```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 94949-94954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29247]

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

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

[[Page 94950]]

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.

[[Page 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 FAA-
approved revisions, as an AMOC to the NPRM requirements. AAL also 
requested that we approve later FAA-approved 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 pre-flight 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.

[[Page 94952]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts                              Cost on  U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost          cost      Cost per  product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 747 series airplane           123 work-hours x $85      $2,714  $13,169.............  $1,790,984.
 modification (136 airplanes).       per hour = $10,455.
Model 747 series airplane           4 work-hours x $85             0  $340 per test.......  $46,240 per test.
 functional test (136 airplanes).    per hour = $340.
Model 757 series airplane           83 work-hours x $85        3,236  $10,291.............  $6,977,298.
 modification (678 airplanes).       per hour = $7,055.
Model 757 series airplane           3 work-hours x $85             0  $255 per test.......  $172,890 per test.
 functional test (678 airplanes).    per hour = $255 per
                                     test.
Model 767 series airplane           121 work-hours x $85       6,076  $16,361.............  $6,642,566.
 modification (406 airplanes).       per hour = $10,285.
Model 767 series airplane software  1 work-hour x $85 per          0  $85.................  $1,955.
 modification (23 airplanes).        hour = $85.
Model 767 series airplane           5 work-hours x $85             0  $425 per test.......  $172,550 per test.
 functional test (406 airplanes).    per hour = $425 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

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,

[[Page 94953]]

the FAA amends 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 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

[[Page 94954]]

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-AMOC-Requests@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/ibr-locations.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
```