21058 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules

To prevent structural degradation of the

attachment of the horizontal stabilizer to the

fuselage, accomplish the following:

(a) For Model Viscount 744 and 745D

airplanes: Within 3,000 landings or 3 years

after the effective date of this AD, whichever

occurs first, perform a high frequency eddy

current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking

of the bolt holes on the top fittings of the root

joint of the tailplane spar, in accordance with

British Aerospace Alert Preliminary

Technical Leaflet (PTL) 264, Issue 3, dated

September 1, 1992. Repeat the inspection

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000

landings or 3 years, whichever occurs first.

(b) For Model Viscount 810 airplanes:

Within 1,000 landings or 1 year after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

first, perform an HFEC inspection to detect

cracking of the bolt holes on the top fittings

of the root joint of the tailplane spar, in

accordance with British Aerospace Alert PTL

127, Issue 3, dated June 1, 1992. Repeat the

inspection thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 3,000 landings or 3 years, whichever

occurs first.

(c) If any cracking is found during the

inspections required by paragraph (a) or (b)

of this AD, prior to further flight, replace the

cracked fitting with a serviceable part, in

accordance with British Aerospace Alert PTL

264, Issue 3, dated September 1, 1992 (for

Model 744 and 745D airplanes), or Alert PTL

127, Issue 3, dated June 1, 1992 (for Model

810 airplanes); as applicable.

(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,

Standardization Branch, ANM–113, FAA,

Transport 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, Standardization

Branch, ANM–113.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Standardization Branch,

ANM–113.

(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.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 25,

1995.

James V. Devany,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–10587 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Public and Indian Housing

24 CFR Ch. IX

[Docket No. N–95–3858; FR–3647–N–04]

RIN 2577–AB44

Vacancy Rule: Notice of Cancellation

of Third Meeting of Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of

meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department has

established a Negotiated Rulemaking

Advisory Committee to discuss and

negotiate a proposed rule that would

change the current method of

determining the payment of operating

subsidies to vacant public housing

units. The Committee met in March and

April 1995, after publishing notices of

these meetings. This notice announces

that a third meeting that had been

scheduled for May 2 and 3, 1995, has

been cancelled, pending a

determination by the Committee of

whether an additional meeting is

necessary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John T. Comerford, Director, Financial

Management Division, Public and

Indian Housing, Room 4212,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 431 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20410–0500; telephone

(202) 708–1872, or (202) 708–0850

(TDD). (These telephone numbers are

not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On February 24, 1995 (60 FR 10339),

the Department published a notice of

establishment of a Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee to

discuss and negotiate a proposed rule

that would change the current method

of determining the payment of operating

subsidies to vacant public housing

units. The February 24 notice also

announced the first meeting of this

committee, which was held on March

7–9, 1995, in Washington, DC.

On March 20, 1995 (60 FR 14707), the

Department published a notice of the

second and third meetings of the

committee, to be held in April and May

1995. The second meeting was held on

April 4 and 5, 1995, as scheduled;

however, at the April meeting the

committee determined that it would not

meet on the dates announced for May

1995. If an additional meeting is

necessary to ensure consensus by the

committee, an announcement of the

rescheduled meeting will be published

in the Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 3635(d).

Dated: April 26, 1995.

Joseph Shuldiner,

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing.

[FR Doc. 95–10666 Filed 4–27–95; 9:26 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–M

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2200

Rules of Procedure

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission proposes to

revise its rules governing simplified

proceedings and to institute a pilot E–

Z Trial program. This program would be

instituted on a limited basis for a one

year trial period. After the trial period,

the Commission would evaluate the

results and determine whether it should

continue the E–Z Trial program and, if

so, what modifications should be made.

As the name implies, E–Z Trial would

simplify and accelerate the adjudicative

process for cases that warrant a less

formal, less expensive process. The

most significant change to the rules

would strengthen the role of

Commission judges in determining

whether a case is tried under simplified

proceedings. The Commission has

concluded that the current

underutilization of simplified

proceedings could be remedied through

a mechanism by which the Chief

Administrative Law Judge or the judge

assigned to an individual case could

unilaterally direct that a case be tried

under simplified proceedings. Thus,

under the E–Z Trial program, the

Commission’s Chief Judge would have

the authority to determine whether a

case would proceed by either

conventional proceedings or the E–Z

Trial program. This should result in

greater use of simplified proceedings

while preserving the use of

conventional proceedings where

needed. E–Z Trial should reduce the

time and expense of litigation in such

cases. However, the presiding judge may

discontinue E–Z Trial proceedings and

reinstate conventional procedures if the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21059

1Those standards are: 29 CFR 1910.94, 1910.95,

1910.96, 1910.97, 1910.1000 through 1910.1101,

1926.52, 1926.53, 1926.54, 1926.55, 1926.57,

1926.800(c), and any occupational health standard

that may be added to subpart Z of part 1910.

case no longer is appropriate for the

simplified rules. In this way, the

Commission can provide efficient, userfriendly adjudication, while assuring

insofar as possible in all cases that due

process is met and a hearing is

conducted that meets the requirements

of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. 554, 556 (‘‘APA’’). At any time,

any party may request that conventional

rather than E–Z Trial proceedings be

used. Discontinuance of E–Z Trial is at

the discretion of the judge after

consultation with the Chief Judge. At

the conclusion of an E–Z Trial

proceeding, a party may file a petition

for discretionary review under § 2200.91

if they can establish that they have been

materially prejudiced either by the use

of E–Z Trial rather than conventional

proceedings or by a lack of due process

during those proceedings, provided

objections to use of the E–Z Trial

procedure were raised in a timely

fashion to the judge.

DATES: Comments must be received by

May 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning

these proposed rules should be

addressed to Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General

Counsel, One Lafayette Centre, 1120

20th St., NW.—9th Floor, Washington,

DC 20036–3419.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Earl R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel,

(202) 606–5410.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Development of the Proposed Rules

Adjudications by the Occupational

Safety and Health Review Commission

and its Administrative Law Judges are

governed by the regulations published

at 29 CFR part 2200—Rules of

Procedure. Conventional proceedings

are governed by subparts A through G

of Part 2200. Simplified proceedings are

governed by subpart M. Simplified

proceedings differ from conventional

proceedings primarily in the following

ways: (1) Pleadings generally are not

required in simplified proceedings; (2)

discovery is generally not permitted; (3)

the Federal Rules of Evidence do not

apply, as they do in conventional

proceedings; and (4) interlocutory

appeals are not permitted.

The proposed E–Z Trial program is

designed to see that certain cases of

lesser magnitude before the Commission

are handled in a simple way, to reduce

formality and bring down the cost and

time demanded of parties in pursuing a

case, while protecting due process rights

with an ‘‘on the record’’ hearing

conducted in accordance with the APA.

Cases would be processed promptly.

The proposed project would draw in

part from the Commission’s current

rules for simplified proceedings. As

under the current simplified

proceedings, required documentation

would be minimized and pleadings and

discovery would be eliminated

completely in most cases. Cases will be

reviewed for eligibility for E–Z Trial as

soon as possible in order to avoid the

filing of pleadings wherever practicable.

Under the E–Z Trial program, informal

discussions between the parties and the

judge would be held to narrow areas of

dispute and encourage settlement. If the

case is not resolved in a pre-hearing

conference, the hearing itself would be

comparatively informal in nature, with

the format of the hearing being

prescribed by the presiding judge.

Written briefs would in most cases be

replaced by oral argument. Judges

would issue bench decisions when

appropriate and otherwise would

typically issue written decisions within

45 days of the completion of the trial.

Purpose of Subpart M

Under the proposed rule,

§ 2200.200(b)(1), complaints and

answers would not be required for the

E–Z Trial process. Section

2200.200(b)(2) would note that, prior to

the hearing, discussions among the

parties and the judge would be required

to narrow and define the issues between

the parties. This should encourage case

settlement, and accordingly this

discussion would be scheduled as soon

as possible. Section 2200.200(b)(3)

would not allow discovery to be

conducted except on the order of the

judge. The current rule prohibiting

interlocutory appeals, § 2200.211, is

incorporated into the proposed rule as

§ 2200.200(b)(4). Section 2200.200(b)(5)

would stress that the hearing is less

formal.

Application

Under the proposed rule, § 2200.201

would only note that the rules in

Subpart M would apply to proceedings

before a judge if an E–Z Trial case is

commenced under the rules proposed in

§ 2200.203.

Eligibility for E–Z Trial

The current eligibility rule,

§ 2200.202, specifically excludes cases

from being tried under simplified

proceedings if they involve the merits of

an alleged violation of specified

standards.1 Under the proposed rule,

§ 2200.202 would not specifically

exclude cases that involve any

particular standards. The proposed rule

does not detail the circumstances in

which these procedural rules should be

utilized. It anticipates that experience

gathered through the E–Z Trial program

is the best way to refine the

circumstances for which the procedures

are suited. Nevertheless, in order to

provide some guidance in the initial

application of these rule changes, the

Commission suggests that cases that

might be appropriate for E–Z Trial

would generally include those with (1)

relatively few citation items, (2) an

aggregate proposed penalty not more

than $7500, (3) no allegation of

willfulness, (4) a hearing that is

expected to take less than two days, or

(5) a pro se respondent. These criteria

are neither rigid nor exhaustive. E–Z

Trial should not be selected for

technically complex cases requiring

discovery or extensive expert testimony.

Procedures for Commencing E–Z Trial

The current rule for simplified

proceedings, § 2200.203, allows any

party to request simplified proceedings.

Under the proposed rule, § 2200.203(a),

the Chief Judge can assign an

appropriate case for E–Z Trial at his

discretion either on his own motion or

at the request of a party. In addition, the

proposed rule would eliminate the more

complex filing requirements found

under the current rule which mandates

that the request for simplified

proceedings be filed with the Executive

Secretary and served on all of the

following: (i) The employer, (ii) the

Secretary of Labor, (iii) any authorized

employee representatives and (iv)

posted for the benefit of any

unrepresented affected employees.

Because E–Z Trial can be commenced

by the Chief Judge on his own motion,

it is not necessary to require complex

filing procedures.

Procedures for Discontinuing E–Z Trial

Section 2200.204 sets forth the

procedures for discontinuing simplified

proceedings after the judge has ordered

them implemented. The Commission

purposes several changes to this section,

which largely parallel the changes

proposed in the rule on commencing E–

Z Trial. The proposed rule,

§ 2200.204(a), would require that the

judge assigned to the case consult with

the Chief Judge prior to discontinuing

E–Z Trial. Unlike the current rule, the

proposed rule would not necessarily

discontinue E–Z Trial even if all parties

consent to discontinuance. The current

rule’s prohibition of interlocutory

review (a limited appeal before

conclusion of the trial) of simplified
21060 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules

proceedings is covered in proposed rule

§ 2200.200(b)(4)’s prohibition of

interlocutory appeals for E–Z Trial

proceedings.

Filing of Pleadings

E–Z Trial is intended to provide

parties with a less formal adjudicative

process. Once a case is designated for E–

Z Trial, under the proposed rule,

§ 2200.205(a), the Secretary would not

have to file a complaint as required

under current rule § 2200.34(a), a

response to a petition for modification

of the abatement period under current

rule § 2200.37(d)(5), or a response to an

employee contest to the abatement

period under current rule § 2200.38(a).

In addition, under proposed rule

§ 2200.205(b), a motion would not be

viewed favorably if the subject of the

motion has not been first discussed

among the parties. The Commission is

not presently amending the time limits

for filing pleadings. Instead, the

Commission intends to process cases as

promptly as practicable in order to

avoid the filing of pleadings.

Pre-hearing Conference

Under the proposed rule,

§ 2200.206(a) requires that as early as

practicable, the presiding judge would

conduct a pre-hearing conference. The

judge has the discretion to determine

the format of the pre-hearing

conference. The pre-hearing conference

would be ‘‘live,’’ and can be conducted

in person or by such electronic means

as telephone or video conferences. It

cannot be conducted by such devices as

fax machines. In addition, the current

rule does not require that affirmative

defenses such as ‘‘unpreventable

employee misconduct,’’ ‘‘infeasibility,’’

and ‘‘greater hazard,’’ be raised prior to

the hearing. Proposed rule § 2200.206(b)

requires that affirmative defenses would

be raised at the pre-hearing conference,

and that affirmative defenses cannot

otherwise be raised in later proceedings

except under extraordinary

circumstances. The judge would issue

an order setting forth any agreements

reached by the parties during the prehearing conference.

Discovery

No substantive change is proposed to

the current rule on discovery,

§ 2200.210. Parties may request

discovery, but no discovery would be

conducted except on order of the judge.

Hearing

It is expected that the E–Z Trial

hearing would be conducted in the

format decided by the hearing judge.

Witnesses, however, would be sworn

and the proceedings would be reported.

The requirement for a reporter and

transcript, currently found in

§ 2200.208, would become part of the

new rule § 2200.208(d). Typically, oral

argument would be presented at the

close of the hearing. However, the judge

has the discretion to permit the parties

to file written briefs instead. If

appropriate, the judge has the option of

announcing his decision from the bench

on the record. If not announced from the

bench, a written decision would be

issued within 45 days, unless an

extension was granted by the Chief

Judge.

Review of Judge’s Decision

Unlike the current rule, this proposed

rule does not require the judge to

prepare a written decision, but would

instead permit him to issue a decision

from the bench. In that event, that

portion of the transcript containing the

judge’s bench decision will be

considered the written decision and will

be included in the judge’s order.

Applicability of the Commission’s

Conventional Rules

Included in the list of rules that do

not apply to E–Z Trials is § 2200.74,

which covers the filing of briefs and

proposed findings of fact with the judge,

as well as oral arguments at the hearing.

No other substantive change is proposed

to the current rule, § 2200.212.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2200

Administrative practice and

procedure, Hearing and appeal

procedures.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission proposes to

amend title 29, chapter XX, part 2200,

subpart M of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 2200—RULES OF PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 2200

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g).

2. Subpart M is revised to read as

follows:

Subpart M—E–Z Trials

Sec.

2200.200 Purpose.

2200.201 Application.

2200.202 Eligibility for E–Z Trial.

2200.203 Commencing E–Z Trial.

2200.204 Discontinuance of E–Z Trial.

2200.205 Filing of pleadings.

2200.206 Pre-hearing conference.

2200.207 Discovery.

2200.208 Hearing.

2200.209 Review of Judge’s decision.

2200.210 Applicability of Subparts A

through G.

Subpart M—E–Z Trials

§ 2200.200 Purpose.

(a) The purpose of the E–Z Trials

subpart is to provide simplified

procedures for resolving contests under

the Occupational Safety and Health Act

of 1970, so that parties before the

Commission may reduce the time and

expense of litigation while being

assured due process and a hearing that

meets the requirements of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

554. These procedural rules will be

applied to accomplish this purpose.

(b) Procedures under this subpart are

simplified in a number of ways. The

major differences between these

procedures and those provided in

subparts A through G of the

Commission’s rules of procedure are as

follows:

(1) Complaints and answers are not

required.

(2) Pleadings generally are not

required. Early discussions among the

parties and the Administrative Law

Judge are required to narrow and define

the disputes between the parties.

(3) Discovery is generally not

permitted.

(4) Interlocutory appeals are not

permitted.

(5) Hearings are less formal. The

Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply.

Instead of briefs, the parties will argue

their case orally before the Judge at the

conclusion of the hearing. In many

instances, the Judge will render his

decision from the bench.

§ 2200.201 Application.

The rules in this subpart will govern

proceedings before a Judge in a case

chosen for E–Z Trial under § 2200.203.

§ 2200.202 Eligiblity for E–Z Trial.

All cases with a low aggregate penalty

are eligible for E–Z Trial. Those cases

selected for E–Z Trial will be those that

also do not involve complex issues of

law or fact.

§ 2200.203 Commencing E–Z Trial.

(a) Selection. Upon receipt of a Notice

of Contest, the Chief Administrative

Law Judge may, at his or her discretion,

assign an appropriate case for E–Z Trial.

(b) Party request. Within twenty days

of the notice of docketing, any party

may request the Chief Judge or the Judge

assigned to the case to assign the case

for E–Z Trial. The request must be in

writing. For example, ‘‘I request an

E–Z Trial’’ will suffice. The request

must be sent to the Executive Secretary.

Copies must be sent to each of the other

parties.

(c) Judge’s ruling on request. The

Chief Judge or the Judge assigned to the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21061

case may grant a party’s request and

assign a case for E–Z Trial at his or her

discretion. Such request shall be acted

upon within fifteen days of its receipt

by the Judge.

(d) Time for filing complaint or

answer under § 2200.34. If a party has

requested E–Z Trial or the Judge has

assigned the case for E–Z Trial, the

times for filing a complaint or answer

will not run. If a request for E–Z Trial

is denied, the period for filing a

complaint or answer will begin to run

upon issuance of the notice denying

E–Z Trial.

§ 2200.204 Discontinuance of E–Z Trial.

(a) Procedure. If it becomes apparent

at any time that a case is not appropriate

for E–Z Trial, the Judge assigned to the

case may, upon motion by any party or

upon the Judge’s own motion,

discontinue E–Z Trial and order the

case to continue under conventional

rules. Before discontinuing E–Z Trial,

the Judge will consult with the Chief

Judge.

(b) Party Motion. At any time during

the proceedings any party may request

that the E–Z Trial be discontinued and

that the matter continue under

conventional procedures. A motion to

discontinue must be in writing and

explain why the case is inappropriate

for E–Z Trial. All other parties will have

seven days from the filing of the motion

to state their agreement or disagreement

and their reasons.

(c) Ruling. If E–Z Trial is

discontinued, the Judge may issue such

orders as are necessary for an orderly

continuation under conventional rules.

§ 2200.205 Filing of pleadings.

(a) Complaint and answer. Once a

case is designated for E–Z Trial, the

complaint and answer requirements are

suspended. If the Secretary has filed a

complaint under § 2200.34(a), a

response to a petition under

§ 2200.37(d)(5), or a response to an

employee contest under § 2200.38(a),

and if E–Z Trial has been ordered, no

response to these documents will be

required.

(b) Motions. A primary purpose of

E–Z Trials is to eliminate, as much as

possible, motions and similar

documents. A motion will not be

viewed favorably if the subject of the

motion has not been first discussed

among the parties.

§ 2200.206 Pre-hearing conference.

(a) When held. As early as practicable,

the presiding Judge will order and

conduct a pre-hearing conference. At

the discretion of the Judge, the prehearing conference may be held in

person, or by telephone or electronic

means.

(b) Content. At the pre-hearing

conference, the parties will discuss the

following: settlement of the case; the

narrowing of issues; an agreed statement

of issues and facts; defenses; witnesses

and exhibits; motions; and any other

pertinent matter. Except under

extraordinary circumstances, any

affirmative defenses not raised at the

pre-hearing conference may not be

raised later. At the conclusion of the

conference, the Judge will issue an order

setting forth any agreements reached by

the parties.

§ 2200.207 Discovery.

Discovery, including requests for

admissions, will only be allowed under

the conditions and time limits set by the

Judge.

§ 2200.208 Hearing.

(a) Procedures. The Judge will hold a

hearing on any issue that remains in

dispute at the conclusion of the prehearing conference. The hearing will be

in accordance with subpart E of these

rules, except for §§ 2200.71, 2200.73

and 2200.74 which will not apply.

(b) Agreements. At the beginning of

the hearing, the Judge will enter into the

record all agreements reached by the

parties as well as defenses raised during

the pre-hearing conference. The parties

and the Judge then will attempt to

resolve or narrow the remaining issues.

The Judge will enter into the record any

further agreements reached by the

parties.

(c) Evidence. The Judge will receive

oral, physical, or documentary evidence

that is not irrelevant, unduly repetitious

or unreliable. Testimony will be given

under oath or affirmation. The Federal

Rules of Evidence do not apply.

(d) Reporter. A reporter will be

present at the hearing. An official

verbatim transcript of the hearing will

be prepared and filed with the Judge.

Parties may purchase copies of the

transcript from the reporter.

(e) Oral and written argument. Each

party may present oral argument at the

close of the hearing. Post-hearing briefs

will not be allowed except by order of

the Judge.

(f) Judge’s decision. Where possible,

the Judge will render his decision from

the bench. Alternatively, within 45 days

of the hearing, the Judge will issue a

written decision. The decision will be in

accordance with § 2200.90. If additional

time is needed, approval of the Chief

Judge is required.

§ 2200.209 Review of Judge’s decision.

Any party may petition for

Commission review of the Judge’s

decision as provided in § 2200.91. After

the issuance of the Judge’s written

decision or order, the parties may

pursue the case following the rules in

Subpart F.

§ 2200.210 Applicability of Subparts A

through G.

The provisions of subpart D (except

for § 2200.57) and §§ 2200.34,

2200.37(d)(5), 2200.38, 2200.71, 2200.73

and 2200.74 will not apply to E–Z

Trials. All other rules contained in

subparts A through G of the

Commission’s rules of procedure will

apply when consistent with the rules in

this subpart governing E–Z Trials.

Dated: April 25, 1995.

Ray H. Darling, Jr.,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–10604 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers

33 CFR Part 322

Permits for Structures Located Within

Shipping Safety Fairways

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

DoD.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Corps seeks comments on

its proposal to change its rules regarding

permits for the placement of temporary

anchors, cables and chains for floating

or semisubmersible drilling rigs within

shipping safety fairways. Shipping

safety fairways and anchorages are

established on the Outer Continental

Shelf by the U.S. Coast Guard to provide

unobstructed approaches for vessels

using U.S. ports. This initiative arises as

a result of requests by offshore oil

companies for exemptions to the

provisions of the existing rule because

drilling and production technologies

have greatly extended the range of

deepwater drilling and the 120 day time

limits placed on temporary structures

allowed within fairway boundaries may

no longer be reasonable.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before May 31, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: HQUSACE, Attn: CECW–

OR, Washington, DC 20314–1000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Ralph T. Eppard at (202) 761–1783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Department of the Army permits are

required for the construction of any

structure in or over any navigable water