[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72597-72598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23668]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO-001-0076a; FRL-8004-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
CO; PM<INF>10</INF> Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning 
Purposes, Lamar; State Implementation Plan Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: When EPA approved the Colorado State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision that requested redesignation of the Lamar area from 
nonattainment to attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 
(PM<INF>10</INF>) EPA provided response to comments and in one of the 
response to comments, misstated our response to the comment. In this 
action we are making a correction to the preamble by clarifying our 
response to the comment raised to correct our misstatement.

DATES: This correction is effective on January 5, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Faulk, Air and Radiation 
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-
AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone 
(303) 312-6083, and e-mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#791f180c15125715101b1b00391c0918571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4828591888fca888d86869da4819485ca838b92">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (i) Throughout this document, wherever we, 
us or our is used it means the Environmental Protection Agency.
    (ii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iii) The word State means the State of Colorado, unless the 
context indicates otherwise.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(B), provides that when an agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without 
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have 
determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final 
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because this was a 
misstatement in a response to comment and does not affect the outcome 
of the action and therefore meets the good cause exception. Thus, 
notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary. We find that this 
constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

I. Correction

    Correction for the Federal Register Document Published on October 
25, 2005 (70 FR 61563).
    On October 25, 2005 we published a final rule approving Lamar's 
PM<INF>10</INF> SIP submitted by the Governor of Colorado on July 31, 
2002. When we published this rule, we responded to public comments that 
were received during the public comment period in the proposed rule 
that was published on August 5, 2006 (69 FR 47366). In one of our 
response to comments, we misstated our response by stating that ``the 
CAA does not provide EPA with the authority to regulate air emissions 
from CAFOs'' (70 FR 61565). This is incorrect. EPA does have the 
authority to regulate air emissions from any source as defined under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Therefore, we are correcting our misstatement 
in the preamble. The comment received was the following:

    The commenter expressed concern regarding the proposed Federal 
Register notice stating that the PM<INF>10</INF> emissions are 
mainly wind blown. The commenter believes that this statement 
ignores the fact that there is a major combined animal feeding 
operation (CAFO) in Lamar that is a significant source of 
PM<INF>10</INF> emissions and that the PM<INF>10</INF> and precursor 
emissions from the source were not properly considered in 
determining attainment.

    EPA's revised response is the following:

    Based on EPA's review of the Lamar, Colorado PM<INF>10</INF> 
Maintenance Plan and Technical Support Documentation (TSD), the 
State of Colorado did include PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from the 
combined animal feeding operation (CAFO) for the Lamar emissions 
inventory. The CAFO emissions are included in the area source 
emissions under wind erosion from the feedlot. The State also 
included the PM<INF>10</INF> emissions from the above emission 
source in its modeling analysis and the area continues to show 
attainment in future years. As for precursor emissions, the State 
added a secondary particulate concentration as part of its modeling 
effort to show attainment. The particulate concentration was 
comprised of ammonium nitrates and sulfates particles and was based 
on filter samples collected in Lamar. Further detailed information 
regarding the State's submittal is located within the docket of the 
final rule (70 FR 61563, October 25, 2005).

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not

[[Page 72598]]

subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). Because the agency has made a ``good cause'' 
finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment 
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other 
statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above, it 
is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 
and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 
104-4, 209 Stat. 48 (1995)). In addition, this action does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a 
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 
204 of UMRA.
    This 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). 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 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.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical 
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do 
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of 
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has 
taken necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of 
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental 
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated 
Takings'' issued under the Executive Order. This 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.).
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to 
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the 
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is 
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This 
determination must be supported by a brief statement, 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 
As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including 
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of January 5, 
2006. EPA will submit 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 United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 28, 2005.
Robert E. Roberts,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 05-23668 Filed 12-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>