Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices 7791

considering issuing a preliminary

scoping analysis immediately after the

filings due on day N+30 in Appendix A.

We seek public comments on the

proposed page limitations and scoping

order. Given that the procedural

schedule proposed here tracks the

procedural schedule we are proposing

in Ex Parte No. 282 (Sub-No. 19) for all

major and significant consolidations, we

also seek comments from any interested

person on whether we should impose

similar page limitations and employ a

preliminary scoping analysis for future

transactions under those proposed rules

as well.

In Ex Parte No. 282 (Sub-No. 19), we

noted that a vital element in carrying

out the proposed expedited merger

procedures is strict compliance with the

Commission’s environmental rules at 49

CFR Part 1105. These rules provide that

environmental assessments normally be

prepared in mergers, consolidations or

acquisitions of control involving

significant changes in operation or rail

line abandonments and construction. If

a merger is likely significantly to affect

the environment, the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires the Commission to prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS).

To expedite the NEPA environmental

review process, we have proposed in Ex

Parte No. 282 (Sub-No. 19) that

applicants be required to consult with

the Commission’s Section of

Environmental Analysis (SEA) with, or

prior to, the filing of their prefiling

notices for all mergers involving the

preparation of environmental

documentation. In the case of mergers

involving an environmental assessment,

the new merger procedures would

require that the applicant submit, with

its application, a preliminary draft

environmental assessment (PDEA), to be

based on consultations with SEA and

the various agencies set forth in 49 CFR

1105.7(b) of our environmental rules.

SEA would then use the PDEA to

prepare a draft environmental

assessment for public comment.

In their January 27, 1995 petition,

applicants in this proceeding point out

that they have already submitted a

comprehensive environmental report.

According to applicants, that report,

prepared by the third-party consulting

firm, fully complies with the

Commission’s proposed requirement for

the submission of a PDEA. Applicants

further claim an exemption from the

requirements of filing historical reports

under 49 CFR 1105.8 and have advised

the Commission that no structure which

is 50 years old or older will be affected

by the proposed merger. According to

the applicants, their environmental

report shows that the proposed

consolidation will not result in any

significant environmental impacts

sufficient to require the preparation of

an EIS. Finally, applicants state that

their third-party consultant, already at

work under SEA’s supervision, is

engaged in a detailed review of the

environmental aspects of the proposed

merger and that the current workplan

calls for completion of an

environmental document, following

public comment, by early July 1995.

Applicants assert that there is no reason

to deviate from the expedited schedule

contemplated in Ex Parte No. 282 (SubNo. 19) to ensure compliance with the

NEPA review process.

The filing of a PDEA is a predicate to

the expedited schedule we proposed in

Ex Parte No. 282 (Sub-No. 19). We also

cautioned that mergers that involve

actions that significantly affect the

environment may require the

preparation of an EIS, and that such a

requirement would make it impossible

to follow a 180-day schedule. Rail

construction is such an action and the

application contains requests for

approval of 11 construction projects. We

solicit further comments from the

applicants and the parties on these

environmental questions and

suggestions on how to complete the

environmental review process for the

merger within the limits of the schedule

proposed by the applicants.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

Decided: February 2, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman McDonald,

Vice Chairman Morgan, and Commissioners

Simmons and Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

APPENDIX A.—PROPOSED REVISED, EXPEDITED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

N Date Commission serves decision containing notice of shareholder approval on all parties.

N+5 Discovery conference on application held.

N+30 Comments and protests due on the application (not to exceed 50 pages); requested conditions due; description of anticipated

inconsistent and responsive applications due.

N+35 Discovery conference on comments, protests and conditions held.

N+60 Inconsistent and responsive applications due. Response to comments, protests, conditions and rebuttal in support of primary

applications due (not to exceed 100 pages).

N+65 Discovery conference on inconsistent applications held.

N+75 Notice of acceptance (if required) of inconsistent and responsive applications published in the Federal Register.

N+90 Response to inconsistent and responsive applications due (not to exceed 75 pages). Rebuttal in support of comments, protests,

and conditions to the primary application due (not to exceed 50 pages).

N+100 Rebuttal in support of inconsistent and responsive applications due (not to exceed 50 pages).

N+110 Briefs due, all parties (not to exceed 50 pages).

N+125 Oral argument (at Commission’s discretion).

N+135 Voting Conference (at Commission’s discretion).

N+165 Date for service of 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. Relevant excerpts of

transcripts will be received in lieu of crossexamination at the hearing, unless crossexamination is needed to resolve material

issues of disputed fact. Discovery on

responsive 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. 95–3251 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P