[Federal Register: December 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78393]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de02-24]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
[[Page 78393]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 2002-CE-27-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. MU-2B
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that would have applied to all Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
(Mitsubishi) MU-2B series airplanes. The proposed airworthiness
directive (AD) would have superseded AD 88-23-01, which currently
requires repetitively inspecting torque tube joints for cracks, and, if
cracks are found, replacing the joints on all Mitsubishi MU-2B series
airplanes. The proposed AD would have required you to replace the
existing joints with new improved-design joints as terminating action
for the repetitive inspections. The proposed AD was the result of a
recent accident investigation that revealed that the improper
reinstallation (following an AD 88-23-01 required repetitive
inspection) of two cotter pins in the torque tube resulted in a
disconnect in the flap drive train. Comments received on the NPRM
suggest that the accident was related to human error and AD action is
not necessary. We agree that the cause of the accident has been traced
to human error, not to hardware failure. Therefore, we are withdrawing
the NPRM.
ADDRESSES: You may look at information related to this action at FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket
No. 2002-CE-27-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct all questions to:
--For the airplanes manufactured in Japan (Type Certificate A2PC):
Carl Fountain, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California, 90712;
telephone: (562) 627-5222; facsimile: (562) 627-5228; and
--For the airplanes manufactured in the United States (Type
Certificate A10SW): Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Airplane
Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-
0150; telephone: (817) 222-5133; facsimile: (817) 222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
What Action Has FAA Taken To Date?
We issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply to all
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Mitsubishi) MU-2B series airplanes.
The proposal was published in the Federal Register as an NPRM on
September 13, 2002 (67 FR 57989). The NPRM proposed to supersede AD 88-
23-01 with a new AD that would eliminate the repetitive inspections by
replacing the existing joints with new improved-design joints.
The FAA's policy is, when feasible, to require the accomplishment
of a design modification when it would eliminate the need for
repetitive inspections.
Was The Public Invited To Comment?
The FAA invited interested persons to participate in the making of
this amendment. We received 63 comments on the proposed AD. The
comments reflect the public's desire to have FAA withdraw the proposal
and recommend that FAA consider additional training for the aircraft
mechanics, revised maintenance procedures, improved inspections, and
other related actions.
The FAA's Determination
What Is FAA's Final Determination On This Issue?
We evaluated the following since issuing the NPRM:
--There are no service difficulty reports indicating cracks in joints
for the current-design parts in the 14 years since the adoption of AD
88-23-01;
--The cost of installing the improved-design part is extremely
expensive (now estimated at more than $25,000) and combined with the
cost of aircraft downtime and lost income for the installation is an
overwhelming burden on owners/operators;
--Owners/operators comment that the repetitive inspection process
through AD 88-23-01 is working effectively in addressing the unsafe
condition; and
--The installation of the improved-design part is time consuming,
difficult, and complex since there are very few facilities with the
capability and competency to successfully accomplish this complex
installation.
Based on this information, we have determined that AD 88-23-01 is
effectively addressing the unsafe condition and we should withdraw the
NPRM.
Withdrawal of this NPRM does not prevent us from issuing another
notice in the future, nor does it commit us to any future action.
Regulatory Impact
Does This AD Involve A Significant Rule Or Regulatory Action?
Since this action only withdraws a proposed AD, it is not an AD
and, therefore, is not covered under Executive Order 12866, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Withdrawal
Accordingly, FAA withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking,
Docket No. 2002-CE-27-AD, which was published in the Federal Register
on September 13, 2002 (67 FR 57989).
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 17, 2002.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32337 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P