22014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules

was installed in accordance with

Beechcraft Service Bulletin No. 2502,

dated May 1993.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other products of this same

type design, the proposed AD would

require modification of the autopilot

and rudder boost interlock. The actions

would be required to be accomplished

in accordance with the service bulletin

described previously.

As a result of recent communications

with the Air Transport Association

(ATA) of America, the FAA has learned

that, in general, some operators may

misunderstand the legal effect of AD’s

on airplanes that are identified in the

applicability provision of the AD, but

that have been altered or repaired in the

area addressed by the AD. The FAA

points out that all airplanes identified in

the applicability provision of an AD are

legally subject to the AD. If an airplane

has been altered or repaired in the

affected area in such a way as to affect

compliance with the AD, the owner or

operator is required to obtain FAA

approval for an alternative method of

compliance with the AD, in accordance

with the paragraph of each AD that

provides for such approvals. A note has

been included in this notice to clarify

this long-standing requirement.

There are approximately 92 Model

400 and 400A airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 69 airplanes of U.S.

registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 24 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

actions, and that the average labor rate

is $60 per work hour. Required parts

would be provided by the manufacturer

at no cost to operators. Based on these

figures, the total cost impact of the

proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $99,360, or $1,440 per

airplane.

The total cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that 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); and (3) if

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Beech Aircraft Corporation: Docket 95–NM–

31–AD.

Applicability: Model 400 airplanes, serial

RJ–61; and Model 400A airplanes, serials

RK–1 through RK–77 inclusive, and RK–79

through RK–92 inclusive; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition; or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any airplane from

the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent reduced controllability of the

airplane, accomplish the following:

(a) At the next scheduled inspection, but

no later than 200 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, install an

autopilot and rudder boost improvement kit

in accordance with Beechcraft Service

Bulletin No. 2533, dated October 1994.

(b) 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, Wichita

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,

Wichita ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Wichita ACO.

(c) 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. Issued in Renton,

Washington, on April 28, 1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10989 Filed 5–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–95–009]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Connecticut River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing

a change to the regulations for the Route

82 Bridge at mile 16.8 over the

Connecticut River, between East

Haddam and Haddam, Connecticut.

This proposal would provide openings

for recreational vessels only on the hour

and half-hour from 15 May through 31

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

Commercial vessels would continue to

be granted bridge openings at all times.

This action should ease traffic delays

and still meet the reasonable needs of

navigation.

This proposal would also require

bridge owners to install clearance

gauges at the AMTRAK Old SaybrookOld Lyme Bridge, the CONRAIL

Middletown-Portland Bridge and the

Route 82 Bridge to assist mariners in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 1995 / Proposed Rules 22015

determining if their vessels can pass

under the bridges and thereby reduce

the number of unnecessary openings at

time when the draw is not required to

open.

This change was requested by the

Connecticut Department of

Transportation (CONNDOT) to provide

relief from traffic delays caused by

frequent, unscheduled bridge openings.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District, Building 135A, Governors

Island, New York, 10004–5073, or may

be hand-delivered to the same address

between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except federal holidays.

The telephone number is (212) 668–

7170. The comments will become part

of this docket and will be available for

inspection and copying by appointment

at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary Kassof, Bridge Administrator, First

Coast Guard District, (212) 668–7069.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages

interested persons to participate in this

rulemaking by submitting written views,

comments, data, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include

their names and addresses, identify this

rulemaking (CGD01–95–009), the

specific section of this proposal to

which each comment applies, and give

reasons for each comment. The Coast

Guard requests that all comments and

attachments be submitted in an

unbound format no larger than 81⁄2′′ by

11′′, suitable for copying and electronic

filing. If that is not practical, a second

copy of any bound material is requested.

Persons desiring acknowledgment that

their comments have been received

should enclose a stamped, selfaddressed post card or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all

comments received during the comment

period, and may change this proposal in

light of comments received. The Coast

Guard plans no public hearing. Persons

may request a public hearing by writing

to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District at the address listed under

ADDRESSES. The request should include

reasons why a hearing would be

beneficial. If the Coast Guard

determines that the opportunity for oral

presentations will aid this rulemaking,

the Coast Guard will hold a public

hearing at a time and place announced

by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The drafters of this notice are Mr.

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Project

Manager, Bridge Branch, and Lieutenant

Commander Samuel R. Watkins, Project

Counsel, District Legal Office.

Background and Purpose

The Route 82 Bridge over the

Connecticut River, at mile 16.8 between

East Haddam and Haddam, Connecticut,

has vertical clearances of 22′ above

mean high water (MHW) and 25′ above

mean low water (MLW). The Coast

Guard previously published a temporary

final rule (57 FR 24191; June 2, 1992)

that required the bridge to open for

recreational vessels only on the hour

and half-hour from 22 May through 31

October, 1992 between 9 a.m. and 9

p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays,

and federal holidays. Interested persons

were given until November 13, 1992 to

submit comments. No comments were

received; a public hearing was not

requested nor was one held.

Upon the expiration of the temporary

final rule in October, 1992, the bridge

reverted to the general operating

regulations contained in 33 CFR part

117, subpart A. These regulations

required the draw to open for all vessels

on signal at all times. However, in 1993

and 1994, from 15 May to 15 October,

from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., CONNDOT

implemented hourly and half-hourly

openings for recreational vessels on

Saturdays, Sundays, and federal

holidays without Coast Guard approval.

The Town of East Haddam and

CONNDOT have since requested the

Coast Guard to consider a change to the

special operating regulations for the

Route 82 Bridge to provide for hourly

and half hourly openings from 9 a.m. to

9 p.m. during the summer.

In 1993 and 1994, CONNDOT left the

signs for the temporary regulations from

the 1992 season in place, unofficially

implementing half-hourly openings for

recreational vessels from 15 May to 15

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

weekends and federal holidays. The

Coast Guard has not received any

complaints or inquiries concerning this

unofficial operating schedule

implemented during 1993 and 1994.

The proposed regulations for the

Route 82 Bridge would provide

openings for recreational vessels on the

hour and half hour, daily from 15 May

to 31 October, between 9 a.m. and 9

p.m. Openings for commercial vessels

would be provided on signal at all

times.

Analysis of the bridge logs for 1990,

1991 and 1992 indicated that spring and

fall transient recreational boating traffic

on the weekends created the greatest

potential for disruption of vehicular

traffic due to back-to-back openings.

Additionally, on Fridays and weekends

during the summer months there were

frequent, untimely openings affecting

persons attending concerts and plays at

the Goodspeed Opera House in East

Haddam. Analysis of the 1992 and 1993

bridge logs showed that a majority of the

recreational vessels requiring openings

transited the bridge on the hour and half

hour from Monday through Thursday as

well as weekends during the summer

period.

Discussion of Proposed Amendments

Under this proposal 33 CFR 117.205

would be revised to remove dedundant

language and requirements that are

included elsewhere in the CFR as

general Part 117 operating regulations.

Paragraph (a)(1)(i) and paragraph

(a)(1)(ii) from the existing regulation

would be deleted as unnecessary

because trains are now controlled by the

block method. Under this method the

track is divided into blocks or segments

of a mile or more in length. When a

train is in a block with a drawbridge, the

draw may not open until the train has

passed out of the block. This

requirement is contained in 33 CFR

117.9 as a general requirement for

bridges.

This proposal would also require

bridge owners to install clearance

gauges at the AMTRAK Old SaybrookOld Lyme Bridge, the CONRAIL

Middletown-Portland Bridge and the

Route 82 Bridge as part of a new

paragraph (a). This proposed

requirement would assist mariners in

determining if their vessels can pass

under the Route 82 Bridge during

periods when the draw need not be

opened and would eliminate

unnecessary openings at the other

bridges.

Paragraph (b) in the existing

regulations would be revised because

the requirement to fully open is

provided in 33 CFR 117.5 of the general

operating regulations. The revised

paragraph (b) would add the proposed

regulations to formalize the current,

unofficial operating regulations at the

Route 82 Bridge.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposal is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies
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.