Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56361 

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 

(m) You must use Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–57A1269, Revision 1, dated 

September 16, 2004, 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/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 16, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19144 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–18788; Directorate 

Identifier 2003–NM–203–AD; Amendment 

39–14296; AD 2005–20–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–100, –200, –200C, –300, 

–400, and –500 Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Boeing Model 737–100, –200, –200C, 

–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. 

This AD requires repetitive inspections 

of the intercostal webs, attachment 

clips, and stringer splice channels for 

cracks; and corrective action if 

necessary. This AD is prompted by 

reports of fatigue cracks on several 

Boeing Model 737–200 series airplanes. 

We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct fatigue cracking of the 

intercostals on the forward and aft sides 

of the forward entry door, which could 

result in loss of the forward entry door 

and rapid decompression of the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 1, 2005. 

The incorporation by reference of a 

certain publication listed in the AD is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of November 1, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

Docket: The AD docket contains the 

proposed AD, comments, and any final 

disposition. You can 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 U.S. Department of Transportation, 

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

Washington, DC. This docket number is 

FAA–2005–18788; the directorate 

identifier for this docket is 2003–NM–

203–AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Hall, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6430; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

an AD for certain Model 737–100, –200, 

–200C, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. That action, published in the 

Federal Register on August 6, 2004 (69 

FR 47808), proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of the intercostal 

webs, attachment clips, and stringer 

splice channels for cracks; and 

corrective action if necessary. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments that have 

been submitted on the proposed AD. 

Qualified Support for the Proposed AD 

One commenter, an operator, stated 

that the proposed AD is acceptable 

provided that the service bulletin 

referenced in the proposed AD is 

corrected to reflect the proper work 

instructions and to reference accurate 

figures for accomplishment. 

The FAA cannot respond to the 

generality of the commenter’s statement. 

However, other commenters have 

requested clarification on certain 

aspects of the work instructions and 

requested certain revision of the ‘‘Costs 

of Compliance’’ section of this AD. 

Those comments are specified and 

responded to in the appropriate 

paragraphs below. 

Request for Clarification in Paragraph 

(k) of the Proposed AD 

Two commenters request that 

paragraph (k) be revised to clarify that 

the reference to using Figure 201 instead 

of Figure 202 of the service bulletin only 

applies to Model 737–400 series 

airplanes. 

We agree that paragraph (k) of the AD 

should be clarified and have revised the 

AD accordingly. 

Request To Withdraw the Proposed AD 

One commenter, an operator, states 

that the Maintenance Planning 

Document (MPD) is the logical 

document to accomplish the main 

objectives of the inspections specified in 

the proposed AD. The commenter 

suggests that it makes more sense to 

revise MPD Task S53–22-A–2, rather 

than to issue an AD. We infer that the 

commenter is requesting that the 

proposed AD be withdrawn. 

We do not agree. We are obligated by 

part 39 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) to appropriately 

address any identified unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist on other airplanes. 

The MPD is appropriate for addressing 

routine maintenance of critical 

structural components. However, 

operators may submit their specific and 

particular MPD task cards for 

consideration as an alternative method 

of compliance (AMOC) if they wish, in 

accordance with paragraph (n) of the 

AD. No change is necessary to the AD 

in this regard. 

Request for More Information 

Regarding Paragraph (k) of the 

Proposed AD 

One commenter, an operator, requests 

that inspection specifics be added to 

paragraph (k) of the proposed AD for the 

stringer–16L (S–16L) area in the postrepair configuration. The commenter 

does not believe that Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1204, dated June 19, 2003, referenced in 

the proposed AD as the appropriate 

source of service information, provides 

sufficient inspection specifics in Figure 

1. 

The FAA does not agree that further 

inspection specifics are necessary to 

clarify paragraph (k) of the AD. Figure 

56362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1 does not specifically show the repair/ 

modification configurations at S–16L, 

and is simply intended to show typical 

crack locations and to identify the 

structural components that require 

inspection. Since the general inspection 

details provided in Figure 1 are 

applicable to both pre- and post-repair/ 

modification configurations, no change 

to the AD is necessary in this regard. 

Request To Allow ‘‘Credit’’ for Certain 

Repairs 

One commenter, an operator, requests 

that repairs on the affected intercostals 

that are installed prior to the effective 

date of the AD be addressed. The 

operator states that the proposed AD 

specifies that certain repairs must be 

approved by the Manager, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

FAA; or per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane 

approved by a Boeing Designated 

Engineering Representative (DER) who 

has been authorized by the Manager, 

Seattle ACO, to make such findings. The 

operator requests that the final rule 

allow credit for any repairs previously 

approved by the Seattle ACO. 

We do not agree that previous repairs 

need to be addressed other than through 

the normal process as stated above by 

the commenter. Other than the repairs 

already identified at S–16L, we are not 

aware of any specific pre-existing repair 

configurations that should be addressed 

in the final rule. The Manager, Seattle 

ACO, can approve design data for 

previously installed or newly installed 

repair configurations prior to the 

issuance of this AD. However, approval 

as an AMOC with the AD cannot be 

given until the date the final rule is 

effective. No change is necessary to the 

AD in this regard. 

Requests To Address Previously 

Accomplished Modification/Repairs 

Two commenters, both operators, 

request that provision for ‘‘previous or 

newly accomplished’’ installations of 

the repair be added to paragraph (k) of 

the proposed AD. 

We acknowledge the commenters’

concern and partially agree. Paragraph 

(k) of the AD, as worded in the AD, 

simply permits deferring the repetitive 

inspections if the installation of the 

repair as a preventative modification or 

corrective action is accomplished in 

accordance with Part 1 of the Work 

Instructions of the service bulletin. We 

did not specify that installation of the 

repair must be performed either before 

or after the effective date of the AD, 

since, in this case, it does not matter 

when it is accomplished. No change is 

necessary to the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Extend Initial Compliance 

Time of Paragraph (g) of the Proposed 

AD 

Several commenters request that the 

grace period specified in paragraph (g), 

‘‘4,500 flight cycles after the effective 

date of the AD,’’ be extended to 7,500 

or 8,000 flight cycles. One commenter 

states that the most critical area (STR 

16L between Body Station (BS) 348.2 

and BS 360) can only be inspected 

correctly by accessing additional areas, 

which may include removing lavatories 

or galleys. The commenters contend that 

extending the grace period of the initial 

compliance time would allow most 

operators to accomplish the 

requirements of paragraph (g) during 

normal scheduled maintenance. 

We do not agree that the grace period 

should be extended beyond 4,500 flight 

cycles. We have determined that the 

grace period of 4,500 is appropriate and 

adequate to maintain an acceptable level 

of safety. The grace period represents 

more than two years of average 

operation, during which time most 

operators will have accomplished 

regularly schedule maintenance. The 

commenter has provided no technical 

data to show that extending the grace 

period compliance time to 7,500 or 

8,000 flight cycles would continue to 

provide an acceptable level of safety. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (n) of the AD, we may 

consider requests for adjustments to the 

grace period for the initial compliance 

time if sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that such an extension of 

the grace period would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. No change is 

necessary to the AD in this regard. 

Request To Extend Initial Compliance 

Time of Paragraph (g) of the Proposed 

AD for Certain Areas 

One commenter requests that, for 

areas that are non-critical, the 

compliance time be extended from 

15,000 total flight cycles to 25,000 total 

flight cycles. The commenter notes that 

it is not clear why the non-critical areas 

have the same initial threshold as the 

critical area (S–16L). The commenter 

contends that the compliance time 

should be extended for those areas other 

than S–16L. 

We do not agree. We have received 

recent service reports of cracked 

structure occurring at locations other 

than S–16L as early as 18,910 total flight 

cycles. No change is necessary to the AD 

in this regard. 

Request for Credit for Similar 

Inspections 

One commenter, an operator, notes 

that certain inspections similar to the 

inspections in the proposed AD are 

already required under the Corrosion 

Prevention and Control Program (CPCP). 

Although the commenter acknowledges 

that the intensity and type of inspection 

is not identical to the inspections 

specified in the proposed AD, the 

commenter requests that some relief of 

the compliance time should be 

considered if the CPCP inspections have 

been performed recently. 

We do not agree to extend the 

compliance time. In developing this AD, 

we considered the inspections of the 

baseline CPCP program, but also noted 

that certain operators may be using 

different CPCP programs. However, 

under the provisions of paragraph (n) of 

the AD, we may approve requests for 

adjustments to the compliance time if 

data are submitted to substantiate that 

such an adjustment would provide an 

acceptable level of safety. No change is 

necessary to the AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify the Failure 

Mechanism 

One commenter, an operator, requests 

that we explain why the FAA and the 

manufacturer disagree on the potential 

failure mechanism. The commenter 

points out that the manufacturer does 

not indicate that the fatigue cracking 

could result in loss of the forward entry 

door, only that incorporation of the 

service bulletin would prevent possible 

decompression and unscheduled down 

time. 

We acknowledge that the 

manufacturer’s service bulletin does not 

specifically advise that ‘‘loss of the 

forward entry door’’ could occur as a 

result of the identified unsafe condition. 

However, the manufacturer and the 

FAA agree that several potential failure 

scenarios, such as loss of the forward 

entry door, could occur. Both the 

manufacturer and the FAA agree that an 

unsafe condition has been identified 

and is likely to exist or to develop in 

other airplanes. Therefore, the actions 

specified in the AD are necessary to 

detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

intercostals of the forward entry door. 

No change is necessary to the AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Revise the Costs of 

Compliance 

Several commenters request that the 

‘‘Costs of Compliance’’ section be 

revised to reflect the number of work 

hours required for access. 

We do not agree that the cost estimate 

provided in the proposed AD should be 

revised. Based on the best data 

available, the manufacturer provided 

the number of work hours (two) 

necessary to do the required actions. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56363 

This number represents the time 

necessary to perform only the actions 

actually required by this AD. We 

recognize that, in doing the actions 

required by an AD, operators may incur 

incidental costs in addition to the direct 

costs. The cost analysis in AD 

rulemaking actions, however, typically 

does not include incidental costs such 

as the time required to gain access and 

close up, time necessary for planning, or 

time necessitated by other 

administrative actions. Those incidental 

costs, which may vary significantly 

among operators, are almost impossible 

to calculate. No change is necessary to 

the AD in this regard. 

Request To Replace Parts Without FAA 

Approval 

One commenter, an operator, asks that 

allowance be made in paragraph (m) for 

the replacement of parts without the 

need to contact the FAA for approval. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. Since the service bulletin 

referenced in this AD does not provide 

specific instructions for repair 

(replacing the parts), operators must 

perform the repair in accordance with a 

method approved as specified in 

paragraph (m) of this AD. 

Explanation of Change Made to This 

AD 

Since the issuance of the proposed 

AD, Boeing has received a Delegation 

Option Authorization (DOA). We have 

revised this AD to delegate the authority 

to approve an alternative method of 

compliance for any repair required by 

this AD to the Authorized 

Representative for the Boeing DOA 

Organization rather than the Designated 

Engineering Representative. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

that have been submitted, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the AD 

with the changes described previously. 

We have determined that these changes 

will neither increase the economic 

burden on any operator nor increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

This AD will affect about 3,113 

airplanes worldwide and 876 airplanes 

of U.S. registry. The required actions 

will take about 2 work hours per 

airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 

per work hour. Based on these figures, 

the estimated cost of the AD for U.S. 

operators is $113,880, or $130 per 

airplane, per inspection cycle. 

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 this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

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. 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 FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2005–20–03 Boeing: Amendment 39–14296. 

Docket No. FAA–2005–18788; 

Directorate Identifier 2003–NM–203–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This AD becomes effective November 1, 

2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Model 737–100, 

–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–1204, 

dated June 19, 2003; certificated in any 

category. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD was prompted by reports of 

fatigue cracks on several Boeing Model 737–

200 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD 

to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the 

intercostals on the forward and aft sides of 

the forward entry door, which could result in 

loss of the forward entry door and rapid 

decompression of the airplane. 

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. 

Service Bulletin Definition 

(f) The term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in 

this AD, means Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1204, dated June 19, 

2003. 

Initial Compliance Time 

(g) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 4,500 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later: Do the inspections specified in 

paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, as applicable. 

Inspection for Passenger Configuration 

Airplanes 

(h) For Group 1 passenger airplanes 

identified in the service bulletin: Perform a 

detailed inspection of the intercostal web, 

attachment clips, and stringer splice 

channels for cracks; and a high frequency 

eddy current inspection of the stringer splice 

channels, located forward and aft of the 

forward entry door, for cracks; per Parts 1 

and 2 of the Work Instructions of the service 

bulletin. 

Inspection for Cargo Configuration 

Airplanes 

(i) For Group 2 cargo airplanes identified 

in the service bulletin: Perform a detailed 

inspection of the intercostal webs and 

attachment clips located forward of the 

forward entry door for cracks, per Part 3 of 

the Work Instructions of the service bulletin. 

56364 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Repetitive Inspections 

(j) If no crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of 

this AD, repeat the inspections in paragraph 

(h) or (i) of this AD at the applicable time 

specified in Table 1 of this AD, except as 

provided by paragraph (k) of this AD. 

TABLE 1.—REPETITIVE INSPECTION INTERVAL

Airplane group number in 

Service Bulletin For intercostal location— Repeat inspections at intervals not to exceed—

Group 1 ............................... Stringer–16L (S–16L), from Body Stringer 348.2 to BS 360 (aft of door) ................... 4,500 flight cycles. 

Group 1 ............................... S–7L through S–15L, from BS 348.2 to BS 360 (aft of door) ...................................... 25,000 flight cycles. 

Group 1 and 2 ..................... S–7L through S–16L, from BS 294.5 to BS 303.9 (forward of door) ........................... 25,000 flight cycles. 

Deferral of Certain Repetitive Inspections 

(k) For intercostal webs at S–16L from BS 

348.2 to BS 360: Installation of the repair as 

a preventative modification or corrective 

action per Part 1 of the Work Instructions of 

the service bulletin defers the repetitive 

inspections to intervals not to exceed 25,000 

flight cycles. For Model 737–400 series 

airplanes, use 737–400 Structural Repair 

Manual (SRM) 53–10–04, Figure 201, instead 

of Figure 202. 

Corrective Actions 

(l) If any crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of 

this AD, perform the actions specified in 

paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of Table 2 of 

this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspections 

at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of 

this AD, except as provided by paragraph (k) 

of this AD. 

TABLE 2.—CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

During any inspection specified 

in— If any crack is found in— At intercostal location— Before further flight—

(1) Part 1 of the Work Instructions 

of the service bulletin.

(i) The intercoastal web ................ S–16L, from BS 348.2 to BS 360 

(aft of door).

Repair per Part 1 of the Work Instructions of the service bulletin, except the service bulletin 

specifies to contact Boeing for 

repair instructions, before further flight, do the repair specified in paragraph (m) of this 

AD. Use 737–400 SRM 53–10–

04, Figure 201, instead of Figure 202, as applicable (see 

Note 1). 

(ii) An attachment clip or stringer 

splice channel.

S–16L, from BSDo 348.2 to BS 

360 (aft of door).

Do the repair specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(2) Part 2 of the Work Instructions 

of the service bulletin.

An intercoastal web, attachment 

clip, or stringer splice channel.

S–7L through S–16L, from BS 

294.5 to BS 303.9 (forward of 

door); and S–7L through S–

15L, from BS 348.2 to BS 360 

(aft of door).

Do the repair specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

(3) Part 3 of the Work Instructions 

of the service bulletin.

An intercoastal web or attachment 

clip.

S–7L through S–16L, from BS 

294.5 to BS 303.9 (forward of 

door).

Do the repair specified in paragraph (m) of this AD. 

Note 1: The service bulletin specifies to 

repair any crack found at the S–16L 

intercostal (BS 348.2–360) on Boeing Model 

737–400 series airplanes per 737–400 SRM 

53–10–04, Figure 202. Figure 202 does not 

exist; the correct figure is 737–400 SRM 53–

10–04, Figure 201. 

Repair 

(m) At the time specified in Table 2 of this 

AD, repair per a method approved by the 

Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office 

(ACO), FAA; or per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

an Authorized Representative for the Boeing 

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. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(n)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested in accordance with the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for corrective 

actions per data meeting the type 

certification basis of the airplane approved 

by a Boeing DOA Organization AR who has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the approval must 

specifically reference this AD. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(o) You must use Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 737–53–1204, dated June 19, 

2003, to perform the actions that are required 

by this AD, unless the AD specifies 

otherwise. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves the incorporation by 

reference of this document in accordance 

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

get copies of the service information, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. To 

view the AD docket, go to the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

room PL–401, Nassif Building, Washington, 

DC. To review copies of the service 

information, go to 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 56365 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 16, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19143 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21873; Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ACE–27] 

Modification of Legal Description of 

the Class D and Class E Airspace; 

Salina Municipal Airport, KS 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule, confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: This document confirms the 

effective date of the direct final rule 

which modifies the legal description for 

Class D and Class E airspace at Salina 

Municipal Airport, KS. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 

Airspace Branch, ACE–520A, DOT 

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64276; telephone: 

(816) 329–2524. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

published this direct final rule with a 

request for comments in the Federal 

Register on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43742). 

The FAA uses the direct final 

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA 

believes that there will be no adverse 

public comment. This direct final rule 

advised the public that no adverse 

comments were anticipated, and that 

unless a written adverse comment, or a 

written notice of intent to submit such 

an adverse comment, were received 

within the comment period, the 

regulation would become effective on 

October 27, 2005. No adverse comments 

were received, and this notice confirms 

that this direct final rule will become 

effective on that date. 

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 

8, 2005. 

Elizabeth S. Wallis, 

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 05–19202 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4927–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21707; Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ACE–22] 

Modification of Legal Description of 

Class E Airspace; Lincoln, NE 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: This document confirms the 

effective date of the direct final rule 

which modifies the legal description for 

Class E Airspace; Lincoln, NE. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 

Airspace Branch, ACE–520A, DOT 

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 

(816) 329–2524. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

published this direct final rule with a 

request for comments in the Federal 

Register on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43741). 

The FAA uses the direct final 

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA 

believes that there will be no adverse 

public comment. This direct final rule 

advised the public that no adverse 

comments were anticipated, and that 

unless a written adverse comment, or a 

written notice of intent to submit such 

an adverse comment, were received 

within the comment period, the 

regulation would become effective on 

October 27, 2005. No adverse comments 

were received, and thus this notice 

confirms that this direct final rule will 

become effective on that date. 

Issued in Kansas city, MO, on September 

8, 2005. 

Elizabeth S. Wallis, 

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 05–19200 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–21872; Airspace 

Docket No. 05–ACE–26] 

Modification of Class E Airspace; 

Norfolk, NE 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: This document confirms the 

effective date of the direct final rule 

which revises Class E airspace at 

Norfolk, NE. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 

Airspace Branch, ACE–520A, DOT 

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 

(816) 329–2524. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

published this direct final rule with a 

request for comments in the Federal 

Register on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43745). 

The FAA uses the direct final 

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA 

believes that there will be no adverse 

public comment. This direct final rule 

advised the public that no adverse 

comments were anticipated, and that 

unless a written adverse comment, or a 

written notice of intent to submit such 

an adverse comment, were received 

within the comment period, the 

regulation would become effective on 

October 27, 2005. No adverse comments 

were received, and thus this notice 

confirms that this direct final rule will 

become effective on that date. 

Dated: Issued in Kansas City, MO, on 

September 8, 2005. 

Elizabeth S. Wallis, 

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 05–19201 Filed 9–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M