7790 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 1995 / Notices

different railroads, the rules (49 CFR

Part 1145) allow separate r/vc ratio

ceilings for individual railroads. The

proposed national average r/vc ratio for

1995 is 139.5%. Ratios are also

proposed for individual class I railroads

and for the Eastern region and the

Western region. The Commission is

deferring initiation of the fourth annual

compliance proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995, unless,

within that time, comments are received

challenging the accuracy of the ratios, in

which case a further decision will be

issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert C. Hasek, (202) 927–6239; or H.

Jeff Warren, (202) 927–6243. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Commission’s decision. To purchase

a copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: Dynamic

Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, Interstate

Commerce Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423 or telephone

(202) 289–4357/4359. [Assistance for

the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services (202) 927–5721].

This decision will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or energy conservation.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we

conclude that our action will not have

a significant or adverse economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10321(a), 10731; 5

U.S.C. 553.

Decided: January 27, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman McDonald,

Vice Chairman Morgan, and Commissioners

Simmons and Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3249 Filed 2–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32549]

Burlington Northern Inc. and

Burlington Northern Railroad

Company—Control and Merger—Santa

Fe Pacific Corporation and The

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe

Railway Company

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Decision No. 9; Notice of

Proposed Revision of Procedural

Schedule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is seeking

public comments on the applicants’

proposal to revise the procedural

schedule adopted in Decision Nos. 4

and 5 in this proceeding, served October

5, 1994, and November 10, 1994,

respectively, to provide for issuance of

a final decision within 165 days from

the date on which the Commission

decision containing notice of

shareholder approval is served. To

facilitate meeting that deadline and to

help narrow the focus to the relevant

issues, the Commission is proposing

page limitations for certain filings and is

considering issuing a preliminary

scoping order.

DATES: Written comments must be filed

with the Commission no later than

February 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: An original and 20 copies of

all documents must refer to Finance

Docket No. 32549 and be sent to the

Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Attn: Finance Docket No.

32549, Interstate Commerce

Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20423.

In addition, one copy of all

documents in this proceeding must be

sent to the Honorable Stephen L.

Grossman, FERC, Office of Hearings,

825 North Capitol Street, NE,

Washington, D.C. 20426 and to each of

applicants’ representatives: (1) Betty Jo

Christian, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, 1330

Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington,

DC 20036–1795; and (2) Erika Z. Jones,

Esq., Mayer, Brown & Platt, 2000

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 6500,

Washington, DC 20006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon or Dugie Standeford, (202)

927–5610. [TDD for the hearing

impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 13, 1994, an application was

filed for approval of Burlington

Northern, Inc.’s (BNI) acquisition of,

control of, and merger with Santa Fe

Pacific Corporation (SFP), the resulting

common control of Burlington Northern

Railroad Company (BN) and The

Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Company (Santa Fe) by the merged

company, the consolidation of BN and

Santa Fe railroad operations and the

merger of BN and Santa Fe. Applicants

also seek exemption from regulation for

the merged holding company and

merged railroad to control The Wichita

Union Terminal Railway Company

[Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 1)]

and for 11 construction projects related

to the primary application [Finance

Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 2 through

Sub-No. 12)]. We accepted the

application in our Decision No. 5,

served and published in the Federal

Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR

56089), and we set certain filing dates

under the procedural schedule

previously adopted in our Decision No.

4, served October 5, 1994.

In Decision No. 7, served December 5,

1994, we granted the requests of several

parties and postponed the procedural

schedule set forth in Decision Nos. 4

and 5 pending the outcome of an SFP

shareholder vote. In Decision No. 7, we

stated that upon approval of the

proposed BNI/SFP merger by the

shareholders, we would immediately

issue a new schedule requiring the first

comments to be filed 30 days later and

adjusting other schedule dates

accordingly. That shareholder vote has

been postponed several times and is

now scheduled for February 7, 1995.

In New Procedures in Rail

Acquisitions, Mergers and

Consolidations, Ex Parte No. 282 (SubNo. 19) (ICC served Jan. 26, 1995) (60 FR

5890, January 31, 1995), we are seeking

comments on our proposed

establishment of more timely

procedures for processing applications

for major and significant rail

combinations. In the January 26, 1995

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we

gave all interested parties until March 2,

1995, to file written comments. We also

served a copy of the notice on all parties

on the service list in this merger

proceeding and asked for comments on

whether this case should be governed by

the schedule originally adopted or the

schedule proposed in Ex Parte No. 282

(Sub-No. 19).

By petition filed January 27, 1995,

BNI, BN, SFP, and Santa Fe request that

we adopt a modified, expedited

procedural schedule which tracks the

schedule proposed by the Commission

for public comment in Ex Parte No. 282

(Sub-No. 19) in place of the original

schedule. We are now seeking public

comments on this proposal by the

applicants to revise the procedural

schedule previously established in this

proceeding to provide for the service of

a final decision no later than 165 days

from the date the Commission serves its

decision containing notice of

shareholder approval of the proposed

merger, as set out in Appendix A to this

Notice. Additionally, to facilitate our

meeting this deadline and to better

focus the filings on relevant issues, we

are proposing page limitations on all

filings that should not require extensive

evidentiary submissions. The specific

limitations are set out in Appendix A to

this notice. These limits would not

extend to tables of contents, prefaces,

tables of authorities, summaries of

argument, and other introductory

materials. Further, to help narrow the

focus to relevant issues, we are
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