[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27903]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 10, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
[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. 5; Notice of Acceptance of Application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is accepting for consideration the application
filed October 13, 1994, by Burlington Northern Inc. (BNI), Burlington
Northern Railroad Company (BN), Santa Fe Pacific Corporation (SFP), and
The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe)
(collectively applicants), seeking Commission approval and
authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11343-45 for: (1) BNI's acquisition of,
control of, and merger with SFP; (2) the resulting common control of BN
and Santa Fe by the merged company; and (3) the merger of the two
railroad entities. Applicants are directed to provide certain
additional information.
DATES: The effective date of this decision is November 10, 1994.
Written comments on the primary application, including initial lists of
protective conditions, must be filed with the Commission no later than
December 27, 1994, and second lists of protective conditions must be
filed by January 24, 1995. Responsive applications must be filed by
February 8, 1995. For further information, see the attached procedural
schedule.1
\1\The procedural schedule set forth below was adopted in
Decision No. 4 in this proceeding, served October 5, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDRESSES: An original and 20 copies of all documents must refer to
Finance Docket No. 32549 and be sent to Office of the Secretary, Case
Control Branch, Attn: Finance Docket No. 32549, Interstate Commerce
Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20423.
In addition, one copy of all documents in this proceeding must be
sent 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 Chris Oehrle (202)
927-5610. [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 1994, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
11343-45 and our rules at 49 CFR 1180.4, applicants filed an
application for approval of BNI's acquisition of, control of, and
merger with SFP, the resulting common control of BN and Santa Fe by the
merged company, the consolidation of BN and Santa Fe railroad
operations and the merger of BN and Santa Fe. Applicants are also
seeking exemption from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10505 for the merged
holding company and merged railroad to control The Wichita Union
Terminal Railway Company (WUTR) [Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 1)]
and for eleven construction projects related to the primary application
[Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 2 through Sub-No. 12)].2 We are
accepting for consideration the control and merger application filed in
this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(2)(vi), all directly related
applications, petitions, and notices of exemption must be filed
concurrently with the primary control and merger application. We
note that there are two pending proceedings that may be related to
the proposed merger. The question is whether these proceedings are
directly related to the merger within the meaning of 49 CFR
1180.4(c)(2)(vi).
The first proceeding is Docket No. AB-423 (Sub-No. 1X), which
involves a petition for exemption to discontinue the lease and
operation of a rail yard in Houston filed by the Houston Belt &
Terminal Railway Company (HBT). Although HBT is not an applicant
carrier in the merger proceeding, BN has a 24% interest and Santa Fe
has a 25% interest in HBT. See the waiver decision in Finance Docket
No. 32549, Decision No. 3, served Oct. 4, 1994. The petition in
Docket No. AB-423 (Sub-No. 1X) was filed on July 8, 1994, which was
the same day that applicants filed their notice of intent to file
the merger application in Finance Docket No. 32549. A separate
decision is being issued in Docket No. AB-423 (Sub-No. 1X) directing
petitioner to clarify the relationship, if any, between the subject
matter of the petition for exemption and the merger transaction in
Finance Docket No. 32549.
The second proceeding is Finance Docket No. 32593, which is a
notice of a corporate family reorganization filed by Santa Fe under
the class exemption procedures at 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3). The
reorganization involves the purchase by Santa Fe of all of the real
estate and improvements now owned by four of its subsidiary
railroads. According to the notice filed by Santa Fe, the purpose of
the reorganization is to concentrate Santa Fe's railroad real estate
holdings in a single corporation and to reduce administrative
expenses. There is no mention of the proposed merger application
which was filed 10 days after the filing of the notice in Finance
Docket No. 32593. Notice of the transaction in Finance Docket No.
32593 will be published separately in the Federal Register. Santa Fe
is directed in that proceeding to explain the relationship, if any,
between the corporate family reorganization in Finance Docket No.
32593 and the proposed merger in Finance Docket No. 32549. Comments
from other parties on Santa Fe's corporate family reorganization
(including any comments alleging that the reorganization is directly
related to the application in Finance Docket No. 32549) should be
addressed in Finance Docket No. 32593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receipt of Commission approval and authorization and
satisfaction of other conditions to closing under an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated June 29, 1994, SFP will merge with and into BNI, which
will change its name to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation. Each
share of SFP common stock will be exchanged for 0.34 shares of newly
issued BNI common stock. Upon the BNI-SFP merger, BNI will acquire and
exercise control of Santa Fe in common with its existing control of
BN.3 The operations of BN and Santa Fe will be consolidated and
fully integrated following the holding company merger. Applicants also
seek Commission approval to merge the BN and Santa Fe legal entities,
although the timing of the railroad merger will depend on tax, legal
and other considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Santa Fe and its majority-owned railroad subsidiaries--The
Dodge City and Cimarron Valley Railway Company, The Gulf and Inter-
State Railway Company of Texas, Los Angeles Junction Railway
Company, Oklahoma City Junction Railway Company, Rio Grande, El Paso
and Santa Fe Railway Company and Star Lake Railroad Company--are an
integrated single system railroad. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad
Company, a non-operating rail carrier entity, likewise is part of
Santa Fe's single system. As such, the acquisition of control of
Santa Fe by BNI involves the control of a single carrier within the
meaning of 49 U.S.C. 11343. See Robert W. Bethge & Raymond K.
Wilson--Control Exemption--Canal Cartage Co., Finance Docket No. MC-
F-19525 (served Nov. 29, 1989); Burlington Northern, Inc.--Control
and Merger--St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 366 I.C.C. 862, 865, aff'd
sub nom. Brotherhood of Ry. & Airline Clerks v. Burlington Northern
Inc., 722 F.2d 380 (8th Cir. 1983); Katy Indus., Inc.--Control--
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R., 331 I.C.C. 405, 410-411 (1967); Kansas
City Southern Indus. Inc.--Control--Kansas City S. Ry., 317 I.C.C.
1, 4 (1962); Woods Indus., Inc.--Control--United Transports, Inc.,
85 M.C.C. 672, 675 (1960); Louisville & Jeffersonville B. & R. Co.
Merger, 295 I.C.C. 11, 17-18 (1955), aff'd sub nom. Alleghany Corp.
v. Breswick & Co., 353 U.S. 151 (1957).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the proposed transaction, the merged company will
also acquire control of WUTR, in which BN and Santa Fe each own a one-
third stock interest. A petition for exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10505
from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343-47 for the
acquisition and exercise of control of WUTR was filed concurrently with
the primary application [Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 1)].
No new securities will be issued by any company subject to
Commission regulation under 49 U.S.C. 11301 to effect the merger of BNI
and SFP or the common control of BN and Santa Fe. To the extent BN's
succession to then-outstanding debt obligations of Santa Fe in the
merger of the railroad entities may be deemed to require Commission
authorization under 49 U.S.C. 11301, applicants seek such
authorization, and provide the relevant information in accordance with
49 CFR 1180.6(a)(1)(iv).
In connection with the transaction, applicants propose to construct
new railroad lines that are or may be subject to the jurisdiction of
the Commission under 49 U.S.C. 10901. Petitions for exemption under 49
U.S.C. 10505 from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901
for the construction of those railroad lines were filed concurrently
with the primary application [Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 2
through Sub-No. 12)].
BN operates approximately 25,000 miles of road and second main
track in the United States and Canada. BN's principal routes are as
follows: a route that extends from the Pacific Northwest (Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and southern British Columbia) across Montana, North
Dakota, Minnesota, and the western edge of Wisconsin to Chicago; a
route extending from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming in a
southeasterly direction through Lincoln to Chicago and Kansas City; a
second route extending from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming south to
Denver and Fort Worth; a route extending from the Powder River Basin in
Montana to Bismarck and Minneapolis/St. Paul, with an auxiliary line to
the Head of the Lakes; a route from Denver to Chicago with a junction
at Lincoln; a route from Avard, Oklahoma east to Memphis and
Birmingham; and a route from Chicago to Houston through Kansas City and
Dallas, with an auxiliary line from St. Louis to a junction point east
of Tulsa. BN's principal termini are at Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane,
Washington; Portland, Oregon; Bieber, California; Vancouver, British
Columbia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Billings, Montana; Cheyenne, Wyoming;
Denver, Colorado; Duluth, Minnesota/Superior, Wisconsin; Fargo, North
Dakota/Moorhead, Minnesota; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; Chicago,
Illinois; Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska; Des Moines, Iowa; Wichita and
Kansas City, Kansas; Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis, Missouri;
Tulsa, Oklahoma; Fort Worth, Dallas, Houston, and Galveston, Texas;
Memphis, Tennessee; Birmingham and Mobile, Alabama; and Pensacola,
Florida. BN's principal points of interchange are at those termini and
at Avard, Oklahoma.
As of December 31, 1993, BN operated approximately 22,506 miles of
road track, 2,134 miles of second main track and 39 miles of other main
tracks in the United States and Canada.
Santa Fe operates approximately 10,400 miles of road and secondary
main tracks, creating a system of 8,500 route miles. Santa Fe's
principal routes are as follows: a route from Chicago across Illinois,
Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to
California; a second route from Kansas City to Colorado and New Mexico
with an auxiliary line to Superior, Nebraska; and a route from Chicago
to Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston with an auxiliary line to East Texas
and Louisiana. Santa Fe's principal termini are at San Francisco/
Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Barstow, California; Phoenix,
Arizona; Albuquerque and Clovis, New Mexico; Denver, Colorado; El Paso,
Dallas, and Houston, Texas; Kansas City, Kansas; and Chicago, Illinois.
As of December 31, 1993, Santa Fe operated approximately 8,536
miles of road track, 1,812 miles of second main track and 45 miles of
other main tracks, including the lines of its wholly owned subsidiaries
and leased lines.
According to applicants, the consolidation of BN and Santa Fe would
be almost entirely an end-to-end transaction, which would create new
single-line routes and increase, not reduce, competition. In terms of
both geographic configuration and commodities handled, applicants
indicate that their existing rail operations are essentially
complementary to one another. BN's routes are concentrated in the Upper
Midwest, the Northern Plains and the Pacific Northwest. From this
defining core, BN's lines extend into the south central region of the
country, but with much less market coverage than in the North. Santa Fe
serves the area from California through the Southwest, reaching up
through the Midwest to Chicago. The principal commodities handled by BN
are coal and grain. A primary focus of Santa Fe's business is
intermodal traffic.
According to applicants, both BN and Santa Fe operate in a highly
competitive environment and face pervasive competition from other rail
carriers as well as from trucks and barges in many markets. Applicants
contend that, with only a few limited exceptions, the proposed
transaction does not threaten any reduction in the vigor of intramodal
competition. Applicants contend that the bulk of the BN and Santa Fe
systems do not overlap in horizontal competition. Applicants also
indicate that no horizontal overlap exists in the three major corridors
from the mid-continent to the west coast. BN operates in the Northern
Corridor; Santa Fe operates in the Southern Corridor. Where overlap is
present, applicants indicate that it almost always occurs in the
presence of extensive competition with other providers of freight
transportation services. Applicants' analyses, however, indicate the
possibility for some limited reduction in competition in the areas of
Amarillo and Lubbock, Texas. Concerning this area, applicants say that
they are prepared to negotiate ameliorative arrangements to address any
such reductions in competition.
Applicants state that there will be few basic changes in the
existing route structure. Applicants find that the Avard, OK gateway
route will experience the most pronounced change. Applicants also
project that California-Southeast traffic will increase significantly
and that traffic on the route east of Avard to Tulsa will approximately
double due to a combination of growth and internal reroutes.
Applicants' traffic projections also involve increases in intermodal,
merchandise, and grain traffic.
BN and Santa Fe routes between Denver and Texas and between Chicago
and Texas also possess some parallel characteristics. Applicants,
however, find that each route is generally far removed from its
counterpart and each serves other different, but important, traffic
lanes and, therefore, no major change in overall uses and traffic
density is planned.
We are accepting the application for consideration because it
complies with the applicable regulations, waivers, and requirements.
See 49 U.S.C. 11343-45; 49 CFR Part 1180. We reserve the right,
however, to require the filing of supplemental information from
applicants or any other party or individual, as necessary to complete
the record in this matter.
Although applicants have provided sufficient market analysis under
49 CFR 1180.7 for us to accept their application for consideration, we
find that additional information will be necessary for us to analyze
the effect of this transaction on certain other railroads.
Specifically, we are concerned about railroads which have interests in
either WUTR or HBT.
In our decision served October 3, 1994 [Decision No. 3], we waived
our regulations at 49 CFR 1180.3(b) pertaining to WUTR and HBT by not
considering either of them an ``applicant carrier.'' Consequently, we
are lacking certain information that we believe is necessary to conduct
our market analysis. Therefore, applicants are directed to provide us
with additional information concerning WUTR and HBT.
In Finance Docket No. 32549 (Sub-No. 1), applicants seek an
exemption for their control of WUTR. In their petition, applicants
indicate that the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MP) owns the other
one-third stock interest in WUTR. Applicants state in the petition that
they expect MP will continue to participate in WUTR's management and
that applicants' control will not impair MP's ability to obtain service
from WUTR. Applicants are directed to provide copies of any agreement
concerning use of that property.
Although BN and Santa Fe currently own only 24% and 25% of HBT,
respectively, in the event of consolidation, their combined interests
may constitute control of HBT. Therefore, we will direct applicants to
provide us with the following information:
1. Identify the owners of HBT and their respective ownership
percentages.
2. Identify any railroads dependent on HBT in order to interchange
with other carriers (specify which carriers) or to connect their own
lines through the city. Explain each dependent circumstance.
3. Explain whether the agreement or agreements governing the use of
the property held or owned by HBT protect any other owners of HBT from
adverse effects in the event of consolidation. Provide copies of any
agreement concerning use of that property.
Because of the expedited procedural schedule, additional
information will be necessary to assist us in preparing prompt and
complete analysis of the transaction. Therefore, applicants are
directed to provide us with a current complete set of employee
operating timetables for both BN and Santa Fe.
In our Decision No. 4, served October 5, 1994, we adopted an
expedited procedural schedule, and we have attached it here to give
notice to all interested persons. All of the filing deadlines are in
accordance with the statute and governing regulations, as modified by
the expedited procedural schedule. We advise applicants and all other
parties to this proceeding that, particularly because of the
accelerated schedule we have adopted, they must strictly comply with
all requirements.4 If questions arise concerning an interpretation
of a requirement, they may contact the Commission's Office of
Proceedings at 202-927-5610 for assistance. See 49 CFR
1180.4(c)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ By petition filed October 28, 1994, The National Industrial
Transportation League (NITL) requests that the procedural schedule
adopted in and attached to our decision served October 5, 1994,
Decision No. 4, be extended by adding 30 days to each of the time
periods specified. NITL's primary concern is the possibility that
the application will be modified or withdrawn as a result of the
actions of SFP's shareholders at their meeting scheduled for
November 18, 1994.
Under 49 CFR 1180.4(b)(7)(i), our decision to accept the
application cannot be extended . Further, comments by parties and
interested persons are not due until December 27, 1994. We see no
reason to extend the procedural schedule at this time. Accordingly
petitioner's request is denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application and accompanying exhibits are available for
inspection in the Public Docket Room, room 1221, at the offices of the
Interstate Commerce Commission in Washington, DC.
Any interested persons, including government parties, may
participate in this proceeding by submitting written comments regarding
the application. Comments must be filed no later than December 27,
1994. An original and 20 copies must be filed with the Secretary,
Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, DC 20423.
Written comments must be concurrently served by first class mail on
the United States Secretary of Transportation (DOT), the Attorney
General of the United States (DOJ), and applicants' representatives.
Written comments must also be served upon all parties of record within
10 days of service of the service list by the Commission. We plan to
issue the service list shortly after comments have been received. Any
person who files timely written comments shall be considered a party of
record if he, she, or it so indicates in their comments. In this event,
no petition for leave to intervene need be filed. Written comments
shall include:
1. The docket number and title of the proceeding;
2. The name, address, and telephone number of the commenting party
and its representative upon whom service shall be made;
3. The commenting party's position, i.e., whether it supports or
opposes the proposed transaction;
4. A statement on whether the commenting party intends to
participate formally in the proceeding or merely comment upon the
proposal;
5. A list of all information sought to be discovered from applicant
carriers;
6. An initial list of specific protective conditions sought;
7. An analysis of the issues the Commission must consider in this
proceeding. Particular attention should be given to our general policy
statement for the merger or control of at least two class I railroads,
49 CFR 1180.1, the statutory criteria, and antitrust policy.
Because we have determined that this proceeding constitutes a major
transaction within the meaning of our rail consolidation rules, 49 CFR
Part 1180, railroads filing written comments must also submit at that
time a statement of whether the commenting railroad intends to file
inconsistent applications, petitions for inclusion, trackage rights, or
any other affirmative relief requiring an application to be filed with
the Commission and a general statement of what that application is
expected to include. THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED A PREFILING NOTICE WITHOUT
WHICH THE COMMISSION WILL NOT ENTERTAIN APPLICATIONS FOR THIS TYPE OF
RELIEF.
Comments from the Secretary of Transportation and Attorney General
must be filed by January 11, 1995. Parties seeking to modify any
protective conditions specified in their initial comments must file a
second list of protective conditions no later than January 24, 1995.
Parties shall not be permitted to seek any protective conditions other
than those requested in their final list.
Parties seeking to file responsive applications must do so no later
than February 8, 1995. Responsive applications include inconsistent
applications, petitions for inclusion, or any other affirmative relief
that requires an application to be filed with the Commission (such as
trackage rights, purchase, purchase of a portion, acquisition,
extension, construction, operation, pooling, terminal operations,
abandonment, etc.). Parties should contact Chris Oehrle (202) 927-6288
to obtain docket numbers for their responsive applications.
Petitions for waiver or clarification by responsive applicants
shall be filed no later than December 27, 1994. Each responsive
application filed and accepted will be consolidated with the primary
application in this proceeding.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In addition to submitting an original and 20 copies of all
documents filed with the Commission, the parties are encouraged to
submit all pleadings and attachments as computer data contained on a
3.5-inch floppy diskette which is formatted for WordPerfect 5.1 (or
formatted so that it can be converted by WordPerfect 5.1). The
computer data contained on the computer diskettes submitted are
subject to the protective order attached to the Commission's
decision served July 15, 1994, and are for the exclusive use of
Commission employees working directly with review of substantive
matters in this proceeding. The flexibility provided by such
computer file data will facilitate expedited review by the
Commission and its staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery may begin immediately. The Commission will not tolerate
dilatory tactics in response to discovery requests designed to elicit
relevant evidence. A refusal voluntarily to supply information will be
treated as an objection to the request for discovery. Responses must be
served upon all parties of record, and five copies of those responses
must be concurrently filed with the Commission.
We plan to conclude the evidentiary phase of this proceeding by
January 2, 1996. The initial decision will be waived, and the
determination of the merits of the application(s) will be made in the
first instance by the entire Commission under 49 U.S.C. 11345.
Any traffic studies and data submitted in opposition to the primary
application must use calendar year 1993 data and, where relevant, use
depreciation accounting, in order to be comparable with the evidence
submitted by applicants. Evidence supporting protestants' responsive
applications must use 1993 as the base year and the depreciation
accounting system, and applicants' evidence in opposition to the
responsive applications must use 1993 and depreciation accounting.
We advise protestants that, if they seek to have the primary
application denied, or seek conditions if approved, because they
contend their ability to provide essential service and/or competition
will be harmed, they must present substantial evidence in support of
their positions. See Lamoille Valley R.R. Co. v. ICC, 711 F.2d 295
(D.C. Cir. 1983).
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
It is ordered:
1. The application in Finance Docket No. 32549 is accepted for
consideration.
2. The parties shall comply with all provisions as stated above.
3. Applicants are directed to provide the Commission's Office of
Compliance and Enforcement with a current complete set of employee
operating timetables for both BN and Santa Fe within 30 days of the
effective date of this decision.
4. Applicants are directed to provide copies of any agreement
concerning use of property operated by WUTR within 10 days of the
effective date of this decision.
5. Applicants are directed to provide the following information
within 10 days of the effective date of this decision:
a. Identify the owners of HBT and their respective ownership
percentages.
b. Identify any railroads dependent on HBT in order to interchange
with other carriers (specify which carriers) or to connect their own
lines through the city. Explain each dependent circumstance.
c. Explain whether the agreement or agreements governing the use of
the property held or owned by HBT could adversely affect any other
owners of HBT in the event of consolidation. Provide copies of any
agreement concerning use of that property.
6. This decision is effective on November 10, 1994.
Decided: November 3, 1994.
By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Phillips,
and Commissioners Simmons, Morgan, and Owen. Vice Chairman Phillips
recused herself in this proceeding.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
Procedural Schedule
October 13, 1994--Primary application filed.
November 10, 1994--Commission notice of acceptance of primary
application published.
December 27, 1994--Comments on primary application (except DOJ, DOT)
due, including initial list of protective conditions; petitions for
waiver or clarification by responsive applicants due.
January 11, 1995--DOJ, DOT comments on primary application due.
January 24, 1995--Second lists of protective conditions due.
February 8, 1995--Responsive applications due; opposition to primary
application due.
March 10, 1995--Commission notice of acceptance of responsive
applications published.
June 8, 1995--Government parties' evidence due; opposition to
responsive applications due; rebuttal in support of primary application
due.
July 24, 1995--Responses to government parties' evidence due; rebuttal
in support of responsive applications due.
August 14, 1995-August 18, 1995--Hearing on all evidence; witnesses to
be to cross-examined only to the extent specific need is shown in order
to resolve material issues of disputed fact.
October 2, 1995--Opening briefs due.
November 16, 1995--Reply briefs due.
January 2, 1996 Oral argument.
February 16, 1996 Voting Conference.
April 1, 1996 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. Relevant excerpts of transcripts
will be received in lieu of cross-examination at the hearing, unless
cross-examination 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.
The dates for filing post-hearing briefs and for oral argument before
the Commission will be set upon completion of oral hearings.
[FR Doc. 94-27903 Filed 11-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P