Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Series Airplanes, 6685-6687 [E6-1769]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2006 / Proposed Rules Note 2: The actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD may be done by inserting a copy of TR 2B–2109 into the AWL section of the Canadair Regional Jet MRM. When the contents of TR have been included in general revisions of the MRM, the general revisions may be inserted in the MRM, provided the relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in TR 2B–2109. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (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. Related Information (h) Canadian airworthiness directive CF– 2005–05, dated February 18, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 31, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–1766 Filed 2–8–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2006–23644; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–03–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B Series Airplanes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for some Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU–2B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to change the flight idle blade angle. This proposed AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU– 2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:19 Feb 08, 2006 Jkt 208001 that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent confusion in blade angle settings. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric thrust situation in certain flight conditions, which could result in airplane controllability problems. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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– 0001. • Fax: 1–202–493–2251. • 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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: 972– 934–5480; facsimile: 972–934–5488, for the service information identified in this proposed AD. You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO, ASW–150, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137– 4298; telephone: 817–222–5284; facsimile: 817–222–5960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, ‘‘FAA–2006–23644; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–03–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. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 6685 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 rulemaking. Using the search function of the DOT docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into 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 Where can I go to view the docket information? You may examine the docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition on the Internet at http:// dms.dot.gov, or in person at the DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647–5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management Facility receives them. Discussion What events have caused this proposed AD? Recent accidents and the service history of the Mitsubishi MU–2B series airplanes prompted FAA to conduct an MU–2B Safety Evaluation. This evaluation used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU– 2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. The safety evaluation provided an indepth review and analysis of MU–2B accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot training requirements, engine reliability, and commercial operations. In conducting this evaluation, the team employed new analysis tools that provided a much more detailed root cause analysis of the MU–2B problems than was previously possible. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. One of these conditions is the potential for incorrect blade angle settings for the propellers. A survey of the operators, pilots, owners, and service center owners voiced a E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM 09FEP1 6686 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2006 / Proposed Rules concern that 16-degree and 12-degree flight idle blade angles called out in Type Certificate Data Sheet A10SW, Note #3, could have caused confusion in blade angle settings for both propellers. What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric thrust situation in certain flight conditions, which could result in airplane controllability problems. Relevant Service Information Is there service information that applies to this subject? We have reviewed Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., Service Bulletin No. SB016/61–001, dated March 18, 1980. What are the provisions of this service information? The service information describes procedures for the change of the flight idle blade angle. Since Japan is the State of Design for the affected airplanes on one of the two type certificates, did the Japan Civil Type certificate A10SW ...................... A2PC ......................... Airworthiness Board (JCAB) take any action? The MU–2B series airplane was initially certificated in 1965 and again in 1976 under two separate type certificates that consist of basically the same type design. Japan is the State of Design for TC No. A2PC, and the United States is the State of Design for TC No. A10SW. The models on the respective type certificates are as follows (where models are duplicated, specific serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs): Models MU–2B–25, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–26A, MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–36A, MU–2B–40, and MU–2B–60. MU–2B, MU–2B–10, MU–2B–15, MU–2B–20, MU–2B–25, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36. Only certain models from Type certificate A10SW are affected by this proposed AD. Therefore, the JCAB did not issue any AD action because, as State of Design, they had no affected airplanes. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD Why have we determined AD action is necessary and what would this proposed AD require? We are proposing this AD to address an unsafe condition that we determined is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. The proposed AD would require you to change the flight idle blade angle. The proposed AD would require you to use the service information described previously to perform these actions. Costs of Compliance How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that this proposed AD affects 148 airplanes in the U.S. registry. What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to do this proposed modification to change the flight idle blade angle: Total cost per airplane Labor cost 6 work hours × $65 = $390 ....................................................................... Not Applicable ................................. Are there other actions that FAA is issuing that would present a cost impact on the MU–2B series airplane fleet? This Docket wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS FAA–2006–23578 ................ Unsafe condition 20:19 Feb 08, 2006 Jkt 208001 $57,720 MU–2B airplanes. To date, we have proposed the following action: Date NPRM published Wing attach barrel nuts, bolts, and retainers for cracks, corrosion, and fractures. Total proposed cost impact to date (including this NPRM) for the affected airplanes is $1,650 per airplane. This does not account for the following: • The cost of any repairs or replacements based upon the results of inspections by the proposed actions; and • The loss of revenue due to the airplane being down for work associated with any proposed AD action. The total cost to date on all U.S. operators to date (including this NPRM) would be $557,940. This is based on the presumption that all 357 airplanes would need all 8 barrel nuts replaced per Docket No. FAA–2006–23578. VerDate Aug<31>2005 is one of several actions that FAA is evaluating for unsafe conditions on the Total cost on U.S. operators $390 Parts cost Cost impact January 25, 2006 (71 FR 4072). $65 per airplane for the inspection and $1,195 per airplane if all 8 barrel nuts needed replacement. Total airplane cost is $1,260 per airplane. If all 397 airplanes needed all 8 barrel nuts replaced, the total cost on U.S. operators for this proposed action would be $500,220. Authority for This Rulemaking 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. What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? 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 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Regulatory Findings Would this proposed AD impact various entities? 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 E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM 09FEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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. See the ADDRESSES § 39.13 section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. 6687 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Docket No. FAA–2006–23644; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–03–AD. Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD? (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by March 17, 2006. PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action? (b) None. 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Model What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD? (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Serial Nos. (1) MU–2B–26A and MU–2B–40 ........................ (2) MU–2B–36A and MU–2B–60 ........................ What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD? (d) This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of the MU–2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and define 321SA, 348SA, 350SA through 419SA, 421SA, 422SA, and 423SA. 661SA, 697SA through 747SA, 749SA through 757SA, and 759SA through 773SA. what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent confusion in blade angle settings. This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric thrust situation in certain flight conditions, which could result in airplane controllability problems. What Must I Do To Address This Problem? (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: Actions Compliance Procedures Change the flight idle blade angle ..................... Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS). Follow Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc. Service Bulletin No. SB016/61–001, dated March 18, 1980. wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance? (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (g) For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance or for information pertaining to this AD, contact Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO, ASW–150, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137–4298; telephone: 817–222–5284; facsimile: 817–222–5960. http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket No. FAA–2006–23644; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–03–AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 3, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–1769 Filed 2–8–06; 8:45 am] 20:19 Feb 08, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2006–23842; Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–145–AD] RIN 2120–AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777–200 and 777–300 Series Airplanes BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). AGENCY: May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD? (h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001 telephone: 972–934–5480; facsimile: 972– 934–5488. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, Washington, DC, or on the Internet at VerDate Aug<31>2005 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 777–200 and 777– 300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the splined Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\09FEP1.SGM 09FEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6685-6687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1769]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23644; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-03-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B 
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 some Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU-2B series airplanes. This 
proposed AD would require you to change the flight idle blade angle. 
This proposed AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a 
data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance 
of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and 
define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation. Part 
of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions that 
exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. We are 
issuing this proposed AD to prevent confusion in blade angle settings. 
This unsafe condition, if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric 
thrust situation in certain flight conditions, which could result in 
airplane controllability problems.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 17, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment 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 20590-0001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     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 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, 
Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001; telephone: 972-934-5480; facsimile: 
972-934-5488, for the service information identified in this proposed 
AD.
    You may examine the comments on this proposed AD in the AD docket 
on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, 
Fort Worth ACO, ASW-150, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham 
Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone: 817-222-5284; 
facsimile: 817-222-5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    How do I comment on this proposed AD? We invite you to send any 
written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. 
Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the 
docket number, ``FAA-2006-23644; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-03-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 rulemaking. Using the search 
function of the DOT docket Web site, anyone can find and read the 
comments received into 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

    Where can I go to view the docket information? You may examine the 
docket that contains the proposal, any comments received and any final 
disposition on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in person at the 
DOT Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) 
is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation 
NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. Comments 
will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management 
Facility receives them.

Discussion

    What events have caused this proposed AD? Recent accidents and the 
service history of the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplanes prompted FAA 
to conduct an MU-2B Safety Evaluation. This evaluation used a data-
driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and maintenance of 
the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine their safety and 
define what steps, if any, are necessary for their safe operation.
    The safety evaluation provided an in-depth review and analysis of 
MU-2B accidents, incidents, safety data, pilot training requirements, 
engine reliability, and commercial operations. In conducting this 
evaluation, the team employed new analysis tools that provided a much 
more detailed root cause analysis of the MU-2B problems than was 
previously possible.
    Part of that evaluation was the identification of unsafe conditions 
that exist or could develop on the affected type design airplanes. One 
of these conditions is the potential for incorrect blade angle settings 
for the propellers. A survey of the operators, pilots, owners, and 
service center owners voiced a

[[Page 6686]]

concern that 16-degree and 12-degree flight idle blade angles called 
out in Type Certificate Data Sheet A10SW, Note 3, could have 
caused confusion in blade angle settings for both propellers.
    What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? This condition, 
if not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric thrust situation in 
certain flight conditions, which could result in airplane 
controllability problems.

Relevant Service Information

    Is there service information that applies to this subject? We have 
reviewed Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., Service Bulletin No. 
SB016/61-001, dated March 18, 1980.
    What are the provisions of this service information? The service 
information describes procedures for the change of the flight idle 
blade angle.
    Since Japan is the State of Design for the affected airplanes on 
one of the two type certificates, did the Japan Civil Airworthiness 
Board (JCAB) take any action? The MU-2B series airplane was initially 
certificated in 1965 and again in 1976 under two separate type 
certificates that consist of basically the same type design. Japan is 
the State of Design for TC No. A2PC, and the United States is the State 
of Design for TC No. A10SW. The models on the respective type 
certificates are as follows (where models are duplicated, specific 
serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Type certificate                          Models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A10SW.......................  MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-26A, MU-2B-35,
                               MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, MU-2B-40, and MU-2B-
                               60.
A2PC........................  MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-
                               25, MU-2B-26, MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and MU-
                               2B-36.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only certain models from Type certificate A10SW are affected by 
this proposed AD. Therefore, the JCAB did not issue any AD action 
because, as State of Design, they had no affected airplanes.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    Why have we determined AD action is necessary and what would this 
proposed AD require? We are proposing this AD to address an unsafe 
condition that we determined is likely to exist or develop on other 
products of this same type design. The proposed AD would require you to 
change the flight idle blade angle. The proposed AD would require you 
to use the service information described previously to perform these 
actions.

Costs of Compliance

    How many airplanes would this proposed AD impact? We estimate that 
this proposed AD affects 148 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
    What would be the cost impact of this proposed AD on owners/
operators of the affected airplanes? We estimate the following costs to 
do this proposed modification to change the flight idle blade angle:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total cost per   Total cost on
                  Labor cost                               Parts cost                airplane     U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work hours x $65 = $390.....................  Not Applicable..................            $390         $57,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Are there other actions that FAA is issuing that would present a 
cost impact on the MU-2B series airplane fleet? This is one of several 
actions that FAA is evaluating for unsafe conditions on the MU-2B 
airplanes. To date, we have proposed the following action:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Docket                   Unsafe condition       Date NPRM published           Cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA-2006-23578.....................  Wing attach barrel      January 25, 2006 (71    $65 per airplane for the
                                      nuts, bolts, and        FR 4072).               inspection and $1,195 per
                                      retainers for cracks,                           airplane if all 8 barrel
                                      corrosion, and                                  nuts needed replacement.
                                      fractures.                                      Total airplane cost is
                                                                                      $1,260 per airplane. If
                                                                                      all 397 airplanes needed
                                                                                      all 8 barrel nuts
                                                                                      replaced, the total cost
                                                                                      on U.S. operators for this
                                                                                      proposed action would be
                                                                                      $500,220.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total proposed cost impact to date (including this NPRM) for the 
affected airplanes is $1,650 per airplane. This does not account for 
the following:
     The cost of any repairs or replacements based upon the 
results of inspections by the proposed actions; and
     The loss of revenue due to the airplane being down for 
work associated with any proposed AD action.
    The total cost to date on all U.S. operators to date (including 
this NPRM) would be $557,940. This is based on the presumption that all 
357 airplanes would need all 8 barrel nuts replaced per Docket No. FAA-
2006-23578.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? 
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

    Would this proposed AD impact various entities? 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

[[Page 6687]]

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. 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 Federal Aviation Administration 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.


Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new 
airworthiness directive:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Docket No. FAA-2006-23644; Directorate 
Identifier 2006-CE-03-AD.

When Is the Last Date I Can Submit Comments on This Proposed AD?

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive 
comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by 
March 17, 2006.

What Other ADs Are Affected by This Action?

    (b) None.

What Airplanes Are Affected by This AD?

    (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial 
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Model                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) MU-2B-26A and MU-2B-40...  321SA, 348SA, 350SA through 419SA, 421SA,
                                422SA, and 423SA.
(2) MU-2B-36A and MU-2B-60...  661SA, 697SA through 747SA, 749SA through
                                757SA, and 759SA through 773SA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

    (d) This AD results from a recent safety evaluation that used a 
data-driven approach to analyze the design, operation, and 
maintenance of the MU-2B series airplanes in order to determine 
their safety and define what steps, if any, are necessary for their 
safe operation. Part of that evaluation was the identification of 
unsafe conditions that exist or could develop on the affected type 
design airplanes. The actions specified in this AD are intended to 
prevent confusion in blade angle settings. This unsafe condition, if 
not corrected, could lead to an asymmetric thrust situation in 
certain flight conditions, which could result in airplane 
controllability problems.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change the flight idle blade  Within the next 100   Follow Mitsubishi
 angle.                        hours time-in-        Aircraft
                               service (TIS).        International, Inc.
                                                     Service Bulletin
                                                     No. SB016/61-001,
                                                     dated March 18,
                                                     1980.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

    (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office (ACO), 
FAA, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance 
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 
39.19.
    (g) For information on any already approved alternative methods 
of compliance or for information pertaining to this AD, contact Rao 
Edupuganti, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO, ASW-150, Rotorcraft 
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-
4298; telephone: 817-222-5284; facsimile: 817-222-5960.

May I Get Copies of the Documents Referenced in This AD?

    (h) To get copies of the documents referenced in this AD, 
contact Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 4951 Airport Parkway, 
Suite 800, Addison, Texas 75001 telephone: 972-934-5480; facsimile: 
972-934-5488. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management 
Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 
SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC, or on the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket No. FAA-
2006-23644; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-03-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 3, 2006.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-1769 Filed 2-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P