58698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

§ 502.31 Intellectual Property

(a) None of the following shall

constitute a grant of authorization or

consent by the Postal Service or the

United States to a provider or any other

person to manufacture or use any

patented invention or to infringe any

copyright, under 28 U.S.C. 1498 or

otherwise:

(1) The publication of performance

criteria, or

(2) The granting of authorization to a

provider under part 501 or this part 502,

or

(3) The granting of approval to a

provider to market or distribute a

postage evidencing system.

(b) A provider must reimburse the

Postal Service for any compensation or

other costs or damages (other than the

Postal Services’ own attorneys’ fees and

other costs of defense) that the Postal

Service or the U.S. Government is

required, by final order of a court of

competent jurisdiction which is either

not subject to appeal or as to which the

time to appeal has already passed, to

pay on a claim of infringement or

unauthorized use of a U.S. patent or

U.S. copyright, under any legal theory,

based on either:

(1) The manufacture, use, sale or

importation of provider’s postage

evidencing system, whether or not such

manufacture, use, sale or importation is

alleged to be pursuant to authorization

or consent provided under 28 U.S.C.

1498;

(2) The use of provider’s postage

evidencing system by mailers in a

manner specified or intended by

Provider to create postage indicia, apply

such indicia to mail, and/or deposit

such mail with the USPS; or

(3) The granting by the Postal Service

to provider of government authorization

or consent, under 28 U.S.C. 1498 or

otherwise, to make or use a patented

invention or infringe a copyright in

connection with the manufacture, use or

sale of provider’s postage evidencing

system, or the activities of provider

pursuant to such grant of authorization

and consent.

(c) The Postal Service may suspend

approval of a postage evidencing system

on 60 days’ notice to provider if a court

of competent jurisdiction determines

that the manufacture or use of the

postage evidencing system, or the

creation or validation of the indicia

produced thereby, infringes, induces or

contributes to the infringement of, or

otherwise violates any person’s or

entity’s rights under a U.S. patent or

U.S. copyright. The Postal Service shall

reinstate approval of such postage

evidencing system if and so long as:

(1) Such judicial determination is

vacated or reversed; or

(2) The provider duly licenses or

otherwise procures and maintains in

effect (for the benefit of itself, users and

the Postal Service as may be necessary)

the right to conduct, with respect to

provider’s postage evidencing device

and the indicia created thereby, the

activities that the court has determined

to be infringing.

(d) A determination that the

validating of an indicia by the Postal

Service infringes a patent or copyright

shall not be a basis for suspending

provider’s approval if the provider can

establish that alternative, non-infringing

means of performing such validation are

available to the Postal Service with

respect to the indicia created by

provider’s postage evidencing device so

long as such means fully comply with

the performance criteria under which

the postage evidencing device and

indicia have been approved.

(e) The Postal Service may provide

additional requirements relating to

intellectual property in the product

submission procedure, performance

criteria or both (‘‘IP Requirements’’) and

may condition the granting or

maintenance of approval of a postage

evidencing system on provider’s

compliance with those IP Requirements.

When IP Requirements are imposed on

a provider, they shall control over any

conflicting provision in this § 502.31.

(f) The requirements of this § 502.31

shall apply to all aspects of a provider’s

postage evidencing device and the

indicia created thereby, including those

aspects required or specified under

applicable performance criteria.

(g) Notwithstanding § 502.1 to the

contrary, this § 502.31 shall apply to any

postage evidencing system approved by

the Postal Service under part 501, part

502 or otherwise and to any

performance criteria whether directed to

IBI or other forms of postage evidence.

Appropriate amendments to 39 CFR

parts 111 and 502 to reflect these

changes will be published if the

proposal is adopted.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–25090 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NY39–208,

FRL–6879–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; New York;

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by New York. This

revision consists of a demonstration of

the effectiveness of New York’s

enhanced motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program

decentralized testing network, to satisfy

the requirements of section 348 of the

National Highway Systems Designation

Act (NHSDA). This revision also

consists of the corrections to six de

minimus deficiencies related to the

Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for

enhanced I/M. Therefore, EPA is also

proposing to remove all of the de

minimus conditions related to EPA’s

approval of New York’s I/M program

under the NHSDA. In addition, EPA is

proposing to approve New York’s test

method, NYTEST, as being 95 percent

as effective as IM240 in reducing

hydrocarbon emissions, 99 percent as

effective as IM240 in reducing carbon

monoxide emissions and 99 percent as

effective as IM240 in reducing nitrogen

oxide emissions. The effect is to propose

full approval of New York’s enhanced I/

M program.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 1, 2000. Public

comments on this action are requested

and will be considered before taking

final action.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Raymond Werner, Branch

Chief, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007–1866.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,

New York 10007–1866 and New York

State Department of Environmental

Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,

New York 12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judy-Ann Mitchell, Air Programs

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58699

Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New

York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 27, 1996, (61 FR 60242)

EPA proposed conditional interim

approval of New York’s enhanced I/M

program. New York submitted revisions

to the existing program on March 27,

1996 to satisfy applicable requirements

of the CAA and the NHSDA. In this

submittal, the State included a ‘‘good

faith estimate’’ to support its claim for

81 percent of the credit for its

decentralized, test-and-repair network,

when compared to a centralized, testonly network. In the State’s September

4, 1997 15 Percent and Rate of Progress

Plans submittal, New York claimed

additional credit for its test-and-repair

network as follows:

• 88 percent as effective for HC

emission reductions

• 84 percent as effective for CO

emission reductions

• 86 percent as effective for NOX

emission reductions

New York’s ‘‘good faith estimate’’ was

based upon data collected on the State’s

previous I/M program. However, the

State has made many program

enhancements which support higher

emission reduction credit claims.

There remained six de minimus

deficiencies related to the CAA

requirements for enhanced I/M in the

State’s submittal. In order to address

these de minimus deficiencies, New

York needed to:

(1) Submit quality control measures in

accordance with the requirements set

forth in 40 CFR 51.359.

(2) Complete the development of the

inspector training and certification

program.

(3) Finalize plans for its data

collection system.

(4) Complete the public information

program, including the repair station

report card.

(5) Commit to perform on-road testing

in accordance with the requirements set

forth in section 51.371 of the federal I/

M regulation.

(6) Complete the development of the

quality assurance program.

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant

interim approval for a period of 18

months to approvable I/M submittals.

The de minimus deficiencies did not

affect the interim approval status of the

State’s I/M program. On October 24,

1997, (64 FR 32411) EPA published a

final interim approval of New York’s

enhanced I/M program with an effective

date of November 24, 1997. Therefore,

the interim approval lapsed on May 24,

1999. The NHSDA directs EPA and the

states to review the interim program

results at the end of the 18-month

period and to make a determination as

to the effectiveness of the decentralized

program. The State must also submit

corrections to the de minimus

deficiencies at the end of the interim

period.

In addition, on March 6, 1996, the

State of New York proposed to amend

existing regulations 6NYCRR Part 217,

‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions,’’ and

15NYCRR part 79, ‘‘Motor Vehicle

Inspection Regulations.’’ EPA required

the State to submit final revised and

adopted regulations by the end of the

18-month interim period.

II. Summary of New York’s Submittal

New York began phasing in the

implementation of the enhanced I/M

program in January 1998. In November

1998 the enhanced I/M testing started.

By April 1999, approximately 3500

inspection stations were brought into

the enhanced I/M program. New York

submitted its enhanced I/M program

evaluation report to EPA on May 24,

1999 including data collected from

November 1998 through to April 1999

from the State’s decentralized I/M

program network. This submittal also

contains information addressing the de

minimus deficiencies identified by EPA

in the final interim approval

rulemaking. Due to issues raised in

litigation against the State during this

time, New York was prevented from

removing those inspection stations from

the I/M program who did not have all

of the required equipment. Therefore,

the data collected during this time was

predominantly idle test data which was

insufficient for a complete analysis of

the effectiveness of the program.

Additional data was required to further

evaluate the I/M program’s

effectiveness.

On October 7, 1999, New York made

a supplemental submittal to EPA which

included enhanced I/M program data

from approximately 4,000 inspection

stations. EPA needed clarification of

some aspects of this data and the State

addressed these issues in a letter to EPA

dated October 29, 1999.

III. EPA Review of the SIP Revision

A. NHSDA Demonstration

New York chose three elements of the

enhanced I/M program to evaluate the

effectiveness of the decentralized

network.

(1) Comparison of Network Design

Table 3 in New York’s October 7,

1999 submittal shows the failure rate

observed during the Instrumentation/

Protocol Assessment (IPA) Pilot Study

in comparison to test-and-repair

enhanced I/M failure rates. The IPA

Study data can be used as a surrogate for

test-only in this analysis. The failure

rate for the IPA was 8.42 percent. The

failure rate for the test-and-repair

network was 6.44 percent. The test-andrepair failure rate indicates that the

State’s test-and-repair network may not

be failing as many vehicles as that in a

test-only network but the failure rate is

comparable and consistent with the

amount of credit that was claimed by

New York. The State has substantially

demonstrated their claim.

(2) Comparison of Pre- and Post-Repair

Data

Table 2 in New York’s October 7,

1999 submittal shows the enhanced I/M

test data recorded from a percentage of

the fleet before and after repair. The

data does show that emission reductions

were obtained as a result of the repairs.

The data obtained from the IPA Study

could not be used here because no

repair data was collected.

(3) Site Audits

The State’s enforcement program

covers four areas; desk and computer

audits, overt audits, covert/surveillance

audits, and investigation of complaints.

New York evaluated the data from the

enforcement program during the period

beginning January 1, 1999 through

September 1, 1999.

There were 358 desk audits and 2,176

computer audits performed. This

process involves auditors performing

computer searches for enhanced I/M

testing abnormalities. Of the desk and

computer audits performed, 2,176

resulted in administrative stops where

stations were stopped from doing

inspections until further evaluation was

performed or the problem was

corrected.

There were 1,697 overt audits

performed. This process involves the

auditors visiting inspection stations and

reviewing their inspection data and

history. Of the overt audits performed,

198 received notices of violations and

five resulted in hearings.

There were 135 covert audits

performed. As a result of the covert

audits, 40 notices of violation were

issued and 55 hearings resulted.

As a result of complaints about

certain inspection facilities received

from motorists and New York State

employees, the State chose to perform

surveillance of those inspection

stations. There were 202 complaints

made which resulted in 58 notices of

violation and 25 hearings.

58700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1Evaluation of NYTEST–Sensors HC & CO

Composite GPM Data vs IM240 Compliant

Composite HC & CO GPM Data; July 9, 1997.

2Evaluation of Real-Time and Composite Mass

Emissions Data from a VMAS Concept Unit:

Comparison to IM240 Data and VMAS Feasibility

in the NY Enhanced IM Program; Whitby & Mo; NY

DEC; September 11, 1998.

As of September 1, 1999, there were

still a number of hearings pending. Of

those completed, four inspection

stations had their licenses suspended

and two had their licenses revoked.

These factors taken together show that

New York is aggressively overseeing the

enhanced I/M program. This

enforcement system will continue to

identify and address I/M program

issues.

B. Comparison of the NYTEST to Other

Test Types

In 1996, the State approached EPA

with a proposal to use a new technical

method to measure transient, massbased tailpipe emissions using less

expensive analytical equipment than a

traditional IM240 test required. The

State’s desire to do this was based on

their analysis of steady-state,

concentration-based Acceleration

Simulation Mode (ASM) emissions test

correlation data that indicated the ASM

test was not adequate to meet New

York’s air quality objectives. However,

the cost of IM240 equipment was

prohibitive since the New York program

was a decentralized network design.

Therefore, the State began work to

develop a low cost, mass-based

emission measurement system that used

the IM240 speed vs. time profile as its

drive trace. The test was named the New

York Transient Emissions Short Test

(NYTEST). The performance goal New

York sought to achieve with NYTEST

was above a 90 percent excess emission

identification rate while maintaining

false failures below 4 percent.

The preliminary proof-of-concept data

provided by the state to EPA consisted

of 34 emissions tests on 14 vehicles.1

Simultaneous emissions were measured

using a Vehicle Mass Analysis System

(VMAS) prototype unit and an IM240

analytical bench. Analysis of

hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon

monoxide (CO) from these tests yielded

regression coefficients of 0.94 and 0.98

respectively. Both the State and EPA

viewed these results as very

encouraging and additional studies were

planned on larger data sets to confirm

these results and gain information on

the nitrogen oxide (NO) correlation.

A 99-vehicle study was undertaken by

New York that provided further support

of the VMAS technology with respect to

NYTEST program objectives.2 The

VMAS unit used was still a prototype

unit. Regression coefficients for HC, CO

and NO were 0.95, 0.99, and 0.99

respectively.

At the 9th Annual Coordinating

Research Council On-Road Vehicle

Emission Workshop, New York

presented preliminary data from their

IPA Study. Correlation data on 299

vehicles that were part of the IPA Study

indicated very good correlation between

NYTEST and the IM240. This data was

collected by parallel sampling of vehicle

exhaust using both the VMAS analytical

system and an IM240. Correlation

coefficients were 0.90 for HC, 0.98 for

CO, and 0.97 for NO. The VMAS units

used in this study were not prototype

instruments but actual field units from

each of the three vendors supplying

emissions inspection equipment to New

York.

Originally, the IPA Study was to

involve over 15,000 tests on 5100

vehicles using actual production model

VMAS units; however, a number of QA/

QC issues arose during the data

collection process that have reduced

this number. As a result, the IPA Study

provides 2,312 simultaneous NYTEST/

IM240 emission tests. This data

provides further evidence supporting

NYTEST as a suitable alternative to the

IM240.

On June 7, 2000, New York State

proposed an effectiveness for the

NYTEST of 98 percent of IM240 credit.

As result of the IPA study and data

analysis, EPA determined that the

NYTEST will receive emissions test

credit as follows:

• 95 percent of IM240 credit for HC

• 99 percent of IM240 credit for CO

• 99 percent of IM240 credit for NOX

EPA will continue to evaluate the data

on the NYTEST as it becomes available.

C. Correction of the De minimus

Deficiencies

New York’s May 24, 1999 submittal

contains a new appendix 11 to the

March 1996 SIP submittal that addresses

the six de minimus deficiencies. The

State has completed the development of

its quality assurance and quality control

measures. Plans for the data collection

system and the public information

program have been finalized. New York

has committed to performing on-road

testing as per 40 CFR 51.371. And, New

York has included inspector training

and certification into the State’s

Automotive Technician Training

Program.

D. Final Program Regulations

Prior to the State’s May 24, 1999

submittal, New York submitted the final

revised and adopted regulations for the

enhanced I/M program consisting of

6NYCRR part 217, subparts 217–1, 217–

2, and 217–4, and 15NYCRR part 79,

sections 79.1 through 79.3, 79.6 through

79.9, 79.11 through 79.15, 79.17, 79.20,

79.21, 79.24, and 79.25. These revisions

were previously reviewed by EPA as

part of the March 27, 1996 submittal, at

which time, the State had not completed

their adoption. EPA’s review at that

time, indicated that they would satisfy

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

once these revised regulations were

finalized. There are no significant

changes to the final regulations. The

revised subparts of 6NYCRR part 217

and sections of 15NYCRR part 79

became effective on April 22, 1997 and

June 4, 1997 respectively.

IV. Proposed Action

Today’s action proposes the

following:

(1) On the basis of the data collected

from the operation of the State’s

enhanced I/M program and the fact that

the State has implemented the program

enhancements described in their good

faith estimate, EPA is proposing to find

that New York has substantially

demonstrated that its decentralized I/M

program network is as effective as a

centralized program network in

achieving emission reductions

according to the following:

• 88 percent as effective for HC

emission reductions

• 84 percent as effective for CO

emission reductions

• 86 percent as effective for NOX

emission reductions

By proposing to approve New York’s

NHSDA demonstration, EPA has not

reduced or eliminated the State’s

obligation to conduct ongoing enhanced

I/M program evaluations under 40 CFR

51.351.

(2) EPA is proposing to afford

emissions test credit to the NYTEST as

follows:

• 95 percent of IM240 credit for HC

• 99 percent of IM240 credit for CO

• 99 percent of IM240 credit for NOX

(3) EPA is proposing to find that New

York’s SIP revision submittal adequately

remedies the six de minimus

deficiencies previously identified.

(4) EPA is proposing to approve the

latest revisions to the enhanced I/M

program regulations. Specifically, these

are found at 6NYCRR part 217, subparts

217–1, 217–2, and 217–4 and portions

of 15NYCRR part 79 that became

effective on April 22, 1997 and June 4,

1997 respectively.

(5) EPA is proposing to replace the

interim designation to the EPA approval

of the State’s enhanced I/M program and

find that the State has an approved

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58701

enhanced I/M program satisfying the

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation.

In addition, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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 entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This proposed rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because SIP

approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because this rule does not create any

new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

58702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 191 / Monday, October 2, 2000 / Proposed Rules

relations, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

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

Dated: September 1, 2000.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 00–25228 Filed 9–29–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6877–6]

RIN 2060–AH17

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather

Finishing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for leather

finishing operations. The EPA has

identified these facilities as major

sources of hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) emissions such as glycol ethers,

toluene, and xylene. These HAP are

associated with a variety of adverse

health effects. These adverse health

effects include chronic health disorders

(e.g., effects on the central nervous

system, blood, and heart) and acute

health disorders (e.g., irritation of eyes,

throat, and mucous membranes and

damage to the liver and kidneys). These

proposed NESHAP will implement

section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) by requiring all leather finishing

facilities that are major sources to meet

HAP emission standards reflecting the

application of the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT). The EPA

estimates that these proposed NESHAP

will reduce nationwide emissions of

HAP from leather finishing operations

by approximately 375 tons per year

(tpy). In addition, the proposed

NESHAP would reduce non-HAP

emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) by 750 tpy. The

emissions reductions achieved by these

proposed NESHAP, when combined

with the emission reductions achieved

by other similar standards, will provide

protection to the public and achieve a

primary goal of the CAA.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before December 1, 2000.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by October 23, 2000, a public

hearing will be held on November 1,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit written

comments (in duplicate if possible) to:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), Attention

Docket Number A–99–38, Room M–

1500, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA

requests a separate copy also be sent to

the contact person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is

held, it will be held at 10:00 a.m. in the

EPA’s Office of Administration

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,

North Carolina, or at an alternate site

nearby.

Docket. Docket No. A–99–38 contains

supporting information used in

developing the standards. The docket is

located at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460 in room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may

be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the proposed

NESHAP, contact Mr. William Schrock,

Organic Chemicals Group, Emission

Standards Division, (MD–13), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone number (919) 541–

5032; facsimile number (919) 541–3470;

electronic mail address

‘‘schrock.bill@epa.gov.’’

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may be

submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to:

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Comments

submitted by e-mail must be submitted

as an ASCII file to avoid the use of

special characters and encryption

problems. Comments will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect(R)

version 5.1, 6.1, or 8 file format. All

comments and data submitted in

electronic form must note the docket

number: A–99–38. No confidential

business information (CBI) should be

submitted by e-mail. Electronic

comments may be filed online at many

Federal Depository Libraries.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration must clearly distinguish

such information from other comments

and clearly label it as CBI. Send

submissions containing such

proprietary information directly to the

following address, and not to the public

docket, to ensure that proprietary

information is not inadvertently placed

in the docket: Attention: Mr. William

Schrock, c/o OAQPS Document Control

Officer (Room 740B), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 411

W. Chapel Hill Street, Durham, NC

27701. The EPA will disclose

information identified as CBI only to the

extent allowed by the procedures set

forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies a

submission when it is received by the

EPA, the information may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

Public Hearing. A request for a public

hearing must be made by the date

specified under the DATES section.

Persons interested in presenting oral

testimony or inquiring as to whether a

hearing is to be held should contact: Ms.

Maria Noell, Organic Chemicals Group,

Emission Standards Division, (MD–13),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711; telephone number (919) 541–

5607 at least 2 days in advance of the

public hearing. Persons interested in

attending the public hearing must also

call Ms. Maria Noell to verify the time,

date, and location of the hearing. The

public hearing will provide interested

parties the opportunity to present data,

views, or arguments concerning these

proposed emission standards.

Docket. The docket is an organized

and complete file of all the information

considered in the development of this

rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic

file because material is added

throughout the rulemaking process. The

docketing system is intended to allow

members of the public and industries

involved to readily identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively

participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and

promulgated standards and their

preambles, the contents of the docket

will serve as the record in the case of

judicial review. (See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory

text and other materials related to this

rulemaking are available for review in

the docket or copies may be mailed on

request from the Air Docket by calling

(202) 260–7548. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying docket materials.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of today’s proposed rule

will also be available on the WWW

through the Technology Transfer

Network (TTN). Following the

Administrator’s signature, a copy of the

rule will be posted on the TTN’s policy

and guidance page for newly proposed

or promulgated rules http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN

provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air