42916 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

5. Isolated commands and detachments at

which DoD newspapers are not readily

available.

Appendix E to Part 247—DoD Command

Newspaper and Magazine Review System

A. Purpose. The purpose of the DoD

command newspaper and magazine review

system is to assist commanders in

establishing and maintaining cost-effective

internal communications essential to mission

accomplishment. The system also enables

internal information managers to assess the

cost and effective use of resources devoted to

command newspapers and to provide

requested reports.

B. Policy. DoD newspapers and magazines

shall be reviewed and reported biennially.

The review process is not intended to replace

day-to-day quality assurance procedures or

established critique programs.

C. Review criteria. Each newspaper and

magazine shall be evaluated on the basis of

mission essentiality, communication

effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and

compliance with applicable regulations.

D. Reporting requirements.

1. The DoD Components (less the Military

Departments) shall forward, by January 31 of

each even numbered year, the information

indicated at attachment 1 to this Appendix

for each newspaper published to: Director,

American Forces Information Service, ATTN:

Print Media Plans and Policy, 601 North

Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–2007.

2. No later than April 15 of each evennumbered year, the Secretary (or designee) of

each Military Department shall forward to

the address above a report of the Military

Department’s review of newspapers and

magazines. This report shall include

summary data on total number of newspapers

and magazines, along with a listing of the

information indicated at attachment 1 to this

appendix.

3. One information copy of each issue of

all DoD newspapers and magazines shall be

forwarded on publication date to the address

in paragraph H.1. of this appendix.

4. Information copies of CE contracts shall

be forwarded to the address in paragraph H.1.

of this appendix, upon request.

5. Administrative Instructions shall be

issued by the Director, AFIS, for the annual

review and reporting of newspapers and

magazines.

Attachment 1 to Appendix E to Part 247—

Newspaper and Magazine Reporting Data

As required by section H. of this appendix,

the following information shall be provided

biennially regarding newspapers and

magazines:

A. Name of newspaper or magazine.

B. Publishing command and mailing

address.

C. Printing arrangement:

1. Government equipment.

2. Government contract with commercial

printer.

3. CE contract with commercial publisher

(provide name, mailing address, and phone

number of commercial publisher).

D. Frequency and number of issues per

year.

E. Number of copies printed and estimated

readership.

F. Paper size (metro, tabloid, or magazine

format).

Dated: August 5, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–21091 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 286

[DoD 5400.7–R]

DoD Freedom of Information Act

Program; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

published a final rule concerning the

DoD Freedom of Information Act

Program on July 1, 1997 (62 FR 35351).

This document is published to correct

administrative errors published.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

C. Talbott, telephone 703–697–1171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 286

Freedom of information.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 286 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 286—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR

part 286 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552.

2. Section 286.3, definition Appellate

authority, is amended by revising

‘‘initial denital’’ to to read ‘‘initial

denial’’.

3. Section 286.28(d)(3)(ii)(A), next to

last sentence, is amended after the word

‘‘section’’ by adding the word ‘‘apply’’.

Dated: August 5, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–21090 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA–34–2–9716; FRL–5865–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; State of

Georgia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting interim

approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by Georgia.

This revision establishes and requires

the implementation of an enhanced

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program in 13 metro

Atlanta counties. This action approves

the State’s enhanced I/M program for an

18 month interim period based upon the

State’s good faith estimate of the

program’s performance. This action is

being taken under section 110 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 348 of

the National Highway Systems

Designation Act (NHSDA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on

September 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations:

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61

Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia,

30303

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, Environmental Protection

Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244

International Parkway, Suite 120,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30354

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102)

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben

Franco, by telephone at: (404) 562–9039,

or via e-mail at:

Franco.Ben@epamail.epa.gov. The

mailing address is U.S. EPA Region 4,

61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia,

30303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65496),

EPA published a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of

Georgia. The NPR proposed conditional

interim approval of Georgia’s enhanced
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42917

I/M program, submitted to satisfy the

applicable requirements of both the

CAA and the NHSDA. The formal SIP

revision was submitted by the Georgia

Environmental Protection Division

(EPD) on March 27, 1996. A lack of

Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM)

test method specifications was the

reason for the conditional approval.

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant

interim approval for a period of 18

months to approvable I/M submittals

under this Act. The NHSDA also directs

EPA and the states to review the interim

program results at the end of that 18-

month period, and to make a

determination as to the effectiveness of

the interim program. Following this

demonstration, EPA will adjust any

credit claims made by the State in its

good faith effort, to reflect the emissions

reductions actually measured by the

State during the program evaluation

period. The NHSDA is clear that the

interim approval shall last for only 18

months, and that the program

evaluation is due to EPA at the end of

that period. Therefore, EPA believes

Congress intended for these programs to

begin as soon as possible, which EPA

believes should be on or before

November 15, 1997, so that, assuming a

twelve month planning period before

program implementation, at least six

months of operational program data can

be collected to evaluate the interim

programs. EPA believes that in setting

such a strict timetable for program

evaluations under the NHSDA, Congress

recognized and attempted to mitigate

any further delay with the start-up of

this program. If the State fails to start its

program according to this schedule, this

interim approval granted under the

provisions of the NHSDA will convert to

a disapproval after a finding letter is

sent to the State. Unlike the other

specified conditions of this rulemaking,

which are explicit conditions under

section 110(k)(4) of the CAA and which

will trigger an automatic disapproval

should the State fail to meet its

commitments, the start date provision

will only trigger a disapproval upon

EPA’s notification to the State by letter

that the start date has been missed. This

letter will not only notify the State that

this rulemaking action has been

converted to a disapproval, but also that

the sanctions clock associated with this

disapproval has been triggered as a

result of this failure. Because the start

date condition is not imposed pursuant

to a commitment to correct a deficient

SIP under 110(k)(4), EPA does not

believe it is necessary to have the SIP

approval convert to a disapproval

automatically if the start date is missed.

EPA is imposing the start date condition

under its general SIP approval authority

of section 110(k)(3), which does not

require automatic conversion.

On January 31, 1997, the Georgia EPD

submitted necessary ASM specifications

that were the reason for the condition in

the December 13, 1996, notice. These

specifications were largely based upon

EPA’s specifications for the ASM test.

Therefore, the condition noted in the

December 13, 1996, proposal has been

met and is removed. Georgia has also

begun its implementation of the I/M

program as scheduled and has met all

milestones to date. Georgia has also

committed to meet the ECOS/EPA/

STAPPA evaluation workgroup protocol

which will meet the requirements of 40

CFR 51.353(c)(3).

As per the NHSDA requirements, this

interim rulemaking will expire on

February 11, 1999. A full approval of

Georgia’s final I/M SIP revision is still

necessary under section 110 and under

section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA.

After EPA reviews Georgia’s submitted

program evaluation and regulations,

final rulemaking on the State’s full SIP

revision will occur.

Additional detailed discussion of the

Georgia enhanced I/M SIP and the

rationale for EPA’s action are explained

in the proposal notice published

December 13, 1996, at 61 FR 65496–

65504 and will not be restated here.

II. Final Rulemaking Action

EPA had initially proposed to grant

conditional interim approval to the

Georgia enhanced I/M SIP revision due

to the lack of the ASM specification.

However, Georgia has since submitted

the required ASM specifications,

thereby meeting the requirements of the

condition. EPA notes the State has

demonstrated its good faith efforts by

meeting its I/M program

implementation schedule to date.

Under the terms of EPA’s December

13, 1996, proposed interim conditional

approval rulemaking, Georgia was

required to make commitments (within

30 days) to remedy one major deficiency

with the I/M program SIP (as specified

in the NPR), within twelve months of

final interim approval. On January 10,

1997, Georgia submitted a letter from

Ronald Methier, Chief of the Air

Protection Branch, Georgia

Environmental Protection Division, to

EPA committing to satisfy the ASM

condition cited in the NPR, by certain

dates specified in the letter.

Subsequently, on January 31, 1997, the

Georgia EPD submitted the required

ASM specifications. Since the condition

has been met by EPA’s receipt of the

ASM specifications, and since no

comments were received concerning the

December 13, 1996, proposal, EPA is

granting final interim approval to the

Georgia I/M SIP under section 110 of the

CAA. As discussed in detail later in this

notice, this approval is being granted on

an interim basis, for an 18-month period

under authority of the NHSDA.

III. Further Requirements for

Permanent I/M SIP Approval

This approval is being granted on an

interim basis for a period of 18 months,

under the authority of section 348 of the

NHSDA of 1995. At the end of this

period, the approval will lapse. At that

time, EPA must take final rulemaking

action upon the SIP, under the authority

of section 110 of the CAA. Final

approval of the State’s plan will be

granted based upon the following

criteria:

(1) EPA’s review of the Georgia

program evaluation confirms that the

appropriate amount of program credit

was claimed by the State and achieved

with the interim program.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 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. 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.

C. SIP Approval Actions

SIP approvals under section 110 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, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact

on any small entities affected. Moreover,
42918 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a 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. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)

and 7410(k)(3).

D. 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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated 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.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by October 10, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 12, 1997.

John H. Hankinson, Jr.,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart L—Georgia

2. Section 52.570 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as

follows:

§ 52.570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(50) Georgia Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance submitted to EPA by the

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources on March 27, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Chapter 391–3–20 Enhanced

Inspection and Maintenance program

effective on September 24, 1996.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 97–20576 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5872–7]

National Emission Standards for

Chromium Emissions From Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On January 25, 1995, the EPA

issued national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990, for Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating

and Chromium Anodizing Tanks. The

NESHAP requires existing and new

major and area sources to control

emissions of hazardous air pollutants by

meeting emission limits that are based

on the use of maximum achievable

control technology (MACT). On January

30, 1997, the EPA issued an interim

final rule that revised the compliance

date for some provisions for some of the

sources subject to this standard.

Specifically, the interim rule extended

the compliance date for the monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR)

requirements for hard chromium

electroplaters and chromium anodizing

operations in California from January

25, 1997 to July 24, 1997.

Based on the comments received on

the interim final rule, the EPA has

reconsidered the extension deadline and

is promulgating these revisions in

today’s action. Specifically, today’s

action further extends the compliance

date for performance test requirements

and all the monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping (MRR) requirements for

hard chromium electroplaters and

chromium anodizing operations in

California to January 25, 1998.

DATES: The final rule will be effective

August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A–88–

02 containing the supporting

information for the original NESHAP

and this action, are available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00

a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Waterside Mall, room M–1500, first

floor, 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–7548

or 260–7549. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Lalit Banker, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

The regulated category and entities

affected by this action include the hard

chromium electroplating and chromium

anodizing operations in the State of

California only. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action,

you should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.340 of the

regulation. If you have questions