[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29387-29391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14172]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33388]
CSX Corp. and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corp.
and Norfolk Southern Railway Co.--Control and Operating Leases/
Agreements--Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corp.
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Decision No. 6; Notice of Issuance of Procedural Schedule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Having received public comments on applicants' proposed
procedural schedule and applicants' reply to those comments, the Board
is issuing a final procedural schedule. This schedule provides for
issuance of a final decision no later than 350 days after filing of the
primary application.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this decision is May 30, 1997.
Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding will be due 45 days
after the primary application is filed. All descriptions of
inconsistent and responsive applications, as well as any petitions for
waiver or clarification with respect thereto, will be due 60 days after
the primary application is filed. All comments, protests, requests for
conditions, inconsistent and responsive applications, and any other
opposition evidence and argument will be due 120 days after the primary
application is filed. For further information, see the procedural
schedule set forth below.
ADDRESSES: An original and 25 copies 1 of all documents,
referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33388, must be sent to the Office
of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, ATTN: STB Finance Docket No.
33388, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
20423-0001. 2 In addition, one copy of all documents in this
proceeding must be sent to Administrative Law Judge Jacob Leventhal,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Suite 11F,
Washington, DC 20426 (202) 219-2538; FAX: (202) 219-3289 and to each of
the applicants' representatives: (1) Dennis G. Lyons, Esq., Arnold &
Porter, 555 12th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1202; (2) Richard A.
Allen, Esq., Zuckert Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P., Suite 600, 888
Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3939; and (3) Paul A.
Cunningham, Esq., Harkins Cunningham, Suite 600, 1300 Nineteenth
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to submitting an original and 25 copies of all
documents filed with the Board, parties are requested also to submit
all pleadings and attachments as computer data contained on a 3.5-
inch diskette formatted for WordPerfect 7.0 (or formatted so that it
can be converted into WordPerfect 7.0) and clearly labeled with the
identification acronym and number of the pleading contained on the
diskette. See 49 CFR 1180.4(a)(2). The computer data contained on
the computer diskettes submitted to the Board will be subject to the
protective order granted in Decision No. 1, served on April 16, 1997
(as modified in Decision No. 4, served May 2, 1997), and is for the
exclusive use of Board employees reviewing substantive and/or
procedural matters in this proceeding. The flexibility provided by
such computer data will facilitate timely review by the Board and
its staff.
\2\ In order for a document to be considered a formal filing,
the Board must receive an original and 25 copies of the document,
which must show that it has been properly served. Documents
transmitted by facsimile (FAX), as in the past, will not be
considered formal filings and thus are not encouraged because they
will result in unnecessarily burdensome, duplicative processing in
what we expect to become a voluminous record.
Applicants may file in bound volumes an original and 25 copies
of related applications, petitions, and notices of exemption;
however, to facilitate our processing of these related filings, we
will require that applicants also file two unbound copies of each of
these filings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia M. Farr, (202) 565-1613. (TDD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 10, 1997, CSX Corporation (CSXC),
CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC),
Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), Conrail Inc. (CRI), and
Consolidated Rail Corporation (CRC) 3 filed a notice of
intent (CSX/NS-1) that they intend to file an application under 49
U.S.C. 11323-25 (referred to as the ``primary application'') seeking
Board authorization for, among other things, (a) the acquisition by CSX
and NS of control of Conrail, and (b) the division of the assets of
Conrail by and between
[[Page 29388]]
CSX and NS.4 Applicants expect to file their primary
application, and any related applications, petitions, and notices, on
or before July 10, 1997, but not before June 16, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CSXC and CSXT are referred to collectively as CSX. NSC and
NSR are referred to collectively as NS. CRI and CRC are referred to
collectively as Conrail. CSX, NS, and Conrail are referred to
collectively as applicants.
\4\ By letter dated April 24, 1997, applicants submitted,
pursuant to 49 CFR 1013.3(a), an Amended and Restated Voting Trust
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Joint-VTA-1) that NSC, CSXC,
and Green Acquisition Corporation propose to enter into with an
institutional trustee, Deposit Guaranty National Bank, and a limited
liability company to be formed shortly. NSC and CSXC intend that the
Trustee will hold, in the voting trust (hereinafter referred to as
the Joint Voting Trust) to be established pursuant to Joint-VTA-1,
all common shares of Conrail Inc. (CRI): (1) Acquired previously,
and separately, by NSC and CSXC and currently held in separate
voting trusts; or (2) hereafter acquired by NSC and CSXC pursuant to
the Third Supplement (dated April 10, 1997) to the Second Offer to
Purchase (the Second Offer, dated December 6, 1996). NSC and CSXC
intend that the Joint Voting Trust to be established pursuant to
Joint-VTA-1 will be a single consolidated voting trust ultimately
superseding and replacing the previously established separate voting
trusts. An informal staff opinion letter with respect to the voting
trust was issued on May 8, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Decision No. 2, served April 21, 1997, and published that day in
the Federal Register at 62 FR 19390, we determined that the transaction
contemplated by applicants is a major transaction as defined at 49 CFR
1180.2(a), and we invited comments due May 1, 1997, on applicants'
proposed procedural schedule. Comments were filed, and on May 8, 1997,
applicants filed a consolidated reply to the comments (CSX/NS-11).
Over 25 comments were received in response to Decision No. 2.
Comments were filed by shipper organizations, shippers (including
electric utilities), ports, railroads, government parties, and rail
labor unions. We have carefully reviewed all of the comments that we
received on the proposed procedural schedule. Given the magnitude of
applicants' proposed transaction concerning the restructuring of rail
service within the entire Eastern United States, we have determined
that a 350-day procedural schedule (which is more than applicants had
proposed, but less than the statutory maximum) will ensure that all
parties are accorded due process and allow us time to consider fully
all of the issues in this proceeding, including environmental issues,
and reach a timely resolution of this matter.
In particular, this schedule will permit us to take the hard look
at environmental issues as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the related regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality. The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA) has determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is warranted for this proceeding. This determination is
based on the nature and scope of environmental issues (e.g., intercity
passenger service and commuter rail service) that are likely to arise
in this proceeding as well as SEA's evaluation of the information
available to date, including the Preliminary Environmental Report filed
on May 16, 1997. We agree with SEA that an EIS is warranted in this
proceeding. The procedural schedule that we are adopting will provide
the necessary time to enable us to undertake an EIS.
Within this procedural schedule, we will be able to consider fully
all issues affecting the public interest, and will also be able to
address cumulative impacts and crossover effects of prior mergers as
appropriate. Further, we will consider the transaction in light of any
settlement agreements that the applicants may reach with any parties.
We are not unmindful of the concerns parties have raised regarding
the amount of time necessary to prepare their cases or of the concerns
applicants have raised regarding employment uncertainty among Conrail
management and possible deterioration in Conrail service during the
pendency of this proceeding, and have crafted the attached procedural
schedule with fairness to all parties in mind. While we are sensitive
to applicants' concerns and their desire to have an expedited schedule,
we believe that the 350-day schedule that we are adopting is not unduly
long and will not result in lasting adverse effects on the Conrail
system or properties. We believe that the longer schedule is necessary
and appropriate for this case to allow sufficient time for
participation by the public and consideration by the Board, including
the preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, we have adjusted the procedural
schedule proposed by applicants to give more time for the submission
and review of evidence and arguments, and to provide adequate time for
preparing an EIS.
Environmental reporting for primary applicants. As indicated above,
applicants filed their joint Preliminary Environmental Report (PER) on
May 16, 1997. CSX and NS will provide detailed and updated information
(with supporting documentation) and environmental impact analyses in
the Environmental Report (ER) they will file with their primary
application and related applications, petitions, and notices. CSX and
NS will provide a copy of the ER to all parties of record in this
proceeding; appropriate federal, state, and local agencies; and
affected parties according to the Board's environmental rules found in
49 CFR part 1105.
As discussed above, SEA has determined that the preparation of an
EIS is warranted for this proceeding. A notice of intent to prepare an
EIS will be published in the Federal Register shortly, which will
explain in further detail the EIS process for this proceeding. SEA will
initiate public scoping as soon as possible after the joint application
and environmental report are filed to allow interested persons to
participate in determining the scope of the EIS that will be prepared.
SEA anticipates that the final scope of the EIS will be issued
approximately 80 days after the filing of the joint application.
When, as here, the preparation of an environmental impact statement
is contemplated for a railroad proceeding, the Board's environmental
rules at 49 CFR 1105.10(a)(1) normally require the prospective
applicants to submit to SEA a 6-month prefiling notice in advance of
the application. However, where appropriate, 49 CFR 1105.10(c) allows
the waiver of this 6-month prefiling notice. Here, SEA for some time
has been engaged in on-going consultations with both CSX and NS about
the proposed merger and the potential associated environmental impacts.
Moreover, the applicants' joint PER provided detailed descriptive
information about the project. In these circumstances, SEA believes
that there is no need for the 6-month waiting period. Therefore, as
indicated in Decision No. 7 (served concurrently herewith, but not
published in the Federal Register), the 6-month prefiling notice
requirement will be waived in this case.
Environmental reporting for inconsistent and responsive applicants.
In order for us to fulfill our responsibilities under NEPA and other
environmental laws, inconsistent and responsive applicants must submit
certain environmental information. To facilitate the environmental
review process, inconsistent and responsive applicants will be required
to file by Day F + 100 either (1) a verified statement that the
inconsistent or responsive application will have no significant
environmental impact or (2) a responsive environmental report (RER)
that contains detailed environmental information regarding the
inconsistent or responsive application.
The RER. The RER should comply with all requirements for
environmental reports contained in our environmental rules at 49 CFR
1105.7. Also, the RER should address the environmental issues
identified in the final scope of the
[[Page 29389]]
EIS for the entire merger, to the extent such issues are applicable to
the particular inconsistent or responsive application. (For example,
if, in the final scope of the EIS, SEA identified potential rail
commuter service impacts as an issue to be addressed, we would expect
the RER also to address that issue if commuter services were involved
in the particular inconsistent or responsive application.)
The RER should be based on consultations with SEA and the various
agencies set forth in 49 CFR 1105.7(b). In addition, the information in
the RER should be organized as follows: Executive Summary; Purpose and
Need for Agency Action; Description of the Inconsistent or Responsive
Application and Related Operations; Description of the Affected
Environment; Description of Alternatives; Analysis of the Potential
Environmental Impacts; Proposed Mitigation; and Appropriate Appendices
that include correspondence and consultation responses, bibliography,
and a list of preparers.
The purpose of an RER is to provide us the information we need to
assess the potential environmental impacts of all inconsistent and
responsive applications in the context of the overall merger proposal.
After an RER is received, SEA will verify the information contained in
the document. If the RER is acceptable, SEA will include the RER with
the Draft EIS for the entire merger that will be served and made
available for public comment.
In order to ensure timely, consistent, and appropriate
environmental documentation, inconsistent and responsive applicants
must consult with SEA as early as possible. If an RER is insufficient,
we may require additional environmental information or reject the
inconsistent or responsive application.
A verified statement of no significant impact. If an action
proposed under an inconsistent or responsive transaction would
typically fall within 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2), an RER would not be required
because such an action is generally exempt from environmental review.
In such a case, the inconsistent or responsive applicant would be
required to file only a verified statement. The verified statement must
demonstrate that the inconsistent or responsive application meets the
exemption criteria of 49 CFR 1105.6(c)(2). Again, anyone desiring to
file an inconsistent application or responsive application must consult
with SEA as early as possible regarding the appropriate environmental
documentation.
SEA will review the verified statements. If a verified statement is
insufficient, we may require additional environmental information or
reject the inconsistent or responsive application. The verified
statements, like the RERs, will be included in the Draft EIS, which
will be available for public review and comment.
Notice of intent to participate. All documents received by the
Board concerning this proceeding will become part of the public record
and will be placed in the public docket for inspection and copying.
Only those documents considered formal filings (i.e., those meeting the
filing specifications discussed above in the ADDRESSES section) will be
downloaded to the so-called pleading list. Moreover, persons who submit
documents that are not considered formal filings will not be placed on
the service list in this proceeding.
We will compile and issue an official service list at an early
stage in this proceeding to facilitate the participation of those
persons who will be actively participating as ``parties of record''
(POR). We are requiring these persons to notify the Board, in writing,
within 45 days after the primary application is filed, of their intent
to participate actively in this proceeding. In order to be designated a
POR, a person must submit an original plus 25 copies of the notice
along with a certificate of service to the Secretary of the Board
indicating that the notice has been properly served on applicants'
representatives and Judge Leventhal.5 Every future filing by
a POR must have its own certificate of service indicating that all PORs
on the service list and Judge Leventhal have been served with a copy of
the filing. Members of the United States Congress will be designated as
MOC and Governors will be designated as GOV on the service list. They
are not parties of record and need not be served with copies of
filings, unless designated as a POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Office of the Secretary will start compiling the
official service list in this proceeding after service of this
decision adopting a procedural schedule. Persons named on any
earlier service list will not automatically be placed on the
official service list for this proceeding. Therefore, any person who
wishes to be a POR must file a notice of intent to participate after
the date of service of the decision and on or before Day F + 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will continue to follow our practice regarding the service of
Board actions established in Union Pacific Corporation, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Control and
Merger--Southern Pacific Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific
Transportation Company, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, SPCSL
Corp., and The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, Finance
Docket No. 32760 (UP/SP). See UP/SP, Decision No. 15 (STB served Feb.
16, 1996), at 2-3. Copies of decisions, orders, and notices will be
served only on those persons who are designated as POR, MOC, or GOV on
the official service list. All other interested parties are encouraged
to make advance arrangements with the Board's copy contractor, DC News
& Data, Inc. (DC News), to receive copies of Board decisions, orders,
and notices served in this proceeding. DC News will handle the
collection of charges and the mailing and/or faxing of decisions to
persons who request this service. The telephone number for DC News is:
(202) 289-4357.
Comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other
opposition evidence and argument. Most commenters support Day F + 120
as the minimum time necessary to prepare comments, protests, requests
for conditions, and any other opposition evidence and argument.
Applicants support giving persons at least 120 days to make such
submissions. We will keep Day F + 120 as the due date for the filing of
comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other opposition
evidence and argument. All inconsistent and responsive applications,
including comments from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), are also due
on Day F + 120. Every party intending to file an inconsistent or
responsive application must contact the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 565-1681 to reserve an STB Finance Docket No. 33388 Sub-Number to
use in filing the description of anticipated inconsistent or responsive
application due on Day F + 60. Also, as set forth above in our
discussion of environmental reporting, every party intending to file an
inconsistent or responsive application must file a Responsive
Environmental Report or Environmental Verified Statement on Day F +
100.
Responses and rebuttals. Numerous commenters (including DOT) have
requested additional time (ranging from 40-70 days) to digest and
respond to comments, protests, requested conditions, and inconsistent
and responsive applications. Given the complexity and magnitude of
issues that potentially may arise in this proceeding, we will extend
the due date proposed by applicants in their schedule by 25 days, thus
providing the parties with a total of 55 days to file these responses.
Responses to inconsistent and
[[Page 29390]]
responsive applications, comments, protests, requested conditions, and
opposition evidence and argument, as well as rebuttal in support of the
primary application, will be due on Day F + 175.
We will not allow parties filing comments, protests, and requests
for conditions to file rebuttal in support of those pleadings. Parties
filing inconsistent and/or responsive applications have a right to file
rebuttal evidence, while parties simply commenting, protesting, or
requesting conditions do not. UP/SP, Decision No. 6 (ICC served Oct.
19, 1995, at 7-8, and published Oct. 23, 1995, at 60 FR 54384);
Burlington Northern Inc. and Burlington Northern Railroad Company--
Control and Merger--Santa Fe Pacific Corporation and The Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Finance Docket No. 32549, Decision
No. 16 (ICC served Apr. 20, 1995), at 11. Several commenters seek
additional time for parties to prepare rebuttal filings. The National
Industrial Transportation League (NITL) seeks 25 days for the
preparation of rebuttal filings; Allied Rail Unions (ARU), the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, and DOT seek 30 days; and three
electric utilities seek 40 days. Rebuttal in support of inconsistent
and responsive applications will be due on Day F + 205, which will
allow inconsistent and responsive applicants 30 days instead of 15 days
to prepare their rebuttals.
Briefs. Many commenters request more time to prepare their briefs.
We will expand the schedule to allow parties 20 more days to prepare
their briefs (not to exceed 50 pages), which will be due on Day F +
245. Applicants state that, while their proposed transaction involves a
single, overall primary application and an agreed-upon division of
Conrail, their proposed transaction also involves the extension of two
separate and competing railroads into the territory now served by
Conrail, and separate, competing operating and marketing plans for
those two railroads. Applicants therefore request to file separate, 50-
page briefs because, as applicants contend, there may be a considerable
number of arguments made individually by CSX and NS, and many points of
opposition to be responded to that are peculiar to one or the other.
Some parties argue that applicants should file a single brief. Some
parties argue that, if applicants are permitted to file separate
briefs, then all other parties should be permitted to file longer
briefs. We will allow CSX and NS to file separate, 50-page briefs. We
are unpersuaded that other parties should be permitted to file longer
briefs. Applicants will have only 50 pages to address arguments of
dozens of parties. Other parties should easily be able to respond to
several parties in the same number of pages or less. We therefore will
continue to restrict briefs to 50 pages, which we think will be more
than adequate for the parties succinctly to present their arguments.
Other dates. A number of parties request additional time to prepare
for oral argument (e.g., NITL requests to have 25 days to prepare for
oral argument; and ARU requests to have 60 days to prepare for oral
argument). Several parties urge that the Board should take more time
(e.g., at least 45 days) to consider briefs before the voting
conference and to take the time necessary to consider fully the overall
record. We will extend the schedule to allow parties to have 45 days
(Day F + 290), rather than 15 days, to prepare for oral argument (close
of record). The voting conference (at the Board's discretion) is
scheduled 5 days thereafter on Day F + 295, which will allow the Board
50 days, rather than 20 days, to consider the briefs. The date of
service of the final decision is scheduled 55 days thereafter on Day F
+ 350.
Discovery. The Society of Plastics raises concern that applicants
may burden parties with discovery requests before the filing of
comments, and proposes revised language for the procedural schedule. We
do not find it necessary to revise any language in the procedural
schedule. We will clarify, however, that discovery on parties filing
comments, protests, requests for conditions, and inconsistent and
responsive applications may begin on Day F + 120, or earlier if parties
mutually agree.
In accordance with our decision in STB Ex Parte No. 527 served on
October 1, 1996, and published in the Federal Register on October 8,
1996 (61 FR 52710), parties should not file any discovery requests or
materials with the Board unless they are attached as part of an
evidentiary submission, motions to compel, or responses thereto. The
Secretary's Office will otherwise reject them.
If the parties wish to engage in any discovery or establish any
discovery guidelines, they are directed to consult with Administrative
Law Judge Jacob Leventhal. Judge Leventhal is authorized to convene a
discovery conference, if necessary and as appropriate, in Washington,
DC, and to establish such discovery guidelines, if any, as he deems
appropriate. However, Judge Leventhal is not authorized to make
adjustments to, or to modify, the dates in the procedural schedule. We
believe the schedule as adopted allows sufficient time for meaningful
discovery. Any interlocutory appeal to a decision issued by Judge
Leventhal will be governed by the stringent standard of 49 CFR
1115.1(c): ``Such appeals are not favored; they will be granted only in
exceptional circumstances to correct a clear error of judgment or to
prevent manifest injustice.'' See Union Pacific Corporation, Union
Pacific Railroad Company and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--
Control--Chicago and North Western Transportation Company and Chicago
and North Western Railway Company, Finance Docket No. 32133, Decision
No. 17, at 9 (ICC served July 11, 1994) (applying the ``stringent
standard'' of 49 CFR 1115.1(c) to an appeal of an interlocutory
decision issued by former Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul S.
Cross).
Deadlines applicable to appeals and replies. As in prior merger
proceedings, we think it appropriate to tighten the deadlines provided
by 49 CFR 1115.1(c). Accordingly, the provisions of the second sentence
of 49 CFR 1115.1(c) to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal to a
decision issued by Judge Leventhal must be filed within 3 working days
of the date of his decision, and any response to any such appeal must
be filed within 3 working days thereafter. Likewise, any reply to any
procedural motion filed with the Board itself in the first instance
must also be filed within 3 working days of the date the motion is
filed.
Errata filings. The procedural schedule that we are adopting should
provide parties ample time to build a sufficient record for us to make
a reasoned decision in this proceeding. We do not intend to permit this
process to be marred by the filing of errata sheets significantly
altering the evidence and conclusions contained in earlier submissions,
as such filings may curtail the ability of parties to respond fully and
adequately to the record within the time frames we have established.
Merger-related abandonments. As indicated in Decision No. 7, the
procedural schedule applicable to merger-related abandonments will be
as follows: (1) All merger-related abandonment proposals (which may be
filed as applications, petitions, and/or notices) are to be filed, with
any and all supporting documentation, simultaneously with the primary
application; and (2) if the primary application is complete, we shall
publish in the Federal Register, by Day F + 30, notice of the
acceptance of the
[[Page 29391]]
primary application as well as notice of any merger-related abandonment
proposals. Thereafter, with respect to each merger-related abandonment
proposal: (3) interested parties must file notifications of intent to
participate in the proceeding by Day F + 45; (4) interested parties
must file opposition submissions, requests for public use conditions,
and/or Trails Act requests by Day F + 120; (5) applicants may file
rebuttal in support of their abandonment proposals, and/or responses to
any requests for public use conditions and Trails Act requests, by Day
F + 175; (6) as with the primary application and all related matters,
briefs shall be due by Day F + 245, oral argument will be held on Day F
+ 290, and a voting conference will be held, at the Board's discretion,
on Day F + 295; and (7) if, in the final decision served on Day F +
350, we approve the primary application, we shall also address, in that
final decision, each of the abandonment proposals, and all matters
(including requests for public use conditions and Trails Act requests)
relative thereto; and if we either approve or exempt any of the
abandonment proposals, we shall allow interested parties to file, no
later than 10 days after the date of service of the final decision,
offers of financial assistance with respect to any approved or exempted
abandonments.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
Decided: May 22, 1997.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice Chairman Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Final Procedural Schedule
F -30 Preliminary Environmental Report, including supporting documents
due.
F Primary application & related applications, petitions, and notices
filed. (Environmental Report, including all supporting documents due.)
F +30 Federal Register publication of: Notice of acceptance of primary
application and related applications, petitions, and notices; and
notice(s) of any merger-related abandonment applications, petitions,
and notices of exemption.
F +45 Notification of intent to participate in proceeding due.
F +60 Description of anticipated inconsistent and responsive
applications due; petitions for waiver or clarification due with
respect to such applications.
F +100 Responsive Environmental Report and Environmental Verified
Statements for inconsistent and responsive applicants due.
F +120 Inconsistent and responsive applications due. All comments,
protests, requests for conditions, and any other opposition evidence
and argument due. Comments by U.S. Department of Justice and U.S.
Department of Transportation due. With respect to all merger-related
abandonments: opposition submission, requests for public use
conditions, and Trails Act requests due.
F +150 Notice of acceptance (if required) of inconsistent and
responsive applications published in the Federal Register.
F +175 Response to inconsistent and responsive applications due.
Response to comments, protests, requested conditions, and other
opposition arguments and evidence due. Rebuttal in support of primary
application and related applications, petitions, and notices due. With
respect to all merger-related abandonments: rebuttal due; and responses
to requests for public use and Trails Act conditions due.
F +205 Rebuttal in support of inconsistent and responsive applications
due.
F +245 Briefs due, all parties (not to exceed 50 pages).
F +290 Oral argument (close of record).
F +295 Voting conference (at Board's discretion).
F +350 Date of service of final decision.
With respect to any approved or exempted abandonments: Offers of
financial assistance may be filed no later than 10 days after the date
of service of the final decision.
Notes: Immediately upon each evidentiary filing, the filing
party will place all documents relevant to the filing (other than
documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from discovery)
in a depository open to all parties, and will make its witnesses
available for discovery depositions. Access to documents, subject to
protective order, will be appropriately restricted. Parties seeking
discovery depositions may proceed by agreement. Discovery on
responsive and inconsistent applications will begin immediately upon
their filing. The Administrative Law Judge assigned to this
proceeding will have the authority initially to resolve any
discovery disputes.
[FR Doc. 97-14172 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
