```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3164-3168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00007]

[[Page 3164]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0108; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-052-AD; 
Amendment 39-18063; AD 2015-01-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting 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 AD results from mandatory 
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued 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 AD to require actions to 
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 26, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of February 26, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0108; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in 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://mu-2aircraft.com. 
You may view 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.

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:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to certain Mitsubishi Heavy 
Industries, Ltd. (MHI) Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, MU-2B-36, MU-2B-36A, 
and MU-2B-60 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register 
on February 26, 2014 (79 FR 10710). The NPRM proposed to correct an 
unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory 
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation 
authority of another country.
    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 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/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0108-0002.
    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 
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 (MHI Models MU-2B-30, MU-2B-35, 
and MU-2B-36, which the MCAI 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.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing 
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal 
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Extend Comment Period

    Mike Ciholas and seven others stated that they need more time for 
discussions at seminars and to obtain more information from MHI and 
Turbine Aircraft Services.
    The commenters requested the comment period be extended to allow 
for more time to gather and analyze data.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request 
and have determined sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically 
information recently from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 
airplanes in the U.S. fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked. 
Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. Based on the 
data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed information provided 
by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress 
corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are necessary to 
address the unsafe condition.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw Proposed AD

    Mike Ciholas and eight others stated that the unsafe condition 
addressed in the proposed AD be handled as part of routine inspections. 
The commenters stated that there has never been any incident, accident, 
injury, or fatality attributed to this issue despite the millions of 
flight hours the MU-2B airplane has accumulated, including those hours 
that some airplanes have flown with a crack present. There has never 
been any damage to any airplane from this issue. None of the subject 
parts have failed to perform in service, cracked or otherwise.
    Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. and two others 
stated that there have been no failures in the airframes.
    The commenters requested that the proposed AD be withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenters. While there have been no 
failures to date, the stress corrosion cracking exhibited is in primary 
load structure. Upon crack initiation, the frames will have diminished 
load carrying capabilities, which will propagate over time, potentially 
leading to failure. Although previous inspection requirements specify 
visual inspection of all frames, no instruction was provided for 
accessing the difficult to reach areas where the subject cracks have 
been found. In addition, we are issuing this AD to address the unsafe 
condition and prevent such failures of this airplane.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Delay Issuing the Final Rule AD Action

    David Klain and six others stated that they wanted the FAA to hold 
the

[[Page 3165]]

proposed AD in abeyance and request additional data from the 
manufacturer, service centers, and the owner/operator community. At the 
very least, all inspections completed to date should be considered and 
an evaluation made as to what specifically is causing these cracks, 
other than the simple fact these are MU-2 long body airplanes. 
Additional data can be collected from ongoing inspections conducted in 
accordance with the maintenance manual as well. Once that data is 
collected, an informed decision based on facts instead of speculation 
can be made.
    The commenters requested that we delay issuing the final rule AD 
action.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have considered the request 
to delay issuing the final rule AD action and have determined that 
sufficient evidence and data exist, specifically information recently 
from MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. 
fleet that indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of these eight, 
four have been removed from service. Based on the data presented in the 
NPRM and this more detailed information provided by MHI, the location 
of cracks, and the cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have 
concluded that the inspections are necessary to address the unsafe 
condition. Further delay of the final rule AD action would allow a 
known unsafe condition to exist without AD action to address it.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Verify Cost of Compliance

    David Klain and three others stated that the Mitsubishi Service 
Centers have indicated that the time and cost estimates detailed in the 
proposed AD are not accurate and do not reflect the actual higher costs 
and time necessary to complete the inspection based on the inspections 
completed to date.
    The commenters requested a change to the Cost of Compliance 
section.
    We do not agree with the commenters. The cost provided by the 
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is a rough order of magnitude 
estimate based on available information and standardized cost 
evaluation methods.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Withdraw Proposed AD

    David Klain and three others stated that the proposed AD is based 
on non-representative airframes. The proposed AD was derived from a 
service bulletin that originated from inspections of a limited, non-
representative sample of airframes that have been removed from service 
and represent the worst possible scenario with regards to airframe 
stress (freighters).
    The commenters stated that since Special Airworthiness Information 
Bulletin (SAIB) No. CE-03-26, dated February 28, 2003 (which can be 
found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/
(LookupSAIBs)/CE-03-26?OpenDocument), three additional airplanes with a 
total airframe time and operational use (non-freighter) that is more 
representative of the fleet have been inspected at several service 
centers and not a single plane exhibited the cracks in question. The 
commenters stated, based on these findings, there is a situation where 
a very small sample size may give some indication there is a 
correlation between total time and/or airplane utilization (freighters 
with heavy takeoff/landing weights and many cycles) and the cracks in 
question, but further empirical data is likely necessary to draw any 
firm conclusions.
    The commenters also stated that the costly inspection goes against 
the FAA's mandate to encourage and promote aviation by potentially 
mandating a costly inspection that would result in the decommissioning 
of perfectly safe and flyable airplanes for no reason other than the 
high cost of an inspection mandated by the FAA without any engineering 
data to support such inspections.
    We infer that the commenters believe that the final rule AD action 
is unnecessary and want the proposed AD withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from 
MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet 
indicate that 8 of them were cracked of which 5 were used as 
freighters. Out of these eight, four have been removed from service. 
Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more detailed 
information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the cause of 
cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the inspections are 
necessary to address the unsafe condition.
    The OEM has also provided the time and cost information presented 
in this final rule AD action.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Include a Less Expensive Repair Option

    Richard Wheldon and one other commenter stated that there is a less 
expensive repair available to the owners/operators of the affected 
airplanes.
    The commenters stated that the repairs specified in the Mitsubishi 
Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI Ltd.) MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 231, dated 
July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 27, 1999, involve 
doublers and are much less intrusive and less labor intensive. The 
repairs in MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 242, dated July 10, 
2013, and No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, involve large splices 
and/or frame segment replacements, which are very costly. It is not 
explained why the less expensive methods were not proposed. In 
discussions with experienced sheet metal mechanics and structures 
engineers, they expressed that other repair schemes are possible that 
adequately address any safety concerns and are much less costly.
    Many of the cracks found at the lower sections of the bottom frame 
segments might be repairable using doublers rather than replacing the 
entire lower frame segments, which is the only solution allowed in the 
proposed AD. Obviously, the replacement of an entire lower frame 
segment is a huge, potentially unnecessary undertaking involving 
considerable assembly and disassembly. Any conventional solution short 
of frame segment replacement should be investigated.
    The commenters also stated that an operator is not allowed to 
repair the side frame segments per MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 
231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 27, 1999, and 
still be in compliance with the proposed AD. The only solution to a 
side frame crack allowed per MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletins No. 242, 
dated July 10, 2013, and No. 104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013, is the 
much more expensive replacing of the side frame segment.
    The commenters requested compliance based on MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service 
Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 
27, 1999, at a minimum, be permitted in the final rule AD action.
    We do not agree with the commenters. MHI Ltd. MU-2 Service 
Bulletins No. 231, dated July 2, 1997, and No. 073/53-002B, dated April 
27, 1999, require inspecting for cracks that are specifically located 
around rivet holes. The service bulletins specified in this AD require 
inspecting for cracks in a different area, specifically throughout the 
frame flanges.
    If lower cost repair methods exist that meet the intent of the 
proposed AD, you may propose an alternative method of compliance or a 
change in the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of 
safety using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

[[Page 3166]]

    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Consider Other Causes of the Cracks

    David Klain and one other commenter stated that the proposed AD 
does not accurately consider what the causal factors are that may have 
caused the cracks in question (airframe age, cycles, total time, 
utilization as freighters, etc.) due to lack of adequate representative 
data.
    The commenters requested the FAA to further investigate the cause 
of the cracks.
    We do not agree with the commenters. We have evaluated the data 
provided and have determined that the cause of cracking is stress 
corrosion. We have determined that is sufficient evidence and data of 
an unsafe condition and we should proceed with issuing the final rule 
AD action.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Utilize Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) 
No. CE-03-26, Dated February 28, 2003

    Mark James of Intercontinental Jet Service Corp. stated that the 
inspections introduced and recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26, dated 
February 28, 2003, which can be found at http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/(LookupSAIBs)/CE-03-
26?OpenDocument, should be sufficient to cover inspections required 
from this AD because the stresses are the same.
    The commenter stated that the inspection criteria in the proposed 
AD require inspection of a different location of these same frames and 
the fact is that the frame materials and stresses are the same.
    We infer that the commenter believes the inspections introduced and 
recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26, dated February 28, 2003, are 
sufficient in addressing the unsafe condition identified in this AD 
wants the proposed AD withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenter. It is stated in the proposed AD 
that stress corrosion cracking may be located throughout the area of 
the frame flanges. The inspections recommended in SAIB No. CE-03-26 are 
more limited and only inspect for stress corrosion cracking at screw 
holes in the flange.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Modify the Applicability Section

    An anonymous commenter stated that the statistical analysis and 
evaluation performed in support of the proposed AD is flawed. The 
commenter also stated that given the inconsistent data from a sample 
size that is not representative of the fleet, there appears to be no 
scientific or engineering basis for issuing the final rule AD action 
and mandating it for the entire fleet
    The commenter stated that Mark James of Intercontinental Jet 
Service Corp. also stated that the conclusions made by the FAA were not 
based on an adequate representation of the fleet and that thus far the 
only cracks found have been on two higher time airframes and not on the 
many airplanes that have less than one-third of the flight time and 
cycles
    The commenter requested the applicability of the final rule AD 
action be changed to apply only to high time, high-cycle airplanes.
    We do not agree with the commenters. More detailed information from 
MHI on the inspections of 18 of the 119 airplanes in the U.S. fleet 
indicate that 8 of them were cracked. Out of the 18 airplanes, 5 of 
them are used as freighters and all 5 of these were among the 8 found 
cracked. Four of the eight airplanes found cracked have been removed 
from service. Based on the data presented in the NPRM and this more 
detailed information provided by MHI, the location of cracks, and the 
cause of cracking (stress corrosion), we have concluded that the 
inspections are necessary to address the unsafe condition.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, 
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting 
the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have 
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014) for correcting the unsafe 
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was 
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 10710, February 26, 2014).

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. The 
service bulletin describes procedures to inspect and repair/replace the 
side and lower frame at stations 4610 and 5605. You can find this 
service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by 
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0108.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 119 products of U.S. registry. 
We also estimate that it will take about 100 work-hours per product to 
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate 
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this 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 will 
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 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 AD will not have federalism implications 
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive 
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies 
and

[[Page 3167]]

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.

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-
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 the NPRM, 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by 
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the 
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2015-01-02 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Amendment 39-18063; 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0108; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-052-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective February 26, 
2015.

(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-in-service (TIS) after 
February 26, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 
3 years after February 26, 2015 (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. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242, dated July 10, 2013, 
or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 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. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242, 
dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 
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. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 242, 
dated July 10, 2013, or Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 
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 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/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0108-0002.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed 
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do 
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 
242, dated July 10, 2013.
    (ii) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2 Service Bulletin No. 
104/53-003, dated July 22, 2013.
    (3) For Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. service information 
identified in 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.

[[Page 3168]]

209; fax: (972) 248-3321; Internet: http://mu-2aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this 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.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated 
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at 
NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 30, 2014.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-00007 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```