61078 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

22Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993), 

58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), as amended by 

Executive Order 13258, 67 FR 9385. For the 

complete text of the definition of ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ see E.O. 12866 at § 3(f). A 

‘‘regulatory action’’ is ‘‘any substantive action by an 

agency (normally published in the Federal Register) 

that promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including 

notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking.’’

E.O. 12866 at § 3(e). 

23The components of the economic analysis are 

set forth in E.O. 12866 § 6(a)(3)(C)(i)–(iii). For a 

description of the methodology that OMB 

recommends for preparing an economic analysis, 

see Office of Management and Budget Circular A–

4, ‘‘Regulatory Analysis’’ (September 17, 2003). 

This publication is available on OMB’s Web site at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a4.pdf. 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or state, local, or 

tribal governments or communities. 

* * * ’’ 22 Regulatory actions that 

satisfy one or more of these criteria are 

called ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory actions.’’

If OCC or OTS determines that the 

rules implementing the domestic capital 

modifications comprise an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action,’’ then the agency making that 

determination would be required to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) an economic analysis. The 

economic analysis must include: 

• A description of the need for the 

rules and an explanation of how they 

will meet the need; 

• An assessment of the benefits 

anticipated from the rules (for example, 

the promotion of the efficient 

functioning of the economy and private 

markets) together with, to the extent 

feasible, a quantification of those 

benefits; 

• An assessment of the costs 

anticipated from the rules (for example, 

the direct cost both to the government 

in administering the regulation and to 

businesses and others in complying 

with the regulation, and any adverse 

effects on the efficient functioning of the 

economy, private markets (including 

productivity, employment, and 

competitiveness)), together with, to the 

extent feasible, a quantification of those 

costs; and 

• An assessment of the costs and 

benefits of potentially effective and 

reasonably feasible alternatives to the 

planned regulation (including 

improving the current regulation and 

reasonably viable nonregulatory 

actions), and an explanation why the 

planned regulatory action is preferable 

to the identified potential alternatives.23

For purposes of determining whether 

this rulemaking would constitute an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action,’’ as defined by E.O. 12866, and 

to assist any economic analysis that E.O. 

12866 may require, OCC and OTS 

encourage commenters to provide 

information about: 

• The direct and indirect costs of 

compliance with the revisions described 

in this ANPR; 

• The effects of these revisions on 

regulatory capital requirements; 

• The effects of these revisions on 

competition among banks; and 

• The economic benefits of the 

revisions, such as the economic benefits 

of a potentially more efficient allocation 

of capital that might result from 

revisions to the current risk-based 

capital requirements. 

OCC and OTS also encourage 

comment on any alternatives to the 

revisions described in this ANPR that 

the Agencies should consider. 

Specifically, commenters are 

encouraged to provide information 

addressing the direct and indirect costs 

of compliance with the alternative, the 

effects of the alternative on regulatory 

capital requirements, the effects of the 

alternative on competition, and the 

economic benefits from the alternative. 

Quantitative information would be 

the most useful to the Agencies. 

However, commenters may also provide 

estimates of costs, benefits, or other 

effects, or any other information they 

believe would be useful to the Agencies 

in making the determination. In 

addition, commenters are asked to 

identify or estimate start-up, or nonrecurring, costs separately from costs or 

effects they believe would be ongoing. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

John C. Dugan, 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, October 12, 2005. 

Jennifer J. Johnson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

Dated at Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

October, 2005. 

By order of the Board of Directors, Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

John M. Reich, 

Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–20858 Filed 10–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P, 6210–01–P, 6714–01–P, 

6720–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22739; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–098–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R 

Series Airplanes, and Model C4–605R 

Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called 

A300–600 Series Airplanes); and Model 

A310–200 and A310–300 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 A300–600, A310–200, and 

A310–300 series airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require modifying 

the forward outflow valve of the 

pressure regulation subsystem. This 

proposed AD results from a report of 

accidents resulting in injuries occurring 

on in-service airplanes when 

crewmembers forcibly initiated opening 

of passenger/crew doors against residual 

pressure, causing the doors to rapidly 

open. In these accidents, the buildup of 

residual pressure in the cabin was 

caused by the blockage of the outflow 

valve by an insulation blanket. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent an 

insulation blanket or other debris from 

being ingested into and jamming the 

forward outflow valve of the pressure 

regulation subsystem, which could lead 

to the inability to control cabin 

pressurization and adversely affect 

continued safe flight 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 61079 

• 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 Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Backman, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2797; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number ‘‘FAA–2005–22739; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–098–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 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 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 

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation 

Civile (DGAC), which is the 

airworthiness authority for France, 

notified us that an unsafe condition may 

exist on certain A300–600, A310–200, 

and A310–300 series airplanes. The 

DGAC advises that accidents resulting 

in injuries have occurred on in-service 

airplanes when crewmembers forcibly 

initiated opening of passenger/crew 

doors against residual pressure (a 

positive pressure difference between 

inside the cabin and outside the cabin), 

causing the doors to rapidly open. In 

these accidents, the buildup of residual 

pressure in the cabin was caused by the 

blockage of the outflow valve by an 

insulation blanket, which prevented the 

valve from opening and closing during 

flight and on the ground to maintain 

control of cabin pressurization. 

In addition, there have been several 

reports of operator difficulty 

maintaining cabin pressure during 

cruise. Investigation revealed that pieces 

of a cargo insulation blanket had been 

ingested into the forward outflow valve 

of the pressure regulation subsystem 

located at frame 39 of the fuselage. 

These conditions, if not corrected, 

could lead to the inability to control 

cabin pressurization and adversely 

affect continued safe flight of the 

airplane. 

Other Relevant Rulemaking 

On June 29, 2004, we issued AD 

2004–14–08, amendment 39–13717 (69 

FR 41925, July 13, 2004), for certain 

Airbus Model A300–600 and A310 

series airplanes. That AD requires 

modification of the attachment system 

of the insulation blankets of the forward 

cargo compartment and related 

corrective action. That AD was 

prompted by several reports of operator 

difficulty maintaining cabin pressure 

during cruise. Investigation revealed 

that pieces of a cargo insulation blanket 

had been ingested into the forward 

outflow valve of the pressure regulation 

subsystem located at frame 39 of the 

fuselage. We issued that AD to prevent 

failure of the attachment system of the 

cargo insulation blankets, which could 

result in detachment and consequent 

tearing of the blankets. Such tearing 

could result in blanket pieces being 

ingested into and jamming the forward 

outflow valve of the pressure regulation 

subsystem, which could lead to cabin 

depressurization and adversely affect 

continued safe flight of the airplane. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A300–63–6149 (for Model A300–600 

series airplanes), and Service Bulletin 

A310–53–2121 (for Model A310–200 

and A310–300 series airplanes), both 

dated February 25, 2005. The service 

bulletins describe procedures for 

modifying the forward outflow valve of 

the pressure regulation subsystem. The 

modification includes installing 

brackets and installing a fence 

(protective grating) in the area of frame 

38.2. The DGAC mandated the service 

information and issued French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–061 R1, 

dated May 25, 2005, to ensure the 

continued airworthiness of these 

airplanes in France. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

These airplane models are 

manufactured in France and are type 

certificated for operation in the United 

States under the provisions of section 

21.29 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the 

applicable bilateral airworthiness 

agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral 

airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has 

kept the FAA informed of the situation 

described above. We have examined the 

DGAC’s findings, evaluated all pertinent 

information, and determined that we 

need to issue an AD for airplanes of this 

type design that are certificated for 

operation in the United States. 

Therefore, we are proposing this AD, 

which would require accomplishing the 

actions specified in the service 

information described previously. 

Difference Between French 

Airworthiness Directive and This 

Proposed AD 

The applicability of French 

airworthiness directive F–2005–061 R1, 

dated May 25, 2005, excludes airplanes 

on which either Airbus Service Bulletin 

A300–53–6149 or Airbus Service 

Bulletin A310–53–2121 has been 

accomplished. However, we have not 

excluded those airplanes in the 

applicability of this proposed AD; 

rather, this proposed AD includes a 

requirement to accomplish the actions 

specified in the service bulletins. This 

requirement would ensure that the 

actions specified in the service bulletins 

and required by this proposed AD are 

accomplished on all affected airplanes. 

Operators must continue to operate the 

airplane in the configuration required 

by this proposed AD unless an 

alternative method of compliance is 

approved. 

Costs of Compliance 

This proposed AD would affect about 

169 airplanes of U.S. registry. The 

proposed modification would take 

61080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 202 / Thursday, October 20, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

between 3 and 4 work hours per 

airplane, depending on airplane 

configuration, at an average labor rate of 

$65 per work hour. Required parts cost 

ranges between $120 and $420 per kit, 

(2 kits per airplane). Based on these 

figures, the estimated cost of the 

modification proposed by this AD for 

U.S. operators ranges between $73,515 

and $185,900 or between $435 and 

$1,100 per airplane. 

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): 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2005–22739; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–098–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 the Airbus airplanes 

identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated 

in any category; except airplanes on which 

Airbus Modification 12921 has been done in 

production. 

TABLE 1.—AIRBUS AIRPLANES AFFECTED BY THIS AD 

Airbus model 

As identified in 

Airbus service bulletin— Dated— 

A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, B4–622, B4–605R, B4–622R, F4–605R, F4–622R, and A300 C4– 

605R Variant F airplanes 

A300–53–6149 February 25, 2005. 

A310–203, –204, –221, –222, –304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes A310–53–2121 February 25, 2005. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from a report of 

accidents resulting in injuries occurring on 

in-service airplanes when crewmembers 

forcibly initiated opening of passenger/crew 

doors against residual pressure, causing the 

doors to rapidly open. In these accidents, the 

buildup of residual pressure in the cabin was 

caused by the blockage of the outflow valve 

by an insulation blanket. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent an insulation blanket or other 

debris from being ingested into and jamming 

the forward outflow valve of the pressure 

regulation subsystem, which could lead to 

the inability to control cabin pressurization 

and adversely affect continued safe flight 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. 

Modification 

(f) Within 22 months after the effective 

date of this AD: Modify the forward outflow 

value of the pressure regulation subsystem by 

doing all the actions in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A300–63–6149 (for Model 

A300–600 series airplanes) or A310–53–2121 

(for Model A310–200 and A310–300 series 

airplanes), both dated February 25, 2005; as 

applicable. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch, 

ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

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 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. 

Related Information 

(h) French airworthiness directive F–2005–

061 R1, dated May 25, 2005, also addresses 

the subject of this AD. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

13, 2005. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20965 Filed 10–19–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P