
[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 11545-11551]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-12]                         

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

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: http://
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 
http://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 http://
dms.dot.gov, and the DMS directed the commenters to the Federal 
Document Management System (FDMS) at http://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: http://
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: http://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
