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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 10711 

This proposed AD would require 

inspecting the side and lower frame at 

STA 4610 and 5605 for cracks and 

corrosion and making all necessary 

repairs and replacements. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

will affect 119 products of U.S. registry. 

We also estimate that it would take 

about 100 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 the proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be $1,011,500, or $8,500 per 

product. 

In addition, we estimate that any 

necessary follow-on actions would take 

up to 428 work-hours and require parts 

costing up to $14,400, for a cost up to 

$50,780 per product. We have no way 

of determining the number of products 

that may need such repair based on the 

results of the proposed inspection. The 

extent of damage will vary on each 

airplane. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: 

General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We 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 adding 

the following new AD: 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Docket 

No. FAA–2014–0108; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–CE–052–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by April 14, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries, Ltd. Models MU–2B–30, MU–2B– 

35, and MU–2B–36 airplanes, serial numbers 

502 through 651, 653 through 660, and 662 

through 696, and Models MU–2B–36A and 

MU–2B–60 airplanes, serial numbers 661SA, 

697SA through 799SA, and 1501SA through 

1569SA, certificated in any category. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 53: Fuselage. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by 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 

airframes at stations 4610 and 5605. We are 

issuing this AD to detect and correct 

structural cracks in the airframe flanges, 

which could reduce the structural integrity of 

the airplane. 

(f) Actions and Compliance 

Unless already done, do the actions in 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD. 

(1) Within the next 1,000 hours time-inservice (TIS) after the effective date of this 

AD or within the next 3 years after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

first, inspect the side and lower frames at 

frame station (STA) 4610 and STA 5605 for 

cracks and corrosion. Do the inspection 

following paragraphs 3.0 through 3.3 of 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service 

Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service 

Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, 

as applicable. 

(2) If any crack is found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, do the actions in 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this AD: 

(i) Repair the frame following paragraphs 

4.0 and 5.0 of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, 

Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 

2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 

Service Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 

22, 2013, as applicable; or 

(ii) Replace the frame following paragraphs 

4.0, 6.0, and 7.0 of Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 242, 

dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries, Ltd. Service Bulletin No. 104/53– 

003, dated July 22, 2013, as applicable. 

(3) If any corrosion is found during the 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

AD, before further flight, repair the damage 

following the instructions in paragraph 3.2 of 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service 

Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, or 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Service 

Bulletin No. 104/53–003, dated July 22, 2013, 

as applicable. 

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: 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. Before using any 

approved AMOC on any airplane to which 

the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking 

a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10712 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

(h) Special Flight Permit 

We are allowing special flight permits with 

the following limitations: 

(1) Essential crew only; 

(2) Minimum weight; 

(3) Limit ‘‘G’’ loading to minimum; and 

(4) Most direct flight to repair center. 

(i) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI Japan Civil Aviation Bureau 

(JCAB) AD No. TCD–8231–2013, dated 

August 6, 2013, for related information. 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. For service information related to this 

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://mu2aircraft.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. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

February 20, 2014. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04146 Filed 2–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1101 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2014–0005] 

Information Disclosure Under Section 

6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission, CPSC, or we) 

is issuing this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) to update the 

regulation that interprets section 6(b) of 

the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA). In 1983, the Commission issued 

a regulation interpreting the provisions 

of section 6(b) of the CPSA, and we are 

proposing to modernize that regulation 

to account for the significant 

improvements in information 

technology that have occurred since the 

regulation’s adoption. We are also 

proposing to streamline the regulation 

to be as closely aligned with section 6(b) 

as possible, while maintaining our 

compliance with the statutory 

requirements and the protections of 

section 6(b)(5) for information filed in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 15(b) of the CPSA. This NPR 

seeks comments on the proposed 

changes to the regulation. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by April 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2014– 

0005, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed rule. 

All comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing, with the 

sensitive portions clearly identified. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Secretariat, Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408; 

telephone (301) 504–6836; 

tstevenson@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 6(b) of the CPSA governs 

information disclosure by the 

Commission to the public. When 

disclosing information, the Commission, 

to the extent practicable, shall notify 

each manufacturer or private labeler of 

information to be disclosed that 

‘‘pertains’’ to a consumer product, if the 

information ‘‘will permit the public to 

ascertain readily the identity of [the] 

manufacturer or private labeler’’ of the 

product. 15 U.S.C. 2055(b). Section 

6(b)(1) also requires the Commission to 

‘‘take reasonable steps to assure’’ that 

the information to be disclosed ‘‘is 

accurate, and that [its] disclosure is fair 

in the circumstances and reasonably 

related to effectuating the purposes of 

[the CPSA].’’ Id. In 1980, the U.S. 

Supreme Court ruled that disclosures 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) are covered by the section 6(b)(1) 

restrictions. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 

U.S. 102 (1980). 

On December 29, 1983, we published 

a final rule interpreting section 6(b) of 

the CPSA. 48 FR 57430. The rule, 16 

CFR part 1101, describes our procedures 

for providing manufacturers and private 

labelers with advance notice and ‘‘a 

reasonable opportunity to submit 

comments’’ to the Commission on 

proposed disclosures of product-specific 

information. The rule also explains the 

‘‘reasonable steps’’ we will take 

pursuant to section 6(b) to assure, prior 

to public disclosure of product-specific 

information, that (1) the information is 

accurate; (2) disclosure of the 

information is fair in the circumstances; 

and (3) disclosure of the information is 

reasonably related to effectuating the 

purposes of the statutes the Commission 

administers. 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

Public Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, 

enacted on August 14, 2008, amended 

section 6 of the CPSA. The amendments 

shortened the time periods from 30 to 

15 days for manufacturers and private 

labelers to receive advance notice and 

have an opportunity to comment on any 

disclosure to the public of productspecific information. In addition, the 

amendments eliminated the 

requirement that the Commission 

publish a Federal Register notice when 

the Commission makes a finding that 

the public health and safety necessitates 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS