[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11545-11551]
[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.

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

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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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

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

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

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

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).

(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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46819-46820]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15355]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97908; File No. SR-ICC-2023-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearance of Additional
Credit Default Swap Contracts

July 14, 2023.

I. Introduction

    On March 30, 2023, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to clear an
additional credit default swap (``CDS'') contract. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 18,
2023.\3\ On May 11, 2023, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change until July 17, 2023.\4\
The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed rule
change. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Clearance of Additional
Credit Default Swap Contracts; Exchange Act Release No. 97293 (Apr.
12, 2023), 88 FR 23711 (Apr. 18, 2023) (File No. SR-ICC-2023-005)
(``Notice'').
    \4\ Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice
of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed
Rule Relating to the Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap
Contracts; Exchange Act Release No. 97482 (May 11, 2023), 88 FR
31554 (May 17, 2023) (File No. SR-ICC-2023-005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the
purpose of clearing CDS contracts. Chapter 26 of ICC's Rulebook covers
the CDS contracts that ICC clears, with each subchapter of Chapter 26
defining the characteristics and additional Rules applicable to the
various specific categories of CDS contracts that ICC clears. Among
other CDS contracts, ICC currently clears Standard Emerging Market
Sovereign Single Name CDS (``SES'') contracts.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend ICC's rules to
permit ICC to clear an additional SES contract, specifically, SES
contracts on the Dominican Republic. To carry out this change, the
proposed rule change would amend Subchapter 26D of Chapter 26. In Rule
26D-102 (Definitions), ``Eligible SES Reference Entities,'' the
proposed rule change would add the Dominican Republic to the list of
specific Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
    As discussed below, this additional SES contract has terms
consistent with the other SES contracts that ICC is already clearing.
As such, to clear this additional contract, ICC will be able to rely on
its existing Risk Management Framework and other policies and
procedures without making any changes.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
organization.\5\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \6\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of ICC be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\9\ The Commission has reviewed
the terms and conditions of the additional SES contract proposed for
clearing and has determined that those terms and conditions are
substantially similar to the terms and conditions of the other
contracts listed in Subchapter 26D of the ICC Rules, all of which ICC
currently clears, with the key difference being the underlying
reference obligations. For the additional SES contract, the underlying
reference obligations will be issuances by the Dominican Republic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the Notice and ICC's Rules, policies, and
procedures, the Commission also finds that ICC would be able to clear
the additional SES contract pursuant to its existing clearing
arrangements and related financial safeguards, protections, and risk
management procedures. Commission staff also conducted a review of data
on volume, open interest, and the number of ICC Clearing Participants
(``CPs'') that currently trade in the SES contracts, as well as certain
model parameters for the additional contracts. Based on this review, as
well as its own experience and expertise, the Commission finds that
ICC's Rules, policies, and procedures are reasonably designed to price
and measure the potential risk presented by the additional SES
contract, collect financial resources in proportion to such risk, and
liquidate the additional contracts in the event of a CP default. This
should help ensure ICC's ability to maintain the financial

resources it needs to provide its critical services and function as a
central counterparty, thereby promoting the prompt and accurate
settlement of the additional SES contracts and other credit default
swap transactions.
    Therefore, the Commission finds that clearance of the additional
SES contract would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and
settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section
17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) requires ICC to establish, implement, maintain,
and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal
basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant
jurisdictions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change would help
provide a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis
for ICC's clearance of SES contracts on the Dominican Republic. By
amending Rule 26D-102 to add the Dominican Republic to the list of
specific Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC, the
proposed rule change would help to ensure that ICC can clear SES
contracts on the Dominican Republic pursuant to its existing rules in
Subchapter 26D. The Commission believes Subchapter 26D would provide a
well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for ICC
to clear these contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule
17Ad-22(e)(1).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \13\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240Ad-22(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2023-005), be, and hereby
is, approved.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15355 Filed 7-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79875]
[DOCID:fr30de08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Projects No. 12548-002, 12540-002, 12549-002, and 12545-002]

Hydrodynamics Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

December 19, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for original license
for the proposed Greenfield Hydroelectric Project No. 12548-002, Woods
Hydroelectric Project No. 12540-002, A-Drop Hydroelectric Project No.
12549-002, and Johnson Hydroelectric Project No. 12545-002, located on
the Greenfields Main Canal and Greenfields South Canal in Teton and
Cascade counties, Montana, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the projects. The projects would be located on private lands
over which the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation holds a dominant easement.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the projects and concludes that licensing the projects, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
numbers, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to these or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice and should be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please affix Project Nos. 12548-002, 12540-002, 12549-002, and
12545-002 to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-
Filing'' link.
    For further information, contact Dianne Rodman at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-30924 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P