Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10707 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0058; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–116–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 94–12–03 

that applies to certain Airbus Model 

A320 series airplanes. AD 94–12–03 

requires modification of the belly fairing 

structure. Since we issued AD 94–12– 

03, fatigue testing of Model A320 series 

airplanes showed cracks at the lower 

riveting of the four titanium angles that 

connect the belly fairing to the keel 

beam side panels on both sides of the 

fuselage. This proposed AD also would 

require repetitive inspections for 

cracking of the four titanium angles 

between the belly fairing and the keel 

beam side panel, an inspection for 

cracking of the open holes if any 

cracking is found, and repair or 

replacement if necessary. This proposed 

AD would also expand the applicability 

of AD 94–12–03. We are proposing this 

AD to detect and correct cracking of the 

titanium angles that connect the belly 

fairing to the keel beam side panels on 

both sides of the fuselage, which could 

affect the structural integrity of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0058; or in person at the Docket 

Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1405; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0058; Directorate Identifier 

2013–NM–116–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD based on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

On May 26, 1994, we issued AD 94– 

12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994). AD 94–12–03 

superseded AD 93–24–11, Amendment 

39–8760 (58 FR 64875, December 10, 

1993). AD 94–12–03 requires actions 

intended to address an unsafe condition 

on Airbus Model A320 series airplanes 

having serial numbers 0003 through 

0092 inclusive. These serial numbers 

apply to Model A320–111, –211, and 

–231 series airplanes. 

Since we issued AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, 

June 3, 1994), The European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA), which is the 

Technical Agent for the Member States 

of the European Community, has issued 

EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013– 

0122, dated June 5, 2013 (referred to 

after this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

for the specified products. The MCAI 

states: 

During the fatigue test campaign of the 

A320 family type design, cracks have been 

found at the lower riveting of the four 

titanium angles which connect the belly 

fairing to the keel beam side panels between 

frames FR40 and FR42, on both sides of the 

fuselage. 

This condition, if not detected and 

corrected, could affect the structural integrity 

of the aeroplane. 

In 1992, DGAC France issued AD 92–201– 

030 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/

19922010tb_superseded.pdf/AD_F–1992–

201–030_1) (which corresponds to FAA AD 

94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994)) to require 

reinforcement of the belly fairing structure, 

which addressed part of the unsafe 

condition. 

For the reason described above, this 

[EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC 

France AD 92–201–030, which is superseded, 

and requires repetitive detailed inspections 

[for cracking] of the affected titanium angles 

and, depending on findings, repair or 

replacement of parts. 

As an option to extend the repetitive 

inspection interval, after the first 

detailed inspection is accomplished and 

on condition of no crack findings, this 

proposed AD would allow operators to 

remove the four titanium angles, 

perform a rototest for cracking on the 

open holes and, provided no cracks are 

found, install new titanium angles, 

followed by post-modification detailed 

inspections of the new titanium angles. 

For any titanium angle crack findings, 

this proposed AD would require 

removing any cracked angle, performing 

a rototest for cracking on the open holes 

and, provided no cracks are found, 

installing a new titanium angle, 

followed detailed inspections of the 

new titanium angles. 

For any hole cracking found during 

any rototest, this proposed AD would 

require repair. 

This proposed AD expands the 

applicability of AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, 

June 3, 1994) to include all Airbus 

Model A318, Model A319, Model A320, 

and Model A321 series airplanes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10708 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0058. 

Relevant Service Information 

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin 

A320–53–1014, Revision 02, dated 

September 1, 1994; and Service Bulletin 

A320–53–1259, dated November 6, 

2012. The actions described in this 

service information are intended to 

correct the unsafe condition identified 

in the MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

Repair Approvals 

In many FAA transport ADs, when 

the service information specifies to 

contact the manufacturer for further 

instructions if certain discrepancies are 

found, we typically include in the AD 

a requirement to accomplish the action 

using a method approved by either the 

FAA or the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent). 

We have recently been notified that 

certain laws in other countries do not 

allow such delegation of authority, but 

some countries do recognize design 

approval organizations. In addition, we 

have become aware that some U.S. 

operators have used repair instructions 

that were previously approved by a 

State of Design Authority or a Design 

Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of 

compliance with this provision in FAA 

ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the 

previously approved repair instructions 

come from the airplane structural repair 

manual or the DAH repair approval 

statements that were not specifically 

developed to address the unsafe 

condition corrected by the AD. Using 

repair instructions that were not 

specifically approved for a particular 

AD creates the potential for doing 

repairs that were not developed to 

address the unsafe condition identified 

by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the 

applicable service information, which 

could result in the unsafe condition not 

being fully corrected. 

To prevent the use of repairs that 

were not specifically developed to 

correct the unsafe condition, this 

proposed AD would require that the 

repair approval specifically refer to the 

FAA AD. This change is intended to 

clarify the method of compliance and to 

provide operators with better visibility 

of repairs that are specifically developed 

and approved to correct the unsafe 

condition. In addition, we use the 

phrase ‘‘its delegated agent, or by the 

DAH with State of Design Authority 

design organization approval, as 

applicable’’ in this proposed AD to refer 

to an DAH authorized to approve 

required repairs for this proposed AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 851 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994), and retained in 

this proposed AD take about 288 workhours per product, at an average labor 

rate of $85 per work-hour. Required 

parts cost about $1,045 per product. 

Based on these figures, the estimated 

cost of the actions that were required by 

AD 94–12–03 is $25,525 per product. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 7 work-hours per product to 

comply with the basic requirements of 

this proposed AD. The average labor 

rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, we estimate the cost of 

this proposed AD on U.S. operators to 

be $506,345, or $595 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

and optional action costs specified in 

this proposed AD. 

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 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 this 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); 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska; and 

4. 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. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

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 FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing airworthiness directive (AD) 

94–12–03, Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 

28763, June 3, 1994), and adding the 

following new AD: 

Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2014–0058; 

Directorate Identifier 2013–NM–116–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 14, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 94–12–03, 

Amendment 39–8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 

1994). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) 

of this AD, certificated in any category, all 

manufacturer serial numbers. 

(1) Airbus Model A318–111, –112, –121, 

and –122 airplanes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10709 

(2) Airbus Model A319–111, –112, –113, 

–114, –115, –131, –132, and –133 airplanes. 

(3) Airbus Model A320–111, –211, –212, 

–214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes. 

(4) Airbus Model A321–111, –112, –131, 

–211, –212, –213, –231, and –232 airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 53, Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by reports of cracks 

at the lower riveting of the four titanium 

angles that connect the belly fairing to the 

keel beam side panels on both sides of the 

fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and 

correct cracking of the titanium angles that 

connect the belly fairing to the keel beam 

side panels on both sides of the fuselage, 

which could affect the structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

You are responsible for having the actions 

required by this AD performed within the 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Retained Modification 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of AD 94–12–03, Amendment 

39–8930 (59 FR 28763, June 3, 1994), with 

new service information. For Model A320– 

111, –211, and –231 series airplanes, 

manufacturer serial numbers 0003 through 

0092 inclusive: Prior to the accumulation of 

12,000 total landings on the airplane, or 

within 300 days after January 10, 1994 (the 

effective date of AD 93–24–11, Amendment 

39–8760 (58 FR 64875, December 10, 1993)), 

whichever occurs later, modify the belly 

fairing structure, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of an Airbus 

service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), 

(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD. As of the effective 

date of this AD, use only the Airbus service 

bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this 

AD. 

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1014, 

dated June 25, 1992. 

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1014, 

Revision 1, dated May 26, 1993. 

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320–53–1014, 

Revision 2, dated September 1, 1994. 

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive 

Inspection 

At the latest of the compliance times 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and 

(h)(3) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the four titanium angles between 

the belly fairing and the keel beam side 

panel, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(1) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total 

flight cycles or 60,000 total flight hours, 

whichever occurs first after first flight of the 

airplane. 

(2) Within 30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 

flight hours, whichever occurs first after 

modification of the airplane as required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, or after installation 

of new titanium angles, provided that, prior 

to installation, a rototest for cracking on the 

open holes has been accomplished with no 

crack findings, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(3) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 6,000 

flight hours, whichever occurs first after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) New Requirement of This AD: PostInspection Actions for No Crack Findings 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD, there is no crack 

finding: Accomplish the actions specified in 

either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD. 

(1) Repeat the inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD at intervals not to 

exceed 5,000 flight cycles or 10,000 flight 

hours, whichever occurs first. 

(2) Before further flight after the inspection 

required by paragraph (h) of this AD, remove 

all inspected titanium angles, accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(j) New Requirement of This AD: PostInspection Actions for Any Crack Findings 

If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD, there is any crack 

finding: Before further flight, remove the 

affected titanium angle(s), accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(k) New Requirement of This AD: PostInstallation Repetitive Inspections 

For airplanes on which new titanium 

angles were installed as specified in 

paragraph (i)(2) or (j) of this AD: Within 

30,000 flight cycles or 60,000 flight hours, 

whichever occurs first after the installation: 

Accomplish a detailed inspection for 

cracking of the four titanium angles between 

the belly fairing and the keel beam side 

panel, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. Repeat the inspection 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 

flight cycles or 10,000 flight hours, 

whichever occurs first. 

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Post 

Inspection Actions for Any Crack Findings 

During Post-Installation Inspections 

If, during any inspection as required by 

paragraph (k) of this AD, there is any crack 

finding: Before further flight, remove the 

affected titanium angles, accomplish a 

rototest for cracking on the open holes, and, 

provided no cracks are found, install new 

titanium angles, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–53–1259, dated 

November 6, 2012. 

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective 

Action for Rototest Crack Finding 

If, during any rototest as required by 

paragraph (i), (j), or (l) of this AD, any crack 

is found: Before further flight, repair using a 

method approved by the Manager, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (or its 

delegated agent, or by the Design Approval 

Holder (DAH) with EASA design 

organization approval, as applicable). For a 

repair method to be approved, the repair 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(n) New Provision of This AD: No 

Termination Action for Repetitive 

Inspections 

Repair or replacement of parts as specified 

in this AD does not terminate the repetitive 

inspections required by this AD. 

(o) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227 1405; fax (425) 227– 

1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, use these actions if they are 

FAA approved. Corrective actions are 

considered FAA-approved if they were 

approved by the State of Design Authority (or 

its delegated agent, or the Design Approval 

Holder with a State of Design Authority’s 

design organization approval, as applicable). 

You are required to ensure the product is 

airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(p) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European 

Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness 

Directive 2013–0122, dated June 5, 2013, for 

related information. This MCAI may be 

found in the AD docket on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014–0058. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness 

Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; 

telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10710 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@

airbus.com; Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

You may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on: 

February 18, 2014. 

Ross Landes, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04140 Filed 2–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0108; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–052–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries, Ltd. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 

Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, MU– 

2B–36, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 

airplanes. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as stress corrosion cracking in 

the flanges of the airframe at stations 

4610 and 5605. We are issuing this 

proposed AD to require actions to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by April 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries America, Inc., c/o 

Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc., 4550 

Jimmy Doolittle Drive, Addison, Texas 

75001; telephone: (972) 248–3108, ext. 

209; fax: (972) 248–3321; Internet: 

http://mu-2aircraft.com. You may 

review this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Small Airplane 

Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0108; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth A. Cook, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification 

Office (ACO), 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 

222–5475; fax: (817) 222–5960; email: 

Kenneth.A.Cook@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0108; Directorate Identifier 

2013–CE–052–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

regulations.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau 

(JCAB), which is the aviation authority 

for Japan, has issued AD No. TCD– 

8231–2013, dated August 6, 2013 

(referred to after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to 

correct an unsafe condition for certain 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) 

Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and 

MU–2B–36 airplanes. You may examine 

the MCAI on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0108. 

The JCAB has informed us that as part 

of the MHI continuing aging aircraft 

program, Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B– 

35, and MU–2B–36 airplanes, short 

body and long body, were subjected to 

detailed teardown inspections. During 

the inspections, structural cracks in the 

flanges of some long body airplane 

frames were found at frame station 

(STA) 4610 and STA 5605. It has been 

determined that the structural cracks 

resulted from stress corrosion. 

Japan is the State of Design for 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) 

Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and 

MU–2B–36, which the MCAI AD 

applies to, and the United States is the 

State of Design for MHI Models MU– 

2B–36A and MU–2B–60 airplanes. 

Since the Models MU–2B–36A and 

MU–2B–60 airplanes are of similar type 

design, the same structural cracks could 

exist. 

Relevant Service Information 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has 

issued Service Bulletin No. 242, dated 

July 10, 2013, and Service Bulletin No. 

104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013. The 

actions described in this service 

information are intended to correct the 

unsafe condition identified in the 

MCAI. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

Some of the affected products have 

been approved by the aviation authority 

of another country, and are approved for 

operation in the United States. Pursuant 

to our bilateral agreement with this 

State of Design Authority, they have 

notified us of the unsafe condition 

described in the MCAI and service 

information referenced above. We are 

proposing this AD because we evaluated 

all information and determined the 

unsafe condition exists and is likely to 

exist or develop on other products of the 

same type design. 

Since the same unsafe condition 

exists for both the Japan and U.S. State 

of Design model airplanes, we are 

proposing one AD to address this issue 

for all affected airplanes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS