Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2823 

8Copies may be obtained at http://www.dtic.mil/ 

whs/directives/ 

(ii) Limit the review of a record to 

those items of information that clearly 

bear on any determination to amend the 

records and ensure that those elements 

are reviewed before a determination is 

made. 

(5) If an individual disagrees with the 

initial OSD Component determination, 

he or she may file an appeal. The 

request should be sent to the Chief, 

Records and Declassification Division, 

WHS, 1155 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1155. 

(6) If, after review, the Records and 

Declassification Division determines the 

system of records should not be 

amended as requested, the Records and 

Declassification Division shall provide a 

copy of any statement of disagreement 

to the extent that disclosure accounting 

is maintained in accordance with 

Chapter 4 or DoD 5400.11–R. The 

Records and Declassification Division 

shall advise the individual: 

(i) Of the reason and authority for the 

denial. 

(ii) Of his or her right to file a 

statement of the reason for disagreeing 

with the Records and Declassification 

Division decision. 

(iii) Of the procedures for filing a 

statement of disagreements. 

(iv) That the statement filed shall be 

made available to anyone the record is 

disclosed to, together with a brief 

statement summarizing reasons for 

refusing to amend the records. 

(7) If the Records and Declassification 

Division determines that the record 

should be amended in accordance with 

the individual’s request, the OSD 

Component shall amend the record, and 

advise the individual of the amendment, 

in accordance with Chapter 4 of DoD 

5400.11–R. 

(8) All appeals should be processed 

within 30 workdays after receipt. If the 

Records and Declassification Division 

determines that a fair and equitable 

review cannot be made within that time, 

the individual shall be informed in 

writing of the reasons for the delay and 

of the approximate date the review is 

expected to be completed. 

(g) Disclosure of disputed 

information. (1) If the Records and 

Declassification Division determines the 

record should not be amended and the 

individual has filed a statement of 

disagreement under paragraph (f)(7) of 

this section, the OSD Component shall 

annotate the disputed record so it is 

apparent under record disclosure that a 

statement has been filed. Where 

feasible, the notation itself shall be 

integral to the record. Where disclosure 

accounting has been made, the OSD 

Component shall advise previous 

recipients that the record has been 

disputed and shall provide a copy of the 

individual’s statement of disagreement 

in accordance with Chapter 4 of DoD 

5400.11–R. 

(i) This statement shall be maintained 

to permit ready retrieval whenever the 

disputed portion of the record is 

disclosed. 

(ii) When information that is the 

subject of a statement of disagreement is 

subsequently disclosed, the OSD 

Component’s designated official shall 

note which information is disputed and 

provide a copy of the individual’s 

statement. 

(2) The OSD Component shall include 

a brief summary of its reasons for not 

making a correction when disclosing 

disputed information. Such statements 

shall normally be limited to the reasons 

given to the individual for not amending 

the record. 

(3) Copies of the OSD Component’s 

summary will be treated as part of the 

individual’s record; however, it will not 

be subject to the amendment procedure 

outlined in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

section. 

(h) Penalties. (1) Civil action. An 

individual may file a civil suit against 

the OSD Component or its employees if 

the individual feels certain provisions 

or the Privacy Act have been violated as 

stated in 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

(2) Criminal action. (i) Criminal 

penalties may be imposed against an 

OSD officer or employee for offenses 

listed in Section (i) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, as 

follows: 

(A) Willful unauthorized disclosure of 

protected information in the records. 

(B) Failure to publish a notice of the 

existence of a record system in the 

Federal Register. 

(C) Requesting or gaining access to the 

individual’s record under false 

pretenses. 

(ii) An OSD officer or employee may 

be fined up to $5,000 for a violation as 

outlined in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this 

section. 

(i) Litigation status sheet. Whenever a 

complaint citing 5 U.S.C. 552a is filed 

in a U.S. District Court against the 

Department of Defense, an OSD 

Component, or any OSD employee, the 

responsible system manager shall 

promptly notify the DPO. The litigation 

status sheet in DoD 5400.11–R provides 

a standard format for this notification. 

(The initial litigation status sheet shall, 

as a minimum, provide the information 

required by items 1, through 6. of DoD 

5400.11–R) A revised litigation status 

sheet shall be provided at each stage of 

the litigation. When a court renders a 

formal opinion or judgment, copies of 

the judgment or opinion shall be 

provided to the DPO with the litigation 

status sheet reporting that judgment or 

opinion. 

(j) Computer matching programs. 

Chapter 11, paragraph B of DoD 

5400.11–R, prescribes that all requests 

for participation in a matching program 

(either as a matching agency or a source 

agency) be submitted to the DPO for 

review and compliance. The OSD 

Components shall submit these requests 

through the Records and 

Declassification Division. 

§ 311.7 Information requirements. 

The DPO shall establish requirements 

and deadlines for DoD privacy reports. 

These reports shall be licensed in 

accordance with DoD Directive 8910.1.8

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, DoD. 

[FR Doc. E7–800 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0005; FRL–

8272–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Ohio Particulate 

Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is re-proposing approval 

of Ohio rules concerning equivalent 

visible emission limits (EVELs). Ohio’s 

rules provide criteria for establishment 

of EVELs, and the rules provide that 

EVELs established according to these 

criteria take effect without formal 

review by EPA. EPA proposed to 

approve these rules on December 2, 

2002, at 67 FR 71515. However, that 

proposal did not clearly solicit comment 

on the timing by which actions on 

EVELs by the State take effect. EPA is 

proposing that previous State 

modifications to EVELs would become 

effective at the federal level 

immediately upon the effective date of 

any final EPA action approving these 

Ohio rules. Similarly, any future action 

by the State to establish, modify, or 

rescind EVELs in accordance with the 

criteria given in these Ohio rules would 

become effective at the federal level 

immediately upon the effective date of 

the State action. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2824 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must arrive on or before 

February 22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–

OAR–2005–OH–0005, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

• Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005–

OH–0005. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

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 www.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 instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

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

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone John Summerhays, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–

6067 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What action is EPA taking today? 

II. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA taking today? 

EPA is re-proposing to approve Ohio 

rules providing for State issuance of 

equivalent visible emission limits 

(EVELs), rules which were a part of a set 

of particulate matter regulations that 

Ohio submitted on July 18, 2000. EPA 

originally proposed to approve these 

rules on December 2, 2002, at 67 FR 

71515. However, that proposal did not 

clearly explain EPA’s views regarding 

the consequences of approval on 

historic EVELs that were previously 

approved into the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). EPA today is explaining its 

views and soliciting comment on this 

issue. 

The rules that EPA proposes to 

approve provide that EVELs issued by 

the State in accordance with the 

specified criteria take effect without 

formal review by EPA. Consequently, 

when the State issues an EVEL for a unit 

at a source, this EVEL will supersede 

any EVEL that may previously have 

been issued for that unit, regardless of 

whether or not the prior EVEL was part 

of the SIP. Similar consequences apply 

when the State terminates an EVEL for 

a unit at a source, presumably by 

issuing a permit or other enforceable 

document that re-establishes the 

standard opacity limits of OAC 3745–

17–07 (A)(1) as the applicable opacity 

limits; that action will terminate the 

EVEL for that unit, again regardless of 

whether the prior EVEL was part of the 

SIP. EPA’s understanding is that the 

State will periodically review whether 

previously issued EVELs are still 

warranted, as part of its management of 

the EVELs that apply in the State. 

EPA is proposing that, as of the 

effective date of EPA finalizing this 

proposal, no EVEL shall apply unless 

Ohio has issued a currently effective 

EVEL in accordance with its Rule 3745–

17–07(C), and the federally enforceable 

level of any such EVEL shall reflect the 

currently effective EVEL that the State 

has thus issued. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to delete provisions of the 

Ohio SIP that contain EVELs, in 

particular paragraphs (c)(62) and (c)(65) 

of 40 CFR 52.1870. 

EPA recognizes that the Ohio SIP 

contains other EVELs, implicitly 

included in SIP-approved permits or 

administrative orders that also contain 

other limits. For administrative 

convenience, EPA proposes not to 

modify the text of the SIP codification 

given in 40 CFR 52.1870 to discontinue 

these EVELs explicitly. Nevertheless, 

EPA proposes that when this proposed 

rulemaking becomes final and effective, 

these EVELs will automatically be 

discontinued and replaced by the 

opacity limits that Ohio has adopted 

more recently in accordance with the 

criteria given in Rule 3745–17–07(C). 

(The more recent permits or 

administrative orders may or may not 

have limits matching the prior SIP 

limits.) Similarly, EPA proposes that 

any future State action to establish, 

modify, or rescind opacity limits in 

accordance with the criteria in Rule 

3745–17–07(C) shall immediately alter 

the federal opacity limit accordingly. 

II. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 14 / Tuesday, January 23, 2007 / Proposed Rules 2825 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866; Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule proposes to approve 

pre-existing requirements under state 

law and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132 Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve 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. 

Executive Order 13175 Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045 Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

Executive Order 13211 Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter. 

Dated: January 11, 2007. 

Mary A. Gade, 

Regional Administrator 

[FR Doc. E7–923 Filed 1–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0386; FRL–8272–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 

County Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation to Attainment, and 

Approval of Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 20, 2006, the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to 

request redesignation of the El Paso 

carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment 

area to attainment for the CO National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This submittal also included 

a CO maintenance plan for the El Paso 

area and associated Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The 

maintenance plan was developed to 

ensure continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS for a period of 10 years from 

the effective date of EPA approval of 

redesignation to attainment. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve the 

El Paso CO redesignation request and 

the maintenance plan with its 

associated MVEBs as satisfying the 

requirements of the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA) as amended in 1990. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by February 22, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL