Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62363 

Multicandidate Political Committees, 52 FR 760, 

765 (Jan. 9, 1987). 

unnecessarily limit the ability of PACs 

to associate with candidates? In light of 

the McCutcheon decision and 

discussion above, should the 

Commission revise any of its other 

earmarking rules? If so, how? 

Affiliation 

In addition to the earmarking 

provisions discussed above, the Court 

cited the anti-proliferation provisions of 

the Act and Commission regulations as 

mechanisms that limit circumvention of 

the base limits. McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. 

at 1453–54 (citing former 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 100.5(g)). 

Commission regulations provide that 

‘‘[a]ll committees . . . established, 

financed, maintained, or controlled, by 

the same . . . person, or group of 

persons . . . are affiliated,’’ and thus are 

subject to a single contribution limit. 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(2), 110.3(a)(1)(ii). These 

regulations include a number of 

affiliation factors, see 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(4), 110.3(a)(3), which the Court 

indicated the Commission could use— 

when presented with ‘‘suspicious 

patterns of PAC donations’’—to 

determine whether political committees 

are affiliated. See McCutcheon, 134 S. 

Ct. at 1454. Are the current affiliation 

factors at 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4) and 

110.3(a)(3) adequate to prevent 

circumvention of the base contribution 

limits? Should the Commission revisit 

its affiliation factors? If so, how? 

Joint Fundraising Committees 

The Act and Commission regulations 

authorize the creation of joint 

fundraising committees, see 52 U.S.C. 

30102(e)(3)(A)(ii) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

432(e)(3)(A)(ii)); 11 CFR 102.17, as well 

as the transfer of funds between and 

among participating committees. See 11 

CFR 102.6(a)(1)(iii), 110.3(c)(2). The 

Court noted that these rules could be 

revised to limit the opportunity for 

using joint fundraising committees to 

circumvent the base limits. See 

McCutcheon, 134 S. Ct. at 1458–59. The 

Court suggested, for instance, that joint 

fundraising committees could be limited 

in size, or that funds received by 

participants in a joint fundraising 

committee could be spent only ‘‘by their 

recipients.’’ Id. 

The Act includes the following 

provisions that can affect transfers 

between committees engaged in joint 

fundraising. Candidates may transfer 

contributions they receive, ‘‘without 

limitation, to a national, State, or local 

committee of a political party.’’ 52 

U.S.C. 30114(a)(4) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

439a(a)(4)). The limits on contributions 

found at 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(1) and (2) 

(formerly 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1) and (2)) do 

not apply to transfers ‘‘between and 

among political committees which are 

national, State, district or local 

committees (including any subordinate 

committee thereof) of the same political 

party.’’ 52 U.S.C. 30116(a)(4) (formerly 2 

U.S.C. 441a(a)(4)). The Act provides that 

contributions made by political 

committees that are ‘‘established or 

financed or maintained or controlled’’ 

by the same entity shall be considered 

to have been made by a single 

committee, except that this provision 

does not ‘‘limit transfers between 

political committees of funds raised 

through joint fundraising efforts.’’ 52 

U.S.C. 30116(a)(5)(A) (formerly 2 U.S.C. 

441a(a)(5)(A)). 

In light of the McCutcheon decision 

and the statutory provisions described 

above, can or should the Commission 

revise its joint fundraising rules? If so, 

how? 

Disclosure 

The Supreme Court observed that 

disclosure requirements ‘‘may . . . 

‘deter actual corruption and avoid the 

appearance of corruption by exposing 

large contributions and expenditures to 

the light of publicity.’ ’’ McCutcheon, 

134 S. Ct. at 1459–60 (quoting Buckley 

v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 67 (1976)). 

Particularly due to developments in 

technology—primarily the internet—the 

Court observed that ‘‘disclosure offers 

much more robust protections against 

corruption’’ because ‘‘[r]eports and 

databases are available on the FEC’s 

Web site almost immediately after they 

are filed.’’ Id. at 1460. 

Given these developments in modern 

technology, what regulatory changes or 

other steps should the Commission take 

to further improve its collection and 

presentation of campaign finance data? 

On behalf of the Commission, 

Dated: October 9, 2014. 

Lee E. Goodman, 

Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24660 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0752; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–079–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014–06– 

08, for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model 

DHC–8–100, –200, and –300 series 

airplanes. AD 2014–06–08 currently 

requires repetitive functional checks of 

the nose and main landing gear, and 

corrective actions if necessary; and also 

provides optional terminating action 

modification for the repetitive 

functional checks. Since we issued AD 

2014–06–08, we have determined that 

the optional terminating action 

modification is necessary to address the 

identified unsafe condition. This 

proposed AD would also require the 

terminating action modification. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

a false down-and-locked landing gear 

indication, which, on landing, could 

result in possible collapse of the landing 

gear. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; email 

thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may view this referenced service 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62364 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0752; 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 Operations 

office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe and Mechanical Systems 

Branch, ANE–171, FAA, New York 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 

Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

NY 11590; telephone 516–228–7318; fax 

516–794–5531. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0752; Directorate Identifier 

2014–NM–079–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 based on 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 

On March 19, 2014, we issued AD 

2014–06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 

FR 17390, March 28, 2014). AD 2014– 

06–08 requires actions intended to 

address an unsafe condition on certain 

Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8–100, 

–200, and –300 series airplanes. 

Since we issued AD 2014–06–08, 

Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, 

March 28, 2014), we have determined 

that the optional terminating 

modification specified in AD 2014–06– 

08 is necessary to address the identified 

unsafe condition. 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–11, 

dated February 13, 2014 (referred to 

after this as the Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information, or ‘‘the 

MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition 

certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC–8 

airplanes. The MCAI states: 

During an in-service event where the 

landing gear control panel indicated an 

unsafe nose landing gear, the flight crew 

observed that all three green lights were 

illuminated on the emergency downlock 

indication system. The nose landing gear was 

not down and locked, and collapsed during 

landing. 

Investigation found ambient light and 

wiring shorts can lead to incorrect 

illumination of the green lights on the 

emergency downlock indication system. 

This [Canadian] AD mandates the 

functional check of the nose and main 

landing gear alternate indication 

phototransistors and the modification of the 

emergency downlock indication system 

[incorporation of Modsums 8Q101955, 

8Q101968, and 8Q101969 as applicable]. 

The unsafe condition is a false downand-locked landing gear indication, 

which, on landing, could result in 

possible collapse of the landing gear. 

The proposed modification consists of 

installing certain new electrical 

components and cable assemblies. 

You may examine the MCAI in the 

AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0752. 

FAA’s Determination and Requirements 

of This Proposed AD 

This product has been approved by 

the aviation authority of another 

country, and is approved for operation 

in the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with the State of 

Design Authority, we have been notified 

of the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI and service information 

referenced above. We are proposing this 

AD because we evaluated all pertinent 

information and determined an unsafe 

condition exists and is likely to exist or 

develop on other products of the same 

type design. 

‘‘Contacting the Manufacturer’’ 

Paragraph in This Proposed AD 

Since late 2006, we have included a 

standard paragraph titled ‘‘Airworthy 

Product’’ in all MCAI ADs in which the 

FAA develops an AD based on a foreign 

authority’s AD. 

The MCAI or referenced service 

information in an FAA AD often directs 

the owner/operator to contact the 

manufacturer for corrective actions, 

such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy 

Product paragraph allowed owners/

operators to use corrective actions 

provided by the manufacturer if those 

actions were FAA-approved. In 

addition, the paragraph stated that any 

actions approved by the State of Design 

Authority (or its delegated agent) are 

considered to be FAA-approved. 

In an NPRM having Directorate 

Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD (78 FR 

78285, December 26, 2013), we 

proposed to prevent the use of repairs 

that were not specifically developed to 

correct the unsafe condition, by 

requiring that the repair approval 

provided by the State of Design 

Authority or its delegated agent 

specifically refer to the FAA AD. This 

change was intended to clarify the 

method of compliance and to provide 

operators with better visibility of repairs 

that are specifically developed and 

approved to correct the unsafe 

condition. In addition, we proposed to 

change the phrase ‘‘its delegated agent’’ 

to include a design approval holder 

(DAH) with State of Design Authority 

design organization approval (DOA), as 

applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized 

to approve required repairs for the 

proposed AD. 

One commenter to the NPRM having 

Directorate Identifier 2012–NM–101–AD 

(78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated 

the following: ‘‘The proposed wording, 

being specific to repairs, eliminates the 

interpretation that Airbus messages are 

acceptable for approving minor 

deviations (corrective actions) needed 

during accomplishment of an AD 

mandated Airbus service bulletin.’’ 

This comment has made the FAA 

aware that some operators have 

misunderstood or misinterpreted the 

Airworthy Product paragraph to allow 

the owner/operator to use messages 

provided by the manufacturer as 

approval of deviations during the 

accomplishment of an AD-mandated 

action. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph does not approve messages or 

other information provided by the 

manufacturer for deviations to the 

requirements of the AD-mandated 

actions. The Airworthy Product 

paragraph only addresses the 

requirement to contact the manufacturer 

for corrective actions for the identified 

unsafe condition and does not cover 

deviations from other AD requirements. 

However, deviations to AD-required 

actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, 

and anyone may request the approval 

for an alternative method of compliance 

to the AD-required actions using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62365 

To address this misunderstanding and 

misinterpretation of the Airworthy 

Product paragraph, we have changed the 

paragraph and retitled it ‘‘Contacting the 

Manufacturer.’’ This paragraph now 

clarifies that for any requirement in this 

proposed AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer, the actions 

must be accomplished using a method 

approved by the FAA, Transport Canada 

Civil Aviation (TCCA), or Bombardier’s 

TCCA Design Approval Organization 

(DAO). 

The Contacting the Manufacturer 

paragraph also clarifies that, if approved 

by the DAO, the approval must include 

the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO 

signature indicates that the data and 

information contained in the document 

are TCCA-approved, which is also FAAapproved. Messages and other 

information provided by the 

manufacturer that do not contain the 

DAO-authorized signature approval are 

not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA 

directly approves the manufacturer’s 

message or other information. 

This clarification does not remove 

flexibility previously afforded by the 

Airworthy Product paragraph. 

Consistent with long-standing FAA 

policy, such flexibility was never 

intended for required actions. This is 

also consistent with the 

recommendation of the Airworthiness 

Directive Implementation Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee to increase 

flexibility in complying with ADs by 

identifying those actions in 

manufacturers’ service instructions that 

are ‘‘Required for Compliance’’ with 

ADs. We continue to work with 

manufacturers to implement this 

recommendation. But once we 

determine that an action is required, any 

deviation from the requirement must be 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance. 

We also have decided not to include 

a generic reference to either the 

‘‘delegated agent’’ or ‘‘design approval 

holder (DAH) with State of Design 

Authority design organization 

approval,’’ but instead we have 

provided the specific delegation 

approval granted by the State of Design 

Authority for the DAH. 

Clarification of Repair Approval 

Required by Paragraph (g) of AD 2014– 

06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 

17390, March 28, 2014) 

In paragraph (g) of AD 2014–06–08, 

Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, 

March 28, 2014), the functional check 

and corrective actions are done in 

accordance with Bombardier Service 

Bulletin 8–32–173, Revision A, dated 

December 17, 2012. That service 

information specifies to contact the 

manufacturer for further instructions if 

certain discrepancies are found. As 

noted in paragraph (j)(2) of AD 2014– 

06–08, ‘‘For any requirement in this AD 

to obtain corrective actions from a 

manufacturer, use these actions if they 

are FAA-approved . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . 

corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they were approved by the 

State of Design Authority (or its 

delegated agent, or the DAH with a State 

of Design Authority’s design 

organization approval, as applicable).’’ 

To clarify the repair approval for the 

action specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD, we have added an exception to 

paragraph (g) of this AD, including 

specific delegation approval language. 

The exception clarifies that where the 

service information specifies to contact 

the manufacturer for further 

instructions, this AD requires repairing 

using a method approved by the 

Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, ANE–170, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or 

TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA 

DAO. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this proposed AD 

affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry. 

The actions that are required by AD 

2014–06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 

FR 17390, March 28, 2014), and retained 

in this proposed AD take about 3 workhours per product, at an average labor 

rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on 

these figures, the estimated cost of the 

actions that were required by AD 2014– 

06–08 is $21,675, or $255 per product, 

per inspection cycle. 

We also estimate that it would take up 

to 40 work-hours per product to comply 

with the basic requirements of this 

proposed AD. The average labor rate is 

$85 per work-hour. Required parts 

would cost up to $19,436 per product. 

Based on these figures, we estimate the 

cost of this proposed AD on U.S. 

operators to be up to $1,941,060, or 

$22,836 per product. 

We have received no definitive data 

that would enable us to provide cost 

estimates for the on-condition actions 

specified in this proposed AD. 

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: 

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 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2014–06–08, Amendment 39–17812 (79 

FR 17390, March 28, 2014), and adding 

the following new AD: 

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0752; Directorate Identifier 2014–NM– 

079–AD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62366 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 201 / Friday, October 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(a) Comments Due Date 

We must receive comments by December 1, 

2014. 

(b) Affected ADs 

This AD replaces AD 2014–06–08, 

Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, March 

28, 2014). 

(c) Applicability 

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model 

DHC–8–101, –102, –103, –106, –201, –202, 

–301, –311, and –315 airplanes, certificated 

in any category, serial numbers 003 through 

672 inclusive. 

(d) Subject 

Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 32, Landing gear. 

(e) Reason 

This AD was prompted by a report that the 

emergency downlock indication system 

(EDIS) had given a false landing gear downand-locked indication and a determination 

that a terminating action modification is 

necessary to address the identified unsafe 

condition. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct a false down-and-locked landing 

gear indication, which, on landing, could 

result in possible collapse of the landing 

gear. 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Retained Functional Check With Repair 

Approval Clarification 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2014–06–08, 

Amendment 39–17812 (79 FR 17390, March 

28, 2014), with specific delegation approval 

language. Within 600 flight hours or 100 

days, whichever occurs first after April 14, 

2014 (the effective date of AD 2014–06–08): 

Perform a functional check of the alternate 

indication phototransistors of the nose and 

main landing gear; and do all applicable 

corrective actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 8–32–173, Revision A, dated 

December 17, 2012; except where 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–173, 

Revision A, dated December 17, 2012, 

specifies to contact the manufacturer for 

further instructions, before further, flight, 

repair using a method approved by the 

Manager, New York Aircraft Certification 

Office, ANE–170, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.’s TCCA 

Design Approval Organization (DAO). Do all 

applicable corrective actions before further 

flight. Repeat the functional check thereafter 

at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours or 

100 days, whichever occurs first, until 

accomplishment of the applicable actions 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. 

(h) New Requirement of This AD: 

Terminating Action 

Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs first: Do the applicable actions 

specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) 

of this AD. Accomplishment of the 

applicable actions specified in paragraphs 

(h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes configured as described in 

Modsum 8/1519: Incorporate Modsum 

8Q101968, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 8–33–56, Revision A, dated 

February 22, 2013. 

(2) For airplanes configured as described in 

Modsum 8/0235, 8/0461, and 8/0534: 

Incorporate Modsum 8Q101955, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 

8–32–176, Revision A, dated February 22, 

2013. 

(3) For airplanes not configured as 

described in Modsum 8/0534: Incorporate 

Modsum 8Q101969, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 8–32–177, dated October 9, 

2013. 

(i) Credit for Previous Actions 

(1) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, 

if those actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 8–32–173, dated October 28, 

2011, which is not incorporated by reference 

in this AD. 

(2) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (h)(1) of this 

AD, if those actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–33–56, dated 

February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated 

by reference in this AD. 

(3) This paragraph provides credit for 

actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this 

AD, if those actions were performed before 

the effective date of this AD using 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 8–32–176, dated 

February 11, 2013, which is not incorporated 

by reference in this AD. 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. 

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. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the 

effective date of this AD, for any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer, the action must be 

accomplished using a method approved by 

the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification 

Office, ANE–170, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, 

Inc.’s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, 

the approval must include the DAOauthorized signature. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian 

Airworthiness Directive CF–2014–11, dated 

February 13, 2014, for related information. 

This MCAI may be found in the AD docket 

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

by searching for and locating Docket No. 

FAA–2014–0752. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series 

Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, 

Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; 

telephone 416–375–4000; fax 416–375–4539; 

email thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You 

may view this service information at the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 24, 2014. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24696 Filed 10–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0293; Airspace 

Docket No. 14–ANE–5] 

Proposed Establishment of Class E 

Airspace; Plainville, CT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

establish Class E Airspace at Plainville, 

CT, to accommodate new Area 

Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning 

System (GPS) Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving 

Robertson Field Airport. This action 

would enhance the safety and airspace 

management of Instrument Flight Rules 

(IFR) operations within the National 

Airspace System. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule 

to: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS