Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42581 

by the Manager, International Section, 

Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the 

European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or 

Airbus’s EASA Design Organization 

Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, 

the approval must include the DOAauthorized signature. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA 

Airworthiness Directive 2017–0129, dated 

July 25, 2017, for related information. You 

may examine the MCAI on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017–0808. 

(2) For more information about this AD, 

contact Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace 

Engineer, International Section, Transport 

Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 

425–227–2889; fax 425–227–1149. 

(k) 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 this AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission 

(AOT) A42P001–17, dated June 30, 2017. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness 

Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 

31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 

5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email 

continued-airworthiness.a350@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

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 August 

29, 2017. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–18966 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–7270; Product 

Identifier 2015–NM–116–AD; Amendment 

39–19025; AD 2017–18–16] 

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 737–700 

and –700C series airplanes. This AD 

was prompted by a report that, for 

certain airplanes, the nose-up pitch trim 

limit and associated warning will allow 

the horizontal stabilizer position to be 

set outside acceptable limits for a mistrimmed takeoff condition. This AD 

requires, depending on airplane 

configuration, replacing certain pitch 

trim light plates, relocating certain 

position warning horn switches, 

revising certain software, removing a 

certain placard, and doing related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective October 16, 

2017. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: For Aviation Partners 

Boeing service information identified in 

this final rule, contact Aviation Partners 

Boeing, 2811 South 102nd Street, Suite 

200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 206– 

830–7699; fax: 206–767–3355; email: 

leng@aviationpartners.com; Internet: 

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. 

For Boeing service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 

110–SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; 

telephone 562–797–1717; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. 

You may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Standards Branch, 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–2016– 

7270. 

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–2016– 

7270; 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 Section, FAA, Seattle 

ACO Branch, 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 737–700 and –700C series 

airplanes. The NPRM published in the 

Federal Register on June 28, 2016 (81 

FR 41894). The NPRM was prompted by 

a report that, for airplanes with blended 

winglets, the nose-up pitch trim limit 

and associated warning for the 

horizontal stabilizer control system will 

allow the stabilizer position to be set 

outside acceptable limits for a mistrimmed takeoff condition. The NPRM 

proposed to require, depending on 

airplane configuration, replacing the 

pitch trim light plates on the flight deck 

control stand, relocating the position 

warning horn switches of the horizontal 

stabilizer, revising the software, 

removing the placard, and doing related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent a stabilizer position set outside 

acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed 

takeoff condition. Settings outside of the 

appropriate pitch trim limits could 

result in loss of controllability of the 

airplane during takeoff. 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
42582 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Support for the NPRM 

Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA) stated its support 

for the NPRM. United Airlines stated 

that it has no technical objections with 

the NPRM. 

Request To Use the Latest Service 

Information 

Aviation Partners Boeing requested 

that the NPRM be updated to include 

the latest service information, which is 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 3, 

dated July 19, 2016. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request. Since the NPRM was issued, we 

have reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, which 

provides minor changes. We have 

updated this AD to refer to Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002, Revision 4, dated April 

24, 2017. We have also added credit for 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 3, 

dated July 19, 2016. 

Request To Revise Boeing Service 

Information 

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested 

that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, be 

revised to reference revised Aviation 

Partners Boeing service information. 

SWA stated that Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–27A1306, dated September 

10, 2015, specifies concurrent 

accomplishment of Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

March 31, 2015. SWA stated that this 

concurrent requirement should call for 

the use of Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, as 

stated throughout the NPRM. 

We acknowledge the commenter’s 

request. After we issued the NPRM, 

Boeing published Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–27A1306, Revision 1, 

dated December 14, 2016, which 

identifies Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletins ‘‘AP737–27–002, 

Original Issue, Revision 1, Revision 2, or 

Revision 3,’’ as concurrent 

requirements. Aviation Partners Boeing 

has since published Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. We 

have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD 

to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–27A1306, dated September 10, 

2015, as revised by Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–27A1306, Revision 1, 

dated December 14, 2016. As we stated 

previously, Aviation Partners Boeing 

has published Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. 

Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD 

also refer to Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. 

Request To Make Service Information 

Available or Revise the Applicability 

Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that 

we either make Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34–005, 

dated July 17, 2015, available to all 

operators or revise paragraph (c)(3) of 

the applicability in the proposed AD to 

identify specifically affected airplanes. 

DAL stated that, during its review of the 

NPRM, it was not able to obtain a copy 

of Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 

2015. DAL commented that it requested 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 

2015, from Boeing and was advised that 

the Aviation Partners Boeing service 

information was not applicable to DAL 

airplanes, and, therefore, the service 

information would not be made 

available to DAL. DAL stated that, as a 

result, it was unable to independently 

verify that there are no DAL airplanes 

identified in Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated 

July 17, 2015. DAL commented that 

paragraph 1.A.1., ‘‘Aircraft Affected,’’ of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 2, 

dated March 1, 2016, does identify 

airplanes having line numbers 384 and 

3128 as affected by Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34–005, 

dated July 17, 2015. DAL stated that, 

however, paragraph (c)(3) of the 

proposed AD does not mention Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002, Revision 2, dated March 

1, 2016, as a method to identify 

airplanes. 

DAL commented that it would prefer 

that Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 

2015, be available to all operators so 

that each operator can determine 

whether or not their airplanes are 

affected. DAL also stated that if the 

manufacturer cannot support this, DAL 

suggested that paragraph (c)(3) in the 

AD should indicate that Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 2015, is 

only applicable to airplanes having line 

numbers 384 and 3128. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We disagree with 

revising the applicability of this AD. 

However, the service information 

specified in paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) 

of this AD is incorporated by reference 

in this AD, and it should be available to 

all operators, as well as the general 

public, after the AD is published. We 

have provided availability information 

for the required service information in 

both the preamble and regulatory text of 

this AD. 

We have also clarified the actions for 

the airplane having line number 3128. 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as 

specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, 

also references line number 3128. 

Paragraph (g)(2) of this AD refers to 

Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, for 

accomplishing actions. Paragraph (h) of 

this AD refers to Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34–005, 

dated July 17, 2015, for accomplishing 

actions. For line number 3128, the 

actions in paragraph (h) of this AD 

should be done instead of paragraph 

(g)(2) of this AD. We have revised 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to exclude 

line number 3128. 

In addition, we have clarified the 

actions for airplanes identified in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this AD by excluding 

those airplanes from paragraph (g)(1) of 

this AD. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD 

specifies actions for airplanes identified 

in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, which 

includes airplanes that are identified in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this AD. However, 

for airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this AD, the actions specified in 

paragraph (g)(2) of this AD must be 

done. 

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes 

From the Applicability 

SWA requested that any airplane 

modified per Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, 

Amendment dated April 21, 2015, dated 

August 26, 2015, or subsequent be 

excluded from the applicability of the 

proposed AD. SWA stated that it has 

recently incorporated STC ST00830SE 

(Amendment dated April 21, 2015) on 

airplanes that have not previously had 

blended winglets installed. SWA 

commented that the Amendment dated 

April 21, 2015, of the STC incorporates 

the intent of Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002. SWA 

stated that it is currently incorporating 

STC ST00830SE, Amendment dated 

August 26, 2015, on airplanes that have 

not previously had blended winglets 

installed. 

We partially agree with the 

commenter’s request. We concur with 

the assertion that installation of STC 

ST00830SE at Amendment dated April 

21, 2015, fulfills the equivalent actions 

specified in Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. In 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42583 

addition, there are later amendments 

that apply to Model 737–700 series 

airplanes that fulfill the actions 

specified in Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. We 

have revised paragraph (c) of this AD to 

exclude airplanes on which winglets are 

installed as specified in STC 

ST00830SE, Amendment dated on or 

after April 21, 2015. 

Request To Include Certain Line 

Numbers in the Applicability 

SWA requested that we include 

certain line numbers in the applicability 

of the proposed AD. SWA stated that 

paragraph 1.A.1., ‘‘Aircraft Affected,’’ of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002 defines the 

effectivity of Group 2 airplanes as ‘‘. . . 

manufacturing line number 3100 and on 

. . . .’’ SWA commented that it is 

unclear if this modification is being 

incorporated on the Boeing production 

line. SWA stated that, if this 

modification is being incorporated on 

the Boeing production line, then the 

manufacturing line number should be 

identified as the upper end of the 

effectivity of Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002 and in 

the upper end of the proposed 

applicability. 

We agree that operators need to know 

which airplanes are affected. However, 

we disagree with including line 

numbers in the applicability of this AD, 

because the Aviation Partners Boeing kit 

configuration identified in section 

1.A.1., ‘‘Aircraft Affected,’’ of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002 clearly identifies the 

airplanes that need the modification. 

Airplanes delivered from Boeing with 

other kit configuration numbers are 

outside the effectivity, and therefore, do 

not require the accomplishment of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise the Description of 

the Unsafe Condition 

Boeing requested that we revise the 

unsafe condition statement throughout 

the NPRM, so that it is more consistent 

with the description specified in the 

service information. Boeing clarified 

that accomplishing the proposed 

requirements will not prevent takeoffs 

with incorrect trim settings, but rather 

allows for acceptable takeoff limits at 

specific airplane configurations in 

which the stabilizer trim has been set at 

a maximum mis-trim, as specified in 14 

CFR part 25. 

We agree to revise the unsafe 

condition statement as suggested by 

Boeing for the reason provided. We have 

revised this final rule accordingly. 

Request To Revise the Proposed 

Compliance Time 

ALPA requested that we reduce the 

proposed compliance time from ‘‘72 

months after the effective date of this 

AD’’ to ‘‘36 months after the effective 

date of this AD.’’ ALPA commented that 

it is of the upmost importance to ensure 

the airplane is taking off in the correct 

trim setting and the associated warning 

system has to work properly in order to 

alert the flight crew of a possible 

misconfiguration before takeoff. 

We do not agree to reduce the 

compliance time for the requirements of 

this AD. We agree that it is important to 

have the correct configuration of the 

airplane for takeoff, because of the 

potential unsafe conditions that 

incorrect configurations might pose. 

However, this AD does not address that 

safety concern. After considering the 

available information, we have 

determined that the compliance time, as 

proposed, represents an appropriate 

interval of time in which the required 

actions can be performed in a timely 

manner within the affected fleet, while 

still maintaining an adequate level of 

safety. In developing an appropriate 

compliance time, we considered the 

safety implications, parts availability, 

and normal maintenance schedules for 

timely accomplishment of the 

modifications. Further, we arrived at the 

proposed compliance time with the 

manufacturer’s concurrence. To reduce 

the proposed compliance time would 

necessitate (under the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing 

the notice, reopening the period for 

public comment, considering additional 

comments subsequently received, and 

eventually issuing a final rule. In light 

of this, and in consideration of the 

amount of time that has already elapsed 

since issuance of the original notice, we 

have determined that further delay of 

this final rule is not appropriate. 

However, if additional data are 

presented that would justify a shorter 

compliance time, we may consider 

further rulemaking on this issue. We 

have not changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Certain Acceptable 

Operator-Supplied Parts 

DAL requested that we clarify the 

NPRM to specify whether certain 

alternative lockwire part numbers 

(P/Ns) are acceptable alternatives to 

those specified in Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002. 

DAL stated that table 3 of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002 calls for the use of 

lockwire having P/N MS20995NC20 and 

P/N MS20995NC32. DAL stated that 

review of parts available on 

MyBoeingFleet Part Page shows that 

those part numbers are no longer 

available. DAL commented that the Part 

Page provides substitute P/Ns 

M000200850 and P/N M000320850, 

respectively. DAL stated that Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002 includes a note in the 

Accomplishment Instructions, which 

refers operators to chapter 51 of the 

Boeing 737 Structural Repair Manual 

(SRM) for use of approved fastener and 

process material substitutions. DAL 

commented that this SRM reference 

does not detail any substitutes for the 

lockwire. DAL stated that, lacking an 

approval source other than the Boeing 

Part Page, an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) would be required 

to use lockwire having P/N M000200850 

and P/N M000320850. DAL commented 

that specifying these would facilitate 

operator procurement efforts and 

minimize potential AMOC requests. 

We agree to clarify. Part Number 

M000200850 and P/N M000320850 are 

the Boeing stock numbers, which meet 

the MS20995 lockwire specifications in 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002. In addition, 

specific lockwire part numbers are not 

included in the Required for 

Compliance (RC) steps of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002. Therefore, we find that 

it is not necessary to revise this AD to 

address this issue, and we have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Clarify Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

DAL requested that we exclude the 

explicit instruction in Note 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 2, 

dated March 1, 2016, that specifies 

making a recordkeeping entry in the 

airplane records once the service 

information is completed. DAL 

requested that, if the exclusion of Note 

3 cannot be granted in the AD, the final 

rule provide an allowance for operators 

to use their existing recordkeeping 

procedures to record completion of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 2, 

dated March 1, 2016. 

DAL commented that its 

recordkeeping process would track 

compliance with a specific engineering 

document number used to embody a 

specified service bulletin on the 

airplane. DAL stated that it would not 

typically record service bulletin 

accomplishment using a phrase similar 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
42584 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

to that given in Note 3 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 2, 

dated March 1, 2016. DAL commented 

that the requirement to show 

compliance with the subject service 

information does not require such 

explicit requirements. DAL stated that 

recording the service information 

exactly as detailed in the note does not 

improve airplane safety, and therefore, 

latitude should be given to operators 

regarding their method for recording 

compliance with Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016. DAL 

stated that this will prevent the need for 

future AMOC requests. 

We agree that operators may use their 

existing recordkeeping processes to 

document maintenance actions 

performed using Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002. 

For this AD, recordkeeping is not a 

critical step that addresses the unsafe 

condition. As DAL pointed out, the 

actions specified in Note 3 are not 

called out in an RC step in the 

Accomplishment Instructions. We have 

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

clarify that recordkeeping is not 

required by this AD. 

Request To Clarify the Requirements 

for the Onboard Performance Tool 

(OPT) 

DAL requested that we clarify the 

requirements for incorporating the OPT. 

DAL stated that Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002 

specifies concurrent actions 

recommending that users of the OPT 

contact Boeing for an updated database 

and instructions on how to incorporate 

this database into the OPT. DAL 

commented that it does not use the OPT 

and that the proposed AD does not give 

any guidance with respect to this 

concurrent requirement. DAL 

commented that the concurrent 

requirement is actually written as a 

recommendation, which would imply 

that it is not a mandatory action and 

that compliance is optional. 

We agree to provide clarification 

regarding the OPT. We infer that DAL 

meant to refer to Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34–005, 

as there are no concurrent actions 

specified in Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002. The 

usage of the OPT, as specified in the 

concurrent requirements section of 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 

2015, is optional and is not a 

requirement of this AD. We have not 

changed this AD in this regard. 

Request To Use Later-Approved 

Software Versions 

SWA requested that the proposed AD 

allow for the installation of laterapproved versions of the Flight 

Management Computer (FMC) Model 

Engine Database (MEDB) and/or FMC 

Operational Program Software (OPS). 

SWA stated that Part 4 of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin 

AP737–27–002, Revision 2, dated March 

1, 2016, specifies the installation of 

FMC MEDB software having P/N BCG– 

01T–A0 with compatible FMC OPS 

Versions U10.8A, U11, or U12. SWA 

commented that if any later versions of 

FMC MEDB or FMC OPS are installed 

at a future date an AMOC would be 

needed to stay in compliance with the 

AD. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

request. This AD requires, for certain 

airplanes, the actions specified in 

Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, 

dated April 24, 2017, which identifies 

specific software that must be installed. 

That software must be installed to 

address the identified unsafe condition. 

However, under the provisions of 

paragraph (k) of this AD, we will 

consider requests for approval of new 

software if sufficient data are submitted 

to substantiate that the new software 

would provide an acceptable level of 

safety. We have not changed the final 

rule in this regard. 

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 final rule. 

Related Service Information Under 1 

CFR Part 51 

We reviewed the following Aviation 

Partners Boeing service information. 

• Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, 

dated April 24, 2017. This service 

information describes procedures for 

replacing the pitch trim light plates on 

the flight deck control stand, relocating 

the horizontal stabilizer position 

warning horn switches, and updating 

the software for the MEDB of the FMC. 

• Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 

2015. This service information describes 

procedures for updating the software in 

the MEDB for the FMC and removing a 

certain placard on the control stand. 

We also reviewed the following 

Boeing service information. 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015. 

This service information describes 

procedures for replacing the pitch trim 

light plates on the flight deck control 

stand, relocating the position warning 

horn switches of the horizontal 

stabilizer, and installing new software 

for the MEDB for the FMC. 

• Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 

14, 2016. This service information is a 

short form revision that specifies 

changes to the concurrent requirements 

and the affected publications identified 

in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015. 

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 569 

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 

Relocation ............................... Up to 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 .......... $0 Up to $340 ............. Up to $193,460. 

Replacement ........................... Up to 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 .......... 1,973 Up to $2,228 .......... Up to $1,267,732. 

Software installation ................ 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 .................... 0 $170 ....................... $96,730. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 42585 

ESTIMATED COSTS—Continued 

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Placard removal (2 airplanes) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ........................ 0 $85 ......................... $170. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this AD. 

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 costs in our cost 

estimate. 

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. 

This AD is issued in accordance with 

authority delegated by the Executive 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service, 

as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. 

In accordance with that order, issuance 

of ADs is normally a function of the 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, but during this transition 

period, the Executive Director has 

delegated the authority to issue ADs 

applicable to transport category 

airplanes to the Director of the System 

Oversight Division. 

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, 

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): 

2017–18–16 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–19025; Docket No. 

FAA–2016–7270; Product Identifier 

2015–NM–116–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective October 16, 2017. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

Model 737–700 and –700C series airplanes 

identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 

(c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, 

except for airplanes on which winglets are 

installed as specified in Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, Amendment 

dated on or after April 21, 2015. 

(1) Airplanes having STC ST00830SE 

installed (Aviation Partners Boeing blended 

winglets), as identified in Aviation Partners 

Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, 

Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. 

(2) Airplanes identified in Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin 737–27A1306, dated 

September 10, 2015, as revised by Boeing 

Alert Service Bulletin 737–27A1306, 

Revision 1, dated December 14, 2016. 

(3) Airplanes identified in Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34– 

005, dated July 17, 2015. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 27, Flight controls; Code 34, 

Navigation. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report that for 

airplanes with blended winglets, the nose-up 

pitch trim limit and associated warning for 

the horizontal stabilizer control system will 

allow the stabilizer position to be set outside 

acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed takeoff 

condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent 

takeoff with a stabilizer position set outside 

acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed takeoff 

condition. Settings outside of the appropriate 

pitch trim limits could result in loss of 

controllability of the airplane during takeoff. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Replacement, Relocation, and Applicable 

Related Investigative and Corrective Actions 

(1) For airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this AD, except for airplanes also 

identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: 

Within 72 months after the effective date of 

this AD, relocate the position warning horn 

switches of the horizontal stabilizer, replace 

the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck 

control stand, revise the software, and do all 

applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–27– 

002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, except 

as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Do 

all applicable related investigative and 

corrective actions before further flight. 

(2) For airplanes identified in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this AD, except for the airplane 

having line number 3128: Within 72 months 

after the effective date of this AD, relocate the 

position warning horn switches of the 

horizontal stabilizer, replace the pitch trim 

light plates on the flight deck control stand, 

revise the software, and do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 

737–27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as 

revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 

2016; and Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, dated 

April 24, 2017; except as specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
42586 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 174 / Monday, September 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

related investigative and corrective actions 

before further flight. 

(h) Software Revision and Placard Removal 

For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this AD: Within 72 months after the 

effective date of this AD, revise the software 

and remove the placard, in accordance with 

the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation 

Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737–34– 

005, dated July 17, 2015. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2) of this AD for Aviation Partners Boeing 

Service Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, 

dated April 24, 2017, if those actions were 

performed before the effective date of this AD 

using the service information specified in 

paragraph (i)(1)(i), (i)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(iii), or 

(i)(1)(iv) of this AD. 

(i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, dated March 31, 

2015. 

(ii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 1, dated 

August 6, 2015. 

(iii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 2, dated 

March 1, 2016. 

(iv) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 3, dated 

July 19, 2016. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this 

AD for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as 

revised by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 

2016, if those actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using the service 

information specified in Boeing Alert Service 

Bulletin 737–27A1306, dated September 10, 

2015. 

(j) Exceptions to the Service Information 

(1) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, dated 

April 24, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for 

appropriate action, and specifies that action 

as Required for Compliance (RC): Before 

further flight, repair using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

(2) Although Note 3 of paragraph 3.A., 

‘‘General,’’ Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–27–002, Revision 4, dated 

April 24, 2017, specifies to make an entry 

into the airplane’s records, that action is not 

required by this AD. 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

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 to the manager of the 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (l)(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 

Branch, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair, 

modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) Except as required by paragraph (j) of 

this AD: For service information that 

contains steps that are labeled as RC, the 

provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and 

(k)(4)(ii) of this AD 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. 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. 

(l) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, 

Seattle ACO Branch, 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 (m)(3), (m)(4), and (m)(5) of this 

AD. 

(m) 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 AP737–27–002, Revision 4, dated 

April 24, 2017. 

(ii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service 

Bulletin AP737–34–005, dated July 17, 2015. 

(iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, dated September 10, 2015. 

(iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 

2016. 

(3) For Aviation Partners Boeing service 

information identified in this AD, contact 

Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd 

Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone: 

206–830–7699; fax: 206–767–3355; email: 

leng@aviationpartners.com; Internet: http://

www.aviationpartnersboeing.com. 

(4) For Boeing service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: 

Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 

Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57, Seal 

Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 562–797– 

1717; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

(6) 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 August 

30, 2017. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19039 Filed 9–8–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0608; Product 

Identifier 2017–CE–017–AD; Amendment 

39–19020; AD 2017–18–11] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Textron 

Aviation Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Textron Aviation Inc. Model 390 

airplanes (type certificate previously 

held by Beechcraft Corporation). This 

AD was prompted by reports of 

hydraulic fluid loss from the engine 

driven pumps (EDPs) on three different 

airplanes. This AD requires an 

inspection to determine if an affected 

EDP is installed with replacement as 

necessary. We are issuing this AD to 

address the unsafe condition on these 

products. 

DATES: This AD is effective October 16, 

2017. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of October 16, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this final rule, contact 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES