Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26683

(C) Review of amended and new H–1B

petitions for foreign medical graduates

granted waivers under Pub. L. 103–416

and who seek to have early termination

of employment excused due to

extenuating circumstances.—(1)

Amended H–1B petitions. The waiver

granted under Pub. L. 103–416 may be

affirmed, and the amended H–1B

petition may be approved, if the

petitioning health care facility

establishes that the foreign medical

graduate otherwise remains eligible for

H–1B classification and that he or she

will continue practicing medicine in an

HHS-designated shortage area.

(2) New H–1B petitions. The Service

shall review a new H–1B petition filed

on behalf of a foreign medical graduate

who has not yet fulfilled the required 3-

year period of employment with the

health care facility named in the waiver

application and in the original H–1B

petition to determine whether

extenuating circumstances exist which

warrant a change in employment, and

whether the waiver granted under Pub.

L. 103–416 should be affirmed. In

conducting such a review, the Service

shall determine whether the foreign

medical graduate will continue

practicing medicine in an HHSdesignated shortage area, and whether

the new H–1B petitioner and the foreign

medical graduate have satisfied the

remaining H–1B eligibility criteria

described under section 101(a)(15)(H) of

the Act and § 214.2(h) of this chapter. If

these criteria have been satisfied, the

waiver granted to the foreign medical

graduate under Pub. L. 103–416 may be

affirmed, and the new H1–B petition

may be approved in the exercise of

discretion, thereby permitting the

foreign medical graduate to serve the

balance of the requisite 3-year

employment period at the health care

facility named in the new H–1B

petition.

(D) Failure to notify the Service of any

material changes in employment.

Foreign medical graduates who have

been granted a waiver of the 2-year

requirement and who have obtained H–

1B status under Pub. L. 103–416 but fail

to: Properly notify the Service of any

material change in the terms and

conditions of their H–1B employment,

by having their employer file an

amended or a new H–1B petition in

accordance with this section and

§ 214.2(h) of this chapter; or establish

continued eligibility for the waiver and

H–1B status, shall (together with their

dependents) again become subject to the

2-year requirement. Such foreign

medical graduates and their

accompanying H–4 dependents also

become subject to deportation under

section 241(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.

* * * * *

PART 245—ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS

TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR

PERMANENT RESIDENCE

3. The authority citation for part 245

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255;

and 8 CFR part 2.

§ 245.1 [Amended]

4. In § 245.1, paragraph (c)(2) is

amended by removing the ‘‘;’’ at the end

of the paragraph and replacing it with

a ‘‘.’’; and by adding a new sentence at

the end of paragraph (c)(2) to read as

follows:

§ 245.1 Eligibility.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * * An alien who has been

granted a waiver under section

212(e)(iii) of the Act based on a request

by a State Department of Health (or its

equivalent) under Pub. L. 103–416 shall

be ineligible to apply for adjustment of

status under section 245 of the Act if the

terms and conditions specified in

section 214(k) of the Act and

§ 212.7(c)(9) of this chapter have not

been met;

* * * * *

PART 248—CHANGE OF

NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION

5. The authority citation for part 248

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1187,

1258; 8 CFR part 2.

6. In § 248.2, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the ‘‘; and’’ at the

end of the paragraph and replacing it

with a ‘‘.’’; and by adding two new

sentences at the end of paragraph (c) to

read as follows:

§ 248.2 Ineligible classes.

* * * * *

(c) * * * This restriction shall not

apply when the alien is a foreign

medical graduate who was granted a

waiver under section 212(e)(iii) of the

Act pursuant to a request made by a

State Department of Public Health (or its

equivalent) under Pub. L. 103–416, and

the alien complies with the terms and

conditions imposed on the waiver under

section 214(k) of the Act and the

implementing regulations at

§ 212.7(c)(9) of this chapter. A foreign

medical graduate who was granted a

waiver under Pub. L. 103–416 and who

does not fulfill the requisite 3-year

employment contract or otherwise

comply with the terms and conditions

imposed on the waiver is ineligible to

apply for change of status to any other

nonimmigrant classification; and

* * * * *

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12272 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–82–AD; Amendment

39–9234; AD 95–10–17]

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to all Lockheed Model L–

1011–385 series airplanes. This action

requires inspections to detect cracking

or severing of the fuselage frames, and

an additional inspection or repair, if

necessary. This amendment is prompted

by reports indicating that fatigue

cracking was found on certain fuselage

frames on these airplanes. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent reduced structural integrity of

the fuselage shell due to the problems

associated with fatigue cracking.

DATES: Effective May 23, 1995.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of May 23,

1995.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–103,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 95–NM–

82–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from Lockheed

Aeronautical Systems Support Company

(LASSC), Field Support Department,

Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake Park

Drive, Smyrna, Georgia 30080. This

information may be examined at the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
26684 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,

Flight Test Branch, ACE–116A, FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite

2–160, College Park, Georgia 30337–

2748; telephone (404) 305–7367; fax

(404) 305–7348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has recently received six reports

indicating that cracking was found on

certain fuselage frames on Lockheed

Model L–1011–385 series airplanes.

This cracking occurred at the location

where the outer flange of the frame

attaches to the water line (WL) 280.6

longeron (the upper stringerless

sidewall longeron) on the left- and righthand sides of the airplane. Such

cracking also has been found in

multiple frames of a single airplane. On

one airplane, two adjacent frames were

severed completely; cracks were found

in three more adjacent frames on this

same airplane. In each of the cracked

frames, the cracks emanated from the

fastener hole that attaches the frame to

the WL 280.6 longeron at the shear slip

cutout.

The cracking appears to be fatigue

related, primarily as a result of

pressurization loads. An engineering

analysis indicates that this cracking

initiates when the airplane has

accumulated between 20,000 and 25,000

total landings. Loads analysis and

testing performed during its original

certification shows that this airplane

model can retain fail-safe load

capability with a skin crack extending

across two skin bays and one frame

severed completely. (To date, no skin

cracking has been reported.) Subsequent

engineering analysis confirms that the

airplane is capable of limit

pressurization and fuselage bending

loads with two adjacent frames severed

completely.

Fatigue cracking in the fuselage

frames, if not detected and corrected in

a timely manner, could result in

reduced structural integrity of the

fuselage shell.

The FAA has reviewed and approved

Lockheed Alert Service Bulletin 093–

53–A271, dated April 25, 1995,

including Attachments 1 and 2, which

describes procedures for either an

external X-ray inspection, or both an

internal close visual and an eddy

current inspection, to detect cracking or

severing of the fuselage frames; and an

inspection (using either an eddy current

surface scan or a magneto-optic imager)

of the adjacent frames and external skin,

or repair, if necessary. The alert service

bulletin specifies that, for certain

airplanes, the inspection area is located

between fuselage station (FS) 589 to FS

749 (for the C1 door) and FS 509 to FS

749 (for the C1A door) on the right-hand

side of the airplane. (For airplanes on

which any cracking or severing is found

in the fuselage frames, the alert service

bulletin describes procedures for an

additional inspection of the fuselage

frames between FS 1605 to FS 1745 on

the left- and right-hand sides of the

airplane.) For certain other airplanes,

the alert service bulletin indicates that

the inspection area includes all fuselage

frames where the frame outer flange

attaches to the WL 280.6 longeron

(upper stringerless sidewall longeron)

on both the left- and right-hand sides of

the airplane.

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other Lockheed Model L–

1011–385 series airplanes of the same

type design, this AD is being issued to

prevent reduced structural integrity of

the fuselage shell. This AD requires

either an external X-ray inspection, or

both an internal close visual and an

eddy current inspection, to detect

cracking or severing of the fuselage

frames; and an inspection (using either

an eddy current surface scan or a

magneto-optic imager) of the adjacent

frames and external skin, or repair, if

necessary. The actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

alert service bulletin described

previously.

This is considered to be interim

action until final action is identified, at

which time the FAA may consider

further rulemaking.

The required compliance time of 120

days for certain airplanes [reference

paragraph (b) of this AD] is usually

sufficient to allow for a brief comment

period before adoption of a final rule. In

this AD, however, the compliance time

of 120 days for airplanes that have

accumulated 20,000 total landings, but

less than 25,000 total landings, was

established based on inspections to date

of airplanes in this category along with

an engineering evaluation of frame crack

propagation rates. The FAA established

that compliance time in order to provide

an acceptable level of safety

commensurate with the compliance

time of 25 days for airplanes that have

accumulated 25,000 or more total

landings. In addition, the FAA selected

the 120-day compliance time because of

a potential short-term problem with

availability of sufficient parts for

repairing a fuselage frame if any defect

is found; a shorter compliance time

might have resulted in the unnecessary

removal of airplanes from service

pending delivery of repair parts.

Nevertheless, the FAA has determined

that immediate adoption is necessary in

this case because of the importance of

initiating the required inspections as

soon as possible.

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 rule to clarify this

long-standing requirement.

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications shall identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26685

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 95–NM–82–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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:

95–10–17 Lockheed Aeronautical Systems

Company: Amendment 39–9234. Docket

95–NM–82–AD.

Applicability: All Model L–1011–385

series airplanes, 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 (d) 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 structural integrity of

the fuselage shell due to fatigue cracking of

the fuselage frames, accomplish the

following:

(a) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total

landings, or within 25 days after the effective

date of this AD, whichever occurs later:

Perform either an external X-ray inspection,

or both an internal close visual and an eddy

current inspection, to detect cracking or

severing of the fuselage frames at all fuselage

frames where the frame outer flange attaches

to the water line (WL) 280.6 longeron (upper

stringerless sidewall longeron) on both the

left- and right-hand sides of the airplane, in

accordance with Lockheed Alert Service

Bulletin 093–53–A271, dated April 25, 1995,

including Attachments 1 and 2.

(1) If no cracking or severing is found, no

further action is required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(2) If any cracking or severing is found,

prior to further flight, perform an inspection

(using either an eddy current surface scan or

a magneto-optic imager) to detect cracking of

the adjacent frames and external skin, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

Prior to further flight, repair any cracking or

severing found during any inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD, in

accordance with the alert service bulletin.

(b) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD, prior to the accumulation of 20,000

total landings, or within 120 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform either an external X-ray

inspection, or both an internal close visual

and an eddy current inspection, to detect

cracking or severing of the fuselage frames

between fuselage stations (FS) 589 to FS 749

(for the C1 door) and between FS 509 to FS

749 (for the C1A door) on the right-hand side

of the airplane, in accordance with Lockheed

Alert Service Bulletin 093–53–A271, dated

April 25, 1995, including Attachments 1 and

2. If any cracking or severing is found, prior

to further flight, perform an inspection to

detect cracking of the fuselage frames at FS

1605 to FS 1745 on the left- and right-hand

sides of the airplane, in accordance with the

alert service bulletin.

(1) If no cracking is found, no further

action is required by paragraph (b) of this

AD.

(2) If any cracking is found, prior to further

flight, perform an inspection (using either an

eddy current surface scan or a magneto-optic

imager) to detect cracking of the adjacent

frames and external skin, in accordance with

the alert service bulletin. Prior to further

flight, repair any cracking or severing found

during any inspection required by paragraph

(b) of this AD, in accordance with the alert

service bulletin.

(c) Airplanes on which the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD is

performed within the compliance time

specified in paragraph (b) of this AD are not

required to accomplish the inspection

required by paragraph (b).

(d) 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.

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with §§ 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.

(f) The inspections and repair shall be done

in accordance with Lockheed Alert Service

Bulletin 093–53–A271, dated April 25, 1995,

including Attachments 1 and 2. (NOTE:

Attachment 1 is undated.) 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 (LASSC), 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, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office, Campus

Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2–

160, College Park, Georgia; or at the Office of
26686 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(g) This amendment becomes effective on

May 23, 1995.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 10,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–11974 Filed 5–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD02–95–001]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulation;

Illinois Waterway

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is finalizing

operation conditions for the remote

operation of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern

Railway (EJ&E) Bridge over the Illinois

Waterway at mile 290.1, at Lockport,

Illinois. This action was taken at the

request of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern

Railway Company. The change to

remote operation permits more efficient

operation of the railway bridge, while

continuing to provide for the reasonable

needs of navigation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated,

documents referred to in this preamble

are available for inspection or copying

at the offices of the Commander, Second

Coast Guard District, 1222 Spruce

Street, St. Louis, MO 63103–2832,

Attention: Bridge Administrator,

between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger K. Wiebusch, Bridge

Administrator, Second Coast Guard

District, (314) 539–3724.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in

drafting this document are David H.

Sulouff, Project Officer, Bridge Branch

and LT S. Moody, Project Attorney,

Second Coast Guard District Legal

Office.

Regulatory History

On September 1, 1994, the Coast

Guard published a proposed rule (59 FR

45252) concerning this amendment. The

Commander, Second Coast Guard

District, also published the proposal as

a Public Notice dated September 20,

1994. Interested parties were given until

October 31, 1994 to submit comments.

The Coast Guard received comments

from the Illinois Department of

Conservation and the Illinois River

Carriers Association, representing

approximately 34 river towing

companies. On February 24, 1995, the

Coast Guard published an interim rule

(60 FR 10315) concerning this

amendment with a comment closing

date of April 25, 1995. No comments

were received in response to this

interim rule. A public hearing was not

requested and one was not held.

Two minor changes have been made

to the final rule from the interim rule.

The interim final rule stated that the

remote operator made marine broadcasts

warning of the drawbridges closure on

channel 16. In this final rule, reference

to channel 16 was eliminated because

the marine broadcast frequencies are

designated by FCC regulations and not

by the Coast Guard. This final rule also

increases the number of broadcasts that

the remote operator will make after the

drawspan is lowered and locked in the

closed to navigation position, from two

broadcasts to periodic broadcasts. This

change will ensure that vessels

approaching the bridge after the

drawspan has been lowered will be

notified that the draw is closed.

Good cause exists for making this rule

effective upon publication. No

comments were received during the

interim final rule’s 60 day comment

period. The Coast Guard has monitored

the remote operation during the 60 day

test period. There were no equipment

failures and no reported negative

impacts to navigation. This rule allows

the bridge to be left open unless rail

traffic or maintenance requires its

closure. Vessel traffic will benefit from

this rule by having the bridge

maintained in the open to navigation

position. For these reasons the Coast

Guard has determined that there is no

need to delay implementation of this

rule.

Background and Purpose

The Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway

requested approval from the Coast

Guard to change the operation of the

EJ&E Bridge over the Illinois waterway

at mile 290.1, at Lockport, Illinois, from

on-site bridge operation to a remote

operating system. This rule change

establishes remote operating procedures

with associated operating and

equipment requirements on EJ&E that

will ensure the safe and timely

operation of the railroad drawspan.

EJ&E has installed remote operating

equipment and a control system,

including radar, infrared boat detectors,

motion detectors and communications

equipment, to facilitate operation of the

drawspan from Gary, Indiana. The

drawspan can also be operated at the

bridge site. The drawspan will be

maintained in the open to navigation

position except for the passage of rail

traffic or maintenance. The equipment

indicates any malfunction in the

drawspan operation and allows the

remote operator to ascertain the position

of the drawspan at any time. The marine

radio system allows communication

between the remote operator and marine

traffic at the bridge, on the VHF marine

frequencies authorized by the Federal

Communications Commission. A radar

antenna has been installed on the bridge

and the received signal is transmitted by

fixed lines to the remote operator. The

radar system is designed to scan

upstream and downstream of the bridge.

Infrared scanners and motion detectors

are located in the channel drawspan to

detect vessels under the drawspan. If an

obstruction is detected beneath the

drawspan during the closing cycle,

before the drawspan is seated and

locked, the drawspan will automatically

stop lowering and shall be raised to the

fully open position by the remote

operator until the channel is clear. Once

lowered and locked in the closed to

navigation position, the boat detectors

will not raise the drawspan.

During the drawspan closing cycle,

the bridge operator shall make a radio

broadcast indicating drawspan status.

At the appropriate times in the cycle,

the bridge operator shall announce that

the drawspan will close to navigation,

that the drawspan is closed to

navigation, or that the drawspan has

reopened to navigation.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a significant

regulatory action under 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and does not require an

assessment of potential cost 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 and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

After considering comments received,

the Coast Guard finds that any impact

on small entities, if any, is not

substantial. Therefore, the Coast Guard

certifies under 605(b) of the Regulatory