8648 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4716 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–210–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi

Model MU–300 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to all

Mitsubishi Model MU–300 airplanes.

This proposal would require revising

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

provide pilots with certain operating

procedures during icing conditions, and

to limit the maximum flaps position for

flight in icing conditions or landing

after an icing encounter. The proposal

also would require installing an ice

detector, and accomplishing a

corresponding AFM revision to address

its operation. For certain airplanes, the

proposal would require converting the

airplane configuration or modifying the

warning horn system of the landing

gear; and revising the AFM to specify

flaps 10 degrees as a normal landing

flap configuration. The actions specified

by the proposed AD are intended to

prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch

at certain flap settings during icing

conditions.

DATES: Comments must be received by

April 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 96–NM–

210–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America,

Inc., 15303 Dallas Parkway, Suite 685,

LB–77, Dallas, Texas 75248. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Wichita Aircraft

Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road,

Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport,

Wichita, Kansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina

L. Miller, Aerospace Engineer, Flight

Test Branch, ACE–117W, FAA, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office, Small

Airplane Directorate, 1801 Airport

Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;

telephone (316) 946–4168; fax (316)

946–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 96–NM–210–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–103, Attention: Rules Docket No.

96–NM–210–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

On December 5, 1994, the FAA issued

AD 94–25–10, amendment 39–9094 (59

FR 64112, December 13, 1994), that is

applicable to all Raytheon (Beech)

Model 400, 400A, 400T, and MU–300–

10 airplanes, and all Mitsubishi Model

MU–300 airplanes, to require a revision

to the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to provide pilots with

special operating procedures during

icing conditions. That AD was

prompted by results of icing tests,

which demonstrated that ice

accumulations on the horizontal

stabilizer may cause the airplane to

pitch down at certain flaps settings. The

requirements of that AD are intended to

prevent uncommanded nose-down pitch

at certain flap settings during icing

conditions.

Actions Since Issuance of Previous Rule

Since the issuance of AD 94–25–10,

the FAA reviewed and approved

Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007 (including Attachment 1),

dated January 12, 1996. The service

bulletin describes procedures for

installing a Rosemount ice detector in

accordance with Supplemental Type

Certificate (STC) ST00383WI.

For Diamond I airplanes, Attachment

1 of the service bulletin describes

procedures for modifying the warning

horn system of the landing gear. That

action involves modifying the center

pedestal and the wiring of the warning

horn, installing a switch panel assembly

on the center pedestal, and performing

a functional test of the warning horn

system of the landing gear.

As an alternative to this modification,

the service bulletin specifies that

Diamond I airplanes may be converted

to the Diamond IA airplane

configuration by accomplishing

Mitsubishi MU–300 Diamond Service

Recommendation SR–001, Revision 2,

dated June 1, 1984. That action involves

upgrading the airplane to conform to an

improved performance configuration,

and includes modifications of the air

conditioning system, the pitch trim

indicator, the warning horn of the

landing gear, and the engine indicating

system.

Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007 also references the following

documents as the additional sources of

service information for accomplishment

of certain other procedures:

1. Airplane Flight Manual Supplement

M300–1003, dated December 6, 1995, which

revises the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the AFM to address the operation

of the ice detector system.

2. Diamond I Flight Manual, Revision 29,

dated January 5, 1996, which revises the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules 8649

Operating Limitations, Emergency

Procedures, Abnormal Procedures, Normal

Procedures, Performance, and Weight and

Balance Sections of the AFM to limit the

maximum flap position to flaps 10 degrees

for flight in icing conditions or landing after

an icing encounter, to allow landing flaps of

30 degrees if the icing encounter meets

certain criteria, and to specify flaps 10

degrees as a normal landing flap

configuration for Diamond I airplanes.

3. Mitsubishi MU–300 Diamond IA

Airplane Flight Manual, Revision 9, dated

January 5, 1996, which revises the Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

and Performance Sections of the AFM to

limit the maximum flap position to flaps 10

degrees for flight in icing conditions or

landing after an icing encounter, and to allow

landing flaps of 30 degrees if the icing

encounter meets certain criteria.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, for Model MU–300 airplanes, the

proposed AD would continue to require

the AFM revision, currently required by

AD, that provides pilots with certain

operating procedures during icing

conditions, and limits the maximum

flaps position for flight in icing

conditions or landing after an icing

encounter. This proposal also would

require installing an ice detector, and

accomplishing a corresponding AFM

revision to address its operation.

For certain airplanes, the proposal

would require converting the airplane

configuration or modifying the warning

horn system of the landing gear; and

revising the AFM to specify flaps 10

degrees as a normal landing flap

configuration.

The proposed actions would be

required to be accomplished in

accordance with the service documents

described previously.

Accomplishment of the requirements

of the proposed AD would constitute

terminating action for the requirements

of AD 94–25–10 for Model MU–300

airplanes.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

The FAA is considering issuing

separate rulemaking action to supersede

AD 94–25–10 to remove Model MU–300

airplanes from the applicability of the

AD. That separate rulemaking action

also would require, among other things,

modification of the ice protection

system of the horizontal stabilizer on all

Beech Model 400, 400A, 400T, and MU–

300–10 airplanes.

Difference Between Service Bulletin

and the Proposed AD

Operators should note that Mitsubishi

MU–300 Service Bulletin No. 30–007

recommends a compliance time of one

year after the date of issuance of the

service bulletin. However, this proposed

AD requires that the actions specified in

the service bulletin be accomplished

within two years after the effective date

of the AD. The FAA established the

proposed two-year compliance time to

coincide with the time specified in the

separate rulemaking action to supersede

AD 94–25–10 for Beech Model 400,

400A, 400T, and MU–300–10 airplanes,

discussed previously. The FAA has

determined that the proposed 2-year

compliance time will not compromise

safety, since the currently-required AFM

revision will remain in effect in the

interim.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 89 Model

MU–300 airplanes of U.S. registry

would be affected by this proposed AD.

The AFM revision that is currently

required by AD 94–25–10 for Model

MU–300 airplanes takes approximately

1 work hour per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact on U.S. operators of the

currently required AFM revision is

estimated to be $5,340, or $60 per

airplane.

The ice detector installation that is

proposed in this AD action for all

airplanes would take approximately 80

work hours per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts would cost

approximately $7,000 per airplane.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

on U.S. operators of the proposed

installation of this AD is estimated to be

$1,050,200, or $11,800 per airplane.

The new AFM revisions that are

proposed in this AD action for all

airplanes would take approximately 1

work hour per airplane to accomplish,

at an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Based on these figures, the cost

impact on U.S. operators of the new

AFM revisions is estimated to be $5,340,

or $60 per airplane.

The conversion of the configuration of

the airplane that is specified in this AD

action as an option for Diamond I

airplanes, if accomplished, requires

actions related to the airframe and the

engine. The airframe portion of the

conversion would take approximately

160 work hours per airplane to

accomplish, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. Required parts

would cost approximately $50,000 per

airplane. The engine portion of the

conversion should be accomplished

during a regular engine overhaul;

therefore, it would require no additional

work hours. Required parts for this

action would cost approximately

$260,000 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the proposed

conversion on U.S. operators, who elect

to accomplish it, is estimated to be

$319,600 per airplane.

If accomplished, the option for

modification of the warning horn

system that is specified in this AD

action for Diamond I airplanes would

take approximately 6 work hours per

airplane to accomplish, at an average

labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would cost

approximately $600 per airplane. Based

on these figures, the cost impact of the

proposed modification on U.S. operators

is estimated to be $960 per airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have substantial direct effects

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. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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); and (3) if

promulgated, 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. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.
8650 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(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. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.: Docket

96–NM–210–AD.

Applicability: All Model MU–300 series

airplanes, certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent uncommanded nose-down

pitch at certain flap settings during icing

conditions, accomplish the following:

(a) For all airplanes: Within 20 days after

December 28, 1994 (the effective date of AD

94–25–10, amendment 39–9094), revise the

Limitations Section and Normal Procedures

Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight

Manual (AFM) to include the following

statement. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

‘‘Icing Conditions

If icing conditions are encountered during

flight, no greater than 10 degrees flaps may

be utilized for landing unless the following

conditions are met:

1. The icing conditions were encountered

for less than 10 minutes, and the Ram Air

Temperature (RAT) during such encounter

was warmer than –8 degrees C. or

2. A RAT of +5 degrees C or warmer is

observed during approach and landing.

If either of the above two conditions are

met, 30 degrees flaps may be utilized for

landing.

Otherwise:

Flaps (landing flaps setting)—10 degrees

Land Select (LAND SEL) Switch—Flaps 10

degrees

Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from

Appendix 1 of this AD.

Use landing data for 10 degrees flaps from

Section 6, Performance.

(b) For Diamond I airplanes, as identified

in Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin No.

30–007, dated January 12, 1996: Within 2

years after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(4) of this AD:

(1) Install an ice detector in accordance

with Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(2) Revise the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the FAA-approved AFM to

address the operation of the ice detector

system. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of Airplane Flight Manual

Supplement M300–1003, dated December 6,

1995, in the AFM.

(3) Accomplish either paragraph (b)(3)(i) or

(b)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(i) Convert the airplane from the Diamond

I configuration to the Diamond IA

configuration in accordance with Mitsubishi

MU–300 Diamond Service Recommendation

SR 71–001, Revision 2, dated June 1, 1984;

and accomplish the AFM revision required

by paragraph (c)(3) of this AD, or

(ii) Modify the warning horn system of the

landing gear in accordance with Attachment

1 of Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin No.

30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(4) Revise the Operating Limitations,

Emergency Procedures, Abnormal

Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the AFM to limit the maximum

flap position to flaps 10 degrees for flight in

icing conditions or landing after an icing

encounter, to allow landing flaps of 30

degrees if the icing encounter meets certain

criteria, and to specify flaps 10 degrees as a

normal landing flap configuration. This may

be accomplished by inserting a copy of

Diamond I Flight Manual, Revision 29, dated

January 5, 1996, in the AFM.

(c) For Diamond IA airplanes: Within 2

years after the effective date of this AD,

accomplish the requirements of paragraphs

(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

(1) Install an ice detector in accordance

with Mitsubishi MU–300 Service Bulletin

No. 30–007, dated January 12, 1996.

(2) Revise the Introduction, Operating

Limitations, Emergency Procedures,

Abnormal Procedures, Normal Procedures,

Performance, and Weight and Balance

Sections of the FAA-approved AFM to

address the operation of the ice detector

system. This may be accomplished by

inserting a copy of Airplane Flight Manual

Supplement M300–1003, dated December 6,

1995, in the AFM.

(3) Revise the Operating Limitations,

Emergency Procedures, Abnormal

Procedures, Normal Procedures, and

Performance Sections of the AFM to limit the

maximum flap position to flaps 10 degrees

for flight in icing conditions or landing after

an icing encounter, and to allow landing

flaps of 30 degrees if the icing encounter

meets certain criteria. This may be

accomplished by inserting a copy of

Mitsubishi MU–300 Diamond IA Airplane

Flight Manual, Revision 9, dated January 5,

1996, in the AFM.

(d) Accomplishment of the requirements of

paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD, as applicable,

constitutes terminating action for the

requirements of AD 94–25–10, amendment

39–9094 [and paragraph (a) of this AD.]

Following accomplishment of paragraph (b)

or (c) of this AD, as applicable, the AFM

revision required by paragraph (a) of this AD

may be removed from the AFM.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Wichita

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197

and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a

location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

20, 1997.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–4718 Filed 2–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–209–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon

(Beech) Model 400, 400A, 400T, and

MU–300–10 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

supersedure of an existing airworthiness

directive (AD), applicable to all

Raytheon (Beech) Model 400, 400A,

400T, and MU–300–10 airplanes, and

Mitsubishi Model MU–300 airplanes,

that currently requires a revision to the

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to

provide pilots with special operating

procedures during icing conditions.

This proposal would require

modification of the horizontal stabilizer

ice protection system. This proposal

also would remove Model MU–300

airplanes from the applicability of that

AD. This proposal is prompted by the