31682 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

This safety zone is necessary to

protect spectators and transiting vessels

from the potential hazards associated

with the launch of the Alaskan

Aerospace rocket. The proposed safety

zone is intended to becomes effective at

6 a.m. on September 1, 1998, and

terminate at 10 p.m. on September 10,

1998.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential cost

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget under

that order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory

policies and procedures of DOT is

unnecessary.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no information

collection requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 12612 and

has determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under Figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water). Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Vessels, Waterways.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—AMENDED

1. The authority citation for part 165

reads as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.401–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add temporary § 165.T17–003 to

read as follows:

§ 165.T17–003 Alaska Aerospace

Development Corporation, Narrow Cape,

Kodiak Island safety zones.

(a) Description. This safety zone

includes an area approximately 57

square nautical miles in the Gulf of

Alaska, southeast of Narrow Cape,

Kodiak Island, Alaska. Specifically, the

zone includes the waters of the Gulf of

Alaska that are within the area bounded

by a line drawn from a point located

57°29.7′ North, 152°18.9′ West, thence

southeast to a point located at 57°22.3′

North, 152°07.7′ West, thence southwest

to a point located at 57°18.5′ North,

152°16.3′ West, and then northwest to a

point located at 57°26.0′ North,

152°27.7′ West, and thence northeast to

the point located at 57°29.7′ North,

152°18.9′ West. All coordinates

reference Datum: NAD 1983.

(b) Effective Dates. This proposed

regulation would become effective at 6

a.m. on September 1, 1998, and

terminates at 10 p.m. on September 10,

1998.

(c) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the

Port and the Duty Officer at Marine

Safety Office, Anchorage, Alaska can be

contacted at telephone number (907)

271–6700 or on VHF marine channel 16.

(2) The Captain of the Port may

authorize and designate any Coast

Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty

officer to act on his behalf in enforcing

the safety zone.

(3) The general regulations governing

safety zones contained in § 165.23

apply. No person or vessel may enter or

remain in this safety zone, with the

exception of attending vessels, without

first obtaining permission from the

Captain of the Port, or his on scene

representative. The Captain of the Port,

Western Alaska, or his on scene

representative may be contacted

onboard the U.S. Coast Guard cutter in

the vicinity of Narrow Cape via VHF

marine channel 16.

Dated: June 1, 1998.

E.P. Thompson,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Western Alaska.

[FR Doc. 98–15423 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–6106–5]

Approval of Colorado’s Petition to

Relax the Federal Gasoline Reid Vapor

Pressure Volatility Standard for 1998,

1999, and 2000

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or the Agency) proposes to

approve the State of Colorado’s January

21, 1998, petition to relax the Reid

Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard that

applies to gasoline introduced into

commerce in the Denver-Boulder area

from June 1 to September 15. The

Agency proposes to approve a relaxation

of the federal RVP standard for this area

from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to

9.0 psi for the years 1998, 1999, and

2000, as an amendment to EPA’s

gasoline volatility regulations. In the

final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is promulgating this

amendment as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because EPA

views this as a noncontroversial action

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for this action is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

relevant adverse comments are received

in response to that direct final rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives relevant adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all relevant comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this rulemaking.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by July 10,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking have been placed in Docket

A–98–04 by EPA. The docket is located

at the Docket Office of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460,

Room M–1500 in Waterside Mall and

may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday. A

duplicate public docket CO–RVP–98 has

been established at U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region VIII, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO, 80202–

2466, and is available for inspection

during normal working hours. Interested

persons wishing to examine the

documents in this docket should make
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules 31683

1 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

an appointment with the appropriate

contact at least 24 hours before the

visiting day. Contact Scott P. Lee at

(303) 312–6736. As provided in 40 CFR

part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged

for copying docket material. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to the dockets listed above,

with a copy forwarded to Marilyn

Winstead McCall, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Fuels and Energy

Division, 401 M Street, SW. (Mail Code:

6406J), Washington, D. C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Winstead McCall at (202) 564–

9029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation and Effective

Date

The direct final rule will become

effective on July 27, 1998 without

further notification unless the Agency

receives relevant adverse comments on

this proposed rulemaking within 30

days of this document. Should the

Agency receive such comments, it will

publish a document informing the

public that the rule did not take effect.

All relevant public comments received

within the 30-day comment period will

then be addressed in a subsequent final

rule based on this proposal. No second

comment period on this rule will be

instituted.

B. Environmental Impact

This proposed amendment is not

expected to have any adverse

environmental effects. The DenverBoulder six-county area has met the 1-

hour NAAQS for ozone since 1987.

Current air quality is expected to be

further maintained by a 9.0 psi RVP

gasoline standard.

C. Economic Impact

The proposed continued relaxation of

the 7.8 psi RVP gasoline standard to 9.0

psi will avoid a cost increase in gasoline

supply levels in the Denver-Boulder

area. No new economic burdens will be

placed on the local refining industry to

implement a change in the RVP

standard.

D. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866,1 the

Agency must determine whether a

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel, legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under the terms of

Executive Order 12866 and is therefore

not subject to OMB review. Specifically,

this proposed rule will not have an

annual effect on the economy in excess

of $100 million, have a significant

adverse impact on competition,

investment, employment or innovation,

or result in a major price increase. In

fact, as discussed elsewhere, this

proposed action will reduce the cost of

compliance with Federal requirements

in this area.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, EPA must

obtain OMB clearance for any activity

that will involve collecting substantially

the same information from ten or more

non-Federal respondents. This proposed

rule does not create any new

information requirements or contain any

new information collection activities.

F. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule would

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because the overall impact of this

proposed rule is a net decrease in

requirements on all entities including

small entities. Therefore, I certify that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

that the Agency prepare a budgetary

impact statement before promulgating a

rule that includes a Federal mandate

that may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the Agency to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the Agency must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The Agency must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the Agency explains

why this alternative is not selected or

the selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with the law.

The Agency has determined that this

proposed rule does not include a federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or the private sector in any one year.

This proposed rule reduces costs to

such entities by relaxing a regulatory

requirement. Because small

governments will not be significantly or

uniquely affected by this proposed rule,

the Agency is not required to develop a

plan with regard to small governments.

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 10, 1998.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of the final rule does

not affect the finality of the rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review must be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

I. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

A copy of this proposed action is

available on the Internet at

www.epa.gov/OMSWWW under the

title: ‘‘Relaxation of Federal Gasoline

RVP Standard in Denver-Boulder

Metropolitan Area.’’
31684 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Proposed Rules

1See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference

the definition of ‘‘small business concern’’ in 5

U.S.C. 632).

J. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for the action

proposed in this notice today is granted

to EPA by sections 211 and 301(a) of the

Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7545 and 7601(a)).

K. Children’s Health Protection

This proposed rule is not subject to

E.O. 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of

Children from 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 80

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedures,

Air pollution control, Fuel additives,

Gasoline, Motor vehicle and motor

vehicle engines, Motor vehicle

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 28, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15450 Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 98–76; FCC 98–100]

Proposed Rules To Further Ensure

That Scanning Receivers Do Not

Receive Cellular Radio Signals

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (NPRM) the Commission

proposes to amend the rules to further

prevent scanning receivers from

receiving cellular radio telephone

signals. The Commission seeks

comment on the proposed rule changes.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 10, 1998, and reply

comments must be filed July 27, 1998.

Interested parties wishing to comment

on the information collections should

submit comments July 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to the Office

of Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington DC 20554, or via

electronic mail to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rodney P. Conway (202) 418–2904 or

Hugh Van Tuyl (202) 418–7506. Via

electronic mail: rconway@fcc.gov or

hvantuyl@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering

and Technology, Federal

Communications Commission. For

additional information concerning the

information collections, or copies of the

information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Judy Boley at (202)

418–0217, or via electronic mail at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 98–

76, FCC 98–100, adopted May 21, 1998,

and released June 3, 1998.

This NPRM contains proposed

information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. The general

public, and other Federal agencies are

invited to comment on the proposed

information collections contained in

this proceeding.

A full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s duplication

contractor, International Transcription

Service, phone (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805, 1231 20th

Street, N.W. Washington DC 20036.

Summary of the NPRM

1. The NPRM contains proposed rules

that are needed to improve and

strengthen the Commission’s regulations

prohibiting scanning receivers from

tuning frequencies allocated to the

cellular radio telephone service

(Cellular Service). The NPRM proposes

to adopt a signal rejection requirement

to prevent scanning receivers from

intercepting Cellular Service

transmissions when they are ‘‘tuned’’ to

frequencies outside the Cellular Service.

2. In addition, the NPRM proposes

specific design requirements to make it

more difficult to modify scanning

receivers to receive Cellular Service

transmissions.

3. Moreover, the NPRM seeks

comment on changing the definition of

a scanning receiver to include receivers

that automatically tune among less than

four frequencies.

4. Further, the NPRM proposes a

definition for test equipment and seeks

to prohibit kits that when assembled

would be capable of receiving and

decoding Cellular Service

transmissions.

5. Moreover, the NPRM also proposes

rules to codify the provisions of section

705 of the Communications Act that

prohibit any person or persons from

knowingly intercepting and divulging

the content of transmissions from the

Cellular Service frequency bands. This

proposed prohibition will not apply to

receivers used in the Cellular Service.

The NPRM proposes to implement these

requirements for scanning receivers

manufactured and imported into the

United States 90 days after adoption of

the final rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

6. Need for and Objective of the Rules.

This NPRM is initiated to obtain

comments regarding the proposed rules

which seek to further ensure that

scanning receivers do not receive

signals from the cellular radiotelephone

frequency bands.

7. Legal Basis. The proposed action is

authorized under sections 4(j), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304 and

307 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302,

303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304 and

307.

8. Reporting, Recordkeeping and

Other Compliance Requirements. We

propose to establish rules that would

require scanning receivers to be

manufactured to reduce the possibility

of receiving signals from the cellular

telephone frequency bands. The

proposed rules will require design

details and test measurements to be

reported to the Commission as part of

the normal equipment authorization

process under our certification

procedure.

9. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules.

None.

10. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Involved. For

purposes of this NPRM, the RFA defines

a ‘‘small business’’ to be the same as a

‘‘small business concern’’ under the

Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632,

unless the Commission has developed

one or more definitions that are

appropriate to its activities.1 Under the

Small Business Act, a ‘‘small business

concern’’ is one that: (1) is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) meets any additional criteria