Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2367

4This example assumes the cable system is an

SA–3 form system, and therefore makes royalty

payments based on the number of DSE’s carried.

each distant broadcast signal be

attributed throughout the entire

subscription base, even if many

subscribers do not actually receive the

signal. The Copyright Office has

historically required such attribution,

based upon its interpretation that the

Copyright Act permits only allocation of

gross receipts among subscriber groups

for partially local/partially distant

signals. Does the 1992 Cable Act, or

other circumstances, warrant a change

in this interpretation? If so, on what

basis?

(b) It has been suggested by some that

the Copyright Office should permit

creation of subscriber groups for a la

carte broadcast signals, and allow cable

operators to allocate gross receipts only

to those subscribers who select and

receive a particular signal. Thus, for

example, if a cable system has 1000

subscribers and only 500 of them choose

to receive superstation X, the distant

signal equivalent (DSE) value generated

by superstation X would only be

applied against the gross receipts

generated from the 500 subscribers who

took the superstation, as opposed to

applying it against the system’s total

gross receipts.4

One concern with allowing that

would be that it would offer the cable

system an incentive to pull its distant

signals from its basic tier offering, and

offer them only as a la carte signals,

thus reducing the subscriber base from

which the royalty is calculated.

The Cable Act of 1992 has made it

more difficult for cable systems to

restructure their distant signal offerings

because it states that, for a basic tier

subject to rate regulation, ‘‘such basic

service tier shall, at a minimum, consist

of * * * (iii) any signal of any

television broadcast station that is

provided by the cable operator to any

subscriber, except a signal which is

secondarily transmitted by a satellite

carrier beyond the local service area of

such station.’’ 47 USC 543 (b) (7) (iii).

Therefore, for distant signals that are

imported by means other than satellite

carrier, if the cable system offers it to

one subscriber, it must offer it to all on

the basic tier. In 1989, 48.2% of all

instances of distant signal carriage on a

Form 3 cable system were by means

other than satellite carrier. 1989 Cable

Royalty Distribution Proceeding, 57 FR

15286, 15294 (1992).

However, 51.8% of distant signal

carriage in 1989 was by means of

satellite carrier, and those signals could

be pulled from the basic tier without

violating the 1992 Cable Act. In

addition, cable systems that are not

subject to basic tier rate regulation

because there is effective competition in

the system’s franchise area, are also free

to restructure.

What would be the statutory basis for

allowing a la carte allocation, and what

effect would it have on the total amount

of royalties paid?

(c) If the Copyright Office allowed the

type of gross receipts allocation

described in question (b), what is the

proper royalty rate to assess against the

gross receipts of each subscriber group?

For example, if a cable system carried

two distant signals on an a la carte

basis, one a permitted signal and the

other a non-permitted signal at the

3.75% rate, how can it be determined

which subscriber group is receiving the

less expensive base rate permitted

signal, and which group is receiving the

more expensive 3.75% rate nonpermitted signal? Obviously, there is a

powerful incentive for the cable

operator to assign the 3.75% rate to the

signal with the fewest subscribers, and

hence the lowest amount of gross

receipts. A similar problem occurs in

applying the decreasing rates for

permitted signals. Are there any fixed

factors which the Copyright Office

could apply to prevent the repeated

occurrence of applying the lower rate

against the higher gross receipts? What

effect would that have on the total

royalty pool generated by section 111?

The Copyright Office requests

comment on the questions raised in this

extended comment period, as well as

any other issues related to compulsory

license royalty payments for a la carte

offerings of broadcast signals.

List of Subjects

Cable compulsory license; Cable

television systems.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

Approved by:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 95–439 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS No. CA–95–6639; FRL–5134–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

polystyrene foam, polyethylene, and

polypropylene manufacturing and

polyester resin operations.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. EPA has evaluated each

of these rules and is proposing to

approve them under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

[A–5–3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the new rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District 1999

Tuolumne Street, Fresno, CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section

[A–5–3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
2368 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1At that time, Kern County included portions of

two air basins: the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and

the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast

Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR 81.305

(1991).

2This extension was not requested for the

following counties: Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced

and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date for these

counties remained December 31, 1982.

3The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin retained its

designations of nonattainment and was classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

4California did not make the required SIP

submittals by November 15, 1992. On January 15,

1993, the EPA made a finding of failure to make a

submittal pursuant to section 179(a)(1), which

started an 18-month sanction clock. The rules being

acted on in this NPRM were submitted in response

to the EPA finding of failure to submit.

5EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

6Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policies that

concerns RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (Notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the California SIP include: San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4682,

Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and

Polypropylene Manufacturing; and

SJVUAPCD Rule 4684, Polyester Resin

Operations. These rules were submitted

by the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) to EPA on July 13, 1994.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included the

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which

includes the following eight air

pollution control districts (APCDs):

Fresno County APCD, Kern County

APCD,1 Kings County APCD, Madera

County APCD, Merced County APCD,

San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus

County APCD, and Tulare County

APCD. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. The

SJVUAPCD has authority over the San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin which

includes all of the above eight counties

except for the Southeast Desert Air

Basin portion of Kern County. Because

these areas were unable to meet the

statutory attainment date of December

31, 1982, California requested under

section 172(a)(2), and EPA approved, an

extension of the attainment date to

December 31, 1987.2 40 CFR 52.222. On

May 26, 1988, EPA notified the

Governor of California, pursuant to

section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended

Act, that the above districts’ portions of

the California SIP were inadequate to

attain and maintain the ozone standard

and requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q

(CAA or Act). In amended sections

182(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the CAA,

Congress statutorily required

nonattainment areas to submit

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for all major sources of

VOCs by November 15, 1992. The San

Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as

serious 3; therefore, this area was subject

to the RACT catch-up requirement and

the November 15, 1992 deadline.4

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on July 13,

1994, including the rules being acted on

in this document. This document

addresses EPA’s proposed action for

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene

Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene

Manufacturing; and SJVUAPCD Rule

4684, Polyester Resin Operations. The

SJVUAPCD adopted Rules 4682 and

4684 on June 16, 1994 and May 19,

1994, respectively. These submitted

rules were found to be complete on July

22, 1994 pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria, which are set

forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,5

and are being proposed for approval

into the SIP.

The SJVUAPCD Rule 4682,

Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and

Polypropylene Manufacturing, controls

VOC emissions from the manufacturing

and processing of polystyrene foam,

polyethylene, and polypropylene and

from the storage of VOC blowing agents;

and SJVUAPCD Rule 4684, Polyester

Resin Operations, controls emissions

from polyester resin operations. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground

level ozone and smog. The rules were

adopted as part of each district’s efforts

to achieve the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone

and in response to sections 182(b)(2) (B)

and (C). The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for

these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and Part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in various EPA policy guidance

documents.6 Among those provisions is

the requirement that a VOC rule must,

at a minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

catch-up their RACT rules. See section

182(b)(2). The CTG applicable to

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 is entitled,

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compound

Emissions from Manufacture of HighDensity Polyethylene, Polypropylene,

and Polystyrene Resins’’ (EPA–450/3–

83–008). For some categories, such as

polyester resin operations, EPA did not

publish a CTG. In such cases, the

district may determine what controls are

required to satisfy the RACT

requirement by reviewing the operations

of facilities subject to the regulation and

evaluating regulations for similar

sources in other areas. Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found

in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote

6. In general, these guidance documents

have been set forth to ensure that VOC

rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene

foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene

Manufacturing, is a new rule adopted to:

• Provide emissions reduction

methods such as (1) use of a blowing

agent other than a VOC; or (2) use of

trichlorofluoromethane (CFC–11) or

dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC–12).

• Require recordkeeping for product

use and add-on control equipment.

• Provide test methods to determine

compliance.

SJVUAPCD Rule 4684, Polyester

Resin Operations, is a new rule adopted

to:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2369

• Control emissions from polyester

resin operations through the following

set of control options: (1) use of resin

material with no more than 35%

monomer by weight; (2) use of low

pigmented gel coats with no more than

45% monomer by weight; (3) use of

resin containing a vapor suppressant,

such that weight loss from the VOC

emissions does not exceed 60 grams per

meter of exposed surface during resin

polymerization; (4) use of a closed-mold

system; and (5) use of an emission

control system.

• Provide recordkeeping

requirements.

• Provide test methods to determine

compliance.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene

Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene

Manufacturing; and SJVUAPCD Rule

4684, Polyester Resin Operations are

being proposed for approval under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of section 110(a) and

Part D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. Sections 600 et. seq., EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

sections 603 and 604. Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 14, 1994.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–461 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–5132–5]

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources; Appendix A—

Reference Methods; Amendments to

Method 24 for the Determination of

Volatile Matter Content, Water Content,

Density, Volume Solids, and Weight

Solids of Surface Coatings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes

procedures for the determination of

volatile matter content, density, volume

solids, and water content for ultraviolet

radiation-cured coatings. Method 24

refers to the American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM)

procedures for the determination of

volatile matter content, density, volume

solids, weight solids, and water content

of surface coatings. This ASTM method

excluded ultraviolet radiation-cured

coatings which was not EPA’s intent.

Therefore, EPA is revising Method 24 to

apply to ultraviolet radiation-cured

coatings.

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide interested persons

an opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before March 7, 1995.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by January 30, 1995, a public

hearing will be held on February 8, 1995

beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested

in attending the hearing should call the

contact mentioned under ADDRESSES to

verify that a hearing will be held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact EPA by January 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicated if

possible) to: Air Docket Section (LE–

131), Attention: Docket Number A–94–

37, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting a public hearing, it will

be held at EPA’s Emission Measurement

Laboratory Building, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina. Persons interested

in attending the hearing or wishing to

present oral testimony should contact

Candace Sorrell, Emission Measurement

Branch (MD–19), Technical Support

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

27711, telephone (919) 541–1064.

Docket. Docket Number A–94–37,

containing materials relevant to this

rulemaking, is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:30

a.m. and Noon, and 1:30 and 3:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at EPA’s Air

Docket Section, Room M1500, First

Floor, Waterside Mall, Gallery 1, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Candace Sorrell at (919) 541–1064,

Emission Measurement Branch (MD–

19), Technical Support Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Rulemaking

Method 24 was intended to be used

for measuring volatile organic

compounds content of all coatings that

are intended for either ambient or

baking film foundation. When Method

24 was published in 1980 it referenced

the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) Method D 2369–81,

which the Environmental Protection

Agency believed would apply to all

coatings. However, that method was not

applicable to ultraviolet (UV) radiationcured coatings and this amendment to

Method 24 will incorporate ASTM

Method D 5403–93, which does contain

those procedures.

This rulemaking does not impose

emission measurement requirements

beyond those specified in the current

regulation, nor does it change any

emission standard. Rather, the

rulemaking would simply amend an