This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

50844 

Vol. 82, No. 211 

Thursday, November 2, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Electric Motors and 

Small Electric Motors 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of petition and request 

for public comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

and publishes petitions from the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) and UL LLC (UL) 

requesting that the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) incorporate the IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 (2014) test methods 2– 

1–1A and 2–1–1B as alternative test 

methods in addition to the existing test 

methods referenced in its regulations for 

determining the energy efficiency of 

certain electric motors and small 

electric motors: Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 

standards 112–2004 Method B (2004) 

and 114–2010 (2010); and Canadian 

Standards Association standards (CSA) 

C390–10 (2010) and C747–09 (2009). 

NEMA found IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1B to be equivalent to IEEE 

112–2004 Method B and CSA C390–10 

UL testing found IEC 60034–2–1:2004 

Method 2–1–1B results to be in close 

agreement with those of CSA C390–10, 

and noted that the respective 

methodologies of IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1A and CSA C747 were 

also in accord. DOE solicits comments, 

data, and information concerning 

NEMA’s and UL’s petitions. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before January 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001, 

by any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

SmallElectricMotors2017TP0047@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0047–0001 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6636. 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: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6636. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes the two petitions, 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/ 

materials, is available for review at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Specifically, the petition and supporting 

documentation from NEMA is available 

at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047- 

0028 and the petition from UL is 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047- 

0029. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the http://www.regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed 

in the index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket Web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047. The 

docket Web page contains simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section IV for 

information on how to submit 

comments through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Mary Greene, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–1817. Email: 

mary.greene@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

6636 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Petitions of NEMA and UL 

A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 

B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 Methods 2–1–1B and 2– 

1–1A 

1. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 

2. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A 

III. Request for Comments 

IV. Submission of Comments 

I. Authority and Background 

Electric motors are included in the list 

of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE 

is authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)). 

Additionally, EPCA directed DOE, 

subject to a determination of feasibility 

and justification, to establish energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedure for small electric motors. (42 

U.S.C. 6317(b)) DOE’s test procedures 

for electric motors are prescribed at 

appendix B to subpart B of part 431. 

DOE’s test procedures for small electric 

motors are prescribed at 10 CFR part 

431, subpart X. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50845 

1 IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, 

approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.4, Efficiency 

Test Method B, Input-Output with Loss Segregation. 

2CSA C390–10, Test methods, marking 

requirements, and energy efficiency levels for threephase induction motors, March 2010. 

3 IEEE Std 114–2010, Test Procedure for SinglePhase Induction Motors, approved September 30, 

2010. 

4CSA C747–09, Energy efficiency test methods 

for small motors, October 2009. 

5 IEEE Std 112–2004, Test Procedure for 

Polyphase Induction Motors and Generators, 

approved February 9, 2004, Section 6.3, Efficiency 

Test Method A, Input-Output. 

6 IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B (2014), 

‘‘Rotating Electrical Machines—Part 2–1: Standard 

methods for determining losses and efficiency from 

tests (excluding machines for traction vehicles),’’ 

‘‘Summation of losses, additional load losses 

according to the method of residual loss.’’ 

7The NEMA petition and work paper are 

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

document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0028. 

8The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 

112–2004 and IEC 60034–2–1:2007 (not the 2014 

version the NEMA petition requests that DOE 

reference). 

9Pierre Angers-Hydro-Que ́bec’s Research 

Institute, Andrew Baghurst—CalTest Laboratory, 

Martin Doppelbauer—Karlsruhe Institute of 

Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency 

Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the 

Context of the IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling 

Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. Available at: 

https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ 

proceedings-8th-international-conferenceeemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven. 

10The UL petition and supporting documentation 

is available at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0047-0029. 

11Pierre Angers—Hydro-Que ́bec’s Research 

Institute, Andrew Baghurst—CalTest Laboratory, 

Martin Doppelbauer—Karlsruhe Institute of 

Technology (KIT), Review of Energy Efficiency 

Measurement Standards for Induction Motors in the 

Context of the IECEE Global Efficiency Labeling 

Initiative. EEMODS conference 2013. Available at: 

https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ 

proceedings-8th-international-conferenceeemods2013-energy-efficiency-motor-driven. 

12The paper compared 2013 draft updates of IEEE 

112–2004 and IEC 60034–2–1:2007. 

13Cao, W. Comparison of IEEE 112 and new IEC 

standard 60034–2–1. IEEE Transactions on Energy 

Conversion. 2009. 24(3): pp. 802–808. 

DOE test procedures reference IEEE 

112–2004 Method B1 and CSA C390– 

10 2 as the approved test methods for 

determining the energy efficiency of 

polyphase electric motors with a 

horsepower greater than or equal to 1 

hp; and for determining the energy 

efficiency of polyphase small electric 

motors with a horsepower greater than 

1 hp. Both industry standards are 

incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 

431.15 and 10 CFR 431.443. 

Additionally, DOE’s small electric 

motors test procedures at subpart X of 

part 431 reference: (1) IEEE 114–2010 3

and CSA C747–09 4 as the approved test 

methods for determining the energy 

efficiency of single-phase small electric 

motors, and (2) IEEE 112–2004 Method 

A 5 and CSA C747–09 as the approved 

test methods for determining the energy 

efficiency of polyphase small electric 

motors with a horsepower less than or 

equal to 1. 

On July 31, 2017, DOE published a 

request for information (the ‘‘July 2017 

RFI’’) initiating a data collection process 

to consider whether to amend DOE’s 

test procedure for small electric motors 

and electric motors, and whether new 

test procedures are needed for motors 

beyond those subject to the existing 

Federal test procedures. 82 FR 35468. 

The petitions of NEMA and UL request 

modifications to the current test 

procedures for small electric motors and 

electric motors, and accordingly, DOE is 

entering this petition into the same 

docket that houses the July 2017 RFI. 

The docket is available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2017-BT-TP-0047. 

II. Petitions of NEMA and UL 

A. Petition of NEMA for Incorporating 

IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 

NEMA submitted a petition letter 

requesting that DOE incorporate the IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 6 test 

method as an alternative to the existing 

IEEE 112–2004 Method B and CSA 

C390–10 approved test methods of 

appendix B to subpart B of part 431. The 

petition further includes a ‘‘work paper’’ 

that summarizes an evaluation 

conducted by the NEMA Motor and 

Generator Section technical committee 

which found the IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1B test method to be 

equivalent to the IEEE 112–2004 

Method B and CSA C390–10 test 

methods.7 This evaluation relied on: (1) 

A comparison of instrumentation 

accuracy, test method, and calculation 

approach among the IEC, IEEE, and CSA 

industry standards, (2) analysis of test 

results from over 500 motors tested at 

the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute, 

and (3) reference to one scientific 

research paper (the ‘‘Angers et al. 

paper’’) which also concluded that all 

three methods 8 were equivalent.9

NEMA’s petition letter claimed that 

the results of the Hydro-Quebec 

Research Institute testing typically 

showed a loss deviation of less than ±2 

percent. The NEMA petition letter also 

stated a loss difference of 2 percent is: 

(1) Within the variation of two tests 

performed using the same motor and 

test equipment but with different 

operators and at different times of day; 

and (2) well below the typical variation 

of 10 percent of losses when different 

labs are used to test the same motor. 

B. Petition of UL for Incorporating IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 Methods 2–1–1B and 2– 

1–1A 

UL submitted a petition letter 10

requesting that DOE incorporate two IEC 

60034–2–1:2014 IEC test methods in its 

test procedures for electric motors and 

certain small electric motors. 

1. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1B 

First, UL requested that IEC 60034–2– 

1:2014 test method 2–1–1B be approved 

for appendix B to subpart B of part 431 

and section 431.444 of subpart X of part 

431 (as an alternative to CSA C390–10). 

Regarding the first request, the petition 

further included two papers comparing 

the respective test standards. 

The first paper,11 which is the same 

paper (Angers et al.) cited in NEMA’s 

petition’s attachment, compared IEEE 

112–2004, Method B (a 2013 year draft 

version), CSA C390–10, and IEC 60034– 

2–1, Method 2–1–1B (a 2013 year draft 

version). The comparison focused on 

instrumentation accuracy, test method, 

and calculation approach among the 

IEC, IEEE, and CSA industry standards 

and concluded that all three methods 12

were equivalent. 

The second paper 13 (the ‘‘Cao paper’’) 

compared the respective methodologies 

of IEEE 112–2004, Method B and IEC 

60034–2–1:2007, Method 2–1–1B and 

also conducted comparison testing, 

applying both standards’ test methods to 

the same six motors of varied output 

power. The resulting efficiency values 

were found to be closely aligned, with 

respective maximum and mean 

deviations of 0.1 and 0.03 percentage 

points. 

UL’s petition letter claimed that the 

test results of the Cao paper testing 

aligned with UL’s own, firsthand testing 

experience using the same methods. 

UL’s own comparison testing found a 

difference in calculated efficiency of 

less than 0.1 percentage points, when 

using measurements from a single test to 

reduce variability. 

2. IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2–1–1A 

Second, UL requested that IEC 60034– 

2–1:2014 test method 2–1–1A be 

approved for section 431.444 of subpart 

X of part 431 (as an alternative to CSA 

C747–09). UL stated that the IEC and 

CSA standards use the same method, 

but that the IEC equipment 

specifications are more rigorous. UL did 

not provide a quantitative test result 

comparison to support the similarity 

between the standards. 

III. Request for Comments 

DOE solicits comments from 

interested parties on any aspect of the 

petition. In particular, DOE seeks 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
50846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

comment on the matters described in 

this section. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

differences among IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1B, IEEE 112–2004 Method 

B, and CSA C390–10, and data 

characterizing the degree to which 

choice of test procedure alters measured 

efficiency. 

DOE seeks comment on the 

differences among IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1A, IEEE 114–2010, and 

CSA C747–09 and data characterizing 

the degree to which choice of test 

procedure alters measured efficiency. 

DOE seeks comment regarding 

whether IEC 60034–2–1:2014 Method 2– 

1–1B should be considered as an 

alternate for testing certain small 

electric motors under 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart X. DOE also seeks comment on 

whether the comparison test results 

presented in the petitions, which 

concern the test procedures under 10 

CFR part 431, subpart B, would also 

apply to testing of certain small electric 

motors under Subpart X of 10 CFR 431. 

DOE seeks comment on NEMA’s 

claims: (1) That the Hydro-Quebec test 

results support a typical loss deviation 

between IEEE 112–2004 Method B and 

IEC 60034–2–1:2004 Method 2–1–1B of 

less than ±2 percent, (2) that a 2 percent 

loss deviation is characteristic of 

substituting a test operator with the test 

equipment unchanged, and (3) that a 10 

percent loss deviation is characteristic 

of testing the same motor at different 

laboratories. 

DOE seeks comment on whether 

Angers et al. paper’s findings of 

similarity between IEEE 112–2004 (2013 

draft revision) and IEC 60034–2–1:2007 

(2013 draft revision) would hold for the 

latest adopted versions of those 

standards: IEEE 112–2004 and IEC 

60034–2–1:2014. 

DOE seeks comment on UL’s claims 

that the difference in calculated 

efficiency between IEC 60034–2–1:2014 

Method 2–1–1B and IEEE 112–2004 

method B is less than 0.1 percentage 

points, if using measurements from the 

same test. 

DOE seeks comment regarding 

similarity in methods, differences in 

equipment specifications, and expected 

efficiency percentage point differences 

between the test results of IEEE 114– 

2010, CSA C747–09, and IEC 60034–2– 

1:2004, Method 2–1–1A. 

IV. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by January 2, 2018, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of amended test procedures for electric 

and small electric motors. These 

comments and information will aid in 

the development of a test procedure 

NOPR for electric and small electric 

motors if DOE determines that amended 

test procedures may be appropriate for 

these products. 

Submitting comments via http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

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 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. 

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 http://

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 http://

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. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

http://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 on 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, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. 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, written in English and 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. 

According 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 via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery 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. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. 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 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Proposed Rules 50847 

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). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

6636 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 

2017. 

David Nemtzow, 

Director, Building Technologies Office, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23634 Filed 11–1–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0111; Product 

Identifier 2016–SW–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; 

AgustaWestland S.p.A. Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

AgustaWestland S.p.A. 

(AgustaWestland) Model AW189 

helicopters. This proposed AD would 

require replacing the seal and filler 

wedges of all emergency exit windows. 

The proposed actions are prompted by 

a report that some windows were 

improperly glued when installed. The 

actions of this proposed AD are 

intended to correct an unsafe condition 

on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by January 2, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

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

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address 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 at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0111; or in person at the Docket 

Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations Office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed rule, contact Leonardo 

S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, 

Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 

520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) 

Italy; telephone +39–0331–711756; fax 

+39–0331–229046; or at http://

www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. 

You may review the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N–321, 

Fort Worth, TX 76177. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Regulations & Policy Section, 

Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 

10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 

martin.r.crane@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2016– 

0216, dated October 28, 2016, to correct 

an unsafe condition for Leonardo 

Helicopters (previously Finmeccanica 

S.p.A., previously AgustaWestland) 

Model AW189 helicopters, serial 

numbers 49007 through 49021, 49023, 

49029, 49033, 49035, 89001, 89003, 

89004, 92001, 92003, and 92005. The 

EASA AD does not apply to windows 

that have been reinstalled at least once 

since helicopter delivery and windows 

that are part of bubble window kit part 

number (P/N) 8G5620F00111. 

EASA advises that during a scheduled 

replacement of emergency exit window 

seals on helicopters in service, an 

excessively high level of pushing force 

was required to jettison some of the 

windows. According to EASA, further 

investigation determined the windows 

were installed with glue applied in 

locations that were not in accordance 

with the approved design. 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

prevent the jettisoning of helicopter 

emergency exit windows, possibly 

affecting the evacuation of crew and 

passengers during an emergency 

situation, EASA advises. EASA 

consequently requires replacement of 

the seal and the filler wedges of the 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS