338 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

However, because of the general

obligation of operators to maintain

aircraft in an airworthy condition, this

appearance is deceptive. Attributing

those costs solely to the issuance of this

AD is unrealistic because, in the interest

of maintaining safe aircraft, most

prudent operators would accomplish

the required actions even if they were

not required to do so by the AD.

A full cost-benefit analysis has not

been accomplished for this AD. As a

matter of law, in order to be airworthy,

an aircraft must conform to its type

design and be in a condition for safe

operation. The type design is approved

only after the FAA makes a

determination that it complies with all

applicable airworthiness requirements.

In adopting and maintaining those

requirements, the FAA has already

made the determination that they

establish a level of safety that is costbeneficial. When the FAA, as in this

AD, makes a finding of an unsafe

condition, this means that the original

cost-beneficial level of safety is no

longer being achieved and that the

required actions are necessary to restore

that level of safety. Because this level of

safety has already been determined to be

cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit

analysis for this AD would be redundant

and unnecessary.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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); and (3)

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. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (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. App. 1354(a), 1421

and 1423; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR

11.89.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

94–26–09 Lockhead: Amendment 39–9104.

Docket 94–NM–17–AD.

Applicability: Model L–1011–385 series

airplanes having serial numbers 193A

through 193Y inclusive, 293A through 293F

inclusive, and 1002 through 1250 inclusive;

certificated in any category.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent separation of the turbine blade

assembly, which could damage the airplane

structure and systems, and, under certain

circumstances, lead to reduced

controllability of the airplane, accomplish

the following:

(a) Remove, disassemble, inspect, test, and

service the ram air turbine (RAT) in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993; or completely overhaul

the RAT in accordance with Chapter 29–21–

01 of Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—

Cheltenham Overhaul Manual; at the

applicable time specified in either paragraph

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD:

Note 1: Overhaul of the RAT in accordance

with this paragraph includes replacement of

the roller bearing (part number RA56341).

(1) For airplanes on which the RAT has not

been serviced or overhauled within 6 years

prior to the effective date of this AD:

Accomplish the procedures within 2 years

after the effective date of this AD.

(2) For airplanes on which the RAT has

been serviced or overhauled within 6 years

prior to the effective date of this AD in

accordance with a method that is equivalent

to the procedures described in Dowty

Aerospace Hydraulics—Cheltenham Service

Bulletin RAT16C10–29–168, dated December

1, 1993: Accomplish the procedures within 8

years after the date of the immediately

preceding servicing of the RAT.

(b) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, revise the FAA-approved

maintenance program to incorporate

procedures for servicing of the RAT in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993; or complete overhaul of

the RAT in accordance with Chapter 29–21–

01 of Dowty Aerospace Hydraulics—

Cheltenham Overhaul Manual. One or the

other of these actions must be accomplished

at intervals not to exceed 8 years.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The servicing actions shall be done in

accordance with Lockheed TriStar L–1011

Service Bulletin 093–29–098, dated

December 6, 1993. This incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be

obtained from Lockheed Aeronautical

Systems Support Company, Field Support

Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake

Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. Copies

may be inspected at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Small

Airplane Directorate, Campus Building, 1701

Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–160, College Park,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

February 3, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

December 19, 1994.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–52 Filed 1–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 94–AGL–24]

Alteration of VOR Federal Airway V–

216

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the

airspace designation for Federal Airway

V–216 by realigning the airway from the

Peck, MI, Very High Frequency
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 339

Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air

Navigation (VORTAC) facility to the

Toronto, ON, Canada, VORTAC via the

Waterloo, ON, Canada, Very High

Frequency Omnidirectional Range/

Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/

DME). This action is necessary to

realign the airway from the United

States into Canadian airspace.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 2,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and

Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP–

240), Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division, Air Traffic Rules

and Procedures Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202)

267–9255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) amends the airspace

designation for VOR Federal Airway V–

216 from the Peck, MI, 084° and the

United States/Canadian border to

Toronto, ON, Canada, via Waterloo, ON,

Canada. Canada has completed

restructuring their internal airspace

system that affected several Federal

airways within the United States. This

action is necessary to realign the airway

from the United States into Canadian

airspace. I find that notice and public

procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are

unnecessary, because this action is a

minor technical amendment in which

the public is not particularly interested.

Domestic VOR Federal airways are

published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA

Order 7400.9B, dated July 18, 1994, and

effective September 16, 1994, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The airway listed in this document

will be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore—(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); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1348(a), 1354(a),

1510; E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated July 18, 1994, and effective

September 16, 1994, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6010(a)—Domestic VOR Federal

Airways

* * * * *

V–216 [Revised]

From Lamar, CO; Hill City, KS; Mankato,

KS; Pawnee City, NE; Lamoni, IA; Ottumwa,

IA; Iowa City, IA; INT Iowa City 062° and

Janesville, WI, 240° radials; Janesville; INT

Janesville 076° and Muskegon, MI, 252°

radials; Muskegon; Saginaw, MI; Peck, MI;

INT Peck 084° and Waterloo, ON, Canada,

262° radials; Waterloo; INT Waterloo 057°

and Toronto, ON, Canada, 278° radials; to

Toronto. The airspace within Canada is

excluded.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

21, 1994.

Harold W. Becker,

Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical

Information Division.

[FR Doc. 95–75 Filed 1–3–95, 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. RM93–23–000]

Project Decommissioning at

Relicensing; Policy Statement

Issued December 14, 1994.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

adopting a policy statement that

addresses its authority to issue or deny

new hydropower licenses at the time of

relicensing, and its authority over the

decommissioning of a licensed project

when no new license is sought or a new

license is rejected or denied, as well as

pre-retirement planning and funding.

The Commission stated that it has the

authority to deny new licenses to

hydroelectric projects when existing

licenses expire. Such action would

occur if the Commission concluded that

the project, no matter how conditioned,

could no longer meet the

comprehensive development standard

of the Federal Power Act. In the great

majority of cases, decommissioning is

likely to result from a license holder’s

desire to abandon an uneconomical

facility rather than the Commission

deciding it should be closed. The

Commission also concluded that its

authority over decommissioning

extends to determining what project

features, beyond the turbines and

generators, should be removed, if the

project is decommissioned. In issuing

future licenses, the Commission may

require that funding for

decommissioning be provided in certain

circumstances.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 3, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joanne Leveque, Office of the General

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 N. Capitol Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–0961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in room 3104, 941 North Capitol Street,

NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To

access CIPS, set your communications

software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600,

7200, 4800, 2400, 1200 or 300bps, full

duplex, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop

bit. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS for 60 days from

the date of issuance in ASCII and

WordPerfect 5.1 format. After 60 days

the document will be archived, but still