Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72597 

Corrective Actions 

(g) If any cracking is found during any 

inspection required by this AD, prior to 

further flight, repair in accordance with a 

method approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or 

with a method approved in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD. 

Acceptable Method of Compliance 

(h) Replacing the splice fitting before the 

effective date of this AD in accordance with 

Boeing Service Bulletin 737–53–1222, dated 

June 6, 2002; or Boeing ASB 737–53A1222, 

Revision 1, dated January 30, 2003, is 

acceptable for compliance with the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested in accordance with the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to 

which the AMOC applies, notify the 

appropriate principal inspector in the FAA 

Flight Standards Certificate Holding District 

Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD, if it is approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option 

Authorization Organization who has been 

authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to 

make those findings. For a repair method to 

be approved, the repair must meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(j) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–53A1222, Revision 2, dated 

October 20, 2005, to perform the actions that 

are required by this AD, unless the AD 

specifies otherwise. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the incorporation 

by reference of this document in accordance 

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. 

Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207, 

for a copy of this service information. You 

may review copies at the Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., room PL–401, 

Nassif Building, Washington, DC; on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at the NARA, 

call (202) 741–6030, or go to http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 25, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–23601 Filed 12–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CO–001–0076a; FRL–8004–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; CO; 

PM10 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 (PM10) 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: faulk.libby@epa.gov. 

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 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 emissions and that 

the PM10 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 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Technical Support Documentation (TSD), the 

State of Colorado did include PM10 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 PM10

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 

72598 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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