### 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 rotorhub (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


### 23261 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 81 / Monday, April 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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.


### 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.