This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

73897 

Vol. 77, No. 239 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0421; Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–042–AD; Amendment 

39–17284; AD 2012–25–03] 

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 757 

airplanes. This AD was prompted by a 

report of in-flight fracture of the right 

windshield (window 1) on the flight 

deck and multiple reports of electrical 

arcs at the terminal blocks of the flight 

deck windshields resulting in smoke 

and fire. This AD requires repetitive 

inspections of electrical heat terminals 

on the left and right windshields for 

damage, and corrective actions if 

necessary. This AD allows replacing an 

affected windshield with a windshield 

equipped with different electrical 

connections, which would terminate the 

repetitive inspections for that 

windshield. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent smoke and fire in the flight 

deck, which can lead to loss of 

visibility, and injuries to or 

incapacitation of the flightcrew. 

DATES: This AD is effective January 16, 

2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of January 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: 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. You may 

review copies of the 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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; 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 

Document 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: 

Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM– 

130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6478; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Elias.Natsiopoulos@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on April 25, 2012 (77 FR 

24643). That NPRM proposed to require 

repetitive inspections of electrical heat 

terminals on the left and right 

windshields for damage, and corrective 

actions if necessary. That NPRM also 

proposed to allow replacing an affected 

windshield with a windshield equipped 

with different electrical connections, 

which would terminate the repetitive 

inspections for that windshield. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012) and the FAA’s response 

to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012) 

The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International stated that the proposed 

actions will enhance safety, and that it 

supports the intent and language of the 

NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012). 

UPS stated that it agrees with the 

intent of the NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 

25, 2012). 

Requests To Issue Supersedure AD or 

Withdraw NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 

25, 2012) 

FedEx and UPS recommended 

superseding AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, 

July 13, 2010), to add the additional 

inspection requirements described in 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011, instead of issuing a 

new AD that would require 

accomplishing the actions proposed in 

the NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 

2012). FedEx stated that issuing this 

new AD will impose an additional 

burden on the operators. UPS stated that 

the addition of new requirements for the 

J5 terminal in the NPRM conflicts with 

the requirements of AD 2010–15–01. 

UPS stated that issuing a superseding 

AD would ease tracking and avoid 

conflicting requirements. 

United Airlines (United) stated that 

an additional inspection is not 

warranted and that more issues are 

likely to arise by disturbing the 

terminals. We infer that United is 

requesting that we withdraw the NPRM 

(77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012). 

We do not agree with the commenters’ 

requests. The additional inspection 

requirements of this AD apply only to 

Model 757 airplanes; and AD 2010–15– 

01, Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 

39804, July 13, 2010), applies to Model 

757, 767, and 777 airplanes. 

Superseding AD 2010–15–01 would 

delay accomplishment of the actions 

required by this AD, which would be 

inappropriate in light of the unsafe 

condition identified on the J1 and J4 

upper windshield electrical power 

terminal connections on Model 757 

airplanes. 

In regard to United’s comment, the 

unsafe condition identified in the J1 and 

J4 upper windshield electrical power 

terminal connections significantly 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

outweighs the potential for an operator 

to inadvertently create a new problem 

during the accomplishment of the 

actions required by this AD. 

As for UPS’s concern about 

conflicting J5 terminal requirements 

between AD 2010–15–01, Amendment 

39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 2010), 

and this AD, we point out that 

accomplishing the actions required by 

this AD terminates the requirements of 

AD 2010–15–01 for Model 757 airplanes 

only. Paragraphs (h) and (l) of this AD 

provide further clarification regarding 

this issue. 

We have not changed the AD in this 

regard. 

Request To Include Additional 

Airplane Model in This AD 

The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) requested that the NPRM 

(77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012) also apply 

to Model 747, 767, and 777 airplanes, 

because a similar window design is 

used on these models, as stated in NTSB 

Safety Recommendation A–07–50, dated 

September 4, 2007. (See http:// 

www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2007/ 

A07_49_50.pdf.). 

In addition, the NTSB stated that AD 

2010–15–01, Amendment 39–16367 (75 

FR 39804, July 13, 2010), was applicable 

to certain Model 757, 767, and 777 

airplanes—not just Model 757 airplanes. 

The NTSB noted that there is another 

AD action similar to AD 2010–15–01 for 

Model 747 airplanes. 

We disagree to add Model 747, 767, 

and 777 airplanes to the applicability of 

this AD. AD 2010–15–01, Amendment 

39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 2010), 

which is applicable to certain Model 

757, 767, and 777 airplanes, addresses 

an unsafe condition on the lower 

windshield terminals. There were four 

reported Model 757 windshield upper 

terminal overheat/arcing events. We 

have not received any reports of upper 

terminal overheat/arcing events on 

Model 767 and 777 airplane 

windshields, and only one reported 

upper terminal overheat/arcing event on 

a Model 747 airplane windshield. 

Boeing increased the specified torque 

for installation of the windshield 

terminals for Model 747, 767, and 777 

airplanes and communicated this 

information to operators. Due to the 

number of reported events on Model 

757 airplanes and the lower specified 

torque for windshield installations on 

Model 757 airplanes, this AD is 

applicable to that model only. We have 

not changed the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Improve Inspection 

Procedures 

American Airlines (AAL) and the 

NTSB requested that we revise the 

NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012) to 

provide instructions for more effective 

inspections in detecting and correcting 

all failure modes of the windshield 

electrical terminal connections. 

AAL stated that it is concerned that 

the NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012) 

does not offer a comprehensive solution 

to flight deck window heat smoke 

events, and that inspection of the J1, J4, 

and J5 electrical terminals for loose 

connections might not prevent electrical 

arcs at the windshield side of the 

terminal blocks. AAL stated that its 

analysis and service history have shown 

that damage of the solder joints inside 

the windshield terminal blocks are the 

primary root cause of the smoke and 

odor events in the flight deck window 

heat system. AAL stated that the NPRM 

should also address the electrical 

connections at the windshield side of 

the terminal block, specifically the use 

of unclenched, low temperature solder 

joints connecting the braid wire to the 

terminal block. 

The NTSB stated that it agrees that 

windshield heat system terminal blocks 

J1 and J4 should be added to the NPRM 

(77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012), but that 

the FAA needs to revise the NPRM to 

ensure that the inspections are effective 

in detecting and correcting the potential 

problem involving loose electrical 

connections. The NTSB cited two 

serious incidents that it investigated 

during 2010, which involved in-flight 

fires and electrical odors that the actions 

required in AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, 

July 13, 2010) (which requires 

inspection of terminal block J5) did not 

adequately address. 

We partially agree. We agree with 

AAL that the required inspection would 

not detect arcing events in the solder 

joints inside the terminal blocks of the 

PPG Aerospace (PPG) windshields. 

However, we disagree with AAL’s 

suggestion to revise this AD to address 

the solder joints connecting the braid 

wire to the terminal block inside the 

windshield; this is not feasible, as there 

are currently no non-destructive 

inspection methods developed to detect 

and correct damage inside the 

windshield terminal block. Electrical 

current through a loose electrical 

connector will generate heat which can 

compromise the adjacent solder joint. 

The requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), 

and (i) of this AD focus on proper 

connection of screw/lug connectors, 

which will protect against smoke/fire 

events at the connector and damage to 

the adjacent solder joint. 

We disagree with the NTSB that the 

inspections required by this AD are not 

effective. We point out that the screw/ 

lug-type connection is partially exposed 

to flight deck activities and can be 

bumped during cleaning of the 

windshield or by any clipboards/books 

or other articles placed on the glare 

shield. Therefore, while the inspections 

required by AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, 

July 13, 2010), and this new AD might 

not eliminate all occurrences of terminal 

overheat/arcing, they should reduce the 

likelihood of events as demonstrated 

since the issuance of AD 2010–15–01. 

The most straightforward way to 

eliminate overheat/arcing events, and to 

terminate the detailed inspections 

required by this AD, is replacing the 

screw/lug-type windshields with 

windshields having pin/socket-type 

power connections. This option is 

specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. 

However, we also consider a properly 

installed screw/lug connector to provide 

an adequate conductive path to prevent 

overheating of the electrical connection. 

This is addressed in the requirements of 

paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD. In 

addition, if we were to add a 

requirement that operators must do that 

replacement, we would need to issue a 

supplemental NPRM, and therefore, 

would delay issuance of the final rule. 

To delay this final rule would be 

inappropriate, since we have 

determined that an unsafe condition 

exists and the actions required by this 

AD adequately address the identified 

unsafe condition. We have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Requests for Additional Terminating 

Action 

Boeing requested that GKN Aerospace 

(GKN) windshields having part numbers 

(P/Ns) 141T4800–15 and 141T4800–16 

(with pin/socket terminals) be approved 

as optional parts for the terminating 

action specified in paragraph (k) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012). 

We agree with the commenter’s 

request, because we have approved 

alternative methods of compliance 

(AMOCs) for paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and 

(i) of AD 2010–15–01, Amendment 39– 

16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 2010), to 

allow installation of GKN windshields 

having P/Ns 141T4800–15 and 

141T4800–16 for Model 757 airplanes 

only. 

We have added new paragraphs (n)(3) 

and (n)(4) to this AD, which state that 

AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2010–15–01 are 

approved as AMOCs for the actions 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73899 

specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), 

and (k) of this AD. 

In addition, AAL stated that 

installation of a GKN flight deck 

windshield having P/N 141T4800 

should be included as a terminating 

action to the inspection requirements 

stated in the NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 

25, 2012). AAL stated that the P/N 

141T4800 window does not incorporate 

the solder joint, which causes an 

extreme arcing ignition source and 

possible glass damage. 

We partially agree. We agree with 

AAL that damaged solder joints are a 

cause of electrical arcs, because the heat 

caused by a loose terminal exceeds the 

rated melting point of the solder, which 

could result in high voltage arcing that 

might damage the windshield glass. We 

disagree with AAL to include all GKN 

windshields having P/N 141T4800 as 

terminating action for this AD because 

some of these have screw/lug heat 

terminals and some have pin/socket 

heat terminals. A main cause of an 

overheated terminal, and resultant 

melting of the solder and subsequent 

arcing, is a loose, cross-threaded, or 

incorrectly installed screw. Since we 

have received reports of arcing/smoking 

on GKN windshields having P/N 

141T4800 with screw/lug heat 

terminals, we have determined that 

these windshields do not provide an 

acceptable level of safety without 

accomplishing the repetitive inspections 

required by this AD and cannot be 

included as a terminating action for this 

AD. Windshields with pin/socket heat 

terminals are terminating action as 

specified in paragraphs (k) and (n)(4) of 

this AD. We have not changed the AD 

in this regard. 

Request To Change the Compliance 

Time 

FedEx recommended retaining the 

500-flight-hour or 150-day compliance 

time, whichever occurs first, as 

specified in Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 

3, dated December 16, 2011, for certain 

inspections, in lieu of the 500 flight 

hours proposed by the NPRM (77 FR 

24643, April 25, 2012). FedEx stated 

that some airplanes have a low average 

utilization rate (3.3 or less flight hours 

per day) and it is possible to reach 150 

days before 500 flight hours. 

We do not agree to change the 

compliance time. We have determined 

that the 150-day compliance time is too 

restrictive, and a compliance time of 

500 flight hours for the initial and 

certain other inspections addresses the 

identified unsafe condition soon enough 

to ensure an adequate level of safety. As 

we noted in the NPRM (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012), this difference between 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011, and this AD was 

coordinated with Boeing. We have not 

changed the AD in this regard. 

Request To Change Repetitive 

Inspection Interval 

FedEx recommended having one 

repetitive inspection interval for both 

GKN and PPG windows. FedEx 

recommended a repetitive inspection 

interval of 6,000 flight hours or 24 

months, whichever occurs first. FedEx 

stated that this will help operators 

manage the repetitive inspection 

interval without the need to require 

maintenance ‘‘to check on the 

manufacturer of the windows and/or 

part numbers.’’ 

We disagree with having the same 

repetitive inspection interval for both 

GKN and PPG windows. Having this 

one inspection interval would reduce 

the repetitive inspection interval for the 

GKN-manufactured windshields from 

12,000 flight hours or 48 months, to 

6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs later. The reason for 

the longer repetitive inspection interval 

for the GKN windshields is that the 

frequency of overheat/arcing events on 

the GKN windshields with screw/lugtype electrical connections is 

significantly lower and the effects are 

not as severe as those of the PPG 

windshields. FedEx may choose to 

inspect all its airplanes at the more 

restrictive interval, if desired, to 

simplify its maintenance program. We 

have not changed the AD in this regard. 

Requests To Change the Replacement 

Window Inspection Requirements 

FedEx and UPS requested we delete 

the requirements of paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012). In 

eliminating paragraph (i) from the 

NPRM, FedEx also suggested that we 

change the repetitive inspection 

intervals specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(2) of the NPRM to ‘‘every 500 

flight hours’’ (reduced from 6,000 or 

12,000 flight hours, as proposed) or 150 

days (reduced from 24 or 48 months, as 

proposed), whichever comes first, to 

address the unsafe condition. FedEx and 

UPS stated that it is difficult for the 

operators to meet the requirements of 

paragraph (i) of the NPRM, especially if 

the windshield is removed due to pilot 

and/or maintenance write-ups and/or 

non-routine findings during operation. 

We do not agree to remove paragraph 

(i) of the AD, or to change the repetitive 

inspection intervals of paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (g)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012). However, we have 

revised paragraph (i) of this AD to limit 

the inspection to windshields that are 

replaced and connections that are reassembled in accordance with the 

requirements of this AD. The current 

Boeing Model 757 airplane maintenance 

manual (AMM) provides instructions for 

tasks associated with the windshield 

heating system, including replacement 

of a windshield with another 

windshield with screw/lug electrical 

connectors and for testing of the 

window heater element loop resistance. 

These tasks specify the correct torque 

for assembly of the windshield electrical 

terminal connections. We find that reinspecting windshields after 

replacement or disassembly as part of 

routine maintenance is not necessary 

since the AMM specifies the proper 

torque. 

We have revised (and reformatted) 

paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify that 

the inspections are done on windshields 

replaced or connections re-assembled in 

accordance with the service information 

specified in this AD. Therefore, this AD 

only requires re-inspection of 

windshield terminal installations on 

airplanes on which corrective actions 

required by this AD must be done. 

Request for Clarification of 

Re-Assembly 

UPS questioned whether popping off 

the plastic cover on the Wallace-Black 

and Cory/Tri-Star lug connectors to gain 

access for visual inspection is a ‘‘reassembly’’ when the cover is popped 

back on. UPS stated that if it is a reassembly, then another re-inspection is 

required at 500 flight hours, which 

starts a repetitive inspection loop that 

cannot be terminated. UPS stated that 

the only conceivable reason for ‘‘reassembling’’ any J1, J4, or J5 connection 

would be for a finding of an improper 

assembly (i.e., cross-threading, gapping, 

low screw torque, loose screw), and that 

these issues have been adequately 

addressed in AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, 

July 13, 2010), and in the previous 

inspections of the NPRM (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012). 

We agree to provide clarification. 

Removing and installing the cover, as 

described in Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757– 

30–0019, Revision 3, dated December 

15, 2011, is not considered ‘‘reassembly’’ for the requirements 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. We 

have not changed the AD in this regard. 

Request To Revise the AMM 

UPS requested that the Boeing AMM 

be revised to include the re-inspection 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of paragraph (i) of the 

NPRM (77 FR 24643, April 25, 2012), or 

that a requirement similar to a critical 

design configuration control limitation/ 

airworthiness limitation (CDCCL/AWL) 

be added to the appropriate AMM 

section. UPS stated that the reinspection requirements in paragraph (i) 

of the NPRM include unscheduled 

maintenance activities, and UPS, like 

other operators, has no means to 

identify and impose a required reinspection when the re-inspection is not 

in the instructions for continued 

airworthiness (ICAs), namely, the AMM. 

UPS stated that having the operator 

change its manual to include a ‘‘unique’’ 

requirement is not a viable solution. 

We disagree with the request. 

However, as previously stated, we have 

removed the requirement to inspect 

windows replaced during normal 

maintenance. We find that the safety of 

the fleet of affected airplanes will be 

ensured by the revised requirements of 

paragraph (i) of this AD. In addition, if 

we were to add a requirement to include 

a CDCCL or AWL in the maintenance 

program instead of the inspection 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, we 

would need to issue a supplemental 

NPRM, and therefore, would delay 

issuance of the final rule. To delay this 

final rule would be inappropriate, since 

we have determined that an unsafe 

condition exists and the actions 

required by this AD, including the 

inspections specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD, must be conducted to ensure 

continued safety. We have not changed 

the AD in this regard. 

Request for Temporary Repair for 

Missing Terminal Covers 

UPS requested approval to operate 

with missing plastic protective terminal 

covers on the lug-screw-style 

connectors. UPS stated that, with the 

increased amount of inspection activity 

required on these terminals, it is 

common for the plastic protective 

covers to be missing. UPS stated that 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 15, 2011, specifies the 

inspection of these covers for signs of 

heat damage. UPS stated that there is no 

provision for a missing cover. UPS 

requested that provisions be made for 

dispatching an airplane with a simple 

temporary repair for those instances 

when a cover is missing; since failure to 

resolve this minor point will result in 

grounded airplanes for the sake of an 

inexpensive cover. 

We partially agree. We disagree with 

granting approval to operate with 

missing plastic protective terminal 

covers on the lug-screw-style connectors 

in this AD. We agree that the availability 

of an alternative to seal the windshield 

terminal(s) would provide relief if the 

type design part is missing from the 

terminal and it is not readily available 

at the time it is needed. According to 

Boeing, the use of Dow Corning RTV– 

3145 sealant, also called DC–3145 

potting compound, would be acceptable 

to use in place of the missing cover. The 

procedure to apply the DC–3145 sealant 

is specified in the Boeing Standard 

Wiring Practices Manual, Chapter 20– 

60–08. Operators can submit a request 

for an AMOC, including the specific 

details of when and how this 

substitution would be used, in 

accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. 

We have not changed the AD in this 

regard. 

Additional Changes Made to This AD 

We have added new paragraph (c)(3) 

to this AD to state that installation of 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

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

Regulatory-and-Guidance-Library/ 

rgstc.nsf/0/ 

082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/ 

$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect 

the ability to accomplish the actions 

required by this AD. Therefore, for 

airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is 

installed, a ‘‘change in product’’ AMOC 

approval request is not necessary to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

39.17. For all other AMOC requests, the 

operator must request approval for an 

AMOC in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (n) of 

this AD. 

Conclusion 

We reviewed the relevant data, 

considered the comments received, and 

determined that air safety and the 

public interest require adopting the 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 (77 FR 

24643, April 25, 2012) for correcting the 

unsafe condition; and 

• Do not add any additional burden 

upon the public than was already 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 24643, 

April 25, 2012). 

We also determined that these 

changes will not increase the economic 

burden on any operator or increase the 

scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 664 

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 

Detailed inspection of windshields .............. 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = 

$255 per inspection cycle.

$0 $255 per inspection 

cycle.

$169,320 per inspection cycle. 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary corrective actions that 

would be required based on the results 

of the inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these corrective actions. 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Windshield replacement and changes to related 

wiring including lug replacement.

9 work-hours × $85 per hour = $765 

per windshield.

$19,687 per windshield $20,452 per windshield. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 73901 

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 

■ 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): 

2012–25–03 The Boeing Company: 

Amendment 39–17284; Docket No. 

FAA–2012–0421; Directorate Identifier 

2011–NM–042–AD. 

(a) Effective Date 

This AD is effective January 16, 2013. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD affects AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 

2010). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to The Boeing Company 

airplanes, certificated in any category, as 

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

this AD. 

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

series airplanes identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–30–0019, 

Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011. 

(2) Model 757–300 airplanes identified in 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0020, Revision 3, dated December 

16, 2011. 

(3) Installation of Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) ST01920SE (http:// 

rgl.faa.gov/ 

Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/ 

0/082838ee177dbf62862576a4005cdfc0/ 

$FILE/ST01920SE.pdf) does not affect the 

ability to accomplish the actions required by 

this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which 

STC ST01920SE is installed, a ‘‘change in 

product’’ alternative method of compliance 

(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to 

comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 

39.17. For all other AMOC requests, the 

operator must request approval for an AMOC 

in accordance with the procedures specified 

in paragraph (n) of this AD. 

(d) Subject 

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America 

Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD was prompted by a report of inflight fracture of the right windshield 

(window 1) on the flight deck and multiple 

reports of electrical arcs at the terminal 

blocks of the flight deck windshields 

resulting in smoke and fire. We are issuing 

this AD to prevent smoke and fire in the 

flight deck, which can lead to loss of 

visibility, and injuries to or incapacitation of 

the flightcrew. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection and Repair 

Within 500 flight hours after the effective 

date of this AD, except as required by 

paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a detailed 

inspection for damage of the wiring and 

electrical terminal blocks (J1, J4, and J5 

terminals) at the left and right flight deck 

window 1 windshield, and do all applicable 

corrective actions, by accomplishing all the 

applicable actions specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, -200PF, and -200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes). Except as provided by 

paragraph (j) of this AD, do all applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. 

Repeat the detailed inspection thereafter at 

the applicable interval specified in paragraph 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. Doing the 

replacement specified in paragraph (k) of this 

AD terminates the repetitive inspection 

requirements of this paragraph for that 

replaced flight deck windshield. 

(1) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by GKN Aerospace (GKN) with 

screw/lug electrical connections, repeat the 

detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not 

to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 48 months, 

whichever occurs later. 

(2) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by PPG Aerospace (PPG) with 

screw/lug electrical connections, repeat the 

detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not 

to exceed 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs later. 

(h) Compliance Time Exception for Previous 

Inspection 

For airplanes on which inspections of the 

J1, J4, and J5 terminals specified in the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 2, dated April 19, 2010 (for 

Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB series 

airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 2, 

dated March 31, 2010 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes); were accomplished before 

the effective date of this AD: Do the actions 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the 

applicable compliance time specified in 

paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. 

Repeat the inspection thereafter at the 

applicable intervals specified in paragraph 

(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. 

(1) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by GKN with screw/lug 

electrical connections: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and 

(h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within 12,000 flight hours or 48 

months, whichever occurs later, after 

accomplishing the inspection. 

(ii) Within 500 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(2) For flight deck windshields 

manufactured by PPG with screw/lug 

electrical connections: At the later of the 

times specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and 

(h)(2)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Within 6,000 flight hours or 24 months, 

whichever occurs later, after accomplishing 

the inspection. 

(ii) Within 500 flight hours after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(i) Inspection for Replaced Windshield or 

Re-Assembled Heat Power Connection 

(1) For airplanes on which any windshield 

is replaced after the effective date of this AD 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with 
73902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 12, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

with a windshield that uses screws and lugs 

for electrical heat connection, in accordance 

with the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated December 

16, 2011 (for Model 757–200, –200PF, and 

–200CB series airplanes); or Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, 

Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 (for 

Model 757–300 series airplanes): Do the 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD 

within 500 flight hours after the windshield 

replacement; and thereafter at the applicable 

interval specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) 

of this AD. 

(2) For airplanes on which any windshield 

heat power connection is re-assembled after 

the effective date of this AD on windshields 

that use screws and lugs for windshield heat 

connections, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes): Do the actions required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD within 500 flight 

hours after the connection re-assembly; and 

thereafter at the applicable interval specified 

in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD. 

(j) Exception to Compliance Time for Certain 

Windshield Replacement 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD, the screw is 

found cross threaded: Do the applicable 

actions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) 

of this AD. 

(1) If the terminal lug is loose and cannot 

be tightened: Before further flight, replace 

that windshield, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes). 

(2) If the terminal lug is tight or can be 

tightened: Replace that windshield within 

500 flight hours after the inspection, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–200, 

–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes); or 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0020, Revision 3, dated December 

16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 series 

airplanes). 

(k) Optional Terminating Action 

Replacing a flight deck windshield that 

uses screws and lugs for the electrical 

connections with a flight deck windshield 

that uses pins and sockets for the electrical 

connections, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 757–30– 

0019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2011 

(for Model 757–200, –200PF, and –200CB 

series airplanes); or Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, 

dated December 16, 2011 (for Model 757–300 

series airplanes); ends the repetitive 

inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of 

this AD for that windshield. 

(l) Related AD Termination 

Accomplishing the actions required by this 

AD terminates the requirements of 

paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 

2010), for that airplane only. 

(m) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph provides credit for the 

actions required by this AD, if those actions 

were performed before the effective date of 

this AD using Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin 757–30–0019, Revision 2, 

dated April 19, 2010 (for Model 757–200, 

–200PF, and –200CB series airplanes); or 

Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 

757–30–0020, Revision 2, dated March 31, 

2010 (for Model 757–300 series airplanes); 

which are not incorporated by reference in 

this AD. 

(n) 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 the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-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) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 

2010), that are associated with the J5 (lower) 

terminal only are approved as AMOCs for the 

actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), 

and (k) of this AD for the J5 (lower) terminal 

only. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2010–15–01, 

Amendment 39–16367 (75 FR 39804, July 13, 

2010), that install windows with pin/socket 

electrical connectors (both upper and lower) 

are approved as AMOCs for the actions 

specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) 

of this AD. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace 

Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, 

ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425– 

917–6478; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

Elias.Natsiopoulos@faa.gov. 

(2) 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. You may review 

copies of the 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. 

(p) 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 757–30–0019, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011. 

(ii) Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–30–0020, Revision 3, dated 

December 16, 2011. 

(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 review copies of the 

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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 30, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29714 Filed 12–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0496; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–263–AD; Amendment 

39–17283; AD 2012–25–02] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with