### 68475 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules

handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. However, these costs would be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee’s meetings were widely publicized throughout the California kiwifruit industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the July 17 and September 16, 2015, meetings, were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C Chapter 35), the order’s information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581–0189. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This proposed rule would impose no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California kiwifruit handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide

. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

A 15-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. Fifteen days is deemed appropriate because: (1) The 2015–16 fiscal year began on August 1, 2015, handlers began shipping kiwifruit in September and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment apply to all assessable kiwifruit handled during the fiscal period; (2) the Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses, which are incurred on a continuous basis; and (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is proposed to be amended as follows:

**PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN CALIFORNIA** 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

■ 2. Section 920.213 is revised to read as follows:

**§ 920.213 Assessment rate.**

On and after August 1, 2015, an assessment rate of $0.040 per 9-kilo volume-fill container or equivalent of kiwifruit is established for kiwifruit grown in California.

Dated: October 30, 2015. Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–28142 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2015–3805; Directorate Identifier 2015–NE–28–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed. This proposed AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection before further flight. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 4, 2016.

**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.

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001.

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

• Fax: 202–493–2251. For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125. 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–2015– 3805; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The 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 :**  Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7772; fax: 781–238– 7199; email: brian.kierstead@faa.gov

. **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.


### 68476 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules

FAA–2015–3805; Directorate Identifier 2015–NE–28–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 with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2015– 0177, dated August 25, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Several cases of torque conformation box (TCB) failures have been reported on engines incorporating mod TU34 or mod TU34A. Investigation concluded that these failures were caused by cracks on soldered joints of TCB resistors.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to limited power availability in a One Engine Inoperative (OEI) case, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2015–
3805.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for checking TCB resistance values. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the **ADDRESSES** section of this NPRM. FAA’s Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspecting the TCB for correct resistance values and removing TCBs that fail inspection. Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 300 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 1 hour to perform an inspection. We also estimate that 20% of these engines would fail the inspection and require TCB removal, which would take about 1 hour. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $30,600. 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 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA–2015– 3805; Directorate Identifier 2015–NE– 28–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by January 4,
2016.
(b) Affected ADs

None. (c) Applicability

This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. ARRIEL 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with modification TU34 or TU34A installed.

(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by torque conformation box (TCB) failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the TCB, which could lead to loss of engine thrust control and damage to the aircraft.
(e) Actions and Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(1) Within 600 engine flight hours (EFHs) or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, check the resistance values on the TCB. Use Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.3.2 of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, to do the inspection. Repeat this inspection every 600 EFHs since last inspection.

(2) Remove before further flight any TCB that fails the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use


### 68477 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 214 / Thursday, November 5, 2015 / Proposed Rules

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov

. (g) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7772; fax: 781–238–7199; email: brian.kierstead@faa.gov

.

(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015–0177, dated August 25, 2015, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA–2015–3805.

(3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 72 2860, Version A, dated July 15, 2015, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this proposed AD.

(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.

(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 28, 2015. Colleen M. D’Alessandro, Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–28011 Filed 11–4–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2015–5318; Directorate Identifier 2015–CE–035–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**

**Airworthiness Directives; Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Airplanes** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION :**  Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY :**  We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of limited control yoke movement of the elevator control system due to cushion edgingjammed in the elevator control antirotation guide slot. This proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the elevator control system cushion edging for proper condition; replacing the cushion edging; and at a specified time terminating the repetitive inspections by installing wear pads on the elevator bearing assemblies. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

**DATES :**  We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21,
2015.

**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.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Quest Aircraft Design, LLC, 1200 Turbine Drive, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864; telephone: (208) 263–1111; toll free: (866) 263–1112; email: CustomerService@QuestAircraft.com; Internet: www.questaircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–
4148. 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–2015– 5318; 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 :**  David Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917– 6469; fax: (425) 917–6591; email: david.herron@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– 2015–5318; Directorate Identifier 2015– CE–035–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

We received a report that, during a preflight inspection, an operator noted limited travel of the control yoke on a Quest Aircraft Design, LLC Model KODIAK 100 airplane. Upon further inspection of the control yoke system forward of the control yoke, cushion edging was found jammed in the elevator control anti-rotation guide slot. The jammed edging prevented the control yoke from having full nose up and nose down travel. The operator also reported the same problem on a different KODIAK 100 airplane in which the cushion edging plastic portion separated from the metal track.

Investigation revealed that over time the cushion edging may become worn and degrade. This condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of the elevator control system cushion edging, which could restrict elevator control yoke movement and cause loss of control.

Relevant Service Information

We reviewed Quest Aircraft KODIAK Mandatory Service Bulletin SB14–07, dated August 26, 2014; Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Elevator Control System—Cushion Edging Inspection, Report No. FSI–105, Revision 00, not dated; Quest Aircraft KODIAK 100 Recommended Service Bulletin SB15–01, dated March 26, 2015; and Quest Aircraft Field Service Instruction, Yoke Anti-Rotation Guide Wear Pad Upgrade, Report No. FSI–108, Revision 00, not dated. The service information describes procedures for repetitively inspecting the cushion edging installed on the elevator control anti-rotation guide for proper condition,