58358 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979). 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Withdrawal 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, Docket 97–NM–78–AD, 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 5, 1998 (63 FR 169), is 

withdrawn. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 29, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20076 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22629; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–089–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 737–200, –300, –400, and –500 

Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Boeing Model 737–200, –300, 

–400, and –500 series airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require a one-time 

inspection of frames between station 

360 and station 907 to determine if a 

subject support bracket for the air 

conditioning outlet extrusion is 

installed, and related repetitive 

investigative actions and repair if 

necessary. This proposed AD also 

provides an optional preventive 

modification that would end the 

repetitive investigative actions. This 

proposed AD would also require a onetime post-modification/repair 

inspection for cracking of each repaired/ 

modified frame. This proposed AD 

results from numerous reports 

indicating that frame cracks have been 

found at the attachment holes for 

support brackets for the air conditioning 

outlet extrusion. We are proposing this 

AD to detect and correct such cracking, 

which, if the cracking were to continue 

to grow, could result in a severed frame. 

A severed frame, combined with 

existing multi-site damage at the 

stringer 10 lap splice, could result in 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 21, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed 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 the service 

information identified in this proposed 

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: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Include the 

docket number ‘‘FAA–2005–22629; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–089–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

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 proposed 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 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 Docket 

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. 

Discussion 

We have received numerous reports 

indicating that frame cracks have been 

found at the attachment holes for 

support brackets for the air conditioning 

outlet extrusion on Boeing Model 737–

200, –300, –400, and –500 series 

airplanes. The subject support brackets 

have a certain part number and are 

attached to the frame with two rivets. 

Subject support brackets may be 

installed on frames between station 360 

and station 907. Investigation has 

revealed that the frame cracks occur due 

to fatigue and grow in a circumferential 

direction. The circumferential growth of 

the cracks is not likely to lead to a 

severed frame; however, with continued 

fatigue cycling, a crack could potentially 

turn in a direction that would lead to a 

severed frame. Also, frame cracks have 

been found on multiple adjacent frames, 

and at the lower row of fasteners of the 

stringer 10 lap joint, which is 

susceptible to multi-site damage. 

Therefore, frame cracks at the 

attachment holes for the support bracket 

of the air conditioning outlet extrusion, 

if not corrected, could eventually lead to 

a severed frame, which, combined with 

existing multi-site damage at the 

stringer 10 lap splice, could result in 

rapid decompression of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

We have reviewed Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1216, dated January 27, 2005. Part I of 

the service bulletin describes 

procedures for a general visual 

inspection to identify where subject 

support brackets (defined previously) 

may be installed on frames between 

station 360 and station 907. Part I of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 58359 

service bulletin also describes 

procedures for related investigative 

actions following identification of 

subject support brackets. The related 

investigative actions consist of a 

medium-frequency eddy current (MFEC) 

inspection for cracking of the frame 

around the attachment rivets of the 

support bracket, and a high-frequency 

eddy current (HFEC) inspection for 

cracking of the frame adjacent to the 

inboard fastener hole. 

For any subject support bracket on 

which no cracking is found, the service 

bulletin specifies to perform these 

inspections repetitively, or to do a 

preventive modification. Part II of the 

service bulletin describes procedures for 

the preventive modification, which 

involves performing an open-hole HFEC 

inspection of the frame holes for the 

support bracket, and repairing any 

cracks in accordance with the repair 

procedures (in Part III of the service 

bulletin). If no crack is found during the 

inspection of the frame holes, the 

modification procedures involve 

installing a doubler and cold-working 

fastener holes, as applicable. 

For any subject frame on which 

cracking is found, Part III of the service 

bulletin specifies procedures for repair. 

The repair involves cutting out the 

frame web, doing a dye penetrant or 

HFEC inspection of the cutout to ensure 

it is free from cracks, installing repair 

angles, and cold working fastener holes 

as applicable. 

Part IV of the service bulletin 

describes procedures for performing a 

one-time post-repair/modification 

inspection of any modified or repaired 

frame, which involves the following: 

• Performing a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the modification doubler or 

repair angle, as applicable. 

• Performing a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the frame, two stringers 

above and two stringers below the 

support bracket. 

• Performing a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the air conditioning attach 

brackets. 

• Performing a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the frame at the stringer 

clips. 

• Reporting any cracking to Boeing. 

Accomplishing the general visual 

inspection, repetitive MFEC and HFEC 

inspections, and any necessary 

corrective actions specified in the 

service information is intended to 

adequately address the unsafe 

condition. 

Section 1.E., Compliance, of the 

service bulletin specifies compliance 

times for the actions in the service 

bulletin. The service bulletin specifies 

that the initial general visual, MFEC, 

and HFEC inspections, as applicable, 

are required prior to the accumulation 

of 30,000 total flight cycles, or within 

5,000 flight cycles after the date of the 

service bulletin (or after a frame repair 

was made), whichever occurs later. The 

service bulletin specifies a repetitive 

interval (for all subject frames) of 6,000 

flight cycles. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We have evaluated all pertinent 

information and identified an unsafe 

condition that is likely to exist or 

develop on other airplanes of this same 

type design. For this reason, we are 

proposing this AD, which would require 

accomplishing the actions specified in 

the service information described 

previously, except as discussed under 

‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Information.’’ If no cracking 

is found, this proposed AD would also 

provide for optional accomplishment of 

the preventive modification, which 

would end the repetitive inspections for 

each modified frame. 

Consistent with the service 

information, the proposed AD would 

allow repetitive inspections to continue 

in lieu of the preventive modification 

for any frame on which no cracking is 

found. In making this determination, we 

considered that long-term continued 

operational safety in this case will be 

adequately ensured by repetitive 

inspections to detect cracking before it 

represents a hazard to the airplane. 

Differences Between the Proposed AD 

and Service Information 

Part IV of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the referenced service 

bulletin does not specify what 

corrective action is necessary if cracking 

is found during a post-modification/ 

repair inspection. We find that any 

cracking found during a postmodification/repair inspection must be 

repaired in one of the following ways: 

• Using a method that we approve; or 

• Using data that meet the 

certification basis of the airplane, and 

that have been approved by an 

Authorized Representative for the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes 

Delegation Option Authorization 

Organization whom we have authorized 

to make those findings. 

Also, Part IV of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of the referenced service 

bulletin specifies reporting to Boeing 

any damage found during the postmodification/repair inspections. This 

proposed AD would not require that 

action. We do not need this information 

from operators. 

The service bulletin specifies a 

compliance time relative to the date of 

the service bulletin; however, this 

proposed AD would require compliance 

before the specified compliance time 

after the effective date of this AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 2,131 airplanes of the 

affected design in the worldwide fleet. 

This proposed AD would affect about 

938 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed inspection to identify subject 

support brackets, and subsequent MFEC 

and HFEC inspections would take about 

2 work hours per frame, with 

approximately 32 to 45 frames to be 

inspected per airplane, at an average 

labor rate of $65 per work hour. Based 

on these figures, the estimated cost of 

the proposed AD for U.S. operators is 

between $3,902,080 and $5,487,300, or 

between $4,160 and $5,850 per airplane. 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with the inspections of each 

frame for cracking, the preventive 

modification, and the repair specified in 

this proposed AD, at an average labor 

rate of $65 per work hour. Note that the 

estimated cost specified in the table is 

per frame, not per airplane, as it is 

unknown how many frames on each 

airplane will have a subject bracket 

installed. 

ESTIMATED ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Work 

hours Parts Cost per frame 

Preventive modification .......................................................................................................... 4 Operator-provided ....... $260 

Repair ..................................................................................................................................... 6 $608 ............................ 998 

58360 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 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): 

Boeing: Docket No. FAA–2005–22629; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–089–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) The FAA must receive comments on 

this AD action by November 21, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737–

200, –300, –400, and –500 series airplanes; 

certificated in any category; as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1216, dated January 27, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from numerous reports 

indicating that frame cracks have been found 

at the attachment holes for support brackets 

for the air conditioning outlet extrusion. We 

are issuing this AD to detect and correct such 

cracking, which, if the cracking were to 

continue to grow, could result in a severed 

frame. A severed frame, combined with 

existing multi-site damage at the stringer 10 

lap splice, could result in 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. 

Inspection To Determine Subject Support 

Brackets 

(f) Perform a one-time general visual 

inspection to identify subject support 

brackets for the air conditioning outlet 

extrusion installed on frames between station 

360 and station 907, in accordance with Part 

I of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1216, dated January 27, 2005. 

Subject support brackets have part number 

65C27021–() and are attached to the frame 

with two rivets. Do this inspection at the 

applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., 

‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service bulletin, except, 

where the service bulletin specifies a 

compliance time after the issuance of the 

service bulletin, this AD requires compliance 

within the specified compliance time after 

the effective date of this AD. 

Repetitive Inspections for Cracking 

(g) For each frame with a subject support 

bracket identified during the inspection in 

accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD: 

Perform a medium-frequency eddy current 

inspection for cracking of the frame around 

the attachment rivets of the support bracket, 

and a high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) 

inspection for cracking of the frame adjacent 

to the inboard fastener hole, by doing all the 

actions specified in and in accordance with 

Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

737–53–1216, dated January 27, 2005, except 

for paragraph 3.B.2. of Part I (which was 

already done in accordance with paragraph 

(f) of this AD). Do the initial inspections at 

the applicable time specified in paragraph 

1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of the service bulletin, 

except, where the service bulletin specifies a 

compliance time after the issuance of the 

service bulletin, this AD requires compliance 

within the specified compliance time after 

the effective date of this AD. If no cracking 

is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at 

intervals not to exceed the repeat interval 

specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of 

the service bulletin, until paragraph (h) or (i) 

of this AD is done. 

Repair 

(h) For any frame in which cracking is 

found during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, 

repair the cracking by doing all applicable 

actions in accordance with Part III of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1216, dated January 27, 2005. Then, do 

paragraph (j) of this AD, at the time specified 

in that paragraph. Doing this repair ends the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD for each modified frame. 

Optional Preventive Modification 

(i) For any frame on which a subject 

bracket is installed: Doing all actions 

associated with the preventive modification 

in accordance with Part II of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1216, dated January 27, 2005, ends the 

repetitive inspections required by paragraph 

(g) of this AD for each modified frame. Do the 

requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD on 

each modified frame at the time specified in 

that paragraph. 

Post-Modification/Repair Inspection 

(j) For each frame repaired or modified in 

accordance with paragraph (h) or (i) of this 

AD, as applicable: Within 24,000 flight cycles 

after doing the modification/repair, but after 

a minimum of 18,000 flight cycles after doing 

the modification/repair, do one-time detailed 

inspections for cracking of the repaired/ 

modified frame, air conditioning attach 

brackets, and stringer clips, by doing all 

actions in accordance with Part IV of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 737–53–

1216, dated January 27, 2005. If any cracking 

is found during the post-modification/repair 

inspection, before further flight, repair the 

cracking using a method approved in 

accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(k)(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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Proposed Rules 58361 

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. 

(3) Before using any AMOC approved in 

accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any 

airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify 

the appropriate principal inspector in the 

FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding 

District Office. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 28, 2005. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20077 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[R01–OAR–2005–MA–0002; FRL–7981–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities and 

Pollutants: Massachusetts; Negative 

Declaration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

Sections 111(d) and 129 negative 

declaration submitted by the 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MADEP) on 

August 23, 2005. This negative 

declaration adequately certifies that 

there are no existing hospital/medical/ 

infectious waste incinerators (HMIWIs) 

located within the boundaries of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

DATES: EPA must receive comments in 

writing by November 7, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–MA–0002 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key 

in the appropriate RME Docket 

identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

3. E-mail: brown.dan@epa.gov. 

4. Fax: (617) 918–0048. 

5. Mail: ‘‘RME ID Number R01–OAR–

2005–MA–0002’’, Daniel Brown, Chief, 

Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100 (CAP), Boston, Massachusetts 

02114–2023. 

6. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Daniel Brown, Chief, 

Air Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Suite 

1100 (CAP), Boston, Massachusetts 

02114–2023. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office’s 

normal hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

Copies of documents relating to this 

proposed rule are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the following locations. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the appropriate office 

at least 24 hours before the day of the 

visit. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Permits, Toxics & Indoor Programs Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Suite 

1100 (CAP), One Congress Street, 

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023. 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, Business 

Compliance Division, One Winter 

Street, Boston, Massachusetts 04333–

0017, (617) 292–5500. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Courcier, Office of Ecosystem Protection 

(CAP), EPA–New England, Region 1, 

Boston, Massachusetts 02203, telephone 

number (617) 918–1659, fax number 

(617) 918–0659, e-mail 

courcier.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the 

Massachusetts Negative Declaration 

submittal as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 20, 2005. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 05–20107 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT75 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Brodiaea filifolia 

(Thread-Leaved Brodiaea) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

public comment period and notice of 

availability of draft economic analysis. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the public comment period 

on the proposed designation of critical 

habitat for Brodiaea filifolia, and the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

of the proposed designation of critical 

habitat. We are reopening the comment 

period to allow all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment simultaneously 

on the proposed rule and the associated 

draft economic analysis. Comments 

previously submitted on this proposed 

rule need not be resubmitted as they 

have already been incorporated into the 

public record and will be fully 

considered in our final determination. 

DATES: We will accept public comments 

and information until October 20, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

materials may be submitted to us by any 

one of the following methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

and information to Jim Bartel, Field 

Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, CA 92011;