Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC Airplanes, 11545-11551 [E8-3899]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Operations office 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 Operations 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:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new AD:
I
2008–05–08 Dassault Aviation:
Amendment 39–15402. Docket No.
FAA–2007–0369; Directorate Identifier
2007–NM–258–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This airworthiness directive (AD)
becomes effective April 8, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Dassault Model
Mystere-Falcon 50 airplanes, certificated in
any category, serial numbers 294, 299, 301
through 304, 306, 307, 310, 313, 314, 316
through 320, 322 through 331, 334 through
337 and 339.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
Some occurrences have been reported
where life rafts were difficult to remove from
inside divan compartment. Investigations
revealed that:
—Life raft was incorrectly stowed, with
deployment straps inboard;
—Life raft had not been repacked to specified
dimensions.
The purpose of this Airworthiness
Directive (AD) is to verify that all life rafts
are stowed correctly with deployment straps
outboard, and are repacked to specified
dimensions.
Corrective actions include correctly
reinstalling an incorrectly stowed life raft,
installing a properly repacked life raft, and
installing placards.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done, do the following
actions.
(1) Within 10 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD: Verify that the life
rafts are stowed correctly, with deployment
straps outboard, in accordance with the
instructions specified in Dassault Service
Bulletin F50–480, dated December 5, 2006,
and verify that the overall dimensions of the
life raft hard pack do not exceed nominal
values, as indicated in Part F50–480–1 of the
service bulletin.
(i) If a life raft is found incorrectly stowed,
before next flight, reinstall it in accordance
with the instructions specified in Part F50–
480–1 of the service bulletin.
(ii) If nominal values of the overall
dimensions of the life raft hard pack are
exceeded, within 3 months after the effective
date of this AD, install a properly repacked
life raft as instructed in Part F50–480–2 of
the service bulletin.
Note 1: Notice that with no life raft aboard,
local national operating regulations may not
allow some extended overwater flights.
(2) Within 3 months after the effective date
of this AD: Install placards on the sofa in
accordance with the instructions specified in
Part F50–480–2 of Dassault Service Bulletin
F50–480, dated December 5, 2006.
FAA AD Differences
Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI
and/or service information as follows: No
differences.
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 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: Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425)
227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11545
(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, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2006–0366, dated December 11,
2006, and Dassault Service Bulletin F50–480,
dated December 5, 2006, for related
information.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use Dassault Service Bulletin
F50–480, dated December 5, 2006, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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: https://www.
archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
20, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–3818 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–28431; Directorate
Identifier 2007–CE–050–AD; Amendment
39–15405; AD 2008–05–11]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria
Aircraft, LLC Models 17–30, 17–31, 17–
30A, 17–31A, and 17–31ATC Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
11546
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new
airworthiness directive (AD) to
supersede AD 76–23–03 R1, which
applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft,
LLC Models 17–30, 17–31, 17–30A, and
17–31A airplanes. AD 76–23–03 R1
currently requires you to inspect the
muffler and tailpipe assemblies for
cracks and inspect the exhaust assembly
for freedom of movement at the ball
joints. Since we issued AD 76–23–03–
R1, we have received additional reports
of in-flight exhaust system failures.
Consequently, this AD reduces the
exhaust system inspection interval;
requires a more detailed inspection of
the muffler; and requires replacement,
reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust
system if cracks or defects are found.
This AD also requires P-lead rerouting.
We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracks in the exhaust system,
which could result in heat damage to
magneto electrical wiring and smoke in
the cockpit. This failure could lead to
loss of engine power and/or a fire in the
engine compartment.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on
April 8, 2008.
On April 8, 2008, the Director of the
Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD.
ADDRESSES: For service information
identified in this AD, contact Bellanca/
Alexandria Aircraft LLC, 2504 Aga
Drive, Alexandria, MN 56308; phone:
(320) 763–4088; fax: (320) 763–4095;
Internet: https://www.bellancaaircraft.com.
To view the AD docket, go to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590, or on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. The docket
number is FAA–2007–28431;
Directorate Identifier 2007–CE–050–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room
107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018;
telephone: (847) 294–7870; fax: (847)
294–7834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On August 24, 2007, 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
certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models
17–30, 17–31, 17–30A, 17–31A, and 17–
31ATC airplanes. This proposal was
published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
on August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50297,
August 31, 2007). The NPRM proposed
to supersede AD 76–23–03 R1 and
would reduce the exhaust system
inspection interval; require a more
detailed inspection of the muffler; and
require replacement, reconditioning, or
repair of the exhaust system if cracks or
defects are found. The NPRM also
proposed to require P-lead rerouting.
The NPRM was a result of additional
reports of in-flight exhaust system
failures since AD 76–23–03 R1 was
issued.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the
comments received on the proposal and
FAA’s response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: Remove the
Models 17–31A and 17–31ATC
Airplanes From the AD
Dewey D. Elsik and Randall L.
Pittman request that the FAA remove
the Models 17–31A and 17–31ATC
airplanes from the AD and only have it
apply to Models 17–30 and 17–30A
airplanes. The commenters state that the
exhaust system design is different based
on turbo-normalization components and
the Lycoming engine version. The
commenters point out that this is why
the accidents only affect the Models 17–
30 and 17–30A airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges that there are
variations in design. However, the type
design data shows that the exhaust
systems of the Models 17–31A and 17–
30A are essentially identical, except for
minor geometry variations to
accommodate the different engine
geometry. Both exhaust designs were
assembled using internal welds where
adequate inspection is not possible
without disassembly. The Models 17–
30, 17–30A, 17–31, and 17–31A should
all be subject to the inspection
requirements proposed in the NPRM.
The Model 17–31TC is not part of the
NPRM as written, and the Model 17–
31ATC is exempt from the inspections
because the exhaust systems of these
models are significantly different and
are not susceptible to the referenced
failures. The Model 17–31ATC is
included in the P-Lead rerouting
requirement of the NPRM because its PLead configuration is essentially
identical to that of the Model 17–30A.
This requirement is in the NPRM to
prevent loss of engine power and/or a
fire in the engine compartment because
both of its P-Leads are routed together
to a common point through the firewall
in close proximity to the exhaust
system.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 2: Only Apply the
AD to Those Airplanes Included in the
National Transportation Safety Board’s
(NTSB) Listing of Accidents
Dewey D. Elsik and Dave Taylor
propose that the FAA remove the
Models 17–30, 17–31A, and 17–31ATC
airplanes from the AD because they
cannot find an exhaust system failure
for these airplanes included in the
NTSB’s listing of accidents.
We disagree with the idea of removing
these airplanes from the AD because
they do not show up in the NTSB’s
listing of accidents. An AD is issued
when ‘‘an unsafe condition exists in the
product’’ and ‘‘the condition is likely to
exist or develop in other products of the
same type design.’’ If the type design is
the same or similar to another airplane’s
where there has been an accident, then
the AD should also apply to those
airplanes with the same or similar type
design if the FAA determines there is an
unsafe condition. It is not necessary to
wait for an accident to issue an AD. The
lack of failures on the referenced
airplanes could also be attributed to the
following:
• The Model 17–31A represents only
13 percent of the airplanes affected in
the exhaust inspection requirement of
the AD;
• The Model 17–31ATC represents
only 14 percent of the airplanes affected
by the P-Lead rerouting portion of the
AD;
• This sampling is statistically too
small to be used as an argument to
exclude these models from the AD; and
• Service history shows that the
Model 17–31A exhaust system
experiences cracks and requires repairs
no different than that of the Models 17–
30 and 17–30A. We are making no
changes to the final rule AD action
based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 3: Only the Exhaust
Systems With V-clamps and Internal
Welds Should Be Affected by the
Increased Inspection Interval of 50
Hours TIS Instead of the 100 Hours TIS
as Currently Required by AD 76–23–03
R1
Edward A. Connell requests that the
FAA only require airplanes with
exhaust systems with V-clamps and
internal welds to inspect at intervals of
50 hours instead of the 100-hour
intervals of AD 76–23–03 R1. Mr.
Connell states that the AD is based on
the original design of the exhaust
system on the early Model 17–30A
airplanes. This design uses a V-clamp to
attach the tailpipe to the muffler, which
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
has been the primary location of the
reported exhaust system failures. This
design also uses internal welds
extensively in its construction and is
very difficult to inspect. Mr. Connell
explains that many Model 17–30A
exhaust systems have been either
repaired or replaced through FAAapproved repair facilities with a newer
design that replaces the V-clamp with a
three-bolt clamp arrangement. This
newer design also included external
welds to replace the internal welds.
These externally welded exhaust
systems are much easier to inspect and
do not require the disassembly specified
in the service letter. Mr. Connell
proposes that the NPRM be revised so
that only the exhaust systems with the
V-clamps and the internal welds are
subject to the increased 50-hour
inspection intervals.
The FAA partially agrees. We are not
changing the applicability of the AD
because the type design data shows all
affected airplanes were manufactured
with internal welds that can only be
inspected through disassembly. In
addition, although difficult to adjust,
the V-clamp has not been identified as
the root cause of the exhaust system
failures. We acknowledge that airplanes
with modified exhausts that are similar
to the replacement parts configuration
as presented in the service letter may
provide an acceptable level of safety to
exempt them from the increased
inspection intervals of 50 hours TIS.
Those owners/operators may apply for
an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) using the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19 and the AD.
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Comment Issue No. 4: Apply the AD
Only to the Model 17–30A
Ronald Quillen states that the unsafe
condition is shown to exist or develop
only on the Model 17–30A airplanes.
The commenter bases this on the
following observations:
• There have only been a total of
eight NTSB-reported accidents relating
to exhaust system and/or P-Lead
failures, which represents less than 1
percent of the total airplanes produced
and all failures occurred on Model 17–
30A airplanes;
• Of these eight failures, only three
occurred after the issuance of AD 76–
23–03 R1 (effective November 7, 1986).
Three additional accidents occurred in
1985, just prior to the effective date of
AD 76–23–03 R1. There was one other
accident in 1977 and the first was in
October 1976, which prompted the
original AD 76–23–03.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
• The eight NTSB reports all apply to
the early production years (prior to
1978–1979) of the Model 17–30A
airplanes before the exhaust system was
redesigned.
• There are no NTSB-reported
failures for Model 17–30A airplanes
manufactured after 1978–1979 or for
any other affected airplane model.
• Failure of early year exhaust
systems would direct gasses directly
toward an electrical harness, which
would exit a cannon connector parallel
to the firewall and then be oriented
inboard and downward.
• The later production year exhaust
systems do not direct gasses directly
toward the electrical harness as it exits
the cannon connector perpendicular to
the firewall and above the point of
failure, thus the reason for no failures
reported on these later production
exhaust systems.
• Both the Lycoming-powered Model
17–31TC airplane (not included in the
AD) and the Model 17–31ATC (not
included in AD 76–23–03 R1, but
included in the NPRM), have entirely
different exhaust systems and do not
have any ball joints shown to be prone
to failure. Both models do not seem to
have the unsafe condition, and it does
not seem likely that the condition will
exist or develop in the future.
The FAA partially agrees. We agree
that design changes to exhaust systems
have been many over the years.
However, all designs have included
internal welds where inspection is not
possible without disassembly. Also
there has not been an exhaust system
design change to address the issues of
the AD until the exhaust system design
defined in the replacement parts of
Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B–110.
Previous service letters, AD 76–23–03
R1, and the NPRM all address one
failure mode of the hanger/mount/
support/muffler/tailpipe/ball joint/
welds of all airplane models, except for
the Models 17–31TC and 17–31ATC
airplanes. As specified earlier, these
latter models have internal welds, the
Model 17–31TC is not part of the AD,
and the Model 17-ATC is not affected by
the inspection requirement in the AD.
The type design of the P-Lead
configuration of the 17–31ATC is the
same as that of the accident airplanes,
which is why this airplane model is
included in the AD, but only in the PLead rerouting requirement. This design
must be modified to separate leads
where they penetrate the firewall so one
heat source (whether from directed
exhaust gasses or other source) does not
melt the insulation on both leads and
short them to ground, which could
cause loss of engine power and/or a fire
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11547
in the engine compartment. If owners/
operators of Model 17–31ATC already
have a separated P-Lead configuration
and believe the AD should not apply to
them, then they may apply for an
AMOC following the procedures in 14
CFR 39.19 and this AD.
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 5: Exclude the
Model 17–31ATC From the AD
Randall L. Pittman, Ronald J. Quillen,
and Edwin A. Stephan request that the
FAA exclude the Model 17–31ATC from
the AD based on:
1. Exhaust design or maintenance
deficiencies related to P-Lead failures in
Models 17–31ATC or 17–31TC are nonexistent and not likely to develop. Since
the Model 17–31TC is not included in
the NPRM and both models share the
same exhaust system, this justifies
removing the Model 17–31ATC from the
AD.
2. There has not been a single NTSB
accident report for an exhaust or P-Lead
failure on these airplanes.
3. The exhaust system design of the
Model 17–31ATC is different than that
of the Model 17–30 airplanes. It does
not share the same geometry or
construction details, which could lead
to P-Lead failure as in the Model 17–30
airplanes.
4. There is no design basis of
commonality to require the AD to affect
the Model 17–31ATC airplanes. The PLead modification instructions specified
in the NPRM do not apply to the Model
17–31ATC airplanes; the instructions
are unique and specific for the Models
17–30 and 17–30A airplanes. Thus, an
adequate comment period has not been
provided for the Model 17–31ATC
airplanes because no appropriate
reference material and instructions have
been provided in the NPRM.
The FAA does not concur with
exempting the Model 17–31 ATC
airplanes from the AD, as follows:
1. The type design for the Model 17–
31ATC airplanes does not have the same
P-Lead configuration as the Model 17–
31TC airplanes. The P-Lead
configuration of the Model 17–31ATC is
basically the same as the accident
airplanes. The NTSB reports show that
the loss of engine power and/or a fire in
the engine compartment occurred when
the exhaust system failed and allowed
hot exhaust gas to melt the insulation on
the P-Lead wires, which caused them to
short in close proximity to the exhaust
system. The P-Lead rerouting portion of
the AD would correct this problem by
separating the P-Leads and relocating
them away from the exhaust system.
Therefore, the Model 17–31ATC will
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
11548
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
remain as part of the Applicability of
the AD.
2. The Model 17–31ATC airplanes
have not been reported with a failure
similar to the accident airplanes. This is
most likely due to the small population
that the Model 17–31ATC airplanes
represent. The Models 17–31 and 17–
31A airplanes also represent a small
fleet size. The fleet size for the Models
17–31, 17–31A, and 17–31ATC
airplanes are 1 percent, 12 percent, and
11 percent, respectively. The sampling
is statistically not large enough to be
used as criteria to exclude these
airplanes from the AD. The similar PLead configuration design of the Model
17–30A that was involved in the NTSBdocumented accidents justifies
including all of these airplanes in the
AD.
3. We agree that the exhaust system
design of the Model 17–31ATC is
different than the Model 17–30
airplanes. This is the reason why the
Model 17–31ATC airplanes are not
subject to the exhaust system
inspections proposed in the NPRM.
However, the type design for the P-Lead
configuration for the Model 17–31ATC
airplanes is basically the same as that of
the accident airplanes, thus making the
Model 17–31ATC airplanes subject to
the proposed P-Lead rerouting
requirement in the NPRM.
4. The Bellanca/AALC Service Kit
SK1072 is intended to be used for all the
airplanes specified in the NPRM,
including the Model 17–31ATC
airplanes. The procedures in the service
information address the Teledynepowered airplanes to illustrate details
because they are most representative of
the fleet. The service information
includes notes in the instructions that
extend to the other affected airplane
models. As previously discussed, the
Model 17–31TC is not part of the
NPRM. Because the service information
does apply to the Model 17–31ATC
airplanes, there was adequate reference
material available for comment.
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 6: Withdraw the
NPRM
Ronald J. Quillen requests that the
FAA withdraw the NPRM because the
existing ADs are sufficient, and the
accident data supports this. The
commenter states that the type design
for the Models 17–30, 17–31, 17–30A,
and 17–31A airplane exhaust systems
are identical (they were built at the
factory during the same production time
frame) except for minor differences due
to geometry variations. All were
manufactured with internal welds. This
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
includes all assembled using internal
welds. The commenter sets up time
frames with the accidents to show that
the current ADs are working, and the
events do not justify the AD.
The commenter also believes the FAA
should withdraw the NPRM because of
inaccurate statements made in both the
NRPM and Airworthiness Concern
Sheet (ACS) as part of the Small
Airplane Directorate’s Airworthiness
Concern Process. These are as follows:
• In the NPRM: It states that AD 76–
23–03 R1 ‘‘applies to certain Alexandria
Aircraft, LLC (Bellanca) Models 17–30,
17–31, 17–31A, and 17–31ATC
airplanes.’’ The commenter states that
AD 76–23–03 R1 did not apply to Model
17–31ATC airplanes.
• In the ACS: It states ‘‘Seven other
similar accidents occurred since 1986
when AD 76–23–03 was amended to
solve this problem.’’ The commenter
states that actually five accidents
occurred prior to this AD, three in 1985
and two prior to that date with only
three accidents following the issuance
of the AD. Of the three that followed the
AD, they were separated by 8 and 11
years respectively, which is clearly a
dramatic reduction in the reported
accident rate and frequency and likely
directly attributable to the fact that the
current AD is working. Of these
accident airplanes, all were pre-1985
production Model 17–30A airplanes and
shared the weld defect design of the
exhaust systems and P-Lead failure
likely due to routing directly aft of the
exhaust system failure point.
Edwin A. Stephan requests the FAA
withdraw the NPRM because the
instructions for commenting on the AD
were confusing. The NPRM directed the
commenters to the Docket Management
System (DMS) at https://dms.dot.gov,
and the DMS directed the commenters
to the Federal Document Management
System (FDMS) at https://
regulations.gov. The commenter
believes this discouraged comments on
the NPRM and may have reduced or
prevented comments.
We disagree with withdrawing the
NPRM. The common design of all of
these airplanes that justifies the need for
further AD action is the internal welds,
which require exhaust system
disassembly to adequately inspect.
Service data also shows that the exhaust
system should be inspected at 50-hour
TIS intervals or 12-month intervals,
whichever occurs first. This is based on
failures occurring between 50 hours TIS
and the current 100-hour TIS interval
required by AD 76–23–03 R1. Because
all but 38 airplanes were built before
1985, the potential for more exhaust
system failures exists if further AD
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
action is not taken because the airplanes
will be approaching 40 years of service
with many having the original factoryinstalled exhaust system. Repair or
replacement of the exhaust system
would only be required by the AD if
cracks or leaks were found.
The FAA agrees that the Model 17–
31ATC was not part of AD 76–23–03 R1.
However, it does have the same P-Lead
configuration and should be included in
the AD. Inadvertently referencing this
model in AD 76–23–03 R1 does not
mean there is no unsafe condition and
thus does not justify withdrawing the
NPRM.
As far as the data in the ACS, the data,
no matter how it is analyzed, will show
that the airplanes affected by the
exhaust system inspection all have
internal welds and, as discussed
previously, the service data also shows
that the exhaust system should be
inspected at 50-hour TIS intervals or 12month intervals, whichever occurs first.
This is based on failures occurring
between 50 hours TIS and the current
100-hour TIS interval required by AD
76–23–03 R1. And as discussed above,
a large majority of the airplanes will be
approaching 40 years of service with
many having the original factoryinstalled exhaust system.
The FAA agrees that there were issues
with the DMS and FDMS. The NPRM
was issued when the electronic docket
was DMS, but during the comment
period the FAA transitioned to the
FDMS as mandated by Congress that all
federal agencies begin using the FDMS.
However, posting of comments was on
DMS for part of the comment period and
on FDMS for the other. All DMS
comments could be reviewed on both
the DMS and FDMS. All comments are
currently housed in FDMS, and they are
extensive. We evaluated all comments.
Because there were comments posted in
both DMS and FDMS, we believe that
the public had adequate time and
methods to comment on the NPRM.
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 7: Exclude From the
Inspection Portion of the AD Those
Airplanes With Exhaust Systems
Modified With Parts Equivalent to
Those in Bellanca Service Letter B–110
Dave Taylor states that those airplanes
that incorporate exhaust systems
modified with replacement parts that
are equivalent to those in Bellanca/
AALC Service Letter B–110 should not
be affected by the exhaust system
inspection portion of the AD. The
commenter goes on to state that the AD
is too burdensome for owners and
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
micromanages the risk that should be
placed on airplane owners since the
exhaust systems are already inspected
on an annual basis through normal
maintenance practices.
We agree that those airplanes that
incorporate exhaust systems modified
with replacement parts that are
equivalent to those in Bellanca/AALC
Service Letter B–110 should be exempt
from the exhaust system inspection
portion of the AD. Any owner/operator
who believes he/she has such parts can
apply to the FAA for an AMOC
following the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19 and the AD.
As far as the AD being too
burdensome on airplane owners when
the exhaust system is inspected
annually, we disagree because the
service history shows that the current
maintenance procedures and AD 76–23–
03 R1 are not fully detecting the cracks
and leaks before failure. Service
difficulty information, factory Service
Alerts, or other recommendations are
vehicles to communicate information,
but they are not required by law. An AD
is a method the FAA has to require
actions on all airplanes to address a
known unsafe condition.
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 8: Revise the AD
Instead of Supersede the AD
Ronald J. Quillin proposes that the
FAA revise the existing AD 76–23–03
R1 to the R2 level rather than supersede
it and give it an entirely new AD
number. The commenter states that this
would be less confusing since AD 76–
23–03 R1 already requires inspection
techniques for the detection and
correction of cracks in the exhaust
system of affected models.
Since the NPRM provides additional
inspection techniques and introduces
the P-Lead rerouting, we must
supersede the AD because it requires
additional actions on the public.
Paragraph 33, page 27, of the
Airworthiness Directives Manual, FAA–
IR–M–8040.1A (FAA–AIR–M–8040.1),
dated January 23, 2007, includes the
following: ‘‘if the new AD imposes new
requirements, it must be issued as a
supersedure.’’
We are making no changes to the final
rule AD action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 9: Revise the Cost
of Compliance To Adequately Show the
Number of Airplanes on the U.S.
Registry
Ronald J. Quillin states that the
number of airplanes affected by both the
inspection and P-Lead rerouting
requirements are incorrect. The
commenter states that, according to his
research, there are 1,041 airplanes on
11549
the U.S. registry that would be affected
by the AD; and that 921 airplanes on the
U.S. registry would be affected by the
exhaust system inspections and 854
airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the P-Lead rerouting. The
commenter states that this would
downwardly affect the total cost on the
fleet.
We agree. We based our numbers on
production airplanes. We will revise the
Costs of Compliance section to reflect
the numbers provided in the comment.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the
available data and determined that air
safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD as proposed except for
the change in the Costs of Compliance
section and minor editorial corrections.
We have determined that these minor
corrections:
• Are consistent with the intent that
was proposed in the NPRM for
correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden
upon the public than was already
proposed in the NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 1,041
airplanes in the U.S. registry.
We estimate the inspection of the
exhaust system affects 921 airplanes
with the following costs:
Labor cost
Parts cost
Total cost
per airplane
Total cost
on U.S.
operators
4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 ........................................................................................................
N/A
$320
$294,720
Labor cost
Parts cost
Total cost
per airplane
Total cost
on U.S.
operators
4 work-hours × $80 per hour = $320 ........................................................................................................
$500
$820
$700,280
We estimate the P-Lead rerouting
affects 854 airplanes with the following
costs:
We estimate the following costs to
replace the exhaust system based on the
results of the inspection. The estimate is
based on updating the entire exhaust
system to the current production
exhaust system. This AD allows other
means to do the required repairs/
replacement, which could cost less. We
have no way of determining the number
of airplanes that may need this repair/
replacement:
Parts cost
Total cost
per airplane
8 work-hours × $80 per hour = $640 ...............................................................................................................................
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Labor cost
$4,000
$4,640
The estimated costs represented in the
above actions include the costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
associated with AD 76–23–03 R1 and
the costs of this AD. The added cost
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impact this AD imposes upon an owner/
operator over that already required by
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
11550
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
AD 76–23–03 R1 is a more detailed
inspection (which requires more workhours to do) and the P-Lead rerouting on
certain models.
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 AD.
Regulatory Findings
We have 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 that 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 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 summary of the costs
to comply with this AD (and other
information as included in the
Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in
the AD Docket. You may get a copy of
this summary by sending a request to us
at the address listed under ADDRESSES.
Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–2007–28431;
Directorate Identifier 2007–CE–050–
AD’’ in your request.
76–23–03 R1, Amendment 39–5454, and
adding the following new AD:
2008–05–11 Alexandria Aircraft, LLC:
Amendment 39–15405; Docket No.
FAA–2007–28431; Directorate Identifier
2007–CE–050–AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective on April 8,
2008.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 76–23–03 R1,
Amendment 39–5454.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to the following
airplane models and serial numbers that are
certificated in any category:
Model
Serial Nos.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
17–30 ........................
17–30A ......................
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
17–31 ........................
17–31A ......................
17–31ATC .................
Unsafe Condition
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
All serial numbers.
30263 through
301030.
All serial numbers.
All serial numbers.
All serial numbers.
(d) This AD results from several accidents
caused by exhaust system failures. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks
in the exhaust system, which could result in
heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and
smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead
to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the
engine compartment.
Compliance
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
I
(e) To address this problem, you must do
the following, unless already done:
Compliance
Procedures
(1) For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below, inspect the exhaust system for
cracks or other defects such as excessive
wear:
(i) Model 17–30, all serial numbers;
(ii) Model 17–30A, serial numbers 30263
through 301030;
(iii) Model 17–31, all serial numbers; and
(iv) Model 17–31A, all serial numbers.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Actions
Initially within the next 12 months after April 8,
2008 (the effective date of this AD) or within
25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after April 8,
2008 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first. Then repetitively thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 50
hours TIS, whichever occurs first. Accomplishment of the actions in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD terminates the
recurring inspections required in this paragraph for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left and/or right side).
Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B–110, dated May 8, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
11551
Compliance
Procedures
(2) Repair or replace the exhaust system using
any of the options listed below:
(i) Option #1—replace the entire defective
left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with new parts as specified
in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC
Service Letter B–110, dated May 8,
2007;
(ii) Option #2—replace the entire defective
left and/or right muffler and tailpipe assembly(ies) with parts reconditioned to
the new parts as specified in Bellanca/
Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter
B–110, dated May 8, 2007; or
(iii) Option #3—recondition or repair the
defective left and/or right muffler and
tailpipe assembly(ies) to their original
configuration using FAA-approved methods and materials.
(3) For aircraft models and serial numbers listed below that do not have Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1067: Rerouting Right Magneto ‘‘P’’ Lead installed, reroute the magneto ‘‘P’’ leads:
(i) Model 17–30A, serial numbers 30263
through 30998;
(ii) Model 17–31A, all serial numbers; and
(iii) Model 17–31ATC, all serial numbers.
Before further flight after any inspection required in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD where
a crack or other defect is found. The actions
in paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD
terminate the recurring inspections required
in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD for the replaced/reconditioned exhaust system (left
and/or right side).
Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B–110, dated May 8, 2007.
Within the next 12 months after April 8, 2008
(the effective date of this AD) or within 100
hours TIS after April 8, 2008 (the effective
date of this AD), whichever occurs first.
Follow Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service Kit 1072 instructions located on drawing
SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007, as referenced
in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service
Letter B–110, dated May 8, 2007.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(f) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft
Certification 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: Michael Downs,
Aerospace Engineer, ACE–118C, Chicago
Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois
60018; phone: (847) 294–7870; fax: (847)
294–7834. 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.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Actions
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, or go
to: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.
html.
and efficient use of the navigable
airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules
at the affected airports.
DATES: This rule is effective March 4,
2008. The compliance date for each
SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of March 4,
2008.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(g) You must use Bellanca/Alexandria
Aircraft, LLC Service Letter B–110, dated
May 8, 2007; and Alexandria Aircraft, LLC
Service Kit 1072 instructions located on
drawing SK 1072, dated April 2, 2007, as
referenced in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft,
LLC Service Letter B–110, dated May 8, 2007,
to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Bellanca/Alexandria
Aircraft, LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria,
MN 56308; phone: (320) 763–4088; fax: (320)
763–4095; Internet: https://www.bellancaaircraft.com.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Regional
Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 Mar 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
February 25, 2008.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–3899 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 30596; Amdt. No. 3259]
Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This rule amends Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are
needed because of changes in the
National Airspace System, such as the
commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding of new obstacles, or
changing air traffic requirements. These
changes are designed to provide safe
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Availability of matter
incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination—
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA
Headquarters Building, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the
region in which the affected airport is
located;
3. The National Flight Procedures
Office, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd.,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202–741–6030,
or go to: https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/
code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Availability—All SIAPs are available
online free of charge. Visit nfdc.faa.gov
to register. Additionally, individual
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\04MRR1.SGM
04MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11545-11551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3899]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD;
Amendment 39-15405; AD 2008-05-11]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30,
17-31, 17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11546]]
SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) to
supersede AD 76-23-03 R1, which applies to certain Alexandria Aircraft,
LLC Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-30A, and 17-31A airplanes. AD 76-23-03 R1
currently requires you to inspect the muffler and tailpipe assemblies
for cracks and inspect the exhaust assembly for freedom of movement at
the ball joints. Since we issued AD 76-23-03-R1, we have received
additional reports of in-flight exhaust system failures. Consequently,
this AD reduces the exhaust system inspection interval; requires a more
detailed inspection of the muffler; and requires replacement,
reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if cracks or defects
are found. This AD also requires P-lead rerouting. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct cracks in the exhaust system, which could
result in heat damage to magneto electrical wiring and smoke in the
cockpit. This failure could lead to loss of engine power and/or a fire
in the engine compartment.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008.
On April 8, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.
ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bellanca/ Alexandria Aircraft LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN
56308; phone: (320) 763-4088; fax: (320) 763-4095; Internet: https://
www.bellanca-aircraft.com.
To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2007-28431;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue,
Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847) 294-7870; fax:
(847) 294-7834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On August 24, 2007, 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 certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Models 17-30, 17-31,
17-30A, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes. This proposal was published in
the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
August 31, 2007 (72 FR 50297, August 31, 2007). The NPRM proposed to
supersede AD 76-23-03 R1 and would reduce the exhaust system inspection
interval; require a more detailed inspection of the muffler; and
require replacement, reconditioning, or repair of the exhaust system if
cracks or defects are found. The NPRM also proposed to require P-lead
rerouting.
The NPRM was a result of additional reports of in-flight exhaust
system failures since AD 76-23-03 R1 was issued.
Comments
We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and FAA's response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: Remove the Models 17-31A and 17-31ATC Airplanes
From the AD
Dewey D. Elsik and Randall L. Pittman request that the FAA remove
the Models 17-31A and 17-31ATC airplanes from the AD and only have it
apply to Models 17-30 and 17-30A airplanes. The commenters state that
the exhaust system design is different based on turbo-normalization
components and the Lycoming engine version. The commenters point out
that this is why the accidents only affect the Models 17-30 and 17-30A
airplanes.
The FAA acknowledges that there are variations in design. However,
the type design data shows that the exhaust systems of the Models 17-
31A and 17-30A are essentially identical, except for minor geometry
variations to accommodate the different engine geometry. Both exhaust
designs were assembled using internal welds where adequate inspection
is not possible without disassembly. The Models 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31,
and 17-31A should all be subject to the inspection requirements
proposed in the NPRM. The Model 17-31TC is not part of the NPRM as
written, and the Model 17-31ATC is exempt from the inspections because
the exhaust systems of these models are significantly different and are
not susceptible to the referenced failures. The Model 17-31ATC is
included in the P-Lead rerouting requirement of the NPRM because its P-
Lead configuration is essentially identical to that of the Model 17-
30A. This requirement is in the NPRM to prevent loss of engine power
and/or a fire in the engine compartment because both of its P-Leads are
routed together to a common point through the firewall in close
proximity to the exhaust system.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 2: Only Apply the AD to Those Airplanes Included in
the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) Listing of Accidents
Dewey D. Elsik and Dave Taylor propose that the FAA remove the
Models 17-30, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes from the AD because they
cannot find an exhaust system failure for these airplanes included in
the NTSB's listing of accidents.
We disagree with the idea of removing these airplanes from the AD
because they do not show up in the NTSB's listing of accidents. An AD
is issued when ``an unsafe condition exists in the product'' and ``the
condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.'' If the type design is the same or similar to another
airplane's where there has been an accident, then the AD should also
apply to those airplanes with the same or similar type design if the
FAA determines there is an unsafe condition. It is not necessary to
wait for an accident to issue an AD. The lack of failures on the
referenced airplanes could also be attributed to the following:
The Model 17-31A represents only 13 percent of the
airplanes affected in the exhaust inspection requirement of the AD;
The Model 17-31ATC represents only 14 percent of the
airplanes affected by the P-Lead rerouting portion of the AD;
This sampling is statistically too small to be used as an
argument to exclude these models from the AD; and
Service history shows that the Model 17-31A exhaust system
experiences cracks and requires repairs no different than that of the
Models 17-30 and 17-30A. We are making no changes to the final rule AD
action based on this comment.
Comment Issue No. 3: Only the Exhaust Systems With V-clamps and
Internal Welds Should Be Affected by the Increased Inspection Interval
of 50 Hours TIS Instead of the 100 Hours TIS as Currently Required by
AD 76-23-03 R1
Edward A. Connell requests that the FAA only require airplanes with
exhaust systems with V-clamps and internal welds to inspect at
intervals of 50 hours instead of the 100-hour intervals of AD 76-23-03
R1. Mr. Connell states that the AD is based on the original design of
the exhaust system on the early Model 17-30A airplanes. This design
uses a V-clamp to attach the tailpipe to the muffler, which
[[Page 11547]]
has been the primary location of the reported exhaust system failures.
This design also uses internal welds extensively in its construction
and is very difficult to inspect. Mr. Connell explains that many Model
17-30A exhaust systems have been either repaired or replaced through
FAA-approved repair facilities with a newer design that replaces the V-
clamp with a three-bolt clamp arrangement. This newer design also
included external welds to replace the internal welds. These externally
welded exhaust systems are much easier to inspect and do not require
the disassembly specified in the service letter. Mr. Connell proposes
that the NPRM be revised so that only the exhaust systems with the V-
clamps and the internal welds are subject to the increased 50-hour
inspection intervals.
The FAA partially agrees. We are not changing the applicability of
the AD because the type design data shows all affected airplanes were
manufactured with internal welds that can only be inspected through
disassembly. In addition, although difficult to adjust, the V-clamp has
not been identified as the root cause of the exhaust system failures.
We acknowledge that airplanes with modified exhausts that are similar
to the replacement parts configuration as presented in the service
letter may provide an acceptable level of safety to exempt them from
the increased inspection intervals of 50 hours TIS. Those owners/
operators may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
using the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and the AD.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 4: Apply the AD Only to the Model 17-30A
Ronald Quillen states that the unsafe condition is shown to exist
or develop only on the Model 17-30A airplanes. The commenter bases this
on the following observations:
There have only been a total of eight NTSB-reported
accidents relating to exhaust system and/or P-Lead failures, which
represents less than 1 percent of the total airplanes produced and all
failures occurred on Model 17-30A airplanes;
Of these eight failures, only three occurred after the
issuance of AD 76-23-03 R1 (effective November 7, 1986). Three
additional accidents occurred in 1985, just prior to the effective date
of AD 76-23-03 R1. There was one other accident in 1977 and the first
was in October 1976, which prompted the original AD 76-23-03.
The eight NTSB reports all apply to the early production
years (prior to 1978-1979) of the Model 17-30A airplanes before the
exhaust system was redesigned.
There are no NTSB-reported failures for Model 17-30A
airplanes manufactured after 1978-1979 or for any other affected
airplane model.
Failure of early year exhaust systems would direct gasses
directly toward an electrical harness, which would exit a cannon
connector parallel to the firewall and then be oriented inboard and
downward.
The later production year exhaust systems do not direct
gasses directly toward the electrical harness as it exits the cannon
connector perpendicular to the firewall and above the point of failure,
thus the reason for no failures reported on these later production
exhaust systems.
Both the Lycoming-powered Model 17-31TC airplane (not
included in the AD) and the Model 17-31ATC (not included in AD 76-23-03
R1, but included in the NPRM), have entirely different exhaust systems
and do not have any ball joints shown to be prone to failure. Both
models do not seem to have the unsafe condition, and it does not seem
likely that the condition will exist or develop in the future.
The FAA partially agrees. We agree that design changes to exhaust
systems have been many over the years. However, all designs have
included internal welds where inspection is not possible without
disassembly. Also there has not been an exhaust system design change to
address the issues of the AD until the exhaust system design defined in
the replacement parts of Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110. Previous
service letters, AD 76-23-03 R1, and the NPRM all address one failure
mode of the hanger/mount/support/muffler/tailpipe/ball joint/welds of
all airplane models, except for the Models 17-31TC and 17-31ATC
airplanes. As specified earlier, these latter models have internal
welds, the Model 17-31TC is not part of the AD, and the Model 17-ATC is
not affected by the inspection requirement in the AD. The type design
of the P-Lead configuration of the 17-31ATC is the same as that of the
accident airplanes, which is why this airplane model is included in the
AD, but only in the P-Lead rerouting requirement. This design must be
modified to separate leads where they penetrate the firewall so one
heat source (whether from directed exhaust gasses or other source) does
not melt the insulation on both leads and short them to ground, which
could cause loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine
compartment. If owners/operators of Model 17-31ATC already have a
separated P-Lead configuration and believe the AD should not apply to
them, then they may apply for an AMOC following the procedures in 14
CFR 39.19 and this AD.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 5: Exclude the Model 17-31ATC From the AD
Randall L. Pittman, Ronald J. Quillen, and Edwin A. Stephan request
that the FAA exclude the Model 17-31ATC from the AD based on:
1. Exhaust design or maintenance deficiencies related to P-Lead
failures in Models 17-31ATC or 17-31TC are non-existent and not likely
to develop. Since the Model 17-31TC is not included in the NPRM and
both models share the same exhaust system, this justifies removing the
Model 17-31ATC from the AD.
2. There has not been a single NTSB accident report for an exhaust
or P-Lead failure on these airplanes.
3. The exhaust system design of the Model 17-31ATC is different
than that of the Model 17-30 airplanes. It does not share the same
geometry or construction details, which could lead to P-Lead failure as
in the Model 17-30 airplanes.
4. There is no design basis of commonality to require the AD to
affect the Model 17-31ATC airplanes. The P-Lead modification
instructions specified in the NPRM do not apply to the Model 17-31ATC
airplanes; the instructions are unique and specific for the Models 17-
30 and 17-30A airplanes. Thus, an adequate comment period has not been
provided for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes because no appropriate
reference material and instructions have been provided in the NPRM.
The FAA does not concur with exempting the Model 17-31 ATC
airplanes from the AD, as follows:
1. The type design for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes does not have
the same P-Lead configuration as the Model 17-31TC airplanes. The P-
Lead configuration of the Model 17-31ATC is basically the same as the
accident airplanes. The NTSB reports show that the loss of engine power
and/or a fire in the engine compartment occurred when the exhaust
system failed and allowed hot exhaust gas to melt the insulation on the
P-Lead wires, which caused them to short in close proximity to the
exhaust system. The P-Lead rerouting portion of the AD would correct
this problem by separating the P-Leads and relocating them away from
the exhaust system. Therefore, the Model 17-31ATC will
[[Page 11548]]
remain as part of the Applicability of the AD.
2. The Model 17-31ATC airplanes have not been reported with a
failure similar to the accident airplanes. This is most likely due to
the small population that the Model 17-31ATC airplanes represent. The
Models 17-31 and 17-31A airplanes also represent a small fleet size.
The fleet size for the Models 17-31, 17-31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes are
1 percent, 12 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. The sampling is
statistically not large enough to be used as criteria to exclude these
airplanes from the AD. The similar P-Lead configuration design of the
Model 17-30A that was involved in the NTSB-documented accidents
justifies including all of these airplanes in the AD.
3. We agree that the exhaust system design of the Model 17-31ATC is
different than the Model 17-30 airplanes. This is the reason why the
Model 17-31ATC airplanes are not subject to the exhaust system
inspections proposed in the NPRM. However, the type design for the P-
Lead configuration for the Model 17-31ATC airplanes is basically the
same as that of the accident airplanes, thus making the Model 17-31ATC
airplanes subject to the proposed P-Lead rerouting requirement in the
NPRM.
4. The Bellanca/AALC Service Kit SK1072 is intended to be used for
all the airplanes specified in the NPRM, including the Model 17-31ATC
airplanes. The procedures in the service information address the
Teledyne-powered airplanes to illustrate details because they are most
representative of the fleet. The service information includes notes in
the instructions that extend to the other affected airplane models. As
previously discussed, the Model 17-31TC is not part of the NPRM.
Because the service information does apply to the Model 17-31ATC
airplanes, there was adequate reference material available for comment.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 6: Withdraw the NPRM
Ronald J. Quillen requests that the FAA withdraw the NPRM because
the existing ADs are sufficient, and the accident data supports this.
The commenter states that the type design for the Models 17-30, 17-31,
17-30A, and 17-31A airplane exhaust systems are identical (they were
built at the factory during the same production time frame) except for
minor differences due to geometry variations. All were manufactured
with internal welds. This includes all assembled using internal welds.
The commenter sets up time frames with the accidents to show that the
current ADs are working, and the events do not justify the AD.
The commenter also believes the FAA should withdraw the NPRM
because of inaccurate statements made in both the NRPM and
Airworthiness Concern Sheet (ACS) as part of the Small Airplane
Directorate's Airworthiness Concern Process. These are as follows:
In the NPRM: It states that AD 76-23-03 R1 ``applies to
certain Alexandria Aircraft, LLC (Bellanca) Models 17-30, 17-31, 17-
31A, and 17-31ATC airplanes.'' The commenter states that AD 76-23-03 R1
did not apply to Model 17-31ATC airplanes.
In the ACS: It states ``Seven other similar accidents
occurred since 1986 when AD 76-23-03 was amended to solve this
problem.'' The commenter states that actually five accidents occurred
prior to this AD, three in 1985 and two prior to that date with only
three accidents following the issuance of the AD. Of the three that
followed the AD, they were separated by 8 and 11 years respectively,
which is clearly a dramatic reduction in the reported accident rate and
frequency and likely directly attributable to the fact that the current
AD is working. Of these accident airplanes, all were pre-1985
production Model 17-30A airplanes and shared the weld defect design of
the exhaust systems and P-Lead failure likely due to routing directly
aft of the exhaust system failure point.
Edwin A. Stephan requests the FAA withdraw the NPRM because the
instructions for commenting on the AD were confusing. The NPRM directed
the commenters to the Docket Management System (DMS) at https://
dms.dot.gov, and the DMS directed the commenters to the Federal
Document Management System (FDMS) at https://regulations.gov. The
commenter believes this discouraged comments on the NPRM and may have
reduced or prevented comments.
We disagree with withdrawing the NPRM. The common design of all of
these airplanes that justifies the need for further AD action is the
internal welds, which require exhaust system disassembly to adequately
inspect. Service data also shows that the exhaust system should be
inspected at 50-hour TIS intervals or 12-month intervals, whichever
occurs first. This is based on failures occurring between 50 hours TIS
and the current 100-hour TIS interval required by AD 76-23-03 R1.
Because all but 38 airplanes were built before 1985, the potential for
more exhaust system failures exists if further AD action is not taken
because the airplanes will be approaching 40 years of service with many
having the original factory-installed exhaust system. Repair or
replacement of the exhaust system would only be required by the AD if
cracks or leaks were found.
The FAA agrees that the Model 17-31ATC was not part of AD 76-23-03
R1. However, it does have the same P-Lead configuration and should be
included in the AD. Inadvertently referencing this model in AD 76-23-03
R1 does not mean there is no unsafe condition and thus does not justify
withdrawing the NPRM.
As far as the data in the ACS, the data, no matter how it is
analyzed, will show that the airplanes affected by the exhaust system
inspection all have internal welds and, as discussed previously, the
service data also shows that the exhaust system should be inspected at
50-hour TIS intervals or 12-month intervals, whichever occurs first.
This is based on failures occurring between 50 hours TIS and the
current 100-hour TIS interval required by AD 76-23-03 R1. And as
discussed above, a large majority of the airplanes will be approaching
40 years of service with many having the original factory-installed
exhaust system.
The FAA agrees that there were issues with the DMS and FDMS. The
NPRM was issued when the electronic docket was DMS, but during the
comment period the FAA transitioned to the FDMS as mandated by Congress
that all federal agencies begin using the FDMS. However, posting of
comments was on DMS for part of the comment period and on FDMS for the
other. All DMS comments could be reviewed on both the DMS and FDMS. All
comments are currently housed in FDMS, and they are extensive. We
evaluated all comments. Because there were comments posted in both DMS
and FDMS, we believe that the public had adequate time and methods to
comment on the NPRM.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on these
comments.
Comment Issue No. 7: Exclude From the Inspection Portion of the AD
Those Airplanes With Exhaust Systems Modified With Parts Equivalent to
Those in Bellanca Service Letter B-110
Dave Taylor states that those airplanes that incorporate exhaust
systems modified with replacement parts that are equivalent to those in
Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110 should not be affected by the
exhaust system inspection portion of the AD. The commenter goes on to
state that the AD is too burdensome for owners and
[[Page 11549]]
micromanages the risk that should be placed on airplane owners since
the exhaust systems are already inspected on an annual basis through
normal maintenance practices.
We agree that those airplanes that incorporate exhaust systems
modified with replacement parts that are equivalent to those in
Bellanca/AALC Service Letter B-110 should be exempt from the exhaust
system inspection portion of the AD. Any owner/operator who believes
he/she has such parts can apply to the FAA for an AMOC following the
procedures in 14 CFR 39.19 and the AD.
As far as the AD being too burdensome on airplane owners when the
exhaust system is inspected annually, we disagree because the service
history shows that the current maintenance procedures and AD 76-23-03
R1 are not fully detecting the cracks and leaks before failure. Service
difficulty information, factory Service Alerts, or other
recommendations are vehicles to communicate information, but they are
not required by law. An AD is a method the FAA has to require actions
on all airplanes to address a known unsafe condition.
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 8: Revise the AD Instead of Supersede the AD
Ronald J. Quillin proposes that the FAA revise the existing AD 76-
23-03 R1 to the R2 level rather than supersede it and give it an
entirely new AD number. The commenter states that this would be less
confusing since AD 76-23-03 R1 already requires inspection techniques
for the detection and correction of cracks in the exhaust system of
affected models.
Since the NPRM provides additional inspection techniques and
introduces the P-Lead rerouting, we must supersede the AD because it
requires additional actions on the public. Paragraph 33, page 27, of
the Airworthiness Directives Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1A (FAA-AIR-M-
8040.1), dated January 23, 2007, includes the following: ``if the new
AD imposes new requirements, it must be issued as a supersedure.''
We are making no changes to the final rule AD action based on this
comment.
Comment Issue No. 9: Revise the Cost of Compliance To Adequately Show
the Number of Airplanes on the U.S. Registry
Ronald J. Quillin states that the number of airplanes affected by
both the inspection and P-Lead rerouting requirements are incorrect.
The commenter states that, according to his research, there are 1,041
airplanes on the U.S. registry that would be affected by the AD; and
that 921 airplanes on the U.S. registry would be affected by the
exhaust system inspections and 854 airplanes in the U.S. registry would
be affected by the P-Lead rerouting. The commenter states that this
would downwardly affect the total cost on the fleet.
We agree. We based our numbers on production airplanes. We will
revise the Costs of Compliance section to reflect the numbers provided
in the comment.
Conclusion
We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for the change in the Costs of Compliance section and minor
editorial corrections. We have determined that these minor corrections:
Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
We estimate that this AD affects 1,041 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
We estimate the inspection of the exhaust system affects 921
airplanes with the following costs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost Total cost on U.S.
per airplane operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $80 per hour = N/A $320 $294,720
$320.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the P-Lead rerouting affects 854 airplanes with the
following costs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost Total cost on U.S.
per airplane operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $80 per hour = $500 $820 $700,280
$320.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate the following costs to replace the exhaust system based
on the results of the inspection. The estimate is based on updating the
entire exhaust system to the current production exhaust system. This AD
allows other means to do the required repairs/replacement, which could
cost less. We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that
may need this repair/replacement:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Labor cost Parts cost per airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $80 per hour = $640.......... $4,000 $4,640
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimated costs represented in the above actions include the
costs associated with AD 76-23-03 R1 and the costs of this AD. The
added cost impact this AD imposes upon an owner/operator over that
already required by
[[Page 11550]]
AD 76-23-03 R1 is a more detailed inspection (which requires more work-
hours to do) and the P-Lead rerouting on certain models.
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 AD.
Regulatory Findings
We have 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 that 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 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 summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD'' in your
request.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454, and adding the following new AD:
2008-05-11 Alexandria Aircraft, LLC: Amendment 39-15405; Docket No.
FAA-2007-28431; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-050-AD.
Effective Date
(a) This AD becomes effective on April 8, 2008.
Affected ADs
(b) This AD supersedes AD 76-23-03 R1, Amendment 39-5454.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-30..................................... All serial numbers.
17-30A.................................... 30263 through 301030.
17-31..................................... All serial numbers.
17-31A.................................... All serial numbers.
17-31ATC.................................. All serial numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from several accidents caused by exhaust
system failures. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks
in the exhaust system, which could result in heat damage to magneto
electrical wiring and smoke in the cockpit. This failure could lead
to loss of engine power and/or a fire in the engine compartment.
Compliance
(e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Compliance Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For aircraft models Initially within the Follow Bellanca/
and serial numbers next 12 months after Alexandria Aircraft,
listed below, inspect April 8, 2008 (the LLC Service Letter B-
the exhaust system for effective date of this 110, dated May 8,
cracks or other AD) or within 25 hours 2007.
defects such as time-in-service (TIS)
excessive wear: after April 8, 2008
(i) Model 17-30, all (the effective date of
serial numbers; this AD), whichever
(ii) Model 17-30A, occurs first. Then
serial numbers 30263 repetitively
through 301030; thereafter at
(iii) Model 17-31, all intervals not to
serial numbers; and exceed 12 months or 50
(iv) Model 17-31A, all hours TIS, whichever
serial numbers. occurs first.
Accomplishment of the
actions in paragraph
(e)(2)(i) or
(e)(2)(ii) of this AD
terminates the
recurring inspections
required in this
paragraph for the
replaced/reconditioned
exhaust system (left
and/or right side).
[[Page 11551]]
(2) Repair or replace Before further flight Follow Bellanca/
the exhaust system after any inspection Alexandria Aircraft,
using any of the required in paragraph LLC Service Letter B-
options listed below: (e)(1) of this AD 110, dated May 8,
(i) Option 1-- where a crack or other 2007.
replace the entire defect is found. The
defective left and/or actions in paragraph
right muffler and (e)(2)(i) or
tailpipe assembly(ies) (e)(2)(ii) of this AD
with new parts as terminate the
specified in Bellanca/ recurring inspections
Alexandria Aircraft, required in paragraph
LLC Service Letter B- (e)(1) of this AD for
110, dated May 8, the replaced/
2007; reconditioned exhaust
(ii) Option 2-- system (left and/or
replace the entire right side).
defective left and/or
right muffler and
tailpipe assembly(ies)
with parts
reconditioned to the
new parts as specified
in Bellanca/Alexandria
Aircraft, LLC Service
Letter B-110, dated
May 8, 2007; or
(iii) Option 3--recondition or
repair the defective
left and/or right
muffler and tailpipe
assembly(ies) to their
original configuration
using FAA-approved
methods and materials.
(3) For aircraft models Within the next 12 Follow Bellanca/
and serial numbers months after April 8, Alexandria Aircraft,
listed below that do 2008 (the effective LLC Service Kit 1072
not have Bellanca/ date of this AD) or instructions located
Alexandria Aircraft, within 100 hours TIS on drawing SK 1072,
LLC Service Kit 1067: after April 8, 2008 dated April 2, 2007,
Rerouting Right (the effective date of as referenced in
Magneto ``P'' Lead this AD), whichever Bellanca/Alexandria
installed, reroute the occurs first. Aircraft, LLC Service
magneto ``P'' leads: Letter B-110, dated
(i) Model 17-30A, May 8, 2007.
serial numbers 30263
through 30998;
(ii) Model 17-31A, all
serial numbers; and
(iii) Model 17-31ATC,
all serial numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)
(f) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification 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: Michael
Downs, Aerospace Engineer, ACE-118C, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois
60018; phone: (847) 294-7870; fax: (847) 294-7834. 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.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(g) You must use Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC Service
Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007; and Alexandria Aircraft, LLC
Service Kit 1072 instructions located on drawing SK 1072, dated
April 2, 2007, as referenced in Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC
Service Letter B-110, dated May 8, 2007, to do the actions required
by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bellanca/Alexandria Aircraft, LLC, 2504 Aga Drive, Alexandria, MN
56308; phone: (320) 763-4088; fax: (320) 763-4095; Internet: https://
www.bellanca-aircraft.com.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or 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: https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_
of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25, 2008.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-3899 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
