Partial direct final deletion of

the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site from

the National Priorities List (NPL).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35385

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region VIII announces its

deletion of the residential soil portions

of the Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site,

Utah, known as Operable Unit One

(OU1), from the National Priorities List

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B

to the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA). This partial deletion of

the Jacobs Smelter Site is in accordance

with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice

of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of

Sites Listed on the National Priorities

List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995).

This partial deletion affects only

OU1—the residential soils portion of the

Jacobs Smelter Site which is within, but

not all inclusive of, the town limits of

Stockton, Utah. The Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (UDEQ), under

cooperative agreement with EPA,

recently completed the remedial action

for OU1. EPA bases its decision to

delete OU1 on the joint determination

by EPA and UDEQ that all appropriate

actions under CERCLA have been

implemented to protect human health,

welfare, and the environment at OU1.

This partial deletion pertains only to

OU1 and does not include Operable

Unit 2 (OU2) or Operable Unit 3 (OU3).

OU2 addresses other media and nonresidential soils outside the general

town limits of Stockton, Utah. OU3

addresses Union Pacific Railroad right

of way within OU1. These OU’s will

remain on the NPL and response

activities will continue.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective September 4, 2001 unless EPA

receives significant adverse or critical

comments by August 6, 2001. If adverse

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Mr. Jim Christiansen, Remedial

Project Manager, U.S. EPA Region VIII,

EPR–SR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300,

Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312–6748.

Email: christiansen.jim@epa.gov

INFORMATION REPOSITORIES:

Comprehensive information on the

Jacobs Smelter Site as well as

information specific to this proposed

partial deletion is available for review at

EPA’s Region VIII office in Denver,

Colorado. The Administrative Record

for OU1 and the Deletion Docket for this

partial deletion are maintained at the

following information repositories:U.S.

EPA Region VIII, Superfund Records

Center, 5th Floor, 999 18th Street,

Denver, Colorado, 80202, (303) 312–

6473, Hours of Operation: M–F 8:00

a.m. to 4:30 p.m.Tooele County Library,

100 West Vine Street, Tooele, Utah,

84074

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jim Christiansen, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. EPA Region VIII, EPR–

SR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver,

CO 80202, (303) 312–6748. Email:

christiansen.jim@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion

I. Introduction

The United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Region VIII

announces its deletion of the residential

soil portion of the Jacobs Smelter

Superfund Site, known as Operable Unit

One (OU1), from the National Priorities

List (NPL), which constitutes Appendix

B of the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), 40 CFR part 300, and requests

public comment on this action.

The Jacobs Smelter Site is located in

Tooele County, Utah. OU1 is within, but

not all inclusive of, the town limits of

Stockton, Utah, and consists of privately

owned residential properties and vacant

lots. Also included are several vacant

lots, dirt roads, and dirt alleys. The OU

is generally bounded by the extent of

single-family residential lots centered

on Stockton.

In July 1999, EPA issued a Record of

Decision (ROD) for OU1 that called for

remediation of approximately 130

residential properties within the town of

Stockton. Based on the ROD, the Utah

Department of Environmental Quality

(UDEQ), under cooperative agreement

with EPA, completed a remedial action

for OU1 in March 2001. EPA bases its

proposal to delete OU1 on the joint

determination by EPA and UDEQ that

all appropriate actions under CERCLA

have been implemented to protect

human health, welfare, and the

environment at OU1. Response

activities at OU Nos. 2 and 3 will

continue and these OU’s will remain on

the NPL.

The NPL is a list maintained by EPA

of sites that EPA has determined 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

Substances Superfund (Fund). Pursuant

to 40 CFR 300.425(e) of the NCP, any

site or portion of a site deleted from the

NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions if conditions at the site

warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments

concerning this partial deletion for

thirty (30) days following publication of

this notice in the Federal Register and

a newspaper of record.

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 to protect public health or

the environment. 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:

Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible

parties or other persons have

implemented all appropriate response

actions required; or

Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All

appropriate Fund-financed response

under CERCLA has been implemented,

and no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial

investigation has shown that the release

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment, and,

therefore, taking of remedial measures is

not appropriate.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the

NPL does not preclude eligibility for

subsequent Fund-financed actions at the

area deleted if future site conditions

warrant such actions. Section

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

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites that have been deleted from the

NPL. A partial deletion of a site from the

NPL does not affect or impede EPA’s

ability to conduct CERCLA response

activities at areas not deleted and

remaining on the NPL. In addition,

deletion of a portion of a site from the

NPL does not affect the liability of

responsible parties or impede agency

efforts to recover costs associated with

response efforts.

III. Deletion Procedures

Deletion of a portion of a site from the

NPL does not itself create, alter, or

revoke any person’s rights or

obligations. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist Agency management.

The following procedures were used

for the deletion of OU1 of the Jacobs

Smelter Site:

35386 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(1) EPA has recommended the partial

deletion and has prepared the relevant

documents.

(2) The State of Utah, through the

Utah Department of Environmental

Quality, concurred in a letter dated May

10, 2001, with this partial deletion.

(3) Concurrent with this national

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a

notice has been published in a

newspaper of record and has been

distributed to appropriate Federal, State,

and local officials, and other interested

parties. These notices announce a thirty

(30) day public comment period on the

deletion package, which commences on

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register and a newspaper of

record.

(4) EPA has made all relevant

documents available at the information

repositories listed previously.

This Federal Register document, and

a concurrent notice in a newspaper of

record, announce the initiation of a

thirty (30) day public comment period

and the availability of the Notice of

Partial Direct Deletion. The public is

asked to comment on EPA’s decision to

delete OU1 from the NPL. All critical

documents needed to evaluate EPA’s

decision are included in the Deletion

Docket and are available for review at

the EPA Region VIII information

repositories. EPA is requesting only

dissenting comments on the Direct Final

Action to Delete. EPA Region VIII will

accept and evaluate public comments

on this action before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, EPA

will prepare a Responsiveness Summary

for comments received during the

public comment period and will address

concerns presented in the comments.

The Responsiveness Summary will be

made available to the public at the

information repositories listed

previously.

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site

Deletion

The following provides EPA’s

rationale for deletion of OU1 from the

NPL and EPA’s finding that the criteria

in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied:

Background

The Jacobs Smelter Site is located in

and around Stockton, Utah.

Contamination at the site originated

from historic smelting and milling

activities that occurred primarily in the

1870s and 1880s. Several former smelter

locations have been found, including

the Jacobs, the Waterman, the Chicago,

and the Carson-Buzzo. Soil

contamination from these sources is

often intermingled and difficult to

attribute to a particular smelter

operation. The Jacobs Smelter was the

largest of these operations and was

located within the current town limits

of Stockton. Waste from the Jacobs

Smelter contaminated the surrounding

soils of Stockton. The primary

contaminants at the site are heavy

metals, with lead and arsenic the

primary contaminants of concern

regarding human health.

In order to expedite Superfund

response action at the site, EPA divided

the site into three operable units:

OU1—Residential soils

OU2—Non-residential Soils, other

media

OU3—Union Pacific Railroad right of

way

EPA has been investigating, conducting

human health risk assessments, and

making CERCLA response action

decisions for each OU separately.

OU1 comprises residential properties

within, but not all inclusive of, the town

limits of Stockton, Utah. Also included

are several vacant lots, dirt roads, and

dirt alleys. The OU is generally bounded

by the extent of single-family residential

lots centered on Stockton.

The Jacobs Smelter, formerly located

in the northeast corner of Stockton,

operated for a short period in the late

1800s and intermittently for several

decades after. The smelter and an

associated milling operation sat on a

topographic high relative to Stockton.

Waste material, such as slag, was

deposited around the smelter during

normal operations. Rainfall and snow

melt transported the waste downhill

through the town toward Rush Lake,

approximately 1⁄2 mile to the west of

OU1. A large portion of the residential

properties in Stockton were eventually

contaminated. A responsible party

search conducted by EPA found no

remaining viable parties associated with

the operation or ownership of the Jacobs

Smelter.

In 1997–98, UDEQ performed a

preliminary assessment/site inspection

of the area. Elevated levels of heavy

metals were found in soils around the

site and in the sediments of Rush Lake.

The potential for significant exposure to

area residents was established. Based on

this information and subsequent

information collected by EPA Region

VIII, the site was proposed to the NPL

on July 22, 1999 (64 FR 39886). The

final listing was published in the

Federal Register on February 4, 2000

(65 FR 5435).

OU1 Response Actions

Sampling performed by EPA Region

VIII in 1998 established the general

extent of contamination in the vicinity

of Stockton. This sampling also

identified approximately 29 residential

properties that contained levels of lead

in soils (greater than 3000 parts per

million) deemed to present an acute

threat to human health. In 1999, Region

VIII conducted a Fund-financed time

critical removal action for OU1. Soils

from the 29 properties were excavated

to a depth of 18 inches and disposed of

at an off-site landfill, and clean backfill

was placed on the excavated properties.

Additionally, the source area of the

former Jacobs Smelter was excavated to

ensure contamination would not

migrate in the future.

During the removal action, UDEQ

conducted a remedial investigation/

feasibility study (RI/FS) for the

remaining areas of OU1. A ROD was

published in July 1999 which defined

the boundary of OU1 and called for

similar excavation and backfill of

approximately 130 additional

residential properties, vacant lots, dirt

roads, and alleys with surface soil lead

concentrations greater than 500 parts

per million, subsurface soil lead

concentrations greater than 800 parts

per million, or surface arsenic

concentration greater than 100 parts per

million. Institutional controls designed

to preserve the remedy and prevent

exposure to soils not excavated during

remedial action were also called for.

In February 2000, immediately after

final listing of the site on the NPL,

UDEQ began the Fund-financed

remedial action for OU1. The remedial

action was completed in March 2001,

and all remedial action objectives and

performance standards set forth in the

ROD were met. The Town of Stockton

passed a local ordinance implementing

the institutional controls requirement in

the ROD on May 8, 2000. A remedial

action completion report was signed in

March 2001, indicating that no further

CERCLA action is necessary to protect

human health and the environment at

OU1.

Community Involvement

Public participation requirements for

OU1 have been satisfied as required in

CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C.

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

9617. The Remedial Investigation

Reports, Baseline Human Health Risk

Assessment Report, and the Proposed

Plan for OU1 were formally released to

the public on May 27, 1999. The notice

of availability of the Proposed Plan was

published in the Tooele TranscriptBulletin on May 27, 1999. The public

comment period for the proposed plan

ran from May 27, 1999 to July 15, 1999.

A public meeting was held on June 9,

1999 to receive public comments from

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 129 / Thursday, July 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 35387

the community. Responses to all

comments received during the public

comment period were included in the

Responsiveness Summary included in

the ROD for OU1. Additionally, the

administrative record for OU1 was made

available at the Tooele Public Library

throughout the OU1 investigation

process. Monthly town forums were

held to receive feedback and

disseminate information throughout the

OU1 investigation and cleanup process.

Current Status

Based on the successful completion of

EPA’s removal action and UDEQ’s

remedial action, there are no further

response actions planned or scheduled

for OU1. Pursuant to the NCP, a fiveyear review will be performed at OU1.

While EPA and UDEQ do not believe

that any future response actions at OU1

will be needed, if future conditions

warrant such action, the proposed

deletion area remain eligible for future

Fund-financed response actions.

Furthermore, this partial deletion does

alter the status of OU2 or OU3 which

are not proposed for deletion and

remain on the NPL.

EPA, with concurrence from the State

of Utah, has determined that all

appropriate CERCLA response actions

have been completed at OU1 and

protection of human health and the

environment has been achieved.

Therefore, EPA is deleting OU1 of the

Jacobs Smelter Superfund Site from the

NPL. This action will be effective July

31, 2001. However, if EPA receives

dissenting comments within thirty (30)

days following publication of this notice

in the Federal Register, 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: June 15, 2001.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator,U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region

VIII.

Title 40, 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 under UT by revising the

entry for ‘‘Jacobs Smelter’’ to read as

follows:

Appendix B to Part 300—National

Priorities List

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes

(a)

***

* *

UT ......... Jacobs

Smelter.

Stockton/

Tooele.

P

***

* *

(a) * * *

P = Sites with partial deletion(s)

[FR Doc. 01–16434 Filed 7–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 1

[CC Docket No. 96–238; FCC 01–78]

Procedures To Be Followed When

Formal Complaints Are Filed Against

Common Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

effective date of certain changes in rules

and procedures to be followed when

formal complaints are filed against

common carriers that were adopted in

the Order on Reconsideration. The

Order on Reconsideration was

published in the Federal Register on

March 27, 2001.

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR Part

1 published in at 66 FR 16611 (March

27, 2001) become effective on July 5,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alexander Starr, Division Chief, Market

Disputes Resolution Division,

Enforcement Bureau, 418–7330.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Order on Reconsideration, released

March 7, 2001, the Federal

Communications Commission revised

its rules for filing formal complaint

against common carriers. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approved the information collections

contained in sections 1.721, 1.722,

1.724, 1.726, 1.735 on June 7, 2001.

OMB.Control No.3060–0411.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Communications common carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–16790 Filed 7–3–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–1479; MM Docket No. 01–70, RM–

10082; MM Docket No. 01–71, RM–10083].

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Quartzsite, AZ; Leesville, LA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document grants two

proposals that allot new FM channels to

Quartzsite, Arizona, and Leesville,

Louisiana. Filing windows for Channel

275C3 at Quartzsite, Arizona, and

Channel 252A at Leesville, Louisiana,

will not be opened at this time. Instead,

the issue of opening these allotments for

auction will be addressed by the

Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective August 6, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R.

Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order in MM Docket No. 01–70 and

MM Docket No. 01–71, adopted June 13,

2001, and released June 22, 2001. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center

(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

The Commission, at the request of

McMullen Valley Broadcasting

Company, allots Channel 275C3 at

Quartzsite, Arizona, as the community’s

second local FM transmission service.

See 66 FR 17843 (April 4, 2001).