6388 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 12, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 05–2061 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR–2003–0194; FRL–7869–6] 

RIN 2060–AL89

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Leather 

Finishing Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On February 27, 2002, the 

EPA issued national emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) 

for leather finishing operations, which 

were issued under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). This action would 

amend the standards to clarify the 

frequency for categorizing leather 

product process types, modify the 

definition of ‘‘specialty leather,’’ add a 

definition for ‘‘vacuum mulling,’’ and 

add an alternative procedure for 

determining the actual monthly solvent 

loss from an affected source. 

In the Rules and Regulations section 

of this Federal Register, we are taking 

direct final action on the proposed 

amendments because we view the 

amendments as noncontroversial and 

anticipate no adverse comments. We 

have explained our reasons for the 

amendments in the direct final rule. If 

we receive no significant adverse 

comments, we will take no further 

action on the proposed amendments. If 

we receive significant adverse 

comments, we will withdraw only those 

provisions on which we received 

significant adverse comments. We will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register indicating which 

provisions will become effective and 

which provisions are being withdrawn. 

If part or all of the direct final rule in 

the Rules and Regulations section of 

today’s Federal Register is withdrawn, 

all comments pertaining to those 

provisions will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed amendments. We will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the subsequent final action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time.

DATES: Comments. Written comments 

must be received on or before February 

17, 2005 unless a hearing is requested 

by February 14, 2005. If a hearing is 

requested, written comments must be 

received on or before February 22, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing, a public hearing will be held on 

February 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2003–

0194, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: air-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA, 

Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Please include a duplicate copy, if 

possible. 

• Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation 

Docket, EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room B–108, Washington, DC 

20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information.

We request that a separate copy also 

be sent to the contact person listed 

below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT).

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2003–0194. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the 

EPA’s Environmental Research Center 

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina or at an alternate site 

nearby.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William Schrock, Organic Chemicals 

Group, Emission Standards Division 

(C504–04), Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541–

5032; facsimile number (919) 541–3470; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 6389

electronic mail (email) address: 

schrock.bill@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. Categories and entities 

potentially regulated by this action 

include:

Category NAICS* code Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ............................................................................................................................................ 3161 Leather finishing operations. 

31611 Leather finishing operations. 

316110 Leather finishing operations. 

Federal government ........................................................................................................................ ........................ Not affected 

State/local/tribal government ........................................................................................................... ........................ Not affected. 

* North American Industrial Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria in § 63.5285 of 

the national emission standards. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? Submitting CBI.

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through EDOCKET, regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

Tips for Preparing Your Comments.

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number.

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

Public Hearing. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a hearing is to be held 

should contact Mr. William Schrock, 

Organic Chemicals Group, Emission 

Standards Division (Mail Code C504–

04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541–5032, electronic mail 

address schrock.bill@epa.gov., at least 2 

days in advance of the potential date of 

the public hearing. Persons interested in 

attending the public hearing must also 

call Mr. William Schrock 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. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s proposal will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

EPA’s Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN) policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules 

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

at EPA’s Web site provides information 

and technology exchange in various 

areas of air pollution control. If more 

information regarding the TTN is 

needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 

541–5384. 

Direct Final Rule. A direct final rule 

identical to the proposal is published in 

the Rules and Regulations section of 

today’s Federal Register. If we receive 

any adverse comment pertaining to the 

amendments in the proposal, we will 

publish a timely notice in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

amendments are being withdrawn due 

to adverse comment. We will address all 

public comments concerning the 

withdrawn amendments in a subsequent 

final rule. If no relevant adverse 

comments are received, no further 

action will be taken on the proposal, 

and the direct final rule will become 

effective as provided in that action. 

The regulatory text for the proposal is 

identical to that for the direct final rule 

published in the Rules and Regulations 

section of today’s Federal Register. For 

further supplementary information, the 

detailed rationale for the proposal and 

the regulatory revisions, see the direct 

final rule published in a separate part of 

this Federal Register. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

For a complete discussion of all of the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the direct final rule in 

the Rules and Regulations section of 

today’s Federal Register. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute 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 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of today’s technical amendments on 

small entities, small entities are defined 

as: (1) A small business that has fewer 

than 750 employees; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule 

amendments on small entities, I certify 

6390 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

that this action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The rule 

amendments will not impose any new 

requirements on small entities. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 1, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–2304 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 54 

[WC Docket No. 02–60; FCC 04–289] 

Rural Health Care Support Mechanism

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, we modify 

our rules to improve the effectiveness of 

the rural health care universal service 

support mechanism. In the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM), we seek comment on whether 

we should increase the percentage 

discount that rural health care providers 

receive for Internet access and whether 

infrastructure development should be 

funded. Additionally, we seek comment 

on whether to modify our rules 

specifically to allow mobile rural health 

care providers to use services other than 

satellite.

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 8, 2005. Reply comments are due 

on or before May 9, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Brown at (202) 418–0792 or 

Dana Bradford at (202) 418–1932, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, TTY (202) 418–0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, in WC 

Docket No. 02–60 released on December 

17, 2004. A companion Report and 

Order and Order on Reconsideration

was also released on December 17, 2004. 

The full text of this document is 

available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

I. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. Internet Access 

1. In the 2003 Report and Order, 68 

FR 74492, December 24, 2003, the 

Commission concluded that support 

equal to 25 percent of the monthly cost 

for any form of Internet access 

reasonably related to the health care 

needs of the facility should be provided 

to rural health care providers. The 

Commission specifically noted that it 

was acting conservatively by choosing a 

25 percent flat discount initially. 

Because requests for Internet access 

discounts have remained at low levels, 

to seek comment on whether a 25 

percent flat discount off the cost of 

monthly Internet access for eligible rural 

health care providers is sufficient. We 

continue to believe that a flat discount 

will lead to greater predictability and 

fairness among health care providers. 

We encourage commenters to be specific 

as to the level of support that we should 

offer, and to provide us with the facts 

that they rely upon in advocating a level 

of support. 

2. Further, to accurately gauge the 

demand for support under the rural 

health care mechanism, we seek 

comment on the effect that an increase 

in Internet access support would have 

on the demand for support from rural 

health care providers. We therefore seek 

comment from rural health care 

providers on the demand for Internet 

access, and from service providers on 

the cost of such services. We seek 

comment on whether demand for 

Internet access is likely to reach the 

$400 million cap on the amount of 

support to be provided by the rural 

health care mechanism, and how 

increased demand would affect the 

operation of the rural health care 

mechanism. 

3. We also seek comment on the 

positive or negative effects that a 

decision to increase Internet access 

support will have on the rural health 

care support mechanism, from the 

perspective of the health care providers, 

the service providers, and USAC. We 

encourage parties to discuss any issues 

relevant to whether we should provide 

increased support for Internet access, 

what level of support to provide, what 

restrictions, if any, we should place on 

such support, what administrative 

problems and concerns may arise if we 

provide increased support, and the 

impact of an increase in support on the 

mechanism’s ability to support other 

services. Specifically, we seek comment 

on whether an increase of support 

would have positive or negative effects 

on facilities-based broadband 

deployment in rural areas. 

B. Support for Other 

Telecommunications Services for 

Mobile Rural Health Care Providers 

4. In the companion Report and 

Order, we revise our policy to allow 

mobile rural health care clinics to 

receive discounts for satellite services 

calculated by comparing the actual cost 

of the satellite service to the rate for an 

urban wireline service with a similar 

bandwidth. We recognize that not only 

satellite services but other 

telecommunications platforms, such as 

terrestrial wireless, may provide the 

most cost-effective means of providing 

the telemedicine link. Because we want 

to encourage mobile health care 

providers to consider all available 

telecommunications services when 

determining which service best suits the 

needs of the telemedicine project, we 

seek comment on whether to modify our 

rules specifically to allow mobile rural 

health care providers to use services 

other than satellite. We seek comment 

on what other telecommunications 

services might be available to support 

mobile rural telemedicine projects. We 

ask commenters to address how such 

service may be a more cost-effective 

method of providing service than a 

satellite connection. We also request 

whether services other than satellite 

services would require different rules, 

different eligibility criteria or any other 

changes from the rules we establish 

today. 

C. Support for Infrastructure 

Development 

5. In the 1997 Universal Service 

Order, 62 FR 32862, June 17, 1997, the 

Commission requested comment on 

whether and how to support 

infrastructure development or ‘‘network 

buildout’’ needed to enhance public and 

not-for-profit health care providers’

access to advanced telecommunications 

and information services. At the time, 

the Commission noted that the record 

contained anecdotal evidence regarding 

the need for support for infrastructure 

development. We now seek to refresh 

the record on this issue. 

6. In the 1997 Universal Service 

Order, the Commission agreed with MCI 

that infrastructure development is not a 

‘‘telecommunications service’’ within 

the scope of section 254(h)(1)(A) and 

concluded that the Commission has the 

discretionary authority to establish rules 

to implement a program of universal