Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 72595 

■ 8. Amend § 123.300 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follow: 

§ 123.300 Is my business eligible to apply 

for an economic injury disaster loan? 

* * * * * 

(b) Economic injury disaster loans are 

available only if you were a small 

business (as defined in part 121 of this 

chapter) when the declared disaster 

commenced (except disaster 

declarations for Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Wilma, for which size status 

is determined as of the date SBA accepts 

the application for processing, and for 

applications submitted before December 

6, 2005, whether denied because of size 

status or pending, such applications 

shall be deemed resubmitted on 

December 6, 2005), you and your 

affiliates and principal owners (20% or 

more ownership interest) have used all 

reasonably available funds, and you are 

unable to obtain credit elsewhere (see 

§ 123.104). 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 4, 2005. 

Hector V. Barreto, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–23435 Filed 12–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–23176; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–220–AD; Amendment 

39–14396; AD 2005–25–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–600, –700, –700C, and –800 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 737–600, –700, –700C, 

and –800 series airplanes. This AD 

requires replacing the point ‘‘D’’ splice 

fitting between windows number 1 and 

2 with a new splice fitting, performing 

an eddy current inspection for cracking 

of the holes in the structure common to 

the new splice fitting, including doing 

any related investigative actions; and 

corrective actions if necessary. This AD 

results from full-scale fuselage fatigue 

testing on the splice fitting that failed 

prior to the design objective on Boeing 

Model 737–800 series airplanes, and a 

report of a cracked splice fitting on an 

operational airplane. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent cracking of the existing 

fitting that may result in cracking 

through the skin and consequent 

decompression of the flight cabin. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

December 21, 2005. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of December 21, 2005. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by February 6, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, 

Washington 98124–2207, for service 

information identified in this AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue 

Lucier, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 917–6438; 

fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We have received a report indicating 

that during the Model 737–800 series 

airplanes full-scale fuselage fatigue test, 

the splice fitting failed prior to the 

design service objective. Additionally, 

we have received a report indicating 

that a cracked splice fitting was found 

on an airplane with less than 13,500 

total flight cycles. This condition, if not 

corrected, could result in cracking of the 

existing fitting that may cause cracking 

through the skin and consequent 

decompression of the flight cabin. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) 737–53A1222, 

Revision 2, dated October 20, 2005. The 

ASB describes procedures for replacing 

the splice fitting between windows 

number 1 and 2, at point ‘‘D’’ on the 

windowsill with a new splice fitting, 

and performing related investigative 

actions. Those investigative actions 

include performing an open hole eddy 

current inspection for cracking of the 

fastener holes, and a special detailed 

inspection for cracking of 12 fasteners in 

the adjacent structure. The ASB also 

describes procedures for repetitive 

external detailed inspections of the skin 

near the six skin fasteners below the 

splice fitting. The ASB specifies that if 

cracking is detected, to contact Boeing 

for further instructions. Accomplishing 

the actions specified in the service 

information is intended to adequately 

address the unsafe condition. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This AD 

The unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other airplanes of the same type 

design. For this reason, we are issuing 

this AD to prevent cracking of the 

existing fitting that may result in 

cracking through the skin and 

consequent decompression of the flight 

cabin. This AD requires accomplishing 

the actions specified in the service 

information described previously, 

except as discussed under ‘‘Differences 

Between the AD and the ASB.’’

Differences Between the AD and the 

ASB 

Where the ASB specifies contacting 

Boeing if any cracking is detected, this 

AD requires that, repair of any cracking 

be accomplished before further flight, in 

accordance with a method approved by 

the Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO). 

Although the ASB specifies 

performing repetitive external detailed 

inspections of the skin near the six skin 

fasteners below the splice fitting, this 

AD does not require those inspections. 

These differences have been 

coordinated with the manufacturer. 

Interim Action 

We consider this AD to be an interim 

action. We are currently considering 

requiring repetitive external detailed 

inspections for cracking of the skin near 

the six skin fasteners below the splice 

fitting. However the planned 

compliance time for accomplishing 

those inspections would necessitate 

allowing enough time to provide notice 

and opportunity for prior public 

comment on the merits of requiring 

those inspections. 

72596 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Similar Models 

The splice fitting between windows 

number 1 and 2, at point ‘‘D’’ on the 

windowsill, on certain Boeing Model 

737–600, –700, –700C series airplanes is 

identical to the splice fitting on the 

affected Model 737–800 series airplanes. 

Therefore, all of these models may be 

subject to the same unsafe condition. 

FAA’s Determination of the Effective 

Date 

Since an unsafe condition exists that 

requires the immediate adoption of this 

AD, we have found that notice and 

opportunity for public comment before 

issuing this AD are impracticable, and 

that good cause exists to make this AD 

effective in less than 30 days. 

Comments Invited 

This AD is a final rule that involves 

requirements that affect flight safety and 

was not preceded by notice and an 

opportunity for public comment; 

however, we invite you to submit any 

relevant written data, views, or 

arguments regarding this AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2005–23176; Directorate Identifier 

2005–NM–220–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of the AD that might suggest a 

need to modify it. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this AD. Using the 

search function of that Web site, anyone 

can find and read the comments in any 

of our dockets, including the name of 

the individual who sent the comment 

(or signed the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Dockets 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in subtitle VII, 

part A, subpart III, section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect 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. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

See the ADDRESSES section for a location 

to examine the regulatory evaluation. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13 

by adding the following new 

airworthiness directive (AD): 

2005–25–03 Boeing: Amendment 39–14396. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–23176; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–220–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective December 

21, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737–

600, –700, –700C, and –800 series airplanes, 

certificated in any category; as identified in 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 737–

53A1222, Revision 2, dated October 20, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from full-scale fuselage 

fatigue testing on the splice fitting that failed 

prior to the design objective on Boeing Model 

737–800 series airplanes, and a report of a 

cracked splice fitting on an operational 

airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

cracking of the existing fitting that may result 

in cracking through the skin and consequent 

decompression of the flight cabin. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Replacing the Splice Fittings 

(f) Replace the splice fittings with new 

splice fittings in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing ASB 

737–53A1222, Revision 2, dated October 20, 

2005, at the times specified in paragraph 

(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable. Before 

further flight, do any related investigative 

actions by accomplishing all the applicable 

actions specified in the Accomplishment 

Instructions. 

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 

less than 13,500 total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Replace prior to the 

accumulation of 13,500 total flight cycles, or 

within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 

13,500 or more total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Replace at the later 

of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Prior the accumulation of 18,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first. 

(ii) Within 90 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

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