Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 94949 

D’Angelo; telephone 39–0331–664757; fax 39 

0331–664680; or at http://

www.agustawestland.com/technicalbulletins. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

9, 2016. 

Scott A. Horn, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–30285 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–7525; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–NM–064–AD; Amendment 

39–18727; AD 2016–25–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 747–400, 

747–400D, and 747–400F series 

airplanes; Model 757 airplanes; and 

Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes. This AD was 

prompted by reports of uncommanded 

autopilot engagement events resulting in 

incorrect stabilizer trim adjustment 

during takeoff. This AD requires, 

depending on the model/configuration, 

installing an on-ground stabilizer 

autotrim inhibit system, relays and 

related wiring to open and close the 

flight control computer (FCC) analog 

output, and new operational program 

software (OPS) into the FCCs. We are 

issuing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 31, 

2017. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of January 31, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 

P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 

98124–2207; telephone: 206–544–5000, 

extension 1; fax: 206–766–5680; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. It is also 

available on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

7525. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

7525; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fnu 

Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, Systems 

and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6659; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

fnu.winarto@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 by adding an AD that would 

apply to certain The Boeing Company 

Model 747–400, 747–400D, and 747– 

400F series airplanes; Model 757 

airplanes; and Model 767–200, –300, 

–300F, and –400ER series airplanes. The 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 

79735) (‘‘the NPRM’’). The NPRM was 

prompted by reports of uncommanded 

autopilot engagement events resulting in 

incorrect stabilizer trim adjustment 

during takeoff. The NPRM proposed to 

require, depending on the model/ 

configuration for Model 747 airplanes, 

installing an on-ground stabilizer 

autotrim inhibit system, doing routine 

functional testing of the system, and 

doing corrective actions if necessary; for 

Model 757 airplanes and Model 767 

airplanes, installing relays and related 

wiring to open and close the FCC analog 

output that controls the stabilizer trim 

adjustment, doing routine functional 

testing of the on-ground auto stabilizer 

trim inhibit system, and doing 

corrective actions if necessary; and for 

Model 767–300, and –300F series 

airplanes, installing new OPS into the 

FCCs. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

stabilizer mistrim, which could result in 

a high-speed rejected takeoff and 

runway overrun, or reduced 

controllability of the airplane after 

takeoff due to insufficient pitch control. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the NPRM and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM 

The Airline Pilots Association, 

International stated that it fully supports 

the intent of the NPRM. 

Requests To Withdraw the NPRM 

United Parcel Service (UPS) requested 

that the NPRM be withdrawn until the 

actual root cause of the unsafe condition 

can be determined and a validated and 

confirmed solution is developed. 

FedEx Express (FedEx) requested that 

we withdraw the NPRM. FedEx stated 

that the burden of the actions proposed 

in the NPRM is not justified based on 

data presented in Boeing Fleet Team 

Digest 757–FTD–22–12001 or its 

operational experience. FedEx believes 

this is an extremely isolated and 

unlikely anomaly on the Model 757 

fleet. FedEx stated that it operates over 

100 Model 757 aircraft and has 

completed over 210,000 flight cycles 

with no reports of uncommanded 

autopilot engagement. 

We disagree with the commenters’ 

request to withdraw the NPRM. The 

quantitative and qualitative risks 

analyzed for this identified unsafe 

condition present an unacceptable risk 

that must be addressed on both 

passenger and freighter models. The 

manufacturer also considers the 

condition a safety issue and has 

developed an on-ground stabilizer 

autotrim inhibit system that addresses 

the unsafe condition. We have 

determined that it is necessary to 

proceed with issuance of this AD. 

Requests To Clarify Root Cause 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

Discussion section of the NPRM. Boeing 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
94950 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

acknowledged that the root cause is 

unknown, but requested that we revise 

the speculation that ‘‘the erroneous 

autopilot engage request is believed to 

have come from the mode control panel 

(MCP) and to have been caused by 

contamination within the MCP.’’ Boeing 

requested that we instead indicate that 

possible failures in the autopilot flight 

director system can cause an 

uncommanded engagement of the 

autopilot. Boeing stated that the revised 

statement would be less speculative. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We agree that the 

revised statement would be less 

speculative. However, since the 

pertinent part of the Discussion section 

is not repeated in this final rule, no 

change is necessary to this final rule. 

One commenter, Geoffrey Barrance, 

requested that we take immediate action 

to require examination for 

contamination of all MCPs on all 

affected airplanes. Mr. Barrance stated 

that the exposure to the problem will 

persist until all (or some critical part) of 

the actions specified by the NPRM are 

completed. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. As stated above, the 

manufacturer and the FAA agree that 

pointing to MCP contamination as the 

root cause is speculative. We concur 

with the manufacturer’s conclusion that 

the on-ground stabilizer autotrim inhibit 

system of this AD mitigates possible 

failures in the autopilot flight director 

system. The compliance times specified 

in this AD are established to ensure an 

acceptable level of risk. We have not 

changed this final rule in this regard. 

Request To Revise SUMMARY 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

SUMMARY of the NPRM to describe the 

specific Model 767 airplanes identified 

in the applicability of this AD, rather 

than using the term ‘‘Model 767 

airplanes.’’ Boeing stated that this will 

clarify that the applicability will not 

apply to future Model 767 series 

airplanes, such as the Model 767–2C, 

which will be designed to inhibit 

autopilot engagement on the ground 

with the flaps down, preventing the 

unsafe condition addressed by the 

NPRM. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. In the SUMMARY of this final 

rule we refer to ‘‘certain’’ airplanes, and 

we identify the subgroup of Model 767 

airplanes by referring to the effectivity 

of the service information in paragraph 

(c) of this AD. We are not including 

future production airplanes in the 

applicability of this AD. 

Request To Clarify Differences Between 

NPRM and Service Information 

United Airlines (UAL) requested that 

we revise the NPRM to specify using 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–22–2256, Revision 1, dated 

January 6, 2016 (‘‘SASB 747–22–2256 

R1’’), and that we give credit for Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747– 

22–2256, dated March 6, 2015. 

We agree with UAL’s request. We 

have revised paragraphs (c)(1) and (g) of 

this AD to specify using SASB 747–22– 

2256 R1, as an appropriate source of 

service information for accomplishing 

the required actions in these paragraphs. 

SASB 747–22–2256 R1 specifies doing 

functional testing of the automatic 

stabilizer trim inhibit system. Since 

paragraph (g) of the proposed AD 

specified doing the functional testing of 

the automatic stabilizer trim inhibit, 

there is no increase in the economic 

burden on any operator or increase of 

the scope of this AD. We added credit 

for using Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 747–22–2256, dated 

March 6, 2015, to paragraph (k) of this 

AD. 

EVA Airways (EVA) requested that we 

consider the complexity of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747– 

22–2256, dated March 6, 2015, and 

noted that Boeing Information Notice 

747–22–2256 IN 02, dated June 10, 

2015, has been issued to revise Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747– 

22–2256, dated March 6, 2015. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. As previously stated, we have 

revised this AD to specify SASB 747– 

22–2256 R1 as an appropriate source of 

service information. This service 

information has incorporated the 

information in Boeing Information 

Notice 747–22–2256 IN 02, dated June 

10, 2015. No further change is necessary 

in this regard in this final rule. 

Boeing requested that we delete the 

‘‘Differences Between this Proposed AD 

and the Service Information’’ section in 

the NPRM, which stated that, for Model 

747 airplanes, the proposed AD would 

require doing post-modification routine 

functional testing of the on-ground 

stabilizer auto trim inhibit system, and 

corrective actions if necessary, at 

intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight 

hours. Boeing stated that SASB 747–22– 

2256 R1 now includes the functional 

testing of the on-ground stabilizer auto 

trim inhibit system. 

We agree with Boeing that SASB 747– 

22–2256 R1 specifies doing the 

functional testing of the on-ground auto 

stabilizer trim inhibit system specified 

in ‘‘Differences Between this Proposed 

AD and the Service Information’’ in the 

NPRM, and in paragraph (i) of this AD. 

However, the ‘‘Differences Between this 

Proposed AD and the Service 

Information’’ section is not repeated in 

this final rule. We have not changed this 

final rule in this regard. 

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment 

of the Proposed Actions 

Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) stated 

that the installation of winglets per 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

ST01518SE does not affect the 

accomplishment of the manufacturer’s 

service instructions. 

We agree with APB that STC 

ST01518SE does not affect the 

accomplishment of the manufacturer’s 

service instructions for Model 757 

airplanes. Therefore, the installation of 

STC ST01518SE does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the actions 

required by this AD for Model 757 

airplanes. Therefore, we have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Requests To Address Airplanes 

Equipped With Aviation Partners 

Boeing (APB) Winglets 

All Nippon Airways (ANA), American 

Airlines (AA), APB, Boeing, Thompson 

Airways, UAL, and UPS requested that 

we revise the NPRM to address the 

Model 767 airplanes equipped with 

winglets installed under APB STC 

ST01920SE. The commenters explained 

that the Model 767 equipped with APB 

winglets have a different compliance 

time and modification specified in APB 

Service Bulletin AP767–22–005, 

Revision 1, dated June 16, 2015 (‘‘SB 

AP767–22–005 R1’’), than those that 

have not been modified by the APB 

STC. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

requests to revise this AD to address 

Model 767 airplanes equipped with 

APB winglets. The Model 767–300 and 

–300F series airplanes identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–22–0143, Revision 1, dated 

July 6, 2015 (‘‘SASB 767–22–0143 R1’’), 

that have been modified with the 

installation of APB winglets are 

identified in SB AP767–22–005 R1. 

We have revised applicability 

paragraph (c)(3) of this AD to exclude 

Model 767–300 and –300F series 

airplanes that are identified in SB 

AP767–22–005 R1. We have added a 

new paragraph (c)(5) to this AD to 

include Model 767–300 and –300F 

series airplanes with winglets installed 

per STC ST01920SE having part number 

(P/N) 2276–COL–AF2–03 installed, as 

identified in APB Service Bulletin 

AP767–22–005, dated May 8, 2015; or 

SB AP767–22–005 R1. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 94951 

We have redesignated paragraph (j) of 

the proposed AD as paragraph (j)(1) of 

this AD and added paragraph (j)(2) to 

this AD to require the actions specified 

in SB AP767–22–005 R1, for Model 767 

airplanes that are identified in 

paragraph (c)(5) of this AD. These 

actions were previously proposed in the 

NPRM; therefore, there is no increase in 

scope of the requirements of this AD 

and no supplemental comment period is 

necessary. We have also added 

paragraph (j)(3) to this AD which states 

that, for airplanes identified in 

paragraph (c)(5) of this AD, no 

additional action is required by this AD. 

Requests To Reference Revised Service 

Information and Provide Credit 

AIRDO Company, ANA, Boeing, 

British Airways, Thomson Airways, and 

UAL requested that we revise the NPRM 

to specify using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–22– 

0096, Revision 1, dated February 8, 

2016 (‘‘SASB 757–22–0096 R1’’); Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 767– 

22–0143, Revision 2, dated May 25, 

2016 (‘‘SASB 767–22–0143 R2’’); certain 

Boeing Information Notices that provide 

revisions to the service information; and 

to provide credit for actions using the 

previous issues of service information. 

We agree with the commenters’ 

requests to reference the revised service 

information, which incorporates the 

revisions in the Boeing Information 

Notices, and to provide credit. This 

service information incorporates small 

editorial changes and requires no 

additional work on airplanes that have 

had prior revisions of this service 

information accomplished on them. We 

have revised paragraphs (c)(2) and (h) of 

this AD to reference SASB 757–22–0096 

R1. We have revised paragraphs (c)(3) 

and (i) of this AD to reference SASB 

767–22–0143 R2. In paragraph (k) of this 

AD, we have added credit for previous 

actions using Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–22–0096, dated 

March 23, 2015; and Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–22– 

0143, Revision 1, dated July 6, 2015. 

Request To Approve Alternative 

Method of Compliance (AMOC) 

AAL requested that we approve SB 

AP767–22–005 R1, or later FAAapproved revisions, as an AMOC to the 

NPRM requirements. AAL also 

requested that we approve later FAAapproved revisions to the service 

information in the NPRM. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

requests. As stated previously, we have 

included SB AP767–22–005 R1 as a 

source of service information in this AD. 

AMOCs provide an alternative method 

of compliance to the methods required 

to be used in the associated AD. An 

AMOC is issued only after an AD has 

been issued and only after data are 

provided to show that the proposed 

alternative adequately addresses the 

unsafe condition. 

Referring to specific service 

information in an AD and using the 

phrase ‘‘or later FAA-approved 

revisions’’ violates Office of the Federal 

Register regulations for approving 

materials that are incorporated by 

reference. However, operators may 

request approval to use a later revision 

of the referenced service information as 

an AMOC, under the provisions of 

paragraph (l) of this AD. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Requests To Revise Compliance Times 

AAL, AIRDO Company, FedEx, 

British Airways, EVA Airways, 

Thomson Airways, and UAL requested 

that we revise the NPRM compliance 

times. The revision requests for the 

Model 747 airplanes 24-month 

compliance time range from 48 months 

to 60 months to the next scheduled 

heavy airplane check. The revision 

requests for the Model 757 airplanes 24- 

month compliance time range from 36 

months to 48 months. The revision 

requests for the Model 767 airplanes 24- 

month compliance time is 36 months. 

UAL requested that operators installing 

the APB winglets in the near future, 

have 24 months instead of 16 months 

after the effective date of the AD to 

comply with the AD requirements. The 

commenters requested the compliance 

time changes to accommodate 

maintenance schedules, parts 

availability, and airplane down times. 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

compliance time requests. In developing 

appropriate compliance times, we 

considered the safety implications, 

normal maintenance schedules for 

timely accomplishment of the 

modification, and parts availability. In 

light of these items, we have determined 

that the compliance times, as proposed, 

represent the maximum interval of time 

allowable for the affected airplanes to 

continue to safely operate before the 

modification is done. In addition, since 

maintenance schedules vary among 

operators, there would be no assurance 

that the airplane would be modified 

during that maximum interval. The 

manufacturer has concurred with the 

compliance times as proposed. We have 

not changed this final rule in this 

regard. However, under the provisions 

of paragraph (l) of this AD, we will 

consider requests for approval of an 

extension of the compliance time if 

sufficient data are submitted to 

substantiate that the new compliance 

time would provide an acceptable level 

of safety. We have not changed this final 

rule in this regard. 

Request To Conduct Compliance Time 

Risk Assessment 

Mr. Geoffrey Barrance requested that 

we do a risk assessment and probability 

safety analysis in setting the compliance 

time. Mr. Barrance stated that steps 

must be immediately taken to assess 

whether the specified compliance time 

is adequate to keep the fleet risk within 

proper limits. 

We agree with the commenter. We 

have done an assessment of the risk 

posed by the identified unsafe 

condition. The compliance times 

following the effective date of this AD 

were determined to be appropriate. The 

manufacturer has concurred with the 

compliance times as proposed. No 

change to this final rule is needed in 

this regard. 

Request To Revise Airplane Checklist 

Mr. Geoffrey Barrance requested that, 

until the modification of any specific 

airframe has been accomplished, we 

include an additional step in the preflight checklist to check that the 

stabilizer is in the correct position. 

We agree that this step is necessary. 

However, the existing pre-flight 

checklist already requires checking the 

stabilizer position prior to departure. 

Therefore, no change is needed to this 

AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise Cost Estimate 

UAL requested that we revise the cost 

estimate to reflect the additional 

financial burden imposed on the 

operator in order to comply with the 

NPRM. UAL stated that the compliance 

times do not coincide with UAL’s 

maintenance intervals for heavy aircraft 

checks. UAL explained that, as a result, 

it will need to take a number of 

airplanes out of service for several days. 

We do not agree with the commenter’s 

request. In establishing the requirements 

of all ADs, we consider the cost impact 

to operators for parts and labor costs. 

We attempt to set compliance times that 

generally coincide with operators’ 

maintenance schedules where possible 

in consideration of the safety risk. 

However, because operators’ schedules 

vary substantially, we cannot 

accommodate every operator’s optimal 

scheduling in each AD. Each AD has an 

allowable provision for individual 

operators to obtain approval for 

extensions of compliance times, based 

on a showing that the extension 

provides an acceptable level of safety. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
94952 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

We have not changed this AD regarding 

this issue. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting this AD 

with the changes described previously 

and minor editorial changes. We have 

determined that these minor changes: 

• 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. 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of this AD. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR part 51 

We reviewed the following service 

information. These documents are 

distinct since they apply to different 

airplane models in different 

configurations. 

• SB AP767–22–005 R1. This service 

information describes procedures for 

modifying relays and wiring to open 

and close the FCC analog output that 

controls the stabilizer trim adjustment, 

and doing functional testing. 

• SASB 747–22–2256 R1. This service 

information describes procedures for 

installing an on-ground stabilizer 

autotrim inhibit system, and doing 

functional testing. 

• SASB 757–22–0096 R1. This service 

information describes procedures for 

modifying relays and wiring to open 

and close the FCC analog output that 

controls the stabilizer trim adjustment, 

and doing functional testing. 

• SASB 767–22–0143 R2. This service 

information describes procedures for 

modifying relays and wiring to open 

and close the FCC analog output that 

controls the stabilizer trim adjustment, 

and doing functional testing. 

• Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–22–0146, Revision 1, dated 

June 25, 2015. This service information 

describes procedures for installing new 

OPS into the FCCs. 

This service information is reasonably 

available because the interested parties 

have access to it through their normal 

course of business or by the means 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 1,220 

airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts 

cost 

Cost per 

product 

Cost on 

U.S. operators 

Model 747 series airplane modification (136 

airplanes).

123 work-hours × $85 per hour = $10,455 .... $2,714 $13,169 .......... $1,790,984. 

Model 747 series airplane functional test (136 

airplanes).

4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 ............. 0 $340 per test .. $46,240 per test. 

Model 757 series airplane modification (678 

airplanes).

83 work-hours × $85 per hour = $7,055 ........ 3,236 $10,291 .......... $6,977,298. 

Model 757 series airplane functional test (678 

airplanes).

3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 per test 0 $255 per test .. $172,890 per test. 

Model 767 series airplane modification (406 

airplanes).

121 work-hours × $85 per hour = $10,285 .... 6,076 $16,361 .......... $6,642,566. 

Model 767 series airplane software modification (23 airplanes).1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ................. 0 $85 ................. $1,955. 

Model 767 series airplane functional test (406 

airplanes).

5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 per test 0 $425 per test .. $172,550 per test. 

According to the manufacturer, some 

of the costs of this AD may be covered 

under warranty, thereby reducing the 

cost impact on affected individuals. We 

do not control warranty coverage for 

affected individuals. As a result, we 

have included all available costs in our 

cost estimate. 

We have received no definitive data 

that will enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

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 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

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, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 94953 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2016–25–01 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–18727; Docket No. 

FAA–2015–7525; Directorate Identifier 

2015–NM–064–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective January 31, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

airplanes, certificated in any category, 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) 

of this AD. 

(1) Model 747–400, 747–400D, and 747– 

400F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–22– 

2256, Revision 1, dated January 6, 2016 

(‘‘SASB 747–22–2256 R1’’). 

(2) Model 757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and 

–300 series airplanes, as identified in Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–22– 

0096, Revision 1, dated February 8, 2016 

(‘‘SASB 757–22–0096 R1’’). 

(3) Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes, as identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

767–22–0143, Revision 2, dated May 25, 

2016 (‘‘SASB 767–22–0143 R2’’), except 

those Model 767–300 and –300F series 

airplanes with winglets installed in 

accordance with Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http://

rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_

Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ 

59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/Body/ 

0.48A!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif), 

and that are identified in Aviation Partners 

Boeing (APB) Service Bulletin AP767–22– 

005, Revision 1, dated June 16, 2015 (‘‘SB 

AP767–22–005 R1’’). 

(4) Model 767–300 and –300F series 

airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–22–0146, 

Revision 1, dated June 25, 2015 (‘‘SASB 767– 

22–0146 R1’’). 

(5) Model 767–300 and –300F series 

airplanes with winglets installed per STC 

ST01920SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_

and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ 

59027f43b9a7486e86257b1d006591ee/Body/ 

0.48A!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif) 

having part number (P/N) 2276–COL–AF2– 

03 installed, as identified in APB Service 

Bulletin AP767–22–005, dated May 8, 2015; 

or SB AP767–22–005 R1. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 22, Auto flight. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by reports of 

uncommanded autopilot engagement events 

resulting in incorrect stabilizer trim 

adjustment during takeoff. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent stabilizer mistrim, which 

could result in a high-speed rejected takeoff 

and runway overrun, or reduced 

controllability of the airplane after takeoff 

due to insufficient pitch control. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Model 747 Airplane Modification and 

Repetitive Functional Testing 

For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this AD: Within 24 months after the 

effective date of this AD, install new wiring 

and relays to reroute the four autotrim arm 

signals through new or existing air/ground 

determination source select switches, and do 

functional testing, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 747– 

22–2256 R1. If the functional test fails, before 

further flight, do corrective actions, repeat 

the test, and do all applicable corrective 

actions until the functional test is passed, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 747–22–2256 R1. 

Repeat the functional test of the automatic 

stabilizer trim system specified in step 250. 

of paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 747–22–2256 R1, 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 

flight hours. If the functional test fails, before 

further flight, do corrective actions, repeat 

the test, and do all applicable corrective 

actions until the functional test is passed, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 747–22–2256 R1. 

(h) Model 757 Airplane Modification and 

Repetitive Functional Testing 

For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) 

of this AD: Within 24 months after the 

effective date of this AD, install wiring to 

inhibit the automatic stabilizer trim arm 

discrete when the airplane is on ground, 

install a two-position momentary contact test 

switch in the main equipment center, and do 

the functional test and all applicable 

corrective actions until the functional test is 

passed, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 757– 

22–0096 R1. Repeat the functional test of the 

on-ground automatic stabilizer auto trim 

inhibit system and all applicable corrective 

actions specified in step 11. of paragraph 3.B. 

of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 

757–22–0096 R1, thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 1,500 flight hours. If the functional 

test fails, before further flight, do corrective 

actions, repeat the test, and do all applicable 

corrective actions until the functional test is 

passed, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 757– 

22–0096 R1. 

(i) Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and –400ER 

Series Airplane Modification and Repetitive 

Functional Testing 

For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this AD: Within 24 months after the 

effective date of this AD, install relays and 

wiring to open and close the flight control 

computer (FCC) analog output that controls 

the stabilizer trim adjustment, install a 

momentary action ground test switch, and do 

the functional testing and all applicable 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 767– 

22–0143 R2. Repeat the functional test of the 

on-ground automatic stabilizer auto trim 

inhibit system and all applicable corrective 

actions specified in steps 5.a. through 5.g. of 

Paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 767–22–0143 R2, 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 

flight hours. If the functional test fails, before 

further flight, do corrective actions, repeat 

the test, and do all applicable corrective 

actions until the functional test is passed, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 767–22–0143 R2. 

(j) Model 767–300 and –300F Series Airplane 

Modification 

(1) For airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(4) of this AD: Within 16 months after the 

effective date of this AD, install new 

operational program software into the FCCs, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SASB 767–22–0146 R1. 

(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(5) of this AD: Within 16 months after the 

effective date of this AD, install new 

operational program software into the FCCs, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of SB AP767–22–005 R1. 

(k) Credit for Actions Accomplished in 

Accordance With Previous Service 

Information 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 747–22–2256, 

dated March 6, 2015. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–22–0096, 

dated March 23, 2015. 

(3) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–22–0143, 

dated March 6, 2015; or Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–22–0143, 

Revision 1, dated July 6, 2015. 

(4) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 767–22–0146, 

dated March 24, 2015. 

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
94954 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by the Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. To be 

approved, the repair method, modification 

deviation, or alteration deviation must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) For service information that contains 

steps that are labeled as Required for 

Compliance (RC), the provisions of 

paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) apply. 

(i) The steps labeled as RC, including 

substeps under an RC step and any figures 

identified in an RC step, must be done to 

comply with the AD. If a step or sub-step is 

labeled ‘‘RC Exempt,’’ then the RC 

requirement is removed from that step or 

sub-step. An AMOC is required for any 

deviations to RC steps, including substeps 

and identified figures. 

(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be 

deviated from using accepted methods in 

accordance with the operator’s maintenance 

or inspection program without obtaining 

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, 

including substeps and identified figures, can 

still be done as specified, and the airplane 

can be put back in an airworthy condition. 

(m) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, 

FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917– 

6659; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

fnu.winarto@faa.gov. 

(2) Service information identified in this 

AD that is not incorporated by reference is 

available at the addresses specified in 

paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD. 

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP767–22–005, Revision 1, dated 

June 16, 2015. 

(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 747–22–2256, Revision 1, dated 

January 6, 2016. 

(iii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–22–0096, Revision 1, dated 

February 8, 2016. 

(iv) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–22–0143, Revision 2, dated May 

25, 2016. 

(v) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 767–22–0146, Revision 1, dated June 

25, 2015. 

(3) For Boeing service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & 

Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 

2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone: 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax: 206–766– 

5680; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 23, 2016. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–29247 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–3929; Directorate 

Identifier 2015–SW–031–AD; Amendment 

39–18746; AD 2016–25–20] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus 

Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2, 

AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, 

AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, 

AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, 

AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. 

This AD requires inspecting each bidirectional suspension cross-bar (crossbar). This AD was prompted by two 

reports of cracks in a cross-bar. These 

actions are intended to prevent the 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 31, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum 

Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; 

telephone (972) 641–0000 or (800) 232– 

0323; fax (972) 641–3775; or at http://

www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. 

You may review the referenced 

service information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 

6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. You 

may review the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, 

Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2015– 

3929; 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 this AD, the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations Office, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Grant, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

robert.grant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion 

On April 11, 2016, at 81 FR 21284, the 

Federal Register published our notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by 

adding an AD that would apply to 

Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4, 

EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, AS350B2, 

AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, 

AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, 

AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP 

helicopters with a cross-bar part number 

(P/N) 350A38–1040–20 or P/N 350A38– 

1040–00 installed. The NPRM proposed 

to require repetitively inspecting each 

cross-bar for a crack and replacing any 

cracked cross-bar before further flight. 

The proposed requirements were 

intended to detect cracks in a cross-bar 

and prevent failure of the cross-bar and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 

2015–0094, dated May 29, 2015, issued 

by EASA, which is the Technical Agent 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES