Discussion \n\n\n\tWe 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 August 21, 2012 (77 FR 50411). That NPRM proposed to require replacing seals made of BMS 8-39 urethane foam in certain areas of the airplane. \n\nComments \n\n\n\tWe gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment. \n\nRequest for Safety Determination \n\n\n\tUnited Parcel Service (UPS) noted that the proposed actions specified in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) affect a relatively small quantity of small parts in the airplane, and that the referenced sources of service information were not identified as ''alert'' service bulletins. UPS therefore requested additional information on the risk assessment that was done to determine that those parts pose a significant risk to flight safety. \n\tWe agree to provide additional information to support the need to issue the AD as proposed. The intent of the AD, as explained in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012), is to prevent penetration of smoke or fire in areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire and smoke detection or suppression. Further, BMS 8-39 fire properties degrade over time and may result in BMS 8-39 material becoming a fuel source for an ignition event in hidden parts of the airplane. The FAA made this safety determination based on tests of aged BMS 8-39 material and in-service experience that demonstrated that this material may propagate a fire when exposed to an ignition source. We have therefore determined that it is necessary to proceed with issuing the final rule. \n\nRequest To Clarify Re-Installation Restrictions \n\n\n\tBoeing and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012), which proposed to prohibit installation of BMS 8-39 foam seals on any airplane. Noting that paragraph (g) of the NPRM would require seal replacement only in certain areas of the airplane, the commenters requested that paragraph (i) of the NPRM be revised to explicitly identify the areas that are subject to re-installation restrictions. \n\tUPS noted that not all BMS 8-39 foam is removed from the airplane as part of the rework as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012. Those service bulletins state that the foam is ''not replaced in areas where it is \n\n((Page 33194)) \n\nencapsulated by a protective fire resistant barrier or where it is physically isolated from an ignition source.'' UPS was concerned that BMS 8-39 foam may be used to replace damaged foam in these encapsulated areas, creating noncompliance with paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012). \n\tWe agree with the request. The intent of paragraph (i) of this AD is to maintain the level of safety established by the corrective action of this AD, not to prohibit BMS 8-39 installation in locations excluded by this AD. We have revised paragraph (i) in this final rule accordingly. \n\nRequest To Allow Re-Installation During Maintenance \n\n\n\tUPS requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) to allow re-installation of items removed for access without the need to replace serviceable BMS 8-39 foam seals before the proposed rework is done. UPS suggested adding the following sentence: ''Parts removed and reinstalled to facilitate maintenance, or removed, repaired in accordance with the approved manuals, and reinstalled, on the same airplane are not affected by this rule.'' \n\tWe acknowledge the commenter's concern, and agree to clarify the requirement. Once we have determined thatan unsafe condition exists, an AD generally specifies not to allow that condition to be introduced into the fleet. Although the word ''install'' is generally considered to be broader than the word ''replace,'' operators can interpret ''install'' in this AD as meaning ''replace'' and still meet the intent of paragraph (i) of this AD (''Parts Installation Prohibition''). By simply re-installing a part removed during maintenance, the operator is not ''installing'' a different part. Therefore, the AD allows operators to remove a part to gain access, and then re-install that same part for other maintenance activities not associated with the AD. \n\nRequest To Supplement Service Information \n\n\n\tUPS noted that the number and location of affected foam insulation parts are not specified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012. This leaves the decision to remove and replace insulation to the mechanic. UPS added that those service bulletins do not clearly depict the affected parts, whereas typical AD-related service bulletins are very specific as to the location, quantity, and condition being addressed. UPS asserted that neither of these service bulletins has the expected level of detail necessary to prevent the risk of noncompliance. \n\tWe infer that the commenter is requesting additional AD instructions to supplement the service bulletins. We disagree. The level of detail necessary to comply with the requirements of the AD is clear in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012; and Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012. These service bulletins cannot provide specific information for every airplane because the location of the parts may not be identical on every airplane. Therefore, these service bulletins may not provide explicit directions regarding the location of the parts needed to be removed; instead the service bulletins provide inspection procedures to locate those parts. Once the affected parts are located, operators can document the parts/locations as necessary to ensure that compliance with the AD is maintained in the future. Because the service information is adequate to perform the required tasks, we have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. \n\nRequest To Clarify Service Information \n\n\n\tParagraph (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) would prohibit installing a BMS 8-39 urethane foam seal on any airplane as of the effective date of the AD. UPS stated that, in many cases, Boeing has given unique part numbers to the new seals, but has not changed the assembly part numbers of the associated line replaceable units (LRUs). UPS added that certain modifications (such as the installation of felt on Model 767 airplanes per Figure 18 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012) identified in the associated service bulletins do not bear specific part numbers and are unrelated to the installation of BMS 8-39. UPS stated that Boeing has not provided any revisions to the illustrated parts catalog (IPC) or airplane maintenance manual (AMM) associated with the service bulletin changes. Without such manual support, UPS asserted that there are no industry controls in place to effectively maintain a post-modification configuration. \n\tWe infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) to clarify the referenced procedures and parts. We disagree. Operators are required to both comply with the AD requirements and have controls in place to effectively maintain the configuration of their airplanes. The IPC and AMM are not FAA approved and are not used to control the configuration of the airplane. Operators can, however, request from Boeing any updated documents that would facilitate the maintenance of the AD-mandated configuration. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. \n\nRequest To Cite Latest Service Information \n\n\n\tParagraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) of the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) referred to Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25- 0381, dated August 19, 2010, as the appropriate source for the applicability and service information for Model 767 airplanes. UAL requested that we revise the NPRM to refer to the recently revised service bulletin: Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25- 0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012. \n\tWe agree. Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, Revision 1, dated September 17, 2012, changes certain airplane groups and provides other administrative changes, but adds no work for any affected airplane. We have revised paragraphs (c)(2) and (g)(2) in this the final rule accordingly. We have also added new paragraph (h)(2) in this final rule to provide credit for actions done on affected airplanes in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 767-25-0381, dated August 19, 2010. \n\nRequest To Delay AD Issuance Pending Revised Service Information \n\n\n\tUPS reported that it has submitted service bulletin comments and questions directly to Boeing and requested that the FAA permit Boeing to address these concerns by revising the referenced service information before issuing the final rule. \n\tWe disagree. Delaying issuance of the AD would negatively affect safety. If the commenter has a specific concern with the ability to comply with the AD, we will consider requests to approve specific procedures for compliance under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the procedures would provide an acceptable level of safety. \n\nRequest To Consider Information Notices \n\n\n\tUAL questioned whether the AD will cover the changes introduced by two Information Notices (INs): Boeing Service Bulletin 777-25-0362 IN 01, dated February 27, 2012; and Boeing \n\n((Page 33195)) \n\nService Bulletin 777-25-0362 IN 02, dated August 14, 2012. \n\tWe have not changed the final rule to refer to the INs, which are for information only. The INs do not affect compliance with the final rule. \n\nRequest To Extend Compliance Time \n\n\n\tAll Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we revise the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) to extend the compliance time from 72 months to 88 months to correspond to ANA's 4C check interval. ANA reported that removal of stowage bins and other cabin items, typically done as part of the 4C check, would allow access to the areas affected by the NPRM. But with the 72-month compliance time, as proposed, ANA asserted that additional tasks would be necessary to get access to those areas, and would add work-hours and large costs for most of its fleet. \n\tWe acknowledge ANA's concern, but do not agree with the request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required seal replacement within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. Under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, however, we will consider requests to approve an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard. \n\nRequest To Exclude Certain Airplanes \n\n\n\tThe NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) stated that deteriorated BMS 8-39 urethane foam seals in a cargo compartment compromise the Halon retention and smoke- and fire-blocking capabilities of the cargo compartment. UPS reported that its Model 767-300F package freighters are not equipped with Class C cargo compartments and do not have issues with containment ofHalon. \n\tWe infer that the commenter is requesting that we revise the applicability to remove airplanes that do not have Class C cargo compartments. We disagree. The unsafe condition identified in this AD-- penetration of smoke/fire in areas of the airplane that are difficult to access for fire/smoke detection or suppression--is not limited to airplanes equipped with Halon fire suppression. In addition, BMS 8-39 fire retardant properties, which deteriorate over time, can provide a fuel source for an ignition event in hidden areas of the airplane. We have therefore determined that UPS's package freighters are subject to the identified unsafe condition. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. \n\nRequest To Revise Inspection Requirement \n\n\n\tParagraph (g)(1) in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) would require replacement of the BMS 8-39 urethane foam seals with BMS 8-371 insulation foam or BMS 1-68 silicone foam rubber seals, in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3381, Revision 1, dated May 17, 2012. Japan Airlines (JAL) noted that these actions include removal of a certain foam pad, as specified in Figure 16, View 1, of that service bulletin. JAL reported that the cargo light part number BR7203-701 does not contain any foam, and no foam was found installed around the cargo light. JAL concluded that it cannot identify the existence of the foam pad and therefore requested that we revise the NPRM to specify that this removal step would apply only if the foam pad exists. \n\tWe agree to provide clarification on this issue. We have determined that some sort of padding should exist near the cargo light. If the pad has been removed, however, the operator can request approval of an alternative method of compliance for appropriate procedures in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not changed the final rule regarding this issue. \n\nConclusion \n\n\n\tWe reviewed the relevant data, consideredthe 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: \n\tAre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition; and \n\tDo not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 50411, August 21, 2012). \n\tWe also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD. \n\nCosts of Compliance \n\n\n\tWe estimate that this AD affects 694 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD: \n\n\n\tEstimated Costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\tAction Labor cost Parts costCost per product Cost on U.S. operators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Replacement--165 Model 747 Up to 432 work-hours Up to $6,162.................. Up to $42,882................. Up to $7,075,530. \n\tairplanes. x $85 per hour = \n\t$36,720. Replacement--399 Model 767 Up to 72 work-hours x Up to $3,967.................. Up to $10,087................. Up to $4,024,713. \n\tairplanes. $85 per hour = \n\t$6,120. Replacement--130 Model 777 16 work-hours x $85 $1,038........................ $2,398........................ $311,740. \n\tairplanes. per hour = $1,360. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \n\nAuthority for This Rulemaking \n\n\n\tTitle 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. \n\tWe 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. \n\nRegulatory Findings \n\n\n\tThis AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a \n\n((Page 33196))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. \n\tFor the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD: \n\t(1) Is not a ''significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, \n\t(2) Is not a ''significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), \n\t(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and \n\t(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. \n\nList of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 \n\n\n\tAir transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.