Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU-2B Series Airplanes, 14425-14428 [E6-4123]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules request comment on how to apply the criteria they must consider when developing the accuracy and integrity guidelines (see section 623(e)(3) of the FCRA) so as not to create unnecessary or unduly burdensome requirements. Also, the Federal banking agencies and NCUA request comment on how to weigh the considerations relating to when furnishers must reinvestigate disputes raised directly by consumers (see section 623(a)(8)(B) of the FCRA) so as not to create unnecessary or unduly burdensome requirements for furnishers. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Executive Order 12866 OCC and OTS: The OCC and OTS do not know whether the guidelines and regulations they will propose will constitute a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 requires preparation of an analysis for agency actions that are ‘‘significant regulatory actions.’’ ‘‘Significant regulatory actions’’ are actions that may result in regulations that are likely to: • Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; • Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; • Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or • Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.12 This ANPR neither establishes nor proposes any regulatory requirements. Because this ANPR does not contain a specific proposal, information is not available with which to prepare a regulatory analysis. The OCC and OTS will each prepare a regulatory analysis if they proceed with a proposed rule that constitutes a significant regulatory action. Accordingly, the OCC and OTS solicit comment, information, and data on the potential effects on the economy of any guidelines and regulations that commenters may recommend. The OCC and OTS encourage commenters to provide information about estimates of costs, benefits, other effects, or any other information, particularly costs to implement the statutory requirements if institutions are already meeting any of those requirements (e.g., documenting policies and procedures, monitoring, and training). In addition, the OCC and OTS ask commenters to identify or estimate start-up or non-recurring costs separately from costs or effects they believe would be ongoing. Also, the OCC and OTS ask commenters to provide data on the total number of consumer disputes reported annually and the per-unit cost to resolve each dispute. Quantitative information would be the most useful. The OCC and OTS will carefully consider the costs and benefits associated with this regulatory action. Dated: March 15, 2006. John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 13, 2006. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary of the Board. By order of the Board of Directors. Dated at Washington, DC, the 10th day of February, 2006. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary. Dated: February 6, 2006. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. John M. Reich, Director. By the National Credit Union Administration Board on March 13, 2006. Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board. By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06–2758 Filed 3–21–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–10–P; 6720–01–P; 7535–01–P; 6750–01–P 12 Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993), 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), as amended by Executive Order 13258 (February 26, 2002), 67 FR 9385 (February 28, 2002). 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.’’ Executive Order 12866, section 3(e). VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Mar 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 14425 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–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). AGENCY: SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU–2B series airplanes. This proposed AD would require you to incorporate text from the service information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). 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 detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue, if uncorrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 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, DATES: E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 14426 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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, ASW– 150, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone (817) 222–5284; fax (817) 222–5960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: cprice-sewell on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Comments Invited 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–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–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. Discussion 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. Field reports indicate an unsafe condition of improper rigging and/or adjustment of the propeller feathering linkage. Service centers found the unsafe condition during inspections. Incorrect adjustment of the feathering linkage could result in the linkage not pulling the feather valve far enough for the feathering system to function as designed. In the event of a negative torque sensing (NTS) failure, coupled with incorrect adjustment of the feathering linkage, an inability to feather the propeller could result in asymmetric drag and control difficulties that are outside of the operational envelope of the aircraft. This condition, if not corrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Relevant Service Information We have reviewed the following Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information: • Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996; and • Service Bulletin No. 090/76–003, dated January 22, 1997. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the feather valve and linkage function. specific serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs): Type certificate Affected 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. 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. A2PC ....... The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau, the airworthiness authority for Japan, issued Japanese AD No. TCD 4379–96, dated February 20, 1996, to ensure the continued airworthiness of the airplanes in Japan. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD 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 incorporate information from the service bulletins into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved AFM. The Agency is committed to updating the aviation community of expected costs associated with the MU–2B series airplane safety evaluation conducted in 2005. As a result of that commitment, the accumulating expected costs of all ADs related to the MU–2B series airplane safety evaluation may be found in the Final Report section at the following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/ aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/ small_airplanes/cos/ mu2_foia_reading_library/. Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information 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 affected models are as follows (where models are duplicated, The compliance time in the proposed AD is different from the compliance times in the service information, and the proposed AD requires the insertion of text into the Limitations Section of the AFM. The requirements of the proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would take precedence over the provisions in the service information. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD affects 397 airplanes in the U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed inspection: Total cost per airplane Labor cost Parts cost 1 work hour × $80 = $80 ........................................................................................ Not applicable .................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Mar 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 Total cost on U.S. operators $80 $31,760 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2006 / 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. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. Examining the Dockets 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. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. Type certificate MU–2B, MU–2B–10, MU–2B–15, MU–2B–20, MU–2B–25, and MU–2B–26. MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 ................................... MU–2B–25, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–26A, and MU–2B–40 ............ MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 ............ 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. § 39.13 (2) A2PC ....... (3) A10SW .... (4) A10SW .... Unsafe Condition (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 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Docket No. FAA–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–AD. Comments Due Date (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 2, 2006. Affected ADs (b) None. Applicability (c) This AD affects the following airplane models and serial numbers that are certificated in any category: Models (1) A2PC ....... 14427 Serial Nos. 008 through 312, 314 through 320, and 322 through 347. 501 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 through 696. 313SA, 321SA, and 348SA through 459SA. 652SA, 661SA, and 697SA through 1569SA. 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 detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue if uncorrected could result in degraded performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane. Compliance (e) To address this problem, you must do the following: cprice-sewell on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS Actions Compliance Procedures Incorporate the following information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM): (1) For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A2PC insert pages 3 and 4 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996. (2) For airplanes listed in Type Certificate No. A10SW insert page 3 of 3 from MHI MU–2 Service Bulletin No. 090/76–003, dated January 22, 1997. Within 100 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the information into the AFM as specified in paragraph (e) of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:33 Mar 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1 14428 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 22, 2006 / Proposed Rules Note: The language in the service information states the procedure as an ‘‘inspection,’’ but the procedure is a ‘‘pilot check.’’ Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 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, ASW–150, Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone (817) 222–5284; fax (817) 222–5960. Related Information (h) Japan Civil Aviation Bureau Airworthiness Directives No. TCD 4379–96, dated February 20, 1996; and MHI Service Bulletins No. 229, dated February 20, 1996; and No. 090/76–003, dated January 22, 1997, also address the subject of this AD. (i) 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–2006–23645; Directorate Identifier 2006–CE–04–AD. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 16, 2006. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6–4123 Filed 3–21–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Secretary 31 CFR Part 10 [REG–122380–02] RIN 1545–BA72 Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue; Correction Office of the Secretary, Treasury. ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing. cprice-sewell on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to a notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 (71 FR 6421). These proposed VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Mar 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 regulations affect individuals who practice before the Internal Revenue Service (Circular 230). The proposed amendments modify the general standards of practice before the Internal Revenue Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brinton T. Warren at (202) 622–7800 (not toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG– 122380–02) that are the subject of these corrections are under 31 CFR sections 10.1, 10.2, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.22, 10.25, 10.27, 10.29, 10.34, 10.35, 10.50, 10.51, 10.52, 10.60, 10.61, 10.62, 10.63, 10.65, 10.68, 10.70, 10.71, 10.72, 10.73, 10.76, 10.77, 10.78, 10.82, 10.90 and 10.91. Need for Correction As published, the notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing (REG–122380–02) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– 122380–02), that was the subject of FR Doc. 06–1106, is corrected as follows: 1. On page 6421, column 3, the regulation heading, line 5, (RIN 1545– AY05’’ is corrected to read ‘‘RIN 1545– BA72’’. 2. On page 6421, column 3, under the paragraph heading ‘‘DATES’’, line 3, the language, ‘‘by April 10, 2006. Outlines of topics to’’ is corrected to read ‘‘by April 28, 2006. Outlines of topics to’’. 3. On page 6421, column 3, under the paragraph heading ‘‘DATES’’, the last line, the language, ‘‘received by April 10, 2006.’’ is corrected to read ‘‘received by May 31, 2006.’’. 4. On page 6426, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading ‘‘Comments and Public Hearing’’, third paragraph, line 5, the language, ‘‘comments by April 10, 2006 and an’’ is corrected to read ‘‘comments by April 28, 2006 and an’’. 5. On page 6426, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph heading ‘‘Comments and Public Hearing’’, third paragraph the last line, the language, ‘‘April 10, 2006. A period of 10 minutes’’ is corrected to read ‘‘May 31, 2006. A period of 10 minutes’’. Richard S. Carro, Senior Advisor to the General Counsel. [FR Doc. E6–4105 Filed 3–21–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830–01–P PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05–06–015] RIN 1625–AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, Morehead City State Port, Beaufort Harbor and Taylor Creek, NC Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations during the ‘‘Pepsi Americas’ Sail 2006’’, tall ships parade and race to be held on Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, inland waters of the Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Waterfront. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This proposed action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in segments of coastal North Carolina in the vicinity of Onslow Bay, Beaufort Inlet, inland waters of Morehead City State Port and Beaufort Harbor during the parade of sail and tall ship race. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 21, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704–5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398–6203. The Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CWO C.D. Humphrey, U.S. Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, at (252) 247– 4525. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you E:\FR\FM\22MRP1.SGM 22MRP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14425-14428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4123]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-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 certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU-2B series airplanes. 
This proposed AD would require you to incorporate text from the service 
information into the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane 
Flight Manual (AFM). 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 detect and correct 
improper rigging of the propeller feathering linkage. The above issue, 
if uncorrected, could result in degraded performance and poor handling 
qualities with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 2, 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,

[[Page 14426]]

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, 
ASW-150, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 
Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone (817) 222-5284; fax (817) 222-5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    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-2006-23645; 
Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-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.

Discussion

    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. 
Field reports indicate an unsafe condition of improper rigging and/or 
adjustment of the propeller feathering linkage. Service centers found 
the unsafe condition during inspections. Incorrect adjustment of the 
feathering linkage could result in the linkage not pulling the feather 
valve far enough for the feathering system to function as designed. In 
the event of a negative torque sensing (NTS) failure, coupled with 
incorrect adjustment of the feathering linkage, an inability to feather 
the propeller could result in asymmetric drag and control difficulties 
that are outside of the operational envelope of the aircraft.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in degraded 
performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of control 
of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed the following Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 
service information:
     Service Bulletin No. 229, dated February 20, 1996; and
     Service Bulletin No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997.
    The service information describes procedures for inspecting the 
feather valve and linkage function.

Foreign Airworthiness Authority Information

    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 affected models are as follows (where models are duplicated, 
specific serial numbers are specified in the individual TCs):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Type certificate                      Affected 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau, the airworthiness authority for 
Japan, issued Japanese AD No. TCD 4379-96, dated February 20, 1996, to 
ensure the continued airworthiness of the airplanes in Japan.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    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 incorporate 
information from the service bulletins into the Limitations Section of 
the FAA-approved AFM.
    The Agency is committed to updating the aviation community of 
expected costs associated with the MU-2B series airplane safety 
evaluation conducted in 2005. As a result of that commitment, the 
accumulating expected costs of all ADs related to the MU-2B series 
airplane safety evaluation may be found in the Final Report section at 
the following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_
approvals/small_airplanes/cos/mu2_foia_reading_library/.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    The compliance time in the proposed AD is different from the 
compliance times in the service information, and the proposed AD 
requires the insertion of text into the Limitations Section of the AFM. 
The requirements of the proposed AD, if adopted as a final rule, would 
take precedence over the provisions in the service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 397 airplanes in the U.S. 
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to accomplish the proposed 
inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Total cost per   Total cost on
              Labor cost                               Parts cost                    airplane     U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work hour x $80 = $80..............  Not applicable...........................             $80         $31,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14427]]

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. See the ADDRESSES section for a location 
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

Examining the Dockets

    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.

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-2006-23645; Directorate 
Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive 
comments on this proposed airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 
2, 2006.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Type certificate             Models                  Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A2PC............  MU-2B, MU-2B-10, MU-2B-   008 through 312, 314
                       15, MU-2B-20, MU-2B-25,   through 320, and 322
                       and MU-2B-26.             through 347.
(2) A2PC............  MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, and   501 through 651, 653
                       MU-2B-36.                 through 660, and 662
                                                 through 696.
(3) A10SW...........  MU-2B-25, MU-2B-26, MU-   313SA, 321SA, and 348SA
                       2B-26A, and MU-2B-40.     through 459SA.
(4) A10SW...........  MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-   652SA, 661SA, and 697SA
                       2B-36A, and MU-2B-60.     through 1569SA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (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 
detect and correct improper rigging of the propeller feathering 
linkage. The above issue if uncorrected could result in degraded 
performance and poor handling qualities with consequent loss of 
control of the airplane.

Compliance

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate the following             Within 100 hours time-in-service      The owner/operator holding at least
 information into the Limitations      after the effective date of this      a private pilot certificate as
 Section of the FAA-approved           AD.                                   authorized by section 43.7 of the
 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM):                                               Federal Aviation Regulations (14
(1) For airplanes listed in Type                                             CFR 43.7) may insert the
 Certificate No. A2PC insert pages 3                                         information into the AFM as
 and 4 from Mitsubishi Heavy                                                 specified in paragraph (e) of this
 Industries (MHI) MU-2 Service                                               AD. Make an entry into the aircraft
 Bulletin No. 229, dated February                                            records showing compliance with
 20, 1996.                                                                   this portion of the AD in
(2) For airplanes listed in Type                                             accordance with section 43.9 of the
 Certificate No. A10SW insert page 3                                         Federal Aviation Regulations (14
 of 3 from MHI MU-2 Service Bulletin                                         CFR 43.9).
 No. 090/76-003, dated January 22,
 1997.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 14428]]

    Note: The language in the service information states the 
procedure as an ``inspection,'' but the procedure is a ``pilot 
check.''

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Fort Worth Aircraft Certification Office, 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, ASW-150, Fort Worth ACO, 2601 
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76193; telephone (817) 222-5284; 
fax (817) 222-5960.

Related Information

    (h) Japan Civil Aviation Bureau Airworthiness Directives No. TCD 
4379-96, dated February 20, 1996; and MHI Service Bulletins No. 229, 
dated February 20, 1996; and No. 090/76-003, dated January 22, 1997, 
also address the subject of this AD.
    (i) 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-
2006-23645; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-04-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 16, 2006.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. E6-4123 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P