Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54215 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037] 

RIN 1904–AC39 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers: 

Availability of Revised Rulemaking 

Analysis 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability 

(NODA); request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including automatic commercial ice 

makers. EPCA also requires DOE to 

determine whether more stringent, 

amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. DOE 

proposed amended energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers in a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) published on March 

17, 2014. DOE has since updated its 

proposed rulemaking analysis 

estimating the potential economic 

impacts and energy savings that could 

result from promulgating an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

automatic commercial ice makers. This 

notice announces the availability of this 

analysis to give stakeholders an 

opportunity to review the revised 

proposed rulemaking analysis and its 

results, and to give stakeholders an 

opportunity to comment. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NODA 

submitted no later than October 14, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Notice of Data 

Availability for Automatic Commercial 

Ice Makers, and provide docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0037 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

1904–AC39. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ACIM-2010-STD-0037@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0037 and/or RIN 1904–AC39 

in the subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD0037. The regulations.gov Web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents in the docket, including 

public comments. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1692. Email: 

automatic_commercial_ice_makers@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–1777. 

Email: Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Current Status 

III. Summary of Updated Rulemaking 

Analyses 

IV. Public Participation 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 

covering certain industrial equipment,2

which includes the focus of this notice: 

Automatic commercial ice makers. 

EPCA prescribes energy conservation 

standards for cube type automatic 

commercial ice makers with harvest 

rates between 50 and 2,500 pounds of 

ice per 24 hours. (42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1)) 

These standards are set out for specific 

equipment types: Self-contained ice 

makers using air or water for cooling, 

ice-making heads using air or water for 

cooling, and remote condensing ice 

makers with or without a remote 

compressor. Id. In a final rule published 

on October 18, 2005, DOE adopted the 

energy conservation standards and 

water conservation standards pursuant 

to this section and placed them under 

10 CFR part 431, subpart H, Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers. 70 FR 60407, 

60415–16. 

EPCA requires DOE to review these 

standards and determine, by January 1, 

2015, whether amending the applicable 

standards is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(A)) If amended standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, DOE must issue 

a final rule by the same date. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(3)(B)) EPCA also grants DOE 

authority to conduct rulemakings to 

establish new standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers not covered by 

42 U.S.C. 6313(d)(1). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(2)(A)) Pursuant to this 

authority, DOE identified additional 

automatic commercial ice maker types 

as candidates for standards to be 

established in this rulemaking. These 

include flake and nugget ice makers 

(collectively ‘‘continuous’’ ice makers), 

as well as batch type ice makers that are 

not included in the EPCA standards set 

for cube type ice makers, such as 

machines with harvest rates greater than 

2,500 pounds ice per 24 hours. 

DOE initiated the current rulemaking 

on November 4, 2010 by publishing on 

its Web site the ‘‘Rulemaking 

Framework for Automatic Commercial 

Ice Makers.’’ (The Framework document 

is available at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

commercial/pdfs/acim_framework_

2010_11_04.pdf). DOE published a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the availability of the 

Framework document, as well as a 

public meeting to discuss the document. 

The notice also solicited comment on 

the matters raised in the document. 75 

FR 70852 (Nov. 19, 2010). The 

Framework document described the 

procedural and analytical approaches 

that DOE anticipated using to evaluate 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers, and 

identified various issues to be resolved 

in the rulemaking. 

DOE held a public meeting on 

December 16, 2010, at which it: (1) 

Presented the contents of the 

Framework document; (2) described the 

analyses it planned to conduct during 

the rulemaking; (3) sought comments 

from interested parties on these 

subjects; and (4) in general, sought to 

inform interested parties about, and 

facilitate their involvement in, the 

rulemaking. Major issues discussed at 

the public meeting included: (1) The 

scope of coverage for the rulemaking; (2) 

equipment classes; (3) analytical 

approaches and methods used in the 

rulemaking; (4) impacts of standards 

and burden on manufacturers; (5) 

technology options; (6) distribution 

channels, shipments, and end users; (7) 

impacts of outside regulations; and (8) 

environmental issues. At the meeting 

and during the comment period on the 

Framework document, DOE received 

many comments that assisted in 

identifying and resolving issues relevant 

to this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to review potential energy 

conservation standard levels for this 

equipment. This process culminated in 

DOE publishing notice of a second 

public meeting (the January 2012 notice) 

to discuss and receive comments 

regarding the tools and methods DOE 

used in performing its preliminary 

analysis, as well as the preliminary 

analyses results. 77 FR 3404 (Jan. 24, 

2012). DOE also invited written 

comments on these subjects and 

announced the availability on its Web 

site of a preliminary analysis technical 

support document (preliminary TSD). 

Id. (The preliminary TSD is available at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0037-0026.) Finally, DOE sought 

comments concerning other relevant 

issues that could affect amended energy 

conservation standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers, or that DOE 

should address in this rulemaking. Id. 

The preliminary TSD provided an 

overview of DOE’s review of the 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, discussed the comments DOE 

received in response to the Framework 

document, and addressed issues 

including the scope of coverage of the 

rulemaking. The document also 

described the analytical framework used 

in this rulemaking to consider amended 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, including a description of the 

methodology, the analytical tools, and 

the relationships between the various 

analyses that are part of this rulemaking. 

In addition, the preliminary TSD 

presented in detail each analysis that 

DOE performed for this equipment, 

including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

These analyses, which are described in 

greater detail in the preliminary TSD, 

included (1) a market and technology 

assessment, (2) a screening analysis, (3) 

an engineering analysis, (4) an energy 

and water use analysis, (5) a markups 

analysis, (6) a life-cycle cost (LCC) 

analysis, (7) a payback period (PBP) 

analysis, (8) a shipments analysis, (9) a 

national impact analysis (NIA), and (10) 

a preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis (MIA). 

DOE presented the methodologies and 

results of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary TSD at a public meeting 

held on February 16, 2012 (February 

2012 public meeting). Interested parties 

provided comments on the following 

issues: (1) Equipment classes; (2) 

technology options; (3) energy modeling 

and validation of engineering models; 

(4) cost modeling; (5) market 

information, including distribution 

channels and distribution mark-ups; (6) 

efficiency levels; (7) life-cycle costs to 

customers, including installation, repair 

and maintenance costs, and water and 

wastewater prices; and (8) historical 

shipments. 

Following the February 2012 public 

meeting, DOE updated and revised 

inputs and performed analyses to 

establish proposed energy conservation 

standards for automatic commercial ice 

makers, which were presented in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

published on March 17, 2014. 79 FR 

14845. The NOPR outlined the proposed 

standard levels, discussed the 

comments received in response to the 

preliminary analysis document, and 

presented the results of the NOPR 

analysis. The NOPR also included 

employment, utility, emissions, social 

cost of carbon, manufacturer impact, 

and regulatory impact analyses. In 

addition, the NOPR announced a public 

meeting, which was held on April 14, 

2014, to discuss and receive comments 

regarding the tools and methods DOE 

used in the NOPR analysis, as well as 

the results of that analysis. DOE also 

invited written comments and 

announced the availability of a NOPR 

analysis technical support document 

(NOPR TSD). Id. (The NOPR TSD is 

available at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0037-0061). 

The NOPR TSD described in detail 

DOE’s analysis of potential standard 

levels for automatic commercial ice 

makers. The document also described 

the analytical framework used in 

considering standard levels, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

between the various analyses. 

Additionally, it presented each analysis 

that DOE performed to evaluate 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

DOE included the same analyses that 

were conducted at the preliminary 

analysis stage, with revisions based on 

comments received and additional 

research. 

At the public meeting held on April 

14, 2014, DOE presented the 

methodologies and results of the 

analyses set forth in the NOPR TSD. 

Interested parties provided comments 

on a variety of different areas. Some key 

issues raised by stakeholders included: 

(1) Whether the energy model accurately 

predicts efficiency improvements 

associated with design options; (2) the 

size restrictions and applications of 22- 

inch wide ice makers; (3) the efficiency 

distributions assumed for shipments of 

ice makers; and (4) the impact on 

manufacturers relating to redesign of ice 

maker models, in light of the proposed 

compliance date of 3 years after 

publication of the final rule. 

In response to comments regarding 

the energy model used in the analysis, 

DOE held a public meeting on June 19, 

2014 in order to facilitate an additional 

review of the model, gather additional 

feedback and data on the energy model, 

and to allow for a more thorough 

explanation of DOE’s use of the model 

in the engineering analysis. 79 FR 33877 

(June 13, 2014). At that meeting, DOE 

presented the energy model, 

demonstrated its operation, and 

described how it was used in the 

rulemaking’s engineering analysis. DOE 

indicated in this meeting that it is 

considering modifications to its NOPR 

analyses based on the NOPR comments 

and additional research and 

information-gathering. (The material for 

the June 2014 public meeting is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 54217 

3These spreadsheets are also available on the 

rulemaking docket at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0037. 

However, the regulations.gov docket does not 

support macro-enabled files. The fully-functional 

files with macros-enabled are available on the 

Department of Energy Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29. 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0037-00109.) 

II. Current Status 

DOE is considering the information 

obtained through stakeholder comments 

and through additional research and 

information-gathering. The purpose of 

this NODA is to notify industry, 

manufacturers, customer groups, 

efficiency advocates, government 

agencies, and other stakeholders of the 

availability of the revised rulemaking 

analysis and results, as well as the effect 

of that information on the analyses 

prepared in support of the previously 

published proposed rule. 

The comments received since 

publication of the March 2014 NOPR, 

including those received at the April 

2014 and the June 2014 public meetings, 

provided inputs which led DOE to 

revise its analyses. Stakeholders also 

submitted additional information to 

DOE’s consultant pursuant to nondisclosure agreements regarding 

efficiency gains and costs of potential 

design options. In addition, DOE 

reviewed additional market data, 

including published ratings of available 

ice makers, to recalibrate its engineering 

analysis. Generally, the revisions 

include modifications of inputs for its 

engineering, LCC, and NIA analyses, 

adjustment of its energy model 

calculations, and more thorough 

consideration of size-constrained ice 

maker applications. The analysis 

revisions addressing size-constrained 

applications included development of 

engineering analyses for three sizeconstrained equipment categories and 

restructuring of the LCC and NIA 

analyses to consider size constraints for 

applicable equipment classes. 

Stakeholders commented at the April 

2014 public meeting and in written 

comments on the importance of DOE 

allowing them an opportunity to review 

and comment on potential revisions of 

the analyses. (See, e.g., AHRI, No. 93 at 

p. 1) In response to these comments, 

DOE is issuing this NODA to announce 

the availability of the revised analysis 

DOE developed to support an amended 

energy conservation standard for 

automatic commercial ice makers, as 

described in section III. DOE may revise 

the analysis presented in today’s NODA 

based on any new information or data 

obtained between now and the 

publication of the final rule concerning 

energy conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers. DOE 

encourages stakeholders to provide any 

additional data or information that may 

improve the analysis no later than 

October 14, 2014. 

III. Summary of Updated Rulemaking 

Analyses 

DOE conducted analyses of automatic 

commercial ice makers in the following 

areas: (1) Engineering; (2) life-cycle cost 

and payback period; and (3) national 

impacts. The revised rulemaking 

analyses and their respective results 

(engineering, life-cycle cost, and 

national impacts spreadsheets) are 

available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ 

ruleid/29.3 Each spreadsheet includes 

an introduction describing the various 

inputs and outputs to the analysis, as 

well as operation instructions. Also 

available on the DOE Web site is a 

document outlining the LCC/PBP and 

NIA results, a document defining the 

trial standard levels (TSLs) levels that 

DOE considered in the NODA analyses, 

and a spreadsheet with charts showing 

the TSLs’ energy use as functions of 

harvest capacity. 

Summary of Changes to the 

Engineering Analysis: 

• Based on new test data, DOE made 

changes to the ‘Percent Energy Use 

Reduction’ values associated with 

individual design options. These new 

values are included in the Engineering 

Results spreadsheet (column D of the 

‘Design Option Curves’ tab). The 

‘Updated Analysis’ tab details which 

design options were changed as a result 

of new test data obtained through (1) 

Non-Disclosure Agreements with DOE’s 

engineering contractor and (2) 

comments made during the NOPR 

comment period. 

• Based on new cost data, DOE made 

changes to the ‘Individual cost’ values 

associated with individual design 

options. These new values are included 

in the Engineering Results spreadsheet 

(column I of the ‘Design Option Curves’ 

tab). The ‘Updated Analysis’ tab details 

which design options were changed as 

a result of new data obtained through 1) 

Non-Disclosure Agreements with DOE’s 

engineering contractor and 2) comments 

made during the NOPR comment 

period. 

• Based on comments made during 

the NOPR period, DOE added additional 

cost-efficiency curves for 22-inch width 

units in the IMH–A-Small-B, IMH–ALarge-B, and IMH–W-Small-B 

equipment classes, and an additional 

cost-efficiency curve for the RCU-SmallC equipment class. The new costefficiency curves are described in 

Engineering Results spreadsheet 

(‘Design Option Curves’ tab). 

• Summary of Changes to the LifeCycle Cost and Payback Period: As 

described above, the engineering 

analysis examined design options and 

efficiency level improvements for 22- 

inch units for three equipment classes 

under a scenario where no increase in 

equipment size was considered, 

resulting in two separate cost-efficiency 

curves (space constrained and nonspace constrained). For the LCC/PBP 

analysis and the NIA, a major source of 

change was the integration of these two 

curves for these equipment classes. 

• A related source of change was 

assessing whether the impact of 

equipment cabinet size increases 

impose additional installation costs on 

customers. 

• Other revisions include the 

inclusion of additional installation costs 

for certain other efficiency 

improvements (drain water heat 

exchangers and larger condensers in 

remote condenser units), changes in the 

calculation of repair costs to explicitly 

identify labor and material components, 

changes to the efficiency distribution of 

equipment in the baseline market, and 

changes to the utilization factor used to 

determine electricity and water usage. 

The changes to the LCC and NIA are 

described in the document entitled 

ACIM NODA tabulated LCC–NIA 

results. 

IV. Public Participation 

DOE is interested in receiving 

comments on all aspects of the data and 

analysis presented in the NODA and 

supporting documentation that can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/29. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments on the changes that 

were made to the engineering and LCC– 

NIA as described in Section III. 

Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
54218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 176 / Thursday, September 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit two well-marked copies: one 

copy of the document marked 

‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistance Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21688 Filed 9–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0540; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NE–10–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Lycoming 

Engines Reciprocating Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

serial number Lycoming Engines 

reciprocating engines. This proposed 

AD was prompted by events of propeller 

governor shaft set screws coming loose 

due to improper installation, which 

could result in engine oil loss, damage 

to the engine, and damage to the 

airplane. This proposed AD would 

require application of Loctite 290, or 

equivalent, to the threads of the 

propeller governor shaft set screw at 

each installation of the set screw in 

addition to the peening of crankcase 

hole threads. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent the propeller governor shaft 

set screw from coming loose, causing 

damage to the engine, and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 10, 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS