23260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

location, with the campus indicated where 

applicable. 

Arizona (4) 

Central Arizona College 

Cochise College 

Phoenix College 

Pima Community College 

California (37) 

Allan Hancock College 

Bakersfield College 

California State Polytechnic University— 

Pomona 

California State University—Channel 

Islands 

California State University—Fresno 

California State University—Monterey Bay 

California State University—San 

Bernardino 

Chaffey College 

College of the Desert 

College of the Sequoias 

Fullerton College 

Glendale Community College 

Golden West College 

Hartnell College 

Imperial Valley College 

Los Angeles Pierce College 

Mendocino College 

Merced College 

MiraCosta College 

Modesto Junior College 

Monterey Peninsula College 

Mt. San Antonio College 

Mt. San Jacinto Community College 

District 

National University 

Orange Coast College 

Porterville College 

Reedley College 

Saint Mary’s College of California 

San Diego Mesa College 

San Joaquin Delta College 

Santa Ana College 

Santa Barbara City College 

Southwestern College 

University of California—Merced 

West Hills College Coalinga 

Whittier College 

Woodland Community College 

Colorado (1) 

Trinidad State Junior College 

Connecticut (1) 

Norwalk Community College 

Florida (3) 

Florida International University 

Miami Dade College 

Nova Southeastern University 

Illinois (3) 

City Colleges of Chicago—Harold 

Washington College 

Dominican University 

Triton College 

New Jersey (1) 

Bergen Community College 

New Mexico (7) 

Central New Mexico Community College 

Mesalands Community College 

New Mexico Highlands University 

Northern New Mexico College 

Santa Fe Community College 

University of New Mexico—Main Campus 

Western New Mexico University 

New York (3) 

CUNY Bronx Community College 

CUNY LaGuardia Community College 

Mercy College 

Puerto Rico (14) 

Bayamon Central University 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico— 

Aguadilla 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico— 

Bayamon 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico— 

Metro 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico— 

Ponce 

Inter American University of Puerto Rico— 

San German 

Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto 

Rico—Ponce 

Universidad Del Turabo 

Universidad Metropolitana 

University of Puerto Rico—Arecibo 

University of Puerto Rico—Humacao 

University of Puerto Rico—Medical 

Sciences Campus 

University of Puerto Rico—Rio Piedras 

Campus 

University of Puerto Rico—Utuado 

Texas (19) 

Houston Community College 

Howard College 

Lee College 

Midland College 

Palo Alto College 

Richland College 

Saint Edward’s University 

Southwest Texas Junior College 

Texas A&M International University 

Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi 

Texas A&M University—Kingsville 

Texas State Technical College—Harlingen 

University of Texas at Brownsville 

University of Texas at El Paso 

University of Texas at San Antonio 

University of Texas—Pan American 

University of Houston 

University of St. Thomas 

University of the Incarnate Word 

Washington (4) 

Big Bend Community College 

Columbia Basin College 

Wenatchee Valley College 

Yakima Valley Community College 

Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

April, 2014. 

Sonny Ramaswamy, 

Director, National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09559 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0637; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–SW–030–AD; Amendment 

39–17830; AD 2014–08–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are superseding 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005–22– 

01 for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 

(Sikorsky) Model S–76A, B, and C 

helicopters. AD 5002–22–01 required 

inspecting the main rotor lower bifilar 

arm assembly (bifilar arm assembly) for 

a crack, and if there is a crack, replacing 

the bifilar arm assembly. AD 2005–22– 

01 also required a one-time test for the 

correct torque on the lug nuts, and if 

necessary, conducting torque 

stabilization tests. This new AD retains 

the requirements of AD 2005–22–01 and 

also requires replacing the main rotor 

hub (MRH) pilot with a different partnumbered MRH pilot, which is 

terminating action for the requirements 

of the AD. This AD was prompted by 

the development of a terminating 

procedure for the inspections required 

by AD 2005–22–01. We are issuing this 

AD to prevent failure of a bifilar lug, 

damage to the main rotor system, and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective June 2, 2014. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in this AD 

as of November 10, 2005 (70 FR 61721, 

October 26, 2005). 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, 

Commercial Technical Support, 

mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT 06614; telephone (800) 

562–4409; email tsslibrary@

sikorsky.com; or at http://

www.sikorsky.com. You may review 

service information at the FAA, Office 

of the Regional Counsel, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 

663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, any 

incorporated by reference service 

information, the economic evaluation, 

any comments received, and other 

information. The address for the Docket 

Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 23261 

Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7763; email 

nicholas.faust@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to supersede AD 2005–22–01, 

Amendment 39–14345 (70 FR 61721, 

October 26, 2005) (AD 2005–22–01). AD 

2005–22–01 applied to Sikorsky Model 

S–76A, B, and C helicopters with a 

certain MRH pilot installed. The NPRM 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44048). AD 2005– 

22–01 required repetitively inspecting 

the bifilar arm assembly for a crack, and 

replacing the bifilar arm assembly if it 

has a crack. If there is not a crack, AD 

2005–22–01 required a one-time test for 

the correct torque on the lug nuts, and 

if necessary, conducting torque 

stabilization. 

After we issued AD 2005–22–01, 

Sikorsky produced a newly-redesigned 

pilot with a larger flange diameter that 

provides greater support for the bifilar 

assembly and reduces stress on the 

bifilar assembly attachment lugs. The 

NPRM proposed to retain the repetitive 

inspection requirements of AD 2005– 

22–01, but also proposed to require 

replacing the MRH pilot, part number 

(P/N) 76103–08003–101, with newlyredesigned MRH pilot, P/N 76103– 

08003–102, as terminating action. 

Related Service Information 

Sikorsky issued S–76 Alert Service 

Bulletin (ASB) 76–65–62, dated 

December 14, 2004, which describes 

procedures for inspecting the lower 

bifilar assembly for a crack. Sikorsky 

has also issued ASB 76–65–65, Basic 

Issue, dated March 22, 2012, which 

specifies measuring the MRH diameter 

and, if the diameter is small, replacing 

the MRH pilot with a newly-redesigned 

MRH pilot with a larger flange diameter. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM (78 

FR 44048, July 23, 2013) or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD affects 181 

helicopters of U.S. Registry. 

We estimate that operators may incur 

the following costs in order to comply 

with this AD: 

• Inspecting the bifilar arm assembly 

requires about 4 work-hours, at an 

average labor rate of $85 per hour, for 

a cost per helicopter of $340 and a total 

cost to U.S. operators of $61,540. 

• Replacing a cracked bifilar arm 

assembly requires about 4 work-hours, 

at an average labor rate of $85 per hour, 

and required parts cost about $19,727, 

for a cost per helicopter of $20,067. 

• Replacing the MRH pilot, P/N 

76103–08003–101, with an MRH pilot, 

P/N 76103–08003–102, requires about 

0.7 work-hour, at an average labor rate 

of $85 per hour, and required parts cost 

about $1,043, for a cost per helicopter of 

$1,103 and a total cost to U.S. operators 

of $199,643. 

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 have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

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 that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

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

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. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 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) 

2005–22–01, Amendment 39–14345 (70 

FR 61721, October 26, 2005), and 

adding the following new AD: 

2014–08–06 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: 

Amendment 39–17830; Docket No. 

FAA–2013–0637; Directorate Identifier 

2013–SW–030–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Model S–76A, B, and 

C helicopters with a main rotor hub (MRH) 

pilot, part number (P/N) 76103–08003–101, 

installed, certificated in any category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as a 

crack on the MRH pilot bifilar assembly lug, 

which could result in failure of a bifilar lug, 

damage to the main rotor system, and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Affected ADs 

This AD supersedes AD 2005–22–01, 

Amendment 39–14345 (70 FR 61721, October 

26, 2005). 

(d) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective June 2, 2014. 

(e) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(f) Required Actions 

(1) For MRH pilots with 1,500 or more 

hours time-in-service (TIS), within 50 hours 

TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 

50 hours TIS, inspect the lower bifilar arm 

assembly for a crack in the lug attachment 

area. Conduct the inspection of the lower 

bifilar arm assembly by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

3.A.(1) through 3.A.(6), of Sikorsky Alert 

Service Bulletin No. 76–65–62, dated 

December 14, 2004 (ASB 76–65–62). 

(i) If there is a crack on any bifilar 

assembly arm lug, before further flight, 

replace the bifilar arm assembly with an 

airworthy bifilar arm assembly. 

(ii) If no crack is found at the initial 

inspection, perform a one-time torque test. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
23262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Perform the torque test and the additional 

torque procedures as stated in the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 

3.B.(1) through 3.B.(3), of ASB 76–65–62. The 

torque test is not required at the recurring 

inspection intervals of the lower bifilar arm 

assembly. 

(iii) Within 600 hours TIS, replace the 

MRH pilot, P/N 76103–08003–101, with an 

MRH pilot, P/N 76103–08003–102. 

(2) For MRH pilots with less than 900 

hours TIS, prior to accumulating 1,500 hours 

TIS, replace the MRH pilot, P/N 76103– 

08003–101, with a MRH pilot, P/N 76103– 

08003–102. 

(3) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install an MRH pilot, P/N 76103–08003– 

101, on any helicopter. 

(g) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits will not be issued. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Nicholas Faust, Aviation Safety Engineer, 

Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 

01803; telephone (781) 238–7763; email 

nicholas.faust@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(i) Additional Information 

For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 

Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical 

Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, 

Stratford, CT 06614; telephone (800) 562– 

4409; email tsslibrary@sikorsky.com; or at 

http://www.sikorsky.com. You may review 

the service information at the FAA, Office of 

the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137. 

(j) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6220: Main Rotor Head. 

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on November 10, 2005 (70 

FR 61721, October 26, 2005). 

(i) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert 

Service Bulletin No. 76–65–62, dated 

December 14, 2004. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(4) For the service information identified in 

this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft 

Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial 

Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 

Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614; telephone 

(800) 562–4409; email tsslibrary@

sikorsky.com; or at http://www.sikorsky.com. 

(5) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(6) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 11, 

2014. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08849 Filed 4–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 101 

[Docket Nos. FDA–2007–0601, FDA–2004– 

N–0382, FDA–2005–P–0371, and FDA–2006– 

P–0224 (formerly Docket Nos. 2004N–0217, 

2005P–0189, and 2006P–0137, respectively)] 

RIN 0910–ZA28 

Food Labeling: Nutrient Content 

Claims; Alpha-Linolenic Acid, 

Eicosapentaenoic Acid, and 

Docosahexaenoic Acid Omega-3 Fatty 

Acids 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, the Agency, or 

we) is issuing this rule to prohibit 

certain nutrient content claims for 

foods, including conventional foods and 

dietary supplements, that contain 

omega-3 fatty acids, based on our 

determination that such nutrient 

content claims do not meet the 

requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). We 

are taking this action in response to 

three notifications submitted to us. One 

notification concerning nutrient content 

claims for alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), 

docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and 

eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) was 

submitted collectively by Alaska 

General Seafoods, Ocean Beauty 

Seafoods, Inc., and Trans-Ocean 

Products, Inc. (the seafood processors 

notification); a second notification 

concerning nutrient content claims for 

ALA, DHA, and EPA was submitted by 

Martek Biosciences Corp. (the Martek 

notification); and a third notification 

concerning nutrient content claims for 

DHA and EPA was submitted by Ocean 

Nutrition Canada, Ltd. (the Ocean 

Nutrition notification). The final rule 

prohibits the nutrient content claims for 

DHA and EPA set forth in the three 

notifications and the nutrient content 

claims for ALA set forth in the seafood 

processors notification. FDA is taking 

no regulatory action at this time with 

respect to the nutrient content claims 

for ALA set forth in the Martek 

notification and, therefore, these claims 

will be allowed to remain on the market. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 

2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vincent de Jesus, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–830), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 

240–402–1774. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Food and Drug Administration 

Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) 

(Pub. L. 105–115) amended the FD&C 

Act to provide, among other things, for 

the filing of notifications as an 

alternative to the petition process for 

nutrient content claims set forth in 

section 403(r)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 

U.S.C. 343(r)(4)). ‘‘Nutrient content 

claims’’ are labeling claims that 

characterize the level of a nutrient in a 

food. (See section 403(r)(1)(A) of the 

FD&C Act.) We have stated that the 

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 

1990 (Pub. L. 101–535), which created 

section 403(r)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, 

has three basic objectives: (1) To make 

available nutrition information that can 

assist consumers in selecting foods that 

can lead to healthier diets, (2) to 

eliminate consumer confusion by 

establishing definitions for nutrient 

content claims that are consistent with 

the terms defined by the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (the 

Secretary), and (3) to encourage product 

innovation through the development 

and marketing of nutritionally improved 

foods (58 FR 2302, January 6, 1993). 

Under the notification process that 

FDAMA established in section 

403(r)(2)(G) of the FD&C Act, a nutrient 

content claim is based on an 

authoritative statement published either 

by a scientific body of the U.S. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES