Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66343 

In the program’s recent 

reauthorization legislation, Congress 

added the following language to the 

Small Business Act reinforcing the 

responsibility of the government to 

pursue such work with the awardee 

firm: 

PHASE III AWARDS.—To the greatest 

extent practicable, Federal agencies and 

Federal prime contractors shall issue Phase 

III awards relating to technology, including 

sole source awards, to the SBIR and STTR 

award recipients that developed the 

technology. 

Id. at 638(r)(4). 

SBA is concerned that there is 

ambiguity or misunderstanding about 

how this policy governing Phase III 

awards should be implemented. 

Agencies and awardee firms may 

disagree as to whether new work 

qualifies as SBIR/STTR Phase III work. 

Additionally, even if there is agreement 

that the follow-on work is Phase III 

work, there may be disagreement as to 

how the agency is required to show 

preference to the SBIR/STTR awardee 

for the Phase III work. 

One question that has been raised is 

whether preference for the Phase III 

work can be shown within a 

competitive solicitation. Another 

question is how such preference can or 

should be shown if the SBIR or STTR 

awardee would perform the Phase III 

work as a subcontractor to a prime 

federal contractor. Finally, there may be 

uncertainty about the steps that should 

be taken when applying the preference. 

SBA intends to revise the language in 

the Policy Directives to clarify these 

issues, that is, the responsibility of 

agencies with regard to Phase III work 

and processes that can be used when 

determining the appropriate actions in 

Phase III cases. To help in the 

development of the revised policy 

guidance, SBA requests comments on 

the following: 

• Whether SBA should define ‘‘to the 

greatest extent practicable’’ with respect 

to when agencies shall issue these Phase 

III awards; and if so, how the phrase 

should be defined. 

• Whether, if the agency elects not to 

issue a Phase III sole source award to 

the SBIR or STTR Phase II awardee for 

follow-on Phase III work, there are other 

ways the agency could meet this 

statutory requirement. 

• Whether an SBIR or STTR awardee 

can receive the required Phase III 

preference within a full and open 

competition. 

• Whether the policy directive should 

outline the steps an agency must take in 

deciding or understanding when the 

Phase III preference applies. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 638 

Dated: September 15, 2014. 

Javier E. Saade, 

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment 

and Innovation. 

Maria Contreras-Sweet, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26583 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0755; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–080–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all The 

Boeing Company Model 737–600, –700, 

–700C, –800, –900, and –900ER series 

airplanes, Model 757 airplanes, Model 

767 airplanes, and Model 777 airplanes. 

This proposed AD results from fuel 

system reviews conducted by the 

manufacturer. This proposed AD would 

require an inspection to determine if 

certain spar-mounted motor-operated 

valve actuators for the spar-mounted 

fuel valves are installed, and 

replacement of any affected actuators. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

electrical energy from lightning, hot 

shorts, or fault current from entering the 

fuel tank through the actuator shaft, 

which could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 22, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0755; 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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6509; fax: 

425–917–6590; email: rebel.nichols@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0755; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–080–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

The FAA has examined the 

underlying safety issues involved in fuel 

tank explosions on several large 

transport airplanes, including the 

adequacy of existing regulations, the 

service history of airplanes subject to 

those regulations, and existing 

maintenance practices for fuel tank 

systems. As a result of those findings, 

we issued a regulation titled ‘‘Transport 

Airplane Fuel Tank System Design 

Review, Flammability Reduction and 

Maintenance and Inspection 

Requirements’’ (66 FR 23086, May 7, 

2001). In addition to new airworthiness 

standards for transport airplanes and 

new maintenance requirements, this 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

rule included Special Federal Aviation 

Regulation No. 88 (‘‘SFAR 88,’’ 

Amendment 21–78, and subsequent 

Amendments 21–82 and 21–83). 

Among other actions, SFAR 88 (66 FR 

23086, May 7, 2001) requires certain 

type design (i.e., type certificate (TC) 

and supplemental type certificate (STC)) 

holders to substantiate that their fuel 

tank systems can prevent ignition 

sources in the fuel tanks. This 

requirement applies to type design 

holders for large turbine-powered 

transport airplanes and for subsequent 

modifications to those airplanes. It 

requires them to perform design reviews 

and to develop design changes and 

maintenance procedures if their designs 

do not meet the new fuel tank safety 

standards. As explained in the preamble 

to the rule, we intended to adopt 

airworthiness directives to mandate any 

changes found necessary to address 

unsafe conditions identified as a result 

of these reviews. 

In evaluating these design reviews, we 

have established four criteria intended 

to define the unsafe conditions 

associated with fuel tank systems that 

require corrective actions. The 

percentage of operating time during 

which fuel tanks are exposed to 

flammable conditions is one of these 

criteria. The other three criteria address 

the failure types under evaluation: 

single failures, single failures in 

combination with a latent condition(s), 

and in-service failure experience. For all 

four criteria, the evaluations included 

consideration of previous actions taken 

that may mitigate the need for further 

action. 

We have determined that the actions 

identified in this AD are necessary to 

reduce the potential of ignition sources 

inside fuel tanks, which, in combination 

with flammable fuel vapors, could result 

in fuel tank explosions and consequent 

loss of the airplane. 

We are proposing this AD to prevent 

electrical energy from lightning, hot 

shorts, or fault current from entering the 

fuel tank through the actuator shaft, 

which could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. 

Proposed AD Requirements 

This proposed AD would require an 

inspection to determine whether any 

spar-mounted motor-operated valve 

(MOV) actuators for the spar-mounted 

fuel valves having part number (P/N) 

MA20A1001–1 (S343T003–39) are 

installed, and replacement of any 

affected actuator with a serviceable, 

FAA-approved MOV actuator other than 

one having P/N MA20A1001–1 

(S343T003–39). 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 2,140 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

We estimate the following costs to 

comply with this proposed AD: 

ESTIMATED COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per 

product 

Cost on U.S. 

operators 

Inspection to determine part 

number.

1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 ......................................... $0 $85 $181,900 

We estimate the following costs to do 

any necessary replacements that would 

be required based on the results of the 

proposed inspection. We have no way of 

determining the number of aircraft that 

might need these replacements: 

ON-CONDITION COSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product 

Replace actuator .................. 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 per actuator ............... $5,000 per actuator ............. $5,085 per actuator. 

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 proposed 

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 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the 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. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66345 

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): 

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 

2014–0755; Directorate Identifier 2014– 

NM–080–AD. 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 

22, 2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

None. 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to all The Boeing 

Company airplanes identified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in 

any category. 

(1) Model 737–600, –700, –700C, –800, 

–900, and –900ER series airplanes. 

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

–300 series airplanes. 

(3) Model 767–200, –300, –300F, and 

–400ER series airplanes. 

(4) Model 777–200, –200LR, –300, –300ER, 

and –777F series airplanes. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 28, Fuel Selector/Shut-off 

Valve. 

(e) Unsafe Condition 

This AD results from fuel system reviews 

conducted by the manufacturer. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent electrical energy 

from lightning, hot shorts, or fault current 

from entering the fuel tank through the 

actuator shaft, which could result in fuel tank 

explosions and consequent loss of the 

airplane. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Inspection To Determine Part Number 

Within 60 months after the effective date 

of this AD: Do an inspection to determine 

whether any motor-operated shutoff valve 

(MOV) actuators having part number (P/N) 

MA20A1001–1 (S343T003–39) for the fuel 

tanks or fuel feed system are installed on the 

airplane. A review of airplane maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of this 

inspection if the part number of the actuator 

can be conclusively determined from that 

review. 

(h) Replacement 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any MOV actuator 

having (P/N) MA20A1001–1 (S343T003–39) 

for the fuel tanks is installed: Within 60 

months after the effective date of this AD, 

replace the affected MOV actuator with a 

serviceable, FAA-approved MOV actuator 

other than one having P/N MA20A1001–1 

(S343T003–39). 

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install an MOV actuator having 

part number MA20A1001–1 (S343T003–39) 

on any airplane. 

(j) 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 (k) of this AD. Information may be 

emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@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 

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. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Rebel Nichols, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; 

phone: 425–917–6509; fax: 425–917–6590; 

email: rebel.nichols@faa.gov. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

30, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26534 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

30 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. MSHA–2014–0009] 

RIN 1219–AB72 

Criteria and Procedures for 

Assessment of Civil Penalties 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearings; close of comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) will hold two 

public hearings on the Agency’s 

proposed rule for Criteria and 

Procedures for Assessment of Civil 

Penalties. 

DATES: MSHA will hold public hearings 

on December 4, 2014, and December 9, 

2014, at the locations listed in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. Post-hearing comments 

must be received or postmarked by 

midnight Eastern Time on January 9, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

informational materials, and requests to 

speak, identified by RIN 1219–AB72 or 

Docket No. MSHA–2014–0009, by one 

of the following methods: 

• Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-Mail: zzMSHAcomments@dol.gov. Include RIN 1219– 

AB72 or Docket No. MSHA–2014–0009 

in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, 

Regulations, and Variances, 1100 

Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia 22209–3939. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: MSHA, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. 

and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Sign in at the 

receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor. 

• Fax: 202–693–9441. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include ‘‘MSHA’’ and ‘‘RIN 1219– 

AB72’’ or ‘‘Docket No. MSHA–2014– 

0009.’’ Do not include personal 

information that you do not want 

publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all 

comments without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, 

including any personal information 

provided. For additional instructions for 

participation in Public Hearings on this 

rulemaking, see the ‘‘Public Hearings’’ 

heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 

To read background documents, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Review the 

docket in person at MSHA, Office of 

Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, 

Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. 

and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

except Federal Holidays. Sign in at the 

receptionist’s desk on the 21st floor. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS