Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33782-33785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9501; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-137-AD; 
Amendment 39-18961; AD 2017-15-01]
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 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports 
of uncommanded altitude display changes in the mode control panel (MCP) 
altitude window. This AD requires replacing the existing MCP with a new 
MCP having a different part number. We are issuing this AD to address 
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: 
    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by 
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 25, 
2017.

ADDRESSES: For 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 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-2016-
9501.

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-
9501; 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: Frank Carreras, Aerospace Engineer, 
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone: 425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 33783]]

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 777 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on 
December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92740) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted 
by reports of uncommanded altitude display changes in the MCP altitude 
window. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the existing MCP with a 
new MCP having a different part number. We are issuing this AD to 
prevent uncommanded changes to the MCP selected at altitude; such 
uncommanded changes could result in incorrect spatial separation 
between airplanes, midair collision, or controlled flight into terrain.

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

    Boeing and FedEx stated that they concur with the contents of the 
NPRM.

Request To Reduce the Compliance Time

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), indicated its 
support for the NPRM but requested that the compliance time in 
paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be reduced from 60 months to 50 
months. The commenter did not provide justification for its request.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to reduce the 
compliance time. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we 
considered the safety implications and the availability of required 
parts. In addition, we also received manufacturer concurrence for the 
60-month compliance time. In consideration of all of these factors, we 
determined that the compliance time, as proposed, represents an 
appropriate interval in which the MCP parts can be replaced in a timely 
manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of 
safety. For most ADs, operators are permitted to accomplish the 
requirements at a time earlier than the specified compliance time; for 
this AD, an operator may choose to replace the affected MCP at any time 
up to 60 months after the effective date of this AD. If additional data 
are presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we might 
consider further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD 
in this regard.

Request To Revise the Applicability

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that the applicability of the 
proposed AD be limited to only those MCP series parts on which the 
uncommanded changes in the speed/mach window occurred. The commenter 
noted that the NPRM did not indicate if the uncommanded changes were 
reported on all three MCP series parts (MCP-770, MCP-771, and MCP-770C) 
or only one MCP series part. The commenter suggested that if the 
uncommanded changes occurred only on one MCP series part, then the 
applicability of the proposed AD should be limited to that particular 
MCP series part. The commenter observed that this would reduce the 
number of MCP parts that need to be replaced or upgraded and reduce the 
compliance time needs.
    We agree that clarification is necessary regarding the affected MCP 
series parts. Based on the manufacturer's installation review, the 
unsafe condition has been identified to exist in all three MCP series 
parts. Therefore, no change to this AD is required regarding this 
issue.

Request To Review the MCP Design

    One commenter, Geoffrey Barrance, noted that the FAA has issued AD 
2016-25-01, Amendment 39-18727 (81 FR 94949, December 27, 2016), which 
addressed uncommanded autopilot engagement before takeoff. The 
commenter thought that there was a similarity in the root causes 
(malfunction of the MCP) of the unsafe conditions in AD 2016-25-01 and 
this final rule. The commenter recommended that the FAA initiate a 
review of the MCP design, including changes that might have been 
introduced over the life of these units, to identify if the design was 
initially susceptible to, or has been subsequently compromised in a way 
that could result in the unsafe conditions of both ADs.
    We infer the commenter may think the unsafe condition associated 
with AD 2016-25-01 resulted from a similar root cause as the unsafe 
condition addressed by this AD based on a statement in the Discussion 
section of the NPRM (80 FR 79735, December 23, 2015) associated with AD 
2016-25-01. That statement noted 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.'' During the 
public comment period for the NPRM associated with AD 2016-25-01, 
Boeing stated that this statement was speculative and requested that 
the FAA remove it and replace it with a statement that possible 
failures in the autopilot flight director system can cause an 
uncommanded engagement of the autopilot. We agreed the replacement 
statement would be less speculative; however, because the Discussion 
section of an NPRM is not repeated in the final rule, AD 2016-25-01 was 
not revised.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request because we have 
determined that there is no similarity in the root cause of the unsafe 
condition of AD 2016-25-01 and this AD. The unsafe condition identified 
in AD 2016-25-01 is different from the unsafe condition identified in 
this final rule. AD 2016-25-01 addresses uncommanded autopilot 
engagement on the ground, potentially resulting in incorrect stabilizer 
trim adjustment during takeoff. This final rule addresses uncommanded 
altitude display changes in the MCP while the autopilot is engaged. We 
have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Requests To Revise the Estimated Costs of Compliance

    Cathay Pacific Airlines asked why operators are being charged for 
the parts and labor associated with compliance with the proposed AD if 
the unsafe condition is the result of a design flaw (the problematic 
MCP-770 part) that could not be detected during flight tests or the 
design phase. We infer that the commenter is requesting that either the 
estimated costs of the proposed AD be revised or the manufacturer's 
warranty coverage.
    We do not agree to revise the cost estimates. We do not control the 
manufacturer's warranty coverage. We have identified an unsafe 
condition that must be corrected to ensure that airplanes are operated 
in an airworthy condition, as required by the Federal Aviation 
Regulations. We have not changed this AD in regard to this issue.
    UAL requested a revision to the estimated costs of the proposed AD 
because the estimated costs provided are too low. UAL stated that only 
MCP-770C can be upgraded and all other MCP series parts would need to 
be replaced. UAL observed that its estimated fleet cost would exceed 
$8,000,000.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. We acknowledge that 
the cost estimate does not include the cost of a new MCP. The estimated 
costs in the NPRM were based on data provided in Boeing Special 
Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016. The cost 
section of the NPRM indicated that we have received no definitive data 
regarding the cost of a new MCP. Although UAL provided a

[[Page 33784]]

cost estimate for its fleet, we still have not received a definitive 
cost estimate for a new MCP. 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 as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have 
determined that these minor changes:
    <bullet> Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the 
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
    <bullet> 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 Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, 
dated March 3, 2016. The service information describes procedures for 
replacing the existing MCP part with a new MCP part having a different 
part number, in the glareshield in the flight compartment. 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 203 airplanes of U.S. registry. We 
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cost per
            Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost         product      Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................  2 work-hours x $85     Up to $5,800\1\.  Up to $5,970...  Up to $1,211,910.\1\
                                per hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Since we have received no definitive data regarding the cost of a new MCP we have provided costs for the
  upgrade (modified part) only.

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, 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):

2017-15-01 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18961; Docket No. FAA-
2016-9501; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-137-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 25, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any 
category, identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 
777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22; Auto flight.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded altitude display 
changes in the mode control panel (MCP) altitude window. We are 
issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded changes to the MCP selected 
altitude; such uncommanded changes could result in incorrect spatial 
separation between airplanes, midair collision, or controlled flight 
into terrain.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, 
unless already done.

(g) Replacement of MCP

    Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace 
the existing MCP part with a new MCP part having a different part 
number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated March 3, 2016.

(h) 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 to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. 
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

[[Page 33785]]

    (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 
(h)(4)(i) and (h)(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. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the 
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. 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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Frank Carreras, 
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, 
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 
425-917-6442; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected].

(j) 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) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-22-0034, dated 
March 3, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For 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 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.
    (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 July 7, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-14929 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

The complete text was extracted from the official GovInfo HTML edition for this publication. Acquired 2026-10-09T02:20:15.614236+00:00. Text extraction preserves the recorded source wording; it does not determine current requirements.

Open the captured official edition

Source SHA-256

6f40498947f7c8567e9c6519714eb44de80328de50f48a15c2317d4fa8c82a9a

Text SHA-256

d393945bd29ab62bff6fe8a3a938b97e178c51550acb919f16fc89f24e6b6dac