Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45925 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–

A, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

Director, Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–A, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Komp, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–A, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6436, 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations section of 

this Federal Register. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: May 12, 2008. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. E8–16269 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0472; FRL–8701–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Stafford County Reasonably Available 

Control Technology Under the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. This SIP 

revision pertains to the requirements in 

meeting the reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) under the 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). These requirements 

are based on: Certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

Virginia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and that they continue to 

represent RACT for the 8-hour 

implementation purposes; a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

facilities exist in Stafford County for the 

applicable control technology guideline 

(CTG) categories; and new RACT 

determinations. This action is being 

taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 8, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA–

R03–OAR–2008–0472 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0472, 

Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008–

0472. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

e-mail address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

e-mail at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

21, 2008, the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

submitted a revision to its SIP that 

addresses Stafford County’s 

requirements of RACT under the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS set forth by the CAA. 

I. Background 

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by 

photochemical reactions between 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and carbon 

monoxide (CO) in the presence of 

sunlight. In order to reduce ozone 

concentrations in the ambient air, the 

CAA requires all nonattainment areas to 

apply control on VOC/NOX emission 

sources to achieve emission reductions. 

Among effective control measures, 

RACT controls are a major group for 

reducing VOC and NOX emissions from 

stationary sources. 

Since the 1970s, EPA has consistently 

interpreted RACT to mean the lowest 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45926 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

emission limit that a particular source is 

capable of meeting by the application of 

the control technology that is reasonably 

available considering technological and 

economic feasibility. See, e.g., 72 FR 

20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Section 

182 of the CAA sets forth two separate 

RACT requirements for ozone 

nonattainment areas. The first 

requirement, contained in section 

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred to 

as RACT fix-up requires the correction 

of RACT rules for which EPA identified 

deficiencies before the CAA was 

amended in 1990. On March 31, 1994, 

EPA published a final rulemaking notice 

approving the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s SIP revision in order to 

correct the Commonwealth’s VOC RACT 

regulations and establish and require 

the implementation for revised SIP 

regulations to control VOCs (59 FR 

15117, March 31, 1994). The second 

requirement, set forth in section 

182(b)(2) of the CAA, applies to 

moderate (or worse) ozone 

nonattainment areas as well as to 

marginal and attainment areas in ozone 

transport region (OTR) established 

pursuant to section 184 of the CAA, and 

requires these areas to implement RACT 

controls on all major VOC and NOX

emission sources and on all sources and 

source categories covered by a control 

technique guideline (CTG) issued by 

EPA. On March 12, 1997, EPA 

published a final rulemaking notice 

approving the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s SIP revision as meeting the 

CTG RACT provisions of the CAA (62 

FR 11332, March 12, 1997). Further 

details of Virginia’s RACT requirements 

can be found in a Technical Support 

Document (TSD) prepared for this 

rulemaking. 

The counties of Fairfax, Loudoun, 

Prince William, and Arlington, as well 

as the cities of Fairfax, Alexandria, 

Manassas, Manassas Park, and Falls 

Church (Northern Virginia Area), along 

with Stafford County, Virginia, 

Washington, D.C., and portions of 

southern Maryland, are part of the OTR. 

Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these 

jurisdictions, including Stafford County, 

Virginia, Washington, D.C., and portions 

of southern Maryland were originally 

classified as part of the Metropolitan 

Washington serious 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area located in OTR (56 

FR 56694 at 56844, November 6, 1991). 

As part of the planning process, section 

182(b)(2) of the CAA required the 

Commonwealth of Virginia to 

implement RACT on all sources and 

source categories covered by a CTG 

issued by EPA. Point sources with the 

potential to emit 50 tons per year or 

more of VOCs or 100 tons per year or 

more of NOX that were not covered by 

a CTG were also required to implement 

RACT. As a result of failure to meet the 

attainment date of November 15, 1999, 

the Metropolitan Washington area was 

reclassified as a severe nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour standard (68 FR 3410 

at 3425, January 24, 2003). As a result 

of the reclassification, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia was required 

to perform RACT evaluations on point 

sources with the potential to emit 25 

tons per year for either VOC (62 FR 

11334, March 12, 1997) or NOX (69 FR 

48150, August 9, 2004). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

the new 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (62 

FR 38856, July 18, 1997). Under the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, the Metropolitan 

Washington Area, with the exception of 

Stafford County, was designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard and classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area. Stafford County 

was included as part of the 

Fredericksburg area, and was designated 

as a moderate nonattainment area for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858, 

April 30, 2004). On May 2, 2005 and 

May 4, 2005, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia submitted a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

Fredericksburg area, respectively. EPA 

issued a final rule approving Virginia’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Fredericksburg area on 

December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165). 

Although Stafford County is part of 

the Fredericksburg maintenance area, 

the requirements of section 184 of the 

CAA must still be satisfied because 

Stafford County is also part of the OTR. 

Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires 

the implementation of RACT with 

respect to all sources of VOC covered by 

a CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) of 

the CAA requires the implementation of 

major stationary source requirements as 

if the area were a moderate 

nonattainment area on any stationary 

source with a potential to emit of at 

least 50 tons per year of VOC or 100 

tons per year of NOX. Virginia is 

therefore required to submit to EPA a 

SIP revision that demonstrates how 

Stafford County meets the RACT 

requirements under the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT 

requirements, either through a 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in their SIP revisions 

approved by EPA under the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS represent adequate 

RACT control levels for 8-hour 

attainment purposes, or through the 

adoption of new or more stringent 

regulations that represent RACT control 

levels. A certification must be 

accompanied by appropriate supporting 

information such as consideration of 

information received during the public 

comment period and consideration of 

new data. This information may 

supplement existing RACT guidance 

documents that were developed for the 

1-hour standard, such that the State’s 

SIP accurately reflects RACTs for the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on the 

current availability of technically and 

economically feasible controls. 

Adoption of new RACT regulations will 

occur when states have new stationary 

sources not covered by existing RACT 

regulations, or when new data or 

technical information indicates that a 

previously adopted RACT measure does 

not represent a newly available RACT 

control level. Another 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS requirement for RACT is to 

submit a negative declaration that there 

are no CTG major sources of VOC and 

NOX emissions within Virginia. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

Virginia’s SIP revision for Stafford 

County contains the requirements of 

RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Virginia’s SIP 

revision satisfies the 8-hour RACT 

requirements through (1) certification 

that previously adopted RACT controls 

in Virginia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

are based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and that they continue to 

represent RACT for the 8-hour 

implementation purposes; (2) a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

facilities exist in Stafford County for the 

applicable CTG categories; and (3) new 

RACT determinations. 

VOC RACT Controls 

Virginia’s Regulations and Statutes, 

under 9 VAC 5 Chapter 40, contain the 

Commonwealth’s VOC RACT controls 

that were implemented and approved in 

the Virginia SIP under the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Table 1 lists Virginia’s VOC RACT 

controls. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45927 

TABLE 1—VIRGINIA’S VOC RACT CONTROLS

Regulation 9 

VAC 5–40–

Existing stationary sources 

Title of regulation State effective date 

Federal 

Register 

date 

Citation 

460 .................... Emission Standards for Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products Manufacturing 

Operations.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

610 .................... Emission Standards for Rubber Tire Manufacturing Operations ...................... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

1400 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Refinery Operations ................................... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

3290 .................. Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations Using Non-Halogenated Solvents.04/01/97 11/03/99 64 FR 59635. 

3590 .................. Emission Standards for Large Appliance Coating Application Systems ........... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

3740 .................. Emission Standards for Magnet Wire Coating Application Systems ................ 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

3890 .................. Emission Standards for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Coating Application 

Systems.

04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4040 .................. Emission Standards for Can Coating Application Systems .............................. 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4190 .................. Emission Standards for Metal Coil Coating Application Systems ..................... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4340 .................. Emission Standards for Paper and Fabric Coating Application Systems ......... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4490 .................. Emission Standards for Vinyl Coating Application Systems ............................. 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4640 .................. Emission Standards for Metal Furniture Coating Application Systems ............. 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4790 .................. Emission Standards for Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products Coating Application Systems.04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315. 

4940 .................. Emission Standards for Flatwood Paneling Coating Application Systems ....... 04/17/95 04/21/00 65 FR 21315.

5080 .................. Flexographic, Packaging Rotogravure, and Publication Rotogravure Printing 

Lines.

04/01/96 03/12/97 62 FR 11334. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Stage I Vapor Control Systems—Gasoline Service Stations.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Bulk Gasoline Plants.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5230 .................. Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations—

Gasoline Tank Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems.

02/01/02 03/03/06 71 FR 10838. 

5510 .................. Emission Standards for Asphalt Paving Operations ......................................... 03/24/04 04/27/05 70 FR 21625. 

6840 .................. Emission Standards for Solvent Metal Cleaning Operations in the Northern 

Virginia Volatile Organic Compound Emissions Control Area.

03/24/04 06/09/04 69 FR 32277. 

Virginia also submitted a negative 

declaration certifying that the following 

VOC CTG or non-CTG major sources do 

not exist in Stafford County. 

Table 2 lists Virginia’s negative 

declaration for VOC CTG major sources. 

TABLE 2—DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH NO APPLICABLE FACILITIES EXIST IN STAFFORD COUNTY

Document title 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions form Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Equipment Leaks form Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound fugitive Emission from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 

SOCMI Distillation and Reactor Processes CTG 

Wood Furniture 

Shipbuilding/repair 

Aerospace 

NOX RACT Controls 

The only facility in Stafford County 

considered to be a major stationary 

source for either VOC or NOX is 

Cellofoam. Because actual VOC 

emissions from Cellofoam are 

significantly below the facility’s 

federally enforceable limit, the 

Cellofoam source specific new RACT 

determination is appropriate, and 

therefore, the existing RACT controls 

can be recertified. Further details can be 

found in a TSD prepared for this 

rulemaking. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Virginia SIP revision for Stafford County 

that addresses the requirements of 

RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

which was submitted on April 21, 2008. 

This SIP revision is based on a 

combination of (1) certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

Virginia’s SIP that were approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

are based on the currently available 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS
45928 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

technically and economically feasible 

controls, and that they continue to 

represent RACT for the 8-hour 

implementation purposes; (2) a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

facilities exist in Stafford County for the 

applicable CTG categories; and (3) new 

RACT determinations. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

pertaining to the Stafford County, VA 

RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E8–18191 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 08–1713; MB Docket No. 08–85; RM–

11427] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Ehrenberg and First Mesa, AZ; 

Needles, CA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rulemaking 

filed by Michael Cusinato, proposing to 

allot Channel 287B1 at Needles, 

California, as a fourth local service. To 

accommodate the proposed Needles 

allotment, Petitioner also requests the 

substitution of Channel 228C2 for 

vacant Channel 286C2 at Ehrenberg, 

Arizona, and the substitution of 

Channel 286C2 for Channel 287C2 at 

Wickenburg, Arizona, and modification 

of the Station KHOV–FM license 

accordingly at its license site. An Order 

to Show Cause is directed to Univision 

Radio License Corporation, licensee of 

Station KHOV–FM to show cause why 

its license should not be modified to 

specify operation on Channel 286C2. To 

accommodate the Wickenburg 

substitution, Petition proposes to 

substitute Channel 246C2 for Channel 

286C2 at Kachina Village, Arizona, and 

modify the license for Station 

KFLX(FM) accordingly, at its license 

site. An Order to Show Cause is directed 

to Grenax Broadcasting II LLC, licensee 

of Station KFLX(FM) to show cause why 

its license should not be modified to 

Channel 246C2. Finally, to 

accommodate the substitution at 

Kachina Village, Petitioner proposes the 

substitution of Channel 281C for vacant 

Channel 281C at First Mesa, Arizona. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 15, 2008, and reply 

comments on or before September 30, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

petitioner as follows: Michael Cusinato, 

705 Peridot Ct., Castle Rock, Colorado 

80108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria McCauley, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

08–85, adopted July 23, 2008, and 

released July 25, 2008. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC’s 

Reference Information Center at Portals 

II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. This document 

may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 

1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 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. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with PROPOSALS