This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

15850 

Vol. 72, No. 63 

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–27191; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–007–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: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directives (AD) 93–07–11 

and AD 94–04–16, which apply to 

certain Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 

MU–2B Series airplanes. AD 93–07–11 

and AD 94–04–16 currently require you 

to reduce the maximum deflection of 

the elevator nose-down trim to a 

1-degree to 3-degree range. When the 

above AD actions were issued, there was 

no associated elevator trim indicator 

change. Without such change, the trim 

reaches the maximum nose-down limit 

and the indicator still shows additional 

nose-down trim available. In attempting 

to force additional nose-down trim, 

pilots have manually jammed the trim 

system preventing subsequent electric 

trim changes until the pilot manually 

freed the trim wheel. Consequently, this 

proposed AD would retain the actions 

from AD 93–07–11 and AD 94–04–16 

and add the action of modifying the 

elevator trim indicator scale dial to be 

consistent with the reduced elevator 

trim capability. We are proposing this 

AD to prevent the above scenarios from 

occurring with consequent loss of 

control. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 4, 2007. 

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. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 

Airport Parkway, Suite 800, Addison, 

Texas 75001; telephone: 972–934–5480; 

facsimile: 972–934–5488. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Werner G. Koch, Aerospace Engineer, 

Fort Worth Airplane Certification 

Office, ASW–150, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137–4298; telephone: 

(817) 222–5133; fax: (817) 222–5960. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Send your 

comments to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include the docket 

number, ‘‘FAA–2007–27191; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–CE–007–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 we receive 

concerning this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

Several incidents caused by excessive 

control wheel force on Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries MU–2B series 

airplanes caused us to issue AD 93–07– 

11, Amendment 39–8543 and AD 94– 

04–16, Amendment 39–8836 (59 FR 

8520, February 23, 1994). AD 93–07–11 

and AD 94–04–16 currently require you 

to reduce the maximum deflection of 

the elevator nose-down trim to a 

1-degree to 3-degree range on certain 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MU–2B 

series airplanes. 

When the above AD actions were 

issued, there was no associated elevator 

trim indicator change. Consequently, 

when the trim reaches the maximum 

nose-down limit, the indicator still 

shows additional nose-down trim 

available. This condition may result in 

the pilot thinking that more nose-down 

trim is available beyond the mechanical 

stop. In attempting to force additional 

nose-down trim beyond the mechanical 

stop, pilots have manually jammed the 

trim system preventing subsequent 

electric trim changes until the pilot 

manually freed the trim wheel. This 

condition, if not corrected, could result 

in loss of control. 

Relevant Service Information 

The following service information 

was included in AD 93–07–11 and AD 

94–04–16 and will remain in effect for 

this AD: 

• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 

Service Bulletin No. 079/27–010, dated 

August 28, 1992; and 

• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 

Service Bulletin No. 216, dated 

September 11, 1992. 

The above service information 

describes procedures for reducing the 

maximum deflection of the elevator 

nose-down trim to a 1-degree to 

3-degree range. 

We have reviewed the following 

service information for this AD: 

• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 

Service Bulletin No. 091/27–011, dated 

August 6, 1998; and 

• Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., 

Service Bulletin No. 228, dated July 13, 

1998. 

The above service information 

describes procedures for modifying the 

elevator trim indicator scale dial to be 

consistent with the elevator trim 

capability. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of the Proposed AD 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all information and 

determined that without the elevator 

trim indicator scale dial modifications 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 15851 

the unsafe condition described 

previously is likely to exist or develop 

on other products of the same type 

design. This proposed AD would 

supersede AD 93–07–11 and AD 94–04–

16 with a new AD that would retain the 

actions from AD 93–07–11 and AD 94–

04–16 and add the action of modifying 

the elevator trim indicator scale dial to 

be consistent with the elevator trim 

capability. This proposed AD would 

require you to use the service 

information described previously to 

perform these actions. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

would affect 400 airplanes in the U.S. 

registry. 

Costs Retained From AD 93–07–11 and 

AD 94–04–16 

We estimate the following costs to do 

the proposed modification of the 

elevator nose-down trim: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

6 work-hours × $80 per hour = $480 .......................................................................................... $300 $780 $312,000

Additional Costs for This AD 

We estimate the following costs to do 

the proposed modification of the 

elevator trim indicator scale dial: 

Labor cost Parts cost Total cost per 

airplane 

Total cost on 

U.S. operators 

1 work-hour × $80 per hour = $80 .............................................................................................. N/A $80 $32,000

Authority for this Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this 

proposed AD would not have federalism 

implications under Executive Order 

13132. This proposed AD would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that the proposed regulation: 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket that 

contains the proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information on the 

Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located at the street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directives 

(ADs) 93–07–11, Amendment 39–8543 

and 94–04–16, Amendment 39–8836 (59 

FR 8520, February 23, 1994), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries: Docket No. 

FAA–2007–27191; Directorate Identifier 

2007–CE–007–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 4, 

2007. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 93–07–11, 

Amendment 39–8543 and AD 94–04–16, 

Amendment 39–8836. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the following 

airplane models and serial numbers that are 

certificated in any category: 

(1) Category 1 Airplanes: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
15852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Model Serial Nos. 

(i) MU–2B, MU–2B–10, MU–2B–15, MU–2B–20, MU–2B–25, and MU– 

2B–26.

008 through 347 (except 313 and 321). 

(ii) MU–2B–30, MU–2B–35, and MU–2B–36 ........................................... 501 through 696 (except 652 and 661). 

(2) Category 2 Airplanes: 

Model Serial Nos. 

(i) MU–2B–25, MU–2B–26, MU–2B–26A, and MU–2B–40 ..................... 313SA, 321SA, 348SA through 459SA. 

(ii) MU–2B–35, MU–2B–36A, and MU–2B–60 ......................................... 652SA, 661SA and 697SA through 1569SA. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from several incidents 

caused by excessive control wheel force. We 

are issuing this AD to retain the actions of 

AD 93–07–11 and AD 94–04–16 to prevent 

excessive control wheel force caused by 

extreme elevator nose-down trim deflection. 

We are also issuing this AD to modify the 

elevator trim indicator scale dial to be 

consistent with the reduced elevator trim 

capability. Inconsistencies between the 

elevator indicator scale dial and the elevator 

trim mechanical stop may result in the pilot 

thinking that more nose-down trim is 

available beyond the mechanical stop. 

Attempting to force additional nose-down 

trim beyond the mechanical stop may jam the 

trim system, preventing subsequent electric 

trim changes until the pilot manually frees 

the trim wheel. These conditions may result 

in loss of control of the airplane. 

Compliance 

(e) To address this problem, you must do 

the following, unless already done: 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) Reduce the maximum deflection of the elevator nose-down trim to a 1-degree to 3-degree range.(i) For Category 1 airplanes: Within 100 hours 

time-in-service (TIS) after April 11, 1994 

(the effective date of AD 94–04–16).

(A) For Category 1 airplanes: Follow 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Service 

Bulletin No. 216, dated September 11, 

1992. 

(ii) For Category 2 airplanes: Within 100 

hours TIS after June 1, 1993 (the effective 

date of AD 93–07–11).

(B) For Category 2 airplanes: Follow 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Service 

Bulletin No. 079/27–010, dated August 28, 

1992. 

(2) Modify the elevator trim indicator scale dial. Within 100 hours TIS after the effective date 

of this AD.

(i) For Category 1 airplanes: Follow Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries, Ltd., Service Bulletin No. 

228, dated July 13, 1998. 

(ii) For Category 2 airplanes: Follow 

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., Service 

Bulletin No. 091/27–011, dated August 6, 

1998. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: 

Werner G. Koch, Aerospace Engineer, Fort 

Worth ACO, ASW–150, Rotorcraft 

Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137–4298; telephone: 

(817) 222–5133; fax: (817) 222–5960, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 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. 

(g) AMOCs approved for AD 93–07–11, 

Amendment 39–8543 and AD 94–04–16, 

Amendment 39–8836 are approved for this 

AD. 

Related Information 

(h) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries America, Inc., 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–2007–27191; Directorate Identifier 

2007–CE–007–AD. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 

27, 2007. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6121 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[CGD01–07–019] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

change the drawbridge operating 

regulations governing the operation of 

the Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 

0.0, across the Norwalk River at 

Norwalk, Connecticut. This proposed 

rule would allow the bridge to remain 

in the closed position to facilitate the 

running of the annual Norwalk River 

Fun Run held on the first Saturday 

morning in December, with a rain date 

for the next day in the event of 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS