specified period of time from the date of an application's publication in the Federal Register. This proposal would enable applicant to hone its evidence to the specific issues presented by those parties actively interested in opposing an application while at the same time cutting a certain amount of unnecessary delay caused by waiting for the designation order to fix specific dates for the submission of the statements. It is obvious that this proposal will eliminate an early determination of which process (modified procedure versus oral hearing) will be utilized to decide a proceeding, thereby causing those parties whose applications are set for oral hearing to submit written statements. It is felt that this is not necessarily adverse to the adoption of this proposal because: (1) verified statements and other printed evidence are often submitted into the record of cases decided at oral hearing, (2) only between 12 and 15 percent of all applications are decided by oral hearing, and (3) an exception to the proposal [as to those types of applications most likely to be set for oral hearing (see proposed rule 247(e)(1))] will be drawn. The proposal's benefits appear to include the facts that: (1) it will do away with the present delay experienced in the drawing up and service of designation orders as reflected in appendix C to this report, (2) it will prevent the imposition of unexpected time deadlines for filing statements on parties, thereby cutting requests for extensions of time, and (3) it will permit a more well-informed judgment by the Commission on the designation of the decisional procedure. For the foregoing reasons, we feel that further study of this proposal through the receipt of comments from all segments of the interested public would be in the public interest, and we will issue a notice of continuing proposed rulemaking in this proceeding.

V. Oral Hearing

The rules adopted herein do not provide for substantial change in existing procedure applicable to oral hearings, or in the filing of certifications of support. The continued use of certifications of support will facilitate the internal processing of cases. The ready identification of supporting witnesses and the nature of their support will enable more expeditious review of the Federal Register caption and speed the process of consolidating applications and of designating proceedings for handling under either the modified procedure or oral hearing. Therefore, retaining the requirement for the filing of certifications of support is consistent with the objectives of this proceeding.

In regard to the new proposal's effect on oral hearings, while a prescribed number of supporting witnesses may be added if an application is designated for handling at oral hearing, the designation of proceedings for oral hearing is not made on a preferential basis. The determination to hold oral hearing has been and will continue to be made on the basis of the complexity of the issues involved and the extent of opposition. It is the nature of the case, rather than the particular applicant involved, which is determinative. At present, designation is accomplished without knowledge of the number of protestants who intend to actively oppose an application. Under the proposed procedure, such a determination will now be possible with knowledge of the number of actively interested protestants. This should facilitate the determination. The modified procedure has historically been employed where the issues presented by the application are well defined or where the matters involved do not justify the expense of an oral hearing. See Theatres Service Co. Ext.-Duluth, Ga., 113 M.C.C. 744, 746 (1971). The courts have recognized the practical necessity of handling many applications for operating authority under the modified procedure and have found no denial of fundamental fairness in the Commission's application of such procedure. Cf., National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. United States, 293 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Okla. 1968). Where oral hearing is directed, under rule 247 (49 CFR 1100.247) of the Rules of Practice, the written statements filed by applicant shall constitute evidence of record, subject to a reasonable request for cross-examination by opposing parties as prescribed in rule 19. Applicant may rely solely on these previously filed statements or present the same or additional evidence orally. Updating of the evidence appearing in the initial written verified statements may be done by oral testimony; additional written verified statements will not have to be submitted.

VI. Case Processing Procedures

The Commission, throughout the decades of its existence, has continually sought to promote the expeditious handling of all matters coming before it for decision. Its rules and processing system have been continuously revised and upgraded in the face of an increased caseload without an enlarged staff. To cope, the Commission promulgated rules regarding the submission of evidence in written form in the relatively larger number of simpler cases, specified the evidence necessary to ensure meritorious

applications, and instituted a set of internal procedures designed to promote a balance between the ability of all parties to get a full and fair hearing and the expeditious processing of the caseload. The instant proceeding is another in a long line of proceedings seeking to reach that proper balance. It attempts to revise certain of the rules of practice in such a way that the period relevant to this proceeding between the filing of an application and the date that a case is ripe for decision is decreased in a substantial fashion while preserving the essential due process rights of all parties involved. The comments and suggestions from carriers, shippers, practitioners, attorneys, associations, and governmental bodies have been of great assistance in this regard. Some of the suggestions concerning case processing have been found to meritorious (and will be discussed later) while others are beyond the scope of this proceeding (notably those suggestions concerning the setting of internal time limits for reaching a determination after a case is ripe for decision and the suggestions concerning establishing a fee for the filing of protests and motions). The setting of time limitations on various stages of Commission proceedings was proposed in amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act recommended by the Commission to the Senate Committee on Commerce and House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and is the subject of a petition filed by the American Trucking Association, Inc., docketed as Ex Parte No. 55 (Sub-No. 21).

The promulgation of the various rule changes already discussed will, we are convinced, allow a substantial saving in processing time. The effect of rule changes that are proposed herein and the suggestions of the parties which have been adopted, and the reasons therefor, will now be discussed.

55

Upon the filing of an application and pursuant to the suggestion of the MCLA, an applicant will also be required to submit a Federal Register caption sheet. Many parties did so in the filing to "E" letter-notices pursuant to the Commission's Gateway Elimination Rules (49 CFR 1065) and this considerably speeded up the time required for such authority to be published in the Federal Register, resulting in considerable saving in clerical personnel time. The various processing steps that a normal operating rights modified procedure case goes through are listed in appendix D to this report. From the time an application is filed until that application is

It should be noted that in certain kinds of applications, such as alternate-route applications, gateway applications, and certain conversion applications, no "shipper" support is required though such evidence may be introduced.

published in the Federal Register, a number of clerical functions are performed (notably acceptance of the filing fee, rephrasing of the authority sought (commodity or territory) if necessary, and the preparation by Commission staff personnel of caption sheets which contain the information normally published in the Federal Register (case number, filing date, applicant's name and address, applicant's representative's name and address, commodity and territorial authority sought, and notes on whether common control or dual operations is involved and where applicant requests a hearing, if one is to be held).

The additional requirement of the filing of a Federal Register caption, we feel, is no great imposition on applicants owing to the fact that such information is normally contained in bits and pieces throughout the application form. The filing of such a caption will, however, be of great benefit to the Commission as it will free certain personnel for other assignments. These filed captions should be submitted in the same general form as captions presently being published (as to operating rights applications). Examples of correct double spaced caption sheets for four types of regular-route generalcommodities applications, three types of irregular-route common carrier applications, a normal form for for a contract carrier application, various kinds of "passenger" applications, and various kinds of broker, freight forwarder, and water carrier applications are included in appendix F to this report. Note in this appendix the commodity and territorial descriptions, State abbreviations, various restrictions, and other assorted descriptions which are in currently acceptable Commission form. Note also the standardized format for each caption and the specific information required. We ask carriers and their representatives to adhere to these examples or to captions of similar applications published recently in the Federal Register. After an application is received at the Commission, but before it is accepted for filing and a docket number assigned, there will be an initial screening of each application to make sure that the Federal Register caption sheet has been submitted and is in correct form for transmittal to the Federal Register. If the application is defective in this respect, the application will not be accepted for filing. This may require a telephone call to resolve a simple defect or return of the application and refund of the filing fee for more serious defects. Where an application is not accepted for filing, a docket number shall not be assigned.

If an application is accepted for filing, the Commission would expect a decreased number of days until the application is published

in the Federal Register (see appendix D). After the application has been published in the Federal Register, notices of protest shall be filed within 30 days thereafter. Such notices shall contain the more specific, detailed requirements enumerated in rule 247(e)(3) of the newly promulgated rules, the rationale for this change having previously been discussed. Notices of protest phrased in general terms and insufficiently notifying applicant of protestant's interest shall subject the protest to motions to strike in whole or in part. Applicants are requested to immediately notify the Commission of an error in the Federal Register publication and submit a corrected Federal Register caption (not to broaden the scope of the application) so that the application may be republished expeditiously.

With respect to the processing of applications if the new proposal is adopted, and for informed discussion in future representations on the new proposal, after an application has been accepted for filing, applicant would be required to serve its initial verified statements on protestants and interveners (and file them with the Commission) within 60 days from the date of the publication of the authority sought in the Federal Register. Ninety days from the date of publication, protestants' statements would be due and 110 days after publication, applicant's rebuttal would be due. The order designating the proceeding for handling under the modified procedure or oral hearing (see appendix D) would be eliminated. Designation would not occur until all verified statements are received. If it should be determined, after all verified statements have been filed and served, that an application should be decided at oral hearing, a notice to that effect would be served on all parties. Otherwise, an application would be handled and decided on the basis of the verified statements already filed (modified procedure). As to the request that the Commission issue criteria as to which proceeding shall go to oral hearing and which shall be decided under the modified procedure, this determination involves variable factors including the complexity of the authority requested, the complexity of the issues, and the number of parties. It is extremely difficult (except in the situations posed by the exceptions to the new proposal) to predict which cases would more likely be designated for processing under modified procedure versus oral hearing. Establishing clear criteria for such a designation based on variable factors would be virtually impossible.

With respect to amendments, consolidation, and intervention, the following comments are due: (1) our rules on amendments remain