77330 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

8. Importation and Exportation

All importation and exportation of

dichloralphenazone shall be in

compliance with 21 CFR part 1312 after

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register.

9. Criminal Liability

Any activity with dichloralphenazone

not authorized by, or in violation of, the

CSA or the Controlled Substances

Import and Export Act shall be unlawful

on or after 30 days from date of

publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register, except as authorized

in that rule.

Regulatory Certifications

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Deputy Administrator hereby

certifies that this rulemaking has been

drafted in a manner consistent with the

principles of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small business

entities. Most handlers of

dichloralphenazone or prescription

products containing this substance are

already registered to handle controlled

substances and are subject to the

regulatory requirements of the CSA.

Executive Order 12866

The Deputy Administrator further

certifies that this rulemaking has been

drafted in accordance with the

principles in Executive Order 12866

Section 1(b). DEA has determined that

this is not a significant rulemaking

action. Therefore, this action has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Executive Order 12988

This regulation meets the applicable

standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil

Justice Reform.

Executive Order 13132

This rulemaking does not preempt or

modify any provision of state law; nor

does it impose enforcement

responsibilities on any state; nor does it

diminish the power of any state to

enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this

rulemaking does not have federalism

implications warranting the application

of Executive order 13132. Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year, and will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by Section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not

result in an annual effect on the

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a

major increase in costs or prices; or

significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Plain Language Instructions

The Drug Enforcement

Administration makes every effort to

write clearly. If you have suggestions as

to how to improve the clarity of this

regulation, call or write Patricia M.

Good, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section,

Office of Diversion Control, Drug

Enforcement Administration,

Washington, D.C. 20537, telephone

(202) 307–7297.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308

Administrative practice and

procedure, Drug traffic control,

Narcotics, prescription drugs.

Under the authority vested in the

Attorney General by Section 201(a) of

the CSA [21 U.S.C. 811(a)], and

delegated to the Administrator of the

DEA by the Department of Justice

regulations (21 CFR 0.100), and

redelegated to the Deputy Administrator

of the DEA pursuant to 28 CFR 0.104,

the Deputy Administrator hereby

proposes that 21 CFR part 1308 be

amended as follows:

PART 1308—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 1308 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b)

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 1308.14 is proposed to be

amended by redesignating the existing

paragraphs (c)(15) through (c)(49) as

(c)(16) through (c)(50) and by adding a

new paragraph (c)(15) to read as follows:

§ 1308.14 Schedule IV.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(15) Dichloralphenazone ................................ 2467

* * * * *

Dated: November 30, 2000.

Julio F. Mercado,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–31356 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2000–4B]

Public Performance of Sound

Recordings: Definition of a Service

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking, denial.

SUMMARY: On April 17, 2000, the Digital

Media Association (‘‘DiMA’’) filed a

petition with the Copyright Office,

requesting that the Office initiate a

rulemaking proceeding to amend the

rule that defines the term ‘‘Service’’ for

purposes of the statutory license

governing the public performance of

sound recordings by means of digital

audio transmissions. DiMA sought an

amendment that, if adopted, would

expand the current definition of the

term ‘‘Service’’ to state that a service is

not interactive simply because it offers

the consumer some degree of influence

over the programming offered by the

webcaster. For the reasons set forth in

this notice, the Copyright Office is

denying the DiMA petition.

DATE: December 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Tanya M. Sandros, Senior Attorney,

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel,

P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 252–

3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Since the enactment of the Digital

Performance Right in Sound Recordings

Act of 1995 (‘‘DPRA’’), Public Law 104–

39, copyright owners of sound

recordings have enjoyed an exclusive

right to perform their copyrighted works

publicly by means of a digital audio

transmission, subject to certain

limitations and exemptions. Among the

limitations on the newly created digital

performance right was the creation of a

statutory license for nonexempt,

noninteractive, digital subscription

transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(2), (3)

and (f) (1995).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 77331

This license was amended in 1998 in

response to the rapid growth of digital

communications networks, e.g., the

Internet, and the confusion surrounding

the question of how the DPRA applied

to certain nonsubscription digital audio

services. These changes, included in the

Digital Millennium Copyright Act of

1998 (‘‘DMCA’’), Public Law 105–304,

expanded the section 114 statutory

license to expressly cover nonexempt

eligible nonsubscription transmissions

and nonexempt transmissions made by

preexisting satellite digital audio radio

services. 17 U.S.C. 114(f) (1998).

For purposes of the DMCA, an

‘‘eligible nonsubscription transmission’’

is defined as:

a non-interactive nonsubscription digital

audio transmission not exempt under

subsection (d)(1) that is made as part of a

service that provides audio programming

consisting, in whole or in part, of

performances of sound recordings, including

retransmissions of broadcast transmissions, if

the primary purpose of the service is to

provide to the public such audio or other

entertainment programming, and the primary

purpose of the service is not to sell, advertise,

or promote particular products or services

other than sound recordings, live concerts, or

other music-related events.

17 U.S.C. 114(j)(6) (1998). A key

element of the definition is the

requirement that the transmission must

be ‘‘non-interactive.’’ Unless a service

meets this criterion, it is ineligible for

the statutory license and, instead, must

negotiate a voluntary agreement with

the copyright owner(s) of the sound

recordings before performing the works

by means of digital audio transmissions.

17 U.S.C. 114(d)(3) (1998).

The distinction between interactive

and non-interactive transmissions is

central to determining whether a service

that transmits performances of sound

recordings is eligible to operate under

the section 114 licensing scheme. Noninteractive services may make use of the

statutory license, but interactive

services incur full copyright liability

under the digital performance right and,

therefore, must conduct arms-length

negotiations with the copyright owners

of the sound recordings for a license

before making a digital transmission of

a sound recording. Congress imposed

full copyright liability on interactive

services because it believed ‘‘interactive

services [were] most likely to have a

significant impact on traditional record

sales, and therefore pose[d] the greatest

threat to the livelihoods of those whose

income depends upon revenues derived

from traditional record sales.’’ S. Rep.

No. 104–128, at 16 (1995).

Congress first defined an ‘‘interactive

service’’ in the DPRA as a service that:

enables a member of the public to receive, on

request, a transmission of a particular sound

recording chosen by or on behalf of the

recipient. The ability of individuals to

request that particular sound recordings be

performed for reception by the public at large

does not make a service interactive. If an

entity offers both interactive and noninteractive services (either concurrently or at

different times), the non-interactive

component shall not be treated as part of an

interactive service.

17 U.S.C. 114(j)(4) (1995). The second

sentence was added to make clear that

‘‘the term ‘‘interactive service’’ is not

intended to cover traditional practices

engaged in by, for example, radio

broadcast stations, through which

individuals can ask the station to play

a particular sound recording as part of

the service’s general programming

available for reception by members of

the public at large.’’ S. Rep. No. 104–

128, at 33–34 (1995).

In the DMCA, Congress expanded this

definition to include further explanation

of the type of activity that does not, in

and of itself, make a service interactive.

Specifically, the DMCA refined the

definition of an ‘‘interactive service’’ as

follows:

(7) An ‘‘interactive service’’ is one that

enables a member of the public to receive a

transmission of a program specially created

for the recipient, or on request, a

transmission of a particular sound recording,

whether or not as part of a program, which

is selected by or on behalf of the recipient.

The ability of individuals to request that

particular sound recordings be performed for

reception by the public at large, or in the case

of a subscription service, by all subscribers

of the service, does not make a service

interactive, if the programming on each

channel of the service does not substantially

consist of sound recordings that are

performed within 1 hour of the request or at

a time designated by either the transmitting

entity or the individual making such request.

If an entity offers both interactive and

noninteractive services (either concurrently

or at different times), the noninteractive

component shall not be treated as part of an

interactive service.

17 U.S.C. 114(j)(7) (1998). In both cases,

Congress sought to identify a service as

interactive according to the amount of

influence a member of the public would

have on the selection and performance

of a particular sound recording. Neither

definition, however, draws a bright line

delineating just how much input a

member of the public may have upon

the basic programming of the service.

On April 17, 2000, the Digital Media

Association (‘‘DiMA’’) filed a petition

with the Office, seeking clarification on

this point and an amendment to the

regulation defining the term ‘‘service.’’

DiMA’s proposed rule would amend 37

C.F.R. 201.35(b)(2) as follows:

A Service making transmissions that

otherwise meet the requirements for the

section 114(f) statutory license is not

rendered ‘‘interactive,’’ and thus ineligible

for the statutory license, simply because the

consumer may express preferences to such

Service as to the musical genres, artists and

sound recordings that may be incorporated

into the Service’s music programming to the

public. Such a Service is not ‘‘interactive’’

under section 114(j)(7), as long as: (i) Its

transmissions are made available to the

public generally; (ii) the features offered by

the Service do not enable the consumer to

determine or learn in advance what sound

recordings will be transmitted over the

Service at any particular time; and (iii) its

transmissions do not substantially consist of

sound recordings performed within one hour

of a request or at a time designated by the

transmitting entity or the individual making

the request.

The effect of the amendment would be

that a service would not be considered

interactive merely because it offers a

consumer some degree of influence over

the streamed programming.

Shortly thereafter, the Copyright

Office published a notice in the Federal

Register, seeking comment from

interested parties on two issues. First,

the Office asked whether the petition

articulated a proper subject for a

rulemaking proceeding; and second,

assuming the requested rule could be

promulgated through a notice and

comment proceeding, whether sufficient

information existed ‘‘to promulgate a

regulation that could accurately

distinguish between activities that are

interactive and those that are not.’’ 65

FR 33266, 33267 (May 23, 2000).

For the reasons set forth herein, the

Copyright Office denies DiMA’s

petition.

Comments

Comments and reply comments were

filed by the Recording Industry

Association of America, Inc. (‘‘RIAA’’)

and the Digital Media Association

(‘‘DiMA’’).

Is a Rulemaking Proceeding Necessary

or Appropriate?

DiMA seeks its proposed amendment

to the definition of the term ‘‘service’’

based on its understanding that a

consumer-influenced webcast would

not be prohibited from using the section

114 statutory license. According to

DiMA, this clarification is necessary in

large part because copyright holders of

the sound recordings have taken the

untenable position that ‘‘consumerinfluenced webcasting of any nature is

not eligible for the DMCA statutory

license.’’ DiMA comment at 4; DiMA

reply at 9–11.

At the same time, DiMA states that it

is impossible to discern all possible

77332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1RIAA and DiMA discussed the services offered

by Launch Media, Inc., through its LAUNCHcast

service, and MTV, through its Radio SonicNet

service, to illustrate the type of offerings that are in

dispute. See RIAA comment at 6–7; DiMA reply at

18–21. From these descriptions, there is

considerable doubt whether either offering would

qualify as an ‘‘interactive service.’’

permutations of features and

functionalities that may be offered by a

service which allows consumer input on

programming selections. DiMA

comment at 5. Nevertheless, DiMA

asserts that its proposed rule establishes

guidelines to be used to determine

whether a specific service is interactive

after a fact-intensive analysis of its

activities. DiMA acknowledges,

however, that the Office may determine

that application of the rule, especially

the guidelines set forth in the second

half of the proposal, may involve

evidentiary issues that bar adoption of

the entire proposal. If this is the case,

DiMA asks the Office to adopt, at a

minimum, the first sentence of the

proposed rule, which reads as follows:

A Service making transmissions that

otherwise meet the requirements for the

section 114(f) statutory license is not

rendered ‘‘interactive,’’ and thus ineligible

for the statutory license, simply because the

consumer may express preferences to such

Service as to the musical genres, artists and

sound recordings that may be incorporated

into the Service’s music programming to the

public.

DiMA reply at 7. DiMA is expressly not

asking the Copyright Office to determine

whether any particular service is noninteractive. Id.

DiMA also argues that the rulemaking

is necessary in order to ‘‘define the

appropriate bounds’’ of the Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel (‘‘CARP’’)

‘‘proceeding which will determine the

statutory rates for sound recording

performances (and certain

reproductions) associated with

webcasting.’’ DiMA Petition at 2; DiMA

comment at 4; see also 64 FR 52107

(September 27, 1999).

RIAA opposes the DiMA petition. It

asserts that DiMA’s proposed change

will not clarify current law, but actually

change it. RIAA argues that clear

standards for determining what

constitutes an ‘‘interactive service’’ have

already been set forth in section

114(j)(7). Specifically, section 114(j)(7)

requires an ‘‘interactive service’’ to

either ‘‘enable[] a member of the public

to receive a transmission of a program

specially created for the recipient, or on

request, a transmission of a particular

sound recording, whether or not as part

of a program, which is selected by or on

behalf of the recipient.’’ 17 U.S.C.

114(j)(7).

RIAA also argues that the

determination as to whether a particular

service is interactive requires a factintensive inquiry to determine whether

the service offers the type of prohibited

activity characterized in section

114(j)(7). Moreover, RIAA contends that

the DiMA proposal fails to define a class

of service that embodies these

principles, offering instead, a rule meant

to cover ‘‘a myriad of services with

different personalization features,’’

which defy characterization into general

categories. RIAA comment at 12. RIAA

then cites potential problems with the

proffered regulatory language due to the

lack of precise definitions for concepts

and terms such as ‘‘preferences’’ or

‘‘incorporated into the Service’s

programming.’’ Id. at 6.

RIAA also takes exception to DiMA’s

assertions that RIAA believes any

amount of consumer influence

automatically makes a service

interactive. In fact, RIAA acknowledges

that all music programming services are

likely to be influenced by their

consumers’ tastes. RIAA comment at 3.

For this reason, RIAA purports to

examine each service on a case-by-case

basis, asking the question ‘‘whether the

service offers ‘programs specially

created for the recipient’ or whether it

allows listeners to request particular

sound recordings.’’ RIAA reply at 2–3.

Because it evaluates each service in this

manner, RIAA maintains that DiMA’s

argument in support of this rulemaking

proceeding is groundless.

The Copyright Office has considered

DiMA’s request to initiate a rulemaking

to clarify that a service does not become

interactive merely because consumers

may have some influence on the music

programming offered by the service and

finds that this concept is not in dispute.

RIAA readily acknowledges that

consumers may express preferences for

certain music genres, artists, or even

sound recordings without the service

necessarily becoming interactive. RIAA

comment at 8. The Office agrees, and

concurs with DiMA that certain

passages from the DMCA Conference

Report quoted in its comments support

this interpretation. For example, the

following passage in the DMCA

Conference Report distinguishes

between certain activities that make a

service interactive and those that do not:

[A] service would be interactive if it

allowed a small number of individuals to

request that sound recordings be performed

in a program specially created for that group

and not available to any individuals outside

of that group. In contrast, a service would not

be interactive if it merely transmitted to a

large number of recipients of the service’s

transmissions a program consisting of sound

recordings requested by a small number of

those listeners.

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105–797, at 87–88

(1998) (‘‘DMCA Conference Report’’).

However, the fact that some degree of

consumer influence on a service’s

programming is permissible does not

mean that a regulation to clarify that fact

is necessary or even desirable. In fact,

because the law and the accompanying

legislative history make it clear that

consumers can have some influence on

the offerings made by a service without

making the service interactive, there is

no need to amend the regulations to

make this point.

What is not clear, however, is how

much influence a consumer can have on

the programming offered by a

transmitting entity before that activity

must be characterized as interactive.

The examples cited in the comments

and gleaned from the legislative history

are merely illustrative and do not

identify with specificity those

characteristics of a service that make it

interactive.1 Such a determination must

be made on a case-by-case basis after the

development of a full evidentiary record

in accordance with the standards and

precepts already set forth in the statute.

DiMA appears to agree with this

approach in theory and, in fact,

expressly states that it does not seek a

ruling on whether any particular service

should be characterized as an

interactive service. DiMA reply at 7.

Moreover, courts recognize that some

principles must evolve over a period of

time before an agency will have

gathered sufficient information to

formulate a general rule. See Securities

and Exchange Commission v. Chenery

Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202–203 (1947)

(acknowledging that ‘‘the agency may

not have sufficient experience with a

particular problem to warrant

rigidifying its tentative judgment into a

hard and fast rule. Or the problem may

be so specialized and varying in nature

as to be impossible to capture within the

boundaries of a general rule.’’). See also,

WWHT, Inc. v. Federal Communications

Commission, 656 F.2d 807, 817 (D.C.

Cir. 1981) (supporting agency’s denial of

rulemaking petition in case where rapid

technological development in area

makes it difficult to formulate effective

regulations, or the state of development

‘‘may be such that sufficient data are not

yet available on which to premise

adequate regulations.’’).

In light of the rapidly changing

business models emerging in today’s

digital marketplace, no rule can

accurately draw the line demarcating

the limits between an interactive service

and a noninteractive service. Nor can

one readily classify an entity which

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 77333

1The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and

the preamble to the final rule promulgated

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further

background and information on the OCS

regulations.

makes transmissions as exclusively

interactive or noninteractive. The

statutory definition of an ‘‘interactive

service’’ and the DMCA Conference

Report make it clear that a transmitting

entity may offer both types of service,

either concurrently or at different times,

and that ‘‘the noninteractive

components are not to be treated as part

of an interactive service, and thus are

eligible for statutory licensing.’’ See,

DMCA Conference Report at 88 (1998).

The proposed amendment makes no

mention of this nuance of the law.

Moreover, the Copyright Office is not

persuaded that any new rules are

necessary to discern which parties

should participate in the current

copyright arbitration royalty panel

proceeding, the purpose of which is

only to set rates and terms for the public

performance of sound recordings made

in accordance with the section 114

statutory license. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2)(A).

The panel’s responsibility is to establish

the value of the performances and set

appropriate rates, not to discern

whether a particular service meets the

eligibility requirements for using the

license.

In short, the Office does not believe

that DiMA has presented a persuasive

case that a rulemaking on this issue is

necessary, desirable, or feasible.

For these reasons, the Office denies

DiMA’s petition.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 00–31458 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–6914–9]

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations; Consistency Update for

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule—consistency

update.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf

(OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements

applying to OCS sources located within

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries

must be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the

corresponding onshore area (COA), as

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the

Act). The portion of the OCS air

regulations that is being updated

pertains to the requirements for OCS

sources for which the South Coast Air

Quality Management District (South

Coast AQMD) and Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District (Ventura

County APCD) are the designated COAs.

The intended effect of approving the

OCS requirements for the above

Districts, contained in the Technical

Support Document, is to regulate

emissions from OCS sources in

accordance with the requirements

onshore. The changes to the existing

requirements discussed below are

proposed to be incorporated by

reference into the Code of Federal

Regulations and are listed in the

appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

update must be received on or before

January 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

(in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air

Docket (Air-4), Attn: Docket No. A–93–

16 Section XXII, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Division, Region

9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA

94105.

Docket: Supporting information used

in developing the rule and copies of the

documents EPA is proposing to

incorporate by reference are contained

in Docket No. A–93–16 Section XXII.

This docket is available for public

inspection and copying Monday–Friday

during regular business hours at the

following locations:

EPA Air Docket (Air-4), Attn: Docket

No. A–93–16 Section XXII,

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St.,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

EPA Air Docket (LE–131), Attn: Air

Docket No.A–93–16, Section XXII,

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington DC 20460.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air-4),

U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

Why is EPA taking this action?

II. EPA’s Evaluation

A. What criteria was used to evaluate rules

submitted for update of 40 CFR part 55?

B. What rule requirements were submitted

for update of 40 CFR part 55?

I. Background Information

Why is EPA Taking This Action?

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR part 55 1, which

established requirements to control air

pollution from OCS sources in order to

attain and maintain federal and state

ambient air quality standards and to

comply with the provisions of part C of

title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all

OCS sources offshore of the States

except those located in the Gulf of

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.

Section 328 of the Act requires that for

such sources located within 25 miles of

a state’s seaward boundary, the

requirements shall be the same as would

be applicable if the sources were located

in the COA. Because the OCS

requirements are based on onshore

requirements, and onshore requirements

may change, section 328(a)(1) requires

that EPA update the OCS requirements

as necessary to maintain consistency

with onshore requirements.

Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule,

consistency reviews will occur (1) at

least annually; (2) upon receipt of a

Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or (3)

when a state or local agency submits a

rule to EPA to be considered for

incorporation by reference in part 55.

This proposed action is being taken in

response to the submittal of rules by two

local air pollution control agencies.

Public comments received in writing

within 30 days of publication of this

document will be considered by EPA

before publishing a final rule.

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that

EPA establish requirements to control

air pollution from OCS sources located

within 25 miles of states’ seaward

boundaries that are the same as onshore

requirements. To comply with this

statutory mandate, EPA must

incorporate applicable onshore rules

into part 55 as they exist onshore. This

limits EPA’s flexibility in deciding

which requirements will be

incorporated into part 55 and prevents

EPA from making substantive changes

to the requirements it incorporates. As

a result, EPA may be incorporating rules

into part 55 that do not conform to all

of EPA’s state implementation plan

(SIP) guidance or certain requirements

of the Act. Consistency updates may

result in the inclusion of state or local

rules or regulations into part 55, even

though the same rules may ultimately be

disapproved for inclusion as part of the