/4-S9 

P.4 

1522® er / Vol. 54, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

construction moratorium, for Lake and 

Porter Counties, Indiana, because the 

State did not have an adequate program 

to enforce die requirements of its vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program. The State Legislature has 

subsequently passed authorization for a 

registration denial enforcement 

mechanism; however, adequate funding 

to operate the program must still be 

provided. The Legislature is expected to 

address program funding by die end of 

Uie current legislative session. If 

adequate funding to operate the I/M 

program is provided, USEPA will cancel 

the May 25,1989, public hearing and will 

not proceed widi the sanction process. 

The time and place of the May 25,1989, 

public hearing will be announced at a 

later date. 

_. AT IS: The public hearing has been 

changed from April 13,1989, to May 25, 

1989. 

FOR FUP3TOEH INFORMATION eONTAST: 

Cheryl Newton, Air and Radiation 

Branch (5AR-26), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region V, 230 South 

Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60504, 

(312) 886-6081. 

Date: April 6,1989. 

Frank M. Covington, 

Acting Regional Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 89-9124 Filed 4-14-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

40 CFH Parts 1.1 and 1.2 

[FFSL-3558-3] 

m 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

Guidance Manual for comment. -

SUMMARY: On November 3,1987, EPA 

proposed for comment surface water 

treatment requirements and a national 

primary drinking water regulation for 

total coliforms, plus maximum 

contaminant level goals for certain 

microbiological contaminants, under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (52 FR 42178 

and 52 FR 42224). On May 6,1988, EPA 

published a notice of availability (52 FR 

16348), which solicited specific data, 

offered additional regulatory options for 

comment, and clarified and corrected 

statements made in the November 3, 

1987, proposal. 

EPA also prepared a draft "Guidance 

Manual for Compliance with the Surface 

Water Treatment Requirements (SWTR) 

for Public Water Supplies" ("Guidance 

Manual") dated October 8,1987. The 

manual was intended to provide 

guidance for implementing the proposed 

surface water treatment requirements. 

As part of the November 1987, notice of 

proposed rulemaking, EPA solicited 

comment on the Guidance Manual. As a 

result of those comments and planned 

revisions to the SWTR, EPA has 

prepared a revised draft Guidance 

Manual dated March 31,1989. To 

receive a copy of the March 31,1989, 

draft Guidance Manual, contact the Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline, telephone (800) 

426-4791 or (202) 382-5533, in 

Washington, DC. 

EPA solicits written comments on the 

guidelines and recommendations in the 

March 31,1989, draft Guidance Manual. 

DATES: To be considered in the 

development of the final Guidance 

Manual, written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 15,1989. 

EPA will have a final Guidance Manual 

available this summer. 

AOBRESSES: Send written comments on 

die March 31,1989, Draft Guidance 

Manual to Surface Water Treatment 

Rule—Guidance Manual; Comment 

Clerk; Criteria and Standards Division; 

Office of Drinking water (WH-550D); 

Environmental Protection Agency; 401M 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER IWFORRflATOON CONTACT: 

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline, 

telephone (800) 426-4791 or (202) 382-

5533 in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area; or Stig Regli, 

Environmental Engineer, Science and 

Technology Branch, Criteria and 

Standards Division, Office of Drinking 

Water (WH-550D), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401M Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 

382-7379. 

Date: April 11,1989. 

WUIiam A. Whittington, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water. 

[FR Doc. 89-9120 Filed 4-14-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

.0 CPE. Part 82 

UFRI-355.-3] 

P.otteC-iom] o. Stratospheric Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing diis advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 

to support its efforts to protect 

stratospheric ozone. Specifically, the 

Agency is considering the possibility of 

adding methyl chloroform and carbon 

tetrachloride to the list of ozonedepleting chemicals already regulated 

by die Montreal Protocol on Substances 

That Deplete the Ozone Layer and the 

EPA rule implementing the Protocol (53 

FR 30566, August 12,1988). Today's 

notice explains why regulation of methyl 

chloroform and carbon tetrachloride 

may be necessary and requests public 

comments on EPA's analysis and the 

possible impact of regulating these 

chemical substances. 

DATE: Written comments on the ANPRM 

Rule must be submitted by May 15,1989, 

to die location listed below. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to Docket (A-89-09) Air Docket, 

First Floor-Waterside Mall, Room 1500, 

LE131, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, 

DC 20460. The docket may be inspected 

between 8 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on 

weekdays. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, 

a reasonable fee may be charged for 

photocopying. To expedite review, it is 

also requested that a duplicate copy of 

written comments be sent to Karla Perri 

at the address listed below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karla Perri, Division of Global Change, 

OIAIP, Office of Air and Radiation, 

(ANR-445), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 

475-7496. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The threat of depletion of the ozone 

layer from chlorine released from 

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was first 

raised well over a decade ago by the 

scientific community. (Molina and 

Rowland 1974). The initial theory 

suggested that because CFCs are 

relatively inert, emissions of these 

chemicals would not break down in the 

lower atmosphere, but would instead 

slowly migrate to the stratosphere 

where they would then break apart 

releasing chlorine. Once freed in the 

stratosphere, the chlorine would 

catalytically destroy ozone. From a 

health and environmental perspective, 

depletion of the ozone layer would 

allow more harmful ultraviolet radiation 

to penetrate the atmosphere and strike 

the earth's surface. This would increase 

the incidence of skin cancers and 

cataracts, suppress the human immune 

system, damage crops, forests, and 

aquatic systems, accelerate weathering 

of certain plastics, and increase the 

formation of ground level (tropospheric) 

ozone or smog. 
P.6 

/ Vol. 54, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

In the fourteen years of research since 

the original theory was proposed 

considerable scientific evidence has 

supported die general concern that 

increased emissions of CFCs (and 

halons) would lead to ozone depletion. 

(See, for example, "Present State of 

Knowledge of die Upper Atmosphere 

1988: An Assessment Report," National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), #1208, August 1988). 

In 1981, in response to the growing 

scientific consensus, the United Nations 

Environment Program (UNEP) began 

negotiations to develop a multilateral 

response to reducing the threat of ozone 

depletion. These negotiations resulted in 

the Vienna Convention for the 

Protection of the Ozone Layer in March 

1985. The convention provided a 

framework for international cooperation 

in research, monitoring, and information 

exchange. Further negotiations resulted 

in die Montreal Protocol on Substances 

that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The 

Montreal Protocol was signed in 

September 1987 and requires die Parties 

to control or reduce their use of 

specified ozone-depleting chemicals. 

EPA promulgated regulations 

implementing the Protocol on August 12, 

1988. (See 52 FR 47486, December 14, 

1987, and 53 FR 30566, August 12,1988). 

The conditions for the Protocol's entryinto-force were statisfied in December 

1988, and the Protocol and the EPA's 

rule went into effect January 1,1989. 

On the same day that the Agency 

issued its final rule implementing the 

Montreal Protocol, it also published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on possible 

further efforts to protect stratospheric 

ozone (53 FR 30804, August 12,1988). 

Currently, the Montreal Protocol and the 

EP regulation require a 50 percent 

phase-in reduction in the production and 

consumption of specified fullyhalogenated CFCs by 1998, and a freeze 

at 1986 levels of specified halons 

beginning in 1992. In the August ANPRM 

however, EPA described new scientific 

information which suggests diat 

additional reductions in CFCs, halons 

and possibly other ozone depleting 

chemicals may be necessary. 

This new scientific information along 

with other information is currently being 

reviewed under Article 6 of the Protocol. 

Article 6 states that the Parties (nations 

that have ratified the Protocol) will 

assess whether the control measures, as 

provided for in Article 2 of the Protocol, 

are sufficient to meet the goals for 

reducing ozone depletion. According to 

Article 6, this assessment will include a 

review of the current state of knowledge 

on technical, scientific, environmental 

and economic issues related to 

stratospheric ozone protection. 

II. Today's Notice 

The Agency is beginning to prepare 

for a meeting of the Parties, scheduled to 

take place in April of 1990, at which the 

Parties will decide on changes to the 

protocol's control measures. Because of 

the new scientific information 

suggesting that ozone has been depleted 

more than had previously been thought 

to have occurred, some nations are 

likely to call for a phase-out of the 

chemicals already included in the 

Protocol along with a freeze or reduction 

in the production and consumption of 

other chlorinated compounds that were 

not included in the original agreement. 

The Agency expects that methyl 

chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCA) 

and carbon tetrachloride (CC14) will be 

among the new chemicals suggested for 

inclusion in the Protocol. Therefore, the 

EPA is putting current users of these 

chemical substances on notice that a 

freeze and/or reduction in the 

production and consumption of a methyl 

chloroform and carbon tetrachloride 

may be forthcoming. 

The present worldwide concerns 

about TCA focus primarily on the 

chlorine emissions that occur because of 

current uses. EPA is particularly 

concerned however, about future 

increases in the use of TCA because of 

regulatory actions recently taken or 

which are being prepared by EPA and 

the Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration (OSHA). These 

regulatory actions restrict (or 

presumably will restrict) the use of other 

chlorinated solvents such as metiiylene 

chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene by placing exposure 

limits on the chemical substances. These 

exposure limits may lead some 

chlorinated solvent users in the shortterm to substitute the use of methyl 

chloroform for these other solvents 

instead of trying to control exposures. In 

addition, there are U.S. and worldwide 

concerns about continued uses (and 

emissions and subsequent exposures) of 

carbon tetrachloride as a solvent and as 

a pesticide. 

EPA strongly encourages chlorinated 

solvent users and producers to seek low 

cost, long-term solutions and to use the 

best available controls to minimize 

environmental releases of all of the 

chlorinated solvents listed above in 

complying with the federal regulations 

mentioned. In addition, EPA wants to 

make clear that the Agency does not 

condone simply substituting one 

problem chemical for another, and 

strongly encourages the use of less 

objectionable chemicals or nonchlorinated solvent alternatives where 

possible. 

More importantly, EPA wants to 

reinforce its earlier position as stated in 

the August 1988 ANPRM (53 FR 30817) 

that "EPA expressly does not view 

shifting away from CFC-113 to ether 

chlorinated solvents which are 

currently under regulatory scrutiny by 

EPA, as an acceptable solution to 

protecting die ozone layer." This means 

that in stopping the use of CFC-113, the 

Agency does not want producers and 

users to replace it widi solvents which 

are also considered ozone depletors or 

probably human carcinogens. The 

chlorinated solvents under regulatory 

scrutiny by EPA include metiiyl 

chloroform, methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene and 

carbon tetrachloride. 

In this ANPRM, EPA discusses the 

new scientific information available on 

methyl chloroform and explains the 

possible role of methyl chloroform in 

ozone depletion. In addition, the Agency 

explains why carbon tetrachloride may 

also be added to die Ust of chemicals 

regulated under the Protocol. EPA is 

seeking comments on its analysis and on 

the possible impact of placing limits on 

methyl chloroform and carbon 

tetrachloride by adding diem to the list 

of chemicals regulated under the 

Montreal Protocol. 

A. New Scientific Information 

In its August 1988 ANPRM, EPA 

discussed new scientific information 

suggesting that ozone was depleting at a 

faster rate than the scientific community 

and the Agency had originally 

anticipated. Over an 18-month period 

the world's leading atmospheric 

scientists conducted an extensive 

review of the existing ground-based and 

satellite measurements of the rate and 

level of ozone depletion. The group of 

scientists issued an executive summary 

of their work in March of 1988 (The 

Ozone Trends Panel Report: Executive 

Summary; 1988). 

They reported diat apparent ozone 

decreases since 1969 of 1.7 to 3.0 percent 

had occurred in Northern mid-latitudes. 

They also stated that, "There has been a 

large, sudden, and unexpected decrease 

in the abundance of springtime 

Antarctic ozone over the past decade," 

and that CFCs were a primary cause of 

the Antarctic ozone hole. The authors 

also specifically cited methyl chloroform 

as an important source of chlorine that 

photochemically controls the abundance 

of ozone. 

The full body of diis report has not yet 

been released or reviewed by EPA. 

However, the summary clearly suggestes 
P.7 

Federal Kegister / Vol. 54, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 1989 / Proposed Rules 

that current atmospheric models may 

significantly underestimate the link 

between CFCs and ozone depletion. 

Applying the models used in the EPA's 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), the 

ozone depletion of the magnitude that 

the Ozone Trends Panel Report cites, 

has already occurred over the past 

twenty years, should not have occurred 

even with the CFC reduction called for 

by the Protocol until the year 2050. 

Additional research appears necessary 

to account for this apparent 

underprediction. An alternative 

approach can be used which looks at the 

risk of ozone depletion as a function of 

chlorine and bromine levels in the 

stratosphere. Future chlorine and 

bromine concentrations in the upper 

atmosphere will depend primarily on 

future CFC and halon emissions, and 

their atmospheric fate. In August 1988, 

EPA issued a study entitled "Future 

Concentrations of Stratospheric 

Chlorine and Bromine," (Clx Report), 

(Office of Air and Radiation, EPA 400/ 

1-88/005, August 1988), which looked 

at chlorine and bromine levels after the 

implementation of the restrictions in the 

Montreal Protocol. The EPA found that 

levels of chlorine in the stratosphere 

would increase from 2.7 to 8 parts per 

billion (ppb) by 2075, even with the 

reductions in CFCs called for in the 

Protocol. 

This increase would be caused not 

only by the continued continued use of 

CFCs and halons, but also by the growth 

in the production and use of the nonregulated chemicals such as metiiyl 

chloroform. Specifically, the study 

predicted that approximately 45 percent 

of the increase in the chlorine and 

bromine would be caused by emissions 

from the remaining CFCs and halons. An 

additional 35 percent of the increase in' 

chlorine would occur as the result of 

methyl chloroform emissions. 

Furthermore, the EPA analysis showed 

that if methyl chloroform use increases 

as predicted, it would account for over 

80 percent of the growth in chlorine 

levels associated with substances not 

covered by the Protocol. 

The Clx Report also examined what 

actions would be required to stabilize 

chlorine at current atmospheric levels. It 

showed that a phase-out of CFCs and at 

least a freeze in methyl chloroform 

would be required. It is important to 

note however, that stabilization would 

not reverse past ozone depletion. To 

reverse past ozone depletion that the 

Ozone Trends Panel reports has already 

occurred and to return Clx levels in the 

stratosphere to those that existed prior 

to the Antarctic ozone hole, even further 

cuts in methyl chloroform might be 

required. 

B. Potential for Growth in Methyl 

Chloroform Use 

Chemical companies that produce 

methyl chloroform have stated that they 

do not expect methyl chloroform 

production or use to grow within the 

next few years. However, in the absence 

of limits on this chemical its production 

and consumption may increase 

substantially within the next few years 

for a number of reasons. 

First, the Occupational Health and 

Safety Administration (OSHA) 

promulgated regulations (54 FR 2332, 

January 19,1989) that reduce the 

Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) to 

exposures of perchloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene in the workplace. 

OSHA is also planning to promulgate 

new PEL standards for methylene 

chloride to a level substantially below 

the current level. OSHA expects that 

manufacturers should be able to comply 

with these limits by increasing 

ventilation in the workplace, or through 

the use of other materials, which are 

less hazardous. However, in many cases 

changes in workplace equipment or 

operating procedures may not be 

sufficient to meet these new standards. 

Solvent users may be inclined to switch 

to methyl chloroform, rather than try to 

meet the new federal standards for their 

current solvent. 

Second, EPA may, within the next few 

years, further regulate 

perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 

and methylene chloride because the 

Agency classifies them as probable 

human carcinogens. The Agency is also 

concerned about the non-cancerous or 

other acute health effects these 

chemicals may have. In addition, EPA is 

in the process of writing a National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) which will control 

ambient air emissions for 

perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene and 

methylene chloride. Moreover, since 

these chemicals are classified as 

probable human carcinogens, they are 

targets for EPA regulations concerning 

wastewater discharge. More 

importantly, many companies worried 

about the stigma of a probable human 

carcinogen classification may use TCA 

instead of the other solvent because of 

concerns over public image, liability and 

insurance expenses. For these reasons, 

additional layers of federal regulation 

may increase user preference for methyl 

chloroform. 

Third, the reduction in CFC 

production and import required by the 

EPA rule implementing the Montreal 

Protocol may lead some CFC users to 

substitute methyl chloroform for CFCs. 

However, the Agency has made clear 

that it does not view shifting from CFC113 to other chlorinated solvents which 

are currently under regulatory scrutiny 

as an acceptable solution to protecting 

the ozone layer. 

D. CFC Substitutes 

EPA has sponsored and co-chaired 

with industry a variety of technological 

and economic workgroups to discuss 

alternatives to CFCs in industrial and 

commercial uses. For example, EPA and 

industry are engaged in cooperative 

projects to determine whether electronic 

components and circuit boards can be 

cleaned with aqueous and terpene 

cleaners instead of CFC-113 or methyl 

chloroform. In addition, the Agency has 

been working with chemical 

manufacturers and industry 

representatives to find out the extent to 

which CFC-113 and methyl chloroform 

can be replaced in metal cleaning or 

degreasing. 

EPA is coordinating the review of 

these substitutes among various Agency 

offices and with other federal agencies, 

to ensure that current federal 

regulations or policies do not 

unnecessarily hinder the switch away 

from CFCs to other chemicals or 

processes. For example, the EPA is 

working with the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DOD) to revise ane eliminate 

military procurement specifications that 

require manufacturers to specifically use 

CFC-113, methyl chloroform or other 

chlorinated solvents in electronic, 

precision and metal cleaning. 

Eliminating restrictive specifications 

would allow CFC-113 and methyl 

chloroform to be replaced with other 

chemicals, non-chemicals solutions, or 

processes that perform equally as well 

or better and do not contribute to ozone 

depletion. 

D. Carbon Tetrachloride 

Carbon tetrachloride is a relatively 

strong ozone depletor, and in fact has a 

greater ozone depleting potential than 

any of the CFCs currently listed in the 

Protocol. In the U.S. it is used primarily 

as a feedstock to produce other CFCs. 

Emissions from this use were believed 

to be small, and therefore it was 

reasonable to exclude carbon 

tetrachloride from the original Protocol. 

However, atmospheric levels have been 

found to be greater than would be 

expected from past emissions estimates. 

Preliminary evidence suggests that in 

Japan, the Eastern Block countries and 

less developed countries, carbon 

tetrachloride is used in the production of 

pesticides, as a solvent and in the 
P.8 

Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 72 / Monday, April 17, 1989 / Proposed Rules 15231 

production of synthetic rubber and dyes, 

among other things. Emissions estimates 

for these uses are still uncertain. 

Nevetheless, EPA believes that they 

may be significant and that it may be 

necessary to control them under the 

Protocol. 

E. Public Comments Sought 

As stated previously, EPA is issuing 

this ANPRM to solicit general comments 

on the role of methyl chloroform and 

carbon tetrachloride in stratospheric 

ozone protection efforts, and specific 

comments on the possible effect of 

adding methyl chloroform and carbon 

tetrachloride to the list of chemicals 

regulated by the Montreal Protocol. The 

Agency is specifically seeking comments 

on the following points. 

(1) What substitutes exist for methyl 

chloroform in the following use 

categories: metal, precision and 

electronic cleaning, aerosols, and 

adhesives? 

(2) What can EPA do to expedite and 

assist in finding substitutes for methyl 

chloroform in these use categories? 

What are die barriers to such 

substitution? 

(3) Will die demand for metiiyl 

chloroform increase when the initial 

reduction in CFC use is effective, in July 

1989? 

(4) Should the international response 

be to freeze, reduce or eliminate methyl 

chloroform and carbon tetrachloride? 

How, and why or why not? Over what 

time period? 

References 

EPA (1988) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, "Future Concentrations of 

Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine," EPA 

400/1-88/005, July 1988. 

EPA (1987) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, "Assessing the Risk of Trace 

Gases That Can Modify the Stratosphere." 

EPA 400/1-87/001, December 1987. 

EPA (1987) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, "Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone," 

December 1987. 

EPA (1988) U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, "Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone," August 

1988. 

Molina, M.J. and F.S. Rowland (1974). 

"Stratospheric Sink for 

Chlorfluoromethanes: Chlorine AtomCatalysed Destruction of Ozone." Nature, 

249, 810-812. 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, (1988) "Present State of 

Knowledge in the Upper Atmosphere 1988: 

An Assessment Report," #1208, August 

1988. 

World Meteorological Association (WMO) 

(1986). "Atmospheric Ozone 1985: 

Assessment of Our Understanding of the 

Processes Controlling its Present 

Distribution and Change, WMO Global 

Ozone Research and Monitoring Project— 

Report No. 16 WMO, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Don R. Clay, 

Acting Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 89-8819 Filed 4-14-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

IMM Docket No. 89-38, RM-6517] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Flint, 

Harbor Beach, and Sebewaing, 

Michigan 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition filed by Reams 

Broadcasting, Inc., proposing the 

substitution of FM Channel 288B1 for 

Channel 288A at Flint, Michigan, and 

modification of the license for Station 

WWCK-FM to specify operation on 

Channel 288B1. The coordinates for 

Channel 288B1 are 43-01-18 and 83-41-

00. To accommodate Channel 288B1 at 

Flint, Channel 279C2 must be substituted 

for 289C2 at Harbor Beach and Channel 

267A must be substituted for Channel 

280A at Sebewaing, Michigan. DCS 

Radio, Ltd. holds the construction permit 

for Channel 289C2 at Harbor Beach 

(BPH 870225IB) and Family Stations, Inc. 

holds the construction permit for 

Channel 280A at Sebewaing 

(BMPED871008ID). The coordinates for 

Channel 279C2 are 43-59-06 and 82-58-

25. The coordinates for Channel 267A 

are 43-48-01 and 83-23-38. Canadian 

Concurrence must be obtained for the 

allotment of channels at all three 

communities. The allotments for Harbor 

Beach and Sebewaing will require 

concurrence from the Canadian 

government as a specially negotiated 

short spaced allotment in accordance 

with the U.S.-Canadian working 

agreement. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 17,1989, and reply 

comments on or before May 2,1989. 

ADDRESS: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 

addition to filing comments with the 

FCC, interested parties should serve the 

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, 

as follows: Marnie K. Sarver, Donald M. 

Itzkoff, Pierson, Ball & Dowd, 1200-18th 

Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 

20036. (Counsel for Reams Broadcasting, 

Inc.). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 

Bureau, (202) 634-6530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission's Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 

89-38, adopted January 30,1989, and 

released February 24,1989. The full text 

of this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M 

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The 

complete text of this decision may also 

be purchased from the Commission's 

copy contractors, International 

Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 

2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, 

Washington, DC 20037. 

Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 

this proceeding. 

Members of the public should note 

that from the time a Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making is issued until the matter is 

no longer subject to Commission 

consideration or court review, all ex 

parte contacts are prohibited in 

Commission proceedings, such as this 

one, which involve channel allotments. 

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 

permissible ex parte contacts. 

For information regarding proper filing 

procedures for comments, See 47 CFR 

1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio broadcasting. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Steve Kaminer, 

Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Dis'ision, 

Mass Media Bureau. 

(FR Doc. 89-9025 Filed 4-14-89; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M 

47 CFR Part 73 

IMM Docket No. 89-37, RM-6590] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Two 

Harbors, Minnesota 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition filed by Twin 

Ports Broadcasting, Inc., permittee of 

Channel 282A, Two Harbors, Minnesota, 

proposing the substitution of Channel 

282C2 for Channel 282A, and 

modification of the permit to specify