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
21062 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules

of the United States pursuant to Section

10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

(30 Stat. 1151; 33 U.S.C. 403). This

authority was extended to artificial

islands and fixed structures located on

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by

section 4(f) of the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (67 Stat. 463;

43 U.S.C. 1333(e)).

Background

Pursuant to the cited authorities, the

Corps promulgated regulations in 33

CFR 209.135 establishing shipping

safety fairways in the Gulf of Mexico to

provide obstruction-free routes for

vessels in approaches to United States

ports. The Corps provided these

obstruction-free routes by denying

permits for structures within certain

designated lanes. In 1978, the Ports and

Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), was

amended to delegate authority to the

Department of Transportation and the

Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard to

establish vessel routing measures,

including fairways and fairway

anchorages. In accordance with the

PWSA, the Coast Guard completed the

required studies and published final

rules establishing shipping safety

fairways on May 13, 1982. The Corps

subsequently revoked its fairway

regulations in § 209.135(d) but retained

paragraph (b), which contains the

conditions under which the nationwide

permit for oil exploration and

production structures on the OCS (33

CFR 330.5(a) (8)), was issued. On

November 13, 1986, the Corps fairway

regulations were repromulgated in 33

CFR 322.5(l) to consolidate all permit

regulations for structures in the same

part.

When the regulations allowing

temporary structures within fairways

were promulgated by the Corps in 1981,

deepwater drilling occurred in water

depths of 300 to 600 feet. At that time

the limitation of 120 days that

temporary anchors would be allowed

within fairways was considered

reasonable. If the exploratory well was

successful, a conventional fixed

production platform would be used and

there would be no further need to

maintain the anchors within the

fairway. Presently, according to offshore

hydrocarbon exploration and

production companies, technology has

extended the range of deepwater drilling

to water depths of 1,000 to 4,000 feet.

As a result, drilling times have

increased and production methods have

changed. Accordingly, the limitation on

the length of time (120 days), that an

anchor is allowed within a fairway may

not be appropriate, particularly in water

depths in excess of 600 feet. The

industry has available many types of

production platforms, including floating

production systems that are anchored in

place during the productive life of the

reserves and then moved to a new

location. In water depths greater than

600 feet, the floating production

platform becomes an important

production option and in water depths

greater than 1,000 feet these units are

essential. In many instances, the only

obstacle to using this type of system to

drill and produce hydrocarbons is the

location of a fairway. Current

regulations require that the production

system be placed at great distance from

the fairway in order to keep the anchors

clear of the fairway. The result is that

there may be hydrocarbon bearing lease

areas that cannot be effectively

penetrated and produced. It should be

noted that if this proposal is adopted,

the requirement that the rig must be

situated as necessary to insure that the

minimum clearance over an anchor line

within a fairway is 125 feet, will not be

changed. In addition, these proposed

amendments are not intended to allow

drilling structures within the fairways.

On July 7, 1994, we published an

advance notice of proposed rulemaking

in the Federal Register, soliciting

comments on four separate options

concerning this matter. The options

presented in the ANPRN were: (1) Take

no action; (2) Remove the 120-day time

restrictions when water depths exceed

600 feet; (3) Require an individual

permit for any structure that will remain

within a fairway for 120 days or longer,

or (4) Require an individual permit for

any structure within a fairway. We

received 18 letters in response to the

ANPRN and we sincerely appreciate

those commenters taking the time and

effort to provide their input and

recommendations on this important

matter. Based on our review of the

original request(s) to amend the

regulations and the responses to the

ANPRN, we have decided to propose

the amendments in option 2 that would

remove the-120 day time limit when

water depths at the drilling location

exceed 600 feet. At this time it has not

been demonstrated by facts and

technical information presented that the

other options would provide a greater

margin of safety for vessels operating in

the fairways, with or without the time

limits while accommodating current

production platforms. We strongly

recommend that any technical data

available to support a position of

whether or not to make this proposed

change, be included with any comments

submitted. The following is the text in

33 CFR 322.5(l)(1) (Existing);

(l) * * * (1) Shipping safety fairways and

anchorage areas. DA permits are required for

structures located within shipping safety

fairways and anchorage areas established by

the U.S. Coast Guard. (1) The Department of

the Army will grant no permits for the

erection of structures in areas designated as

fairways, except that district engineers may

permit temporary anchors and attendant

cables or chains for floating or

semisubmersible drilling rigs to be placed

within a fairway provided the following

conditions are met:

(i) The installation of anchors to stabilize

semisubmersible drilling rigs within fairways

must be temporary and shall be allowed to

remain only 120 days. This period may be

extended by the district engineer provided

reasonable cause for such extension can be

shown and the extension is otherwise

justified.

(ii) Drilling rigs must be at least 500 feet

from any fairway boundary or whatever

distance necessary to insure that minimum

clearance over an anchor line within a

fairway will be 125 feet.

(iii) No anchor buoys or floats or related

rigging will be allowed on the surface of the

water or to a depth of 125 feet from the

surface, within the fairway.

(iv) Drilling rigs may not be placed closer

than 2 nautical miles of any other drilling rig

situated along a fairway boundary, and not

closer than 3 nautical miles to any drilling

rig located on the opposite side of the

fairway.

(v) The permittee must notify the district

engineer, Bureau of Land Management,

Mineral Management Service, U.S. Coast

Guard, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration and the U.S. Navy

Hydrographic Office of the approximate dates

(commencement and completion) the

anchors will be in place to insure maximum

notification to mariners.

(vi) Navigation aids or danger markings

must be installed as required by the U.S.

Coast Guard.

(2) * * *

Today, we are proposing to amend 33

CFR 322.5(l) by removing t he word

‘‘temporary’’, making it clear by

restructuring the sentences that drilling

rigs, including floating or

semisubmersible drilling rigs, are not

allowed within fairway boundaries and

adding a sentence to paragraph (l)(1)(i)

to eliminate time restrictions on

temporary and permanent anchors,

attendant cable and chains within

fairways when water depths exceed 600

feet. Such anchors, attendant cable and

chains must be for floating or

semisubmersible exploratory or

production drilling rigs only. In areas

where water depths are less than 600

feet, the time limit of 120 days

continues to apply.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

The Corps has determined in

accordance with E.O. 12866 that this

proposed rule is not a major rule. It will
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Proposed Rules 21063

not result in an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more. There

will be no major increase in costs or

prices for consumers; individual

industries, Federal, State or local

Governments or geographic regions. It

will not have a significant adverse effect

on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, or the ability

of United States-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises

in domestic or export markets. Pursuant

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L.

96–354, I certify that this rule if

finalized will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities as the rule would

remove a restriction allowing access to

areas to on the Outer Continental Shelf

previously unavailable.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 322

Continental shelf, Electric power,

Navigation, Water pollution control,

Waterways.

In consideration of the above, the

Corps of Engineers is proposing to

amend part 322 of title 33, as follows:

PART 322—PERMITS FOR

STRUCTURES OR WORK IN OR

AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF

THE UNITED STATES

1. The authority citation for part 322

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 403.

2. Section 322.5 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (l)(1), adding a new

paragraph (l)(1)(i); redesignating the

existing paragraphs (l)(1)(i) as (l)(1)(ii),

(l)(1)(ii) as (l)(1)(iii), (l)(1)(iii) as

(l)(1)(iv), (l)(1)(iv) as (l)(1)(v), (l)(1)(v) as

(l)(1)(vi) and (l)(1)(vi) as (1)(vii), and

revising newly redesignated (l)(1)(ii) to

read as follows:

§ 322.5 Special policies.

* * * * *

(1) Shipping safety fairways and

anchorage areas. * * *

(1) The Department of the Army will

grant no permits for the erection of

structures in areas designated as

fairways, except that district engineers

may permit anchors and attendant

cables or chains for floating or

semisubmersible drilling rigs to be

placed within a fairway provided the

following conditions are met:

(i) The purpose of such anchors and

attendant cables or chains as used in

this section is to stabilize floating or

semisubmersible drilling rigs which are

located outside the boundaries of the

fairway.

(ii) In water depths of 600 feet or less,

the installation of anchors and attendant

cables or chains within fairways must

be temporary and shall be allowed to

remain only 120 days. This period may

be extended by the district engineer

provided reasonable cause for such

extension can be shown and the

extension is otherwise justified. In water

depths greater than 600 feet, time

restrictions on anchors and attendant

cables or chains located within a

fairway, whether temporary or

permanent, shall not apply.

* * * * *

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Gary W. Wright,

Colonel, U.S. Army, Executive Director of

Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 95–10457 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–92–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 122–1–6982b; FRL–5198–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Santa

Barbara County Nonattainment Area,

Transportation Control Measure

Replacement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern a transportation control

measure (TCM) to be implemented in

the Santa Barbara County ozone

nonattainment area.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of this SIP revision is to

control emissions of ozone precursors in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules

section of this Federal Register, the EPA

is approving the state’s SIP revision as

a direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for this approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by May 31,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Deborah

Schechter, Mobile Source Section (A–2–

1), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Copies of the SIP revision and EPA’s

evaluation of the SIP are available for

public inspection at EPA’s Region 9

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted SIP revision are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020

‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 92123.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Castillian Drive

B–23, Goleta, CA 93117.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Schechter, Mobile Source

Section, A–2–1, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone:

(415) 744–1227).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns a revision to the

California SIP to implement TCM–5,

Improve Commuter Public Transit

Service, in the Santa Barbara County

ozone nonattainment area and to delete

a TCM from the 1982 California ozone

SIP for Santa Barbara County. Because

Santa Barbara County is already

implementing portions of TCM–5 and

the funding and schedules for the

remainder of the TCM have been

programmed into the Federal

Transportation Improvement Program

for Santa Barbara County, and because

the State submitted a fully approvable

SIP revision, the EPA has decided to

take direct final action approving the

submittal in to the California SIP. For

further information, please see the

information provided in the direct final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Jeff Zelikson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10614 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P