22016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

proposal to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph

10e of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

is based upon the fact that commercial

vessels are unaffected by the proposal

and that the regulations will not prevent

recreational boaters from transiting the

bridge. Rather it will only require them

to adjust their time of arrival for

openings on the hour and half hour.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include independently owned

and operated small businesses that are

not dominant in their fields and that

otherwise qualify as ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because of

the reasons discussed in the Regulatory

Evaluation above, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

action, if adopted, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612 and it has

determined that this proposed

regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.

of Commandant Instruction M16475.1B,

(as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29,

1994) this proposal is categorically

excluded from further environmental

documentation. A Categorical Exclusion

Determination is available in the docket

for inspection and copying where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.205 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.205 Connecticut River.

(a) The owners of the AMTRAK Old

Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4,

the Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8 and the

Conrail Middletown Bridge, mile 32.0

shall provide, and keep in good legible

condition, clearance gauges with figures

not less than twelve (12) inches high

designed, installed and maintained

according to the provisions of section

118.160 of this chapter.

(b) The draws of the AMTRAK Old

Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4,

and the CONRAIL Middletown-Portland

Bridge, mile 32.0 shall be opened as

soon as practicable for all

noncommercial vessels that cannot pass

under the closed bridges, but in no case

shall the delay be more than 20 minutes

from the time the opening was

requested.

(c) The draw of the Route 82 Bridge,

mile 16.8 at East Haddam, shall open on

signal except that, from 15 May to 31

October between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m., the

draw need open for recreational vessels

on the hour and half-hour only. The

draw shall open on signal for

commercial vessels at all times.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

J.L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–10922 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AH10

Determinations of Incompetency and

Competency

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its

adjudication regulations concerning

determinations of mental incompetency

to make clear that only rating boards are

authorized to make determinations of

incompetency.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Director, Office of Regulations

Management (02D), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, or handdeliver written comments to: Office of

Regulations Management, Room 1176,

801 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC

20001. Comments should indicate that

they are in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–

AH10.’’ All written comments received

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of Regulations Management,

Room 1176, 801 Eye Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001, between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Trowbridge, Consultant, Regulations

Staff, Compensation and Pension

Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone

(202) 273–7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations at 38 CFR 3.353 govern VA

determinations of competency and

incompetency. 38 CFR 3.353(a) defines

a mentally incompetent person as one

who lacks the mental capacity to

manage his or her own affairs, including

disbursement of funds without

limitation. 38 CFR 3.353(b) was

intended to authorize rating boards to

make determinations of competency and

incompetency for VA purposes without

involvement of a Veterans Services

Officer (VSO).

In a recent decision (Coleman v.

Brown, No. 90–966) the United States

Court of Veterans Appeals interpreted

§ 3.353(b) as requiring VSO

participation prior to determination of

the issue of incompetency. Although the

VSO was meant to play an integral role

in developing evidence relating to the

veteran’s ability to handle his or her

affairs, the intent of the regulation was

to give rating boards sole responsibility

for incompetency determinations

without the VSO participating in the

decision. See 38 CFR 3.104(a). Although

it was intended that evidence produced

by the VSO could lead to later

reconsideration of the incompetency

determination, it was not intended that

the VSO’s concurrence be a condition

precedent to rating a beneficiary

incompetent. The VSO’s investigation

was meant merely to provide an

additional safeguard which could lead

to later review.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22017

The proposed amendment provides

that the rating board has sole authority

to determine the competency of

beneficiaries, but that if the VSO

develops new information bearing on

the issue of the beneficiary’s

competency, the rating board will

consider that evidence together with all

other evidence of record to determine

whether the prior determination of

incompetency should remain in effect.

Paragraph (b)(2) provides that the

Adjudication Officer will authorize

disbursement to an incompetent

beneficiary as directed by the VSO (e.g.,

supervised direct payment, payment to

a fiduciary, or payment to the

beneficiary’s spouse). Additional

nonsubstantive changes would be made

in the wording and format of § 3.353(b)

for the sake of clarity.

The Secretary hereby certifies that

these regulatory amendments would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612.

The amendments would not directly

affect any small entities. Only VA

beneficiaries would be directly affected.

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

these amendments are exempt from the

initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis requirements of section 603

and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance program numbers are 64.104,

64.105, 64.109 and 64.110.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Health care,

Individuals with disabilities, Pensions,

Veterans.

Approved: April 11, 1995.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 38 CFR Part 3 is amended to

read as follows:

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,

and Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation

1. The authority citation for part 3,

subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. Section 3.353 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 3.353 Determinations of incompetency

and competency.

* * * * *

(b) Authority. (1) Rating agencies have

sole authority to make official

determinations of competency and

incompetency for the purpose of

existing laws, Department of Veterans

Affairs regulations and Department of

Veterans Affairs instructions. Such

determinations are final and binding on

field stations for purposes of: insurance

(38 U.S.C. 1922), the discontinuance

and payment of amounts withheld

because of an estate in excess of $1,500

(§ 3.557(b)), and, subject to § 13.56 of

this chapter, disbursement of benefits.

(2) Where the beneficiary is rated

incompetent, the Adjudication Officer

will inform the Veterans Services

Officer of jurisdiction of that fact. The

Veterans Services Officer will develop

information as to the beneficiary’s

social, economic and industrial

adjustment and appoint (or recommend

appointment of) a fiduciary as provided

in § 13.55 of this chapter, select a

method of disbursing payment as

provided in § 13.56 of this chapter, or in

the case of a married beneficiary,

appoint the beneficiary’s spouse to

receive payments as provided in § 13.57

of this chapter. The Adjudication

Officer will authorize disbursement of

the benefit in the manner selected by

the Veterans Services Officer.

(3) If in the course of fulfilling the

responsibilities assigned in paragraph

(b)(2) the Veterans Services Officer

develops evidence indicating that the

beneficiary may be capable of

administering the funds payable

without limitation, he or she will refer

that evidence to the rating agency with

a statement as to his or her findings. The

rating agency will consider this

evidence, together with all other

evidence of record, to determine

whether its prior determination of

incompetency should remain in effect.

Reexamination may be requested as

provided in § 3.327(a) if necessary to

properly evaluate the beneficiary’s

mental capacity to contract or manage

his or her own affairs.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10936 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

39 CFR Part 3001

[Docket No. RM95–4]

Rules of Practice and Procedure

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is soliciting

comments on a Postal Service petition,

including proposed rules for initiation

of a rulemaking on procedural changes

intended to foster expedition, flexibility

and innovation in seven aspects of

ratemaking and classification. Proposed

rules accompanied the petition. The

changes are based in part on

recommendations in a joint Postal

Service/Postal Rate Commission task

force report on improvements in the

ratemaking process. The proposed rules

generally provide for a lesser amount of

initial supporting documentation in

Postal Service requests for certain rate

and classification changes and a

specific, limited period for public

comments and Commission review of

those requests.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and

correspondence should be sent to

Margaret Crenshaw, Secretary of the

Commission, 1333 H Street NW, Suite

300, Washington, DC 20068–0001

(telephone: 202/789–6840).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, Legal Advisor,

Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street

NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268–

0001 (telephone: 202/789–6820).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

13, 1995, the Postal Service filed with

the Commission a petition for initiation

of a rulemaking involving changes in, or

additions to, procedural mechanisms for

handling certain rate and classification

matters. In support thereof, the petition

asserts a keen interest on the part of

postal management and the Governors

in improving approaches to general rate

changes. The petition also

acknowledges the influence of certain

recommendations of the Joint Task

Force on Postal Ratemaking (June 1,

1992). The petition, the Joint Task

Force’s report, and other reports referred

to in the Service’s petition are on file in

the Commission’s Docket Room. A

summary of the proposed changes, a

number of additional related topics for

consideration. The text of the rule

changes proposed by the Postal Service

may be obtained from the Secretary of

the Commission upon request.

‘‘Limited Scope’’ Rate Cases

Citing the Joint Task Force’s

acknowledgement that certain

circumstances might call for limited

adjustments to rates outside the context

of an omnibus rate proceeding, the

Postal Service proposes rules that would

allow expedited, limited rate changes

between rate cases. Petition at 7

(internal citation omitted). The Service

says the rules are intended to permit

extensive reliance on the most recent