decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It is ordered: (1) The prior report and order of division 2, served October 18, 1977, is modified to the extent it is inconsistent with our present findings. (2) The complaint is dismissed. By the Commission. (Commissioner Murphy did not participate.) 357 I.C.C. EX PARTE NO. MC-82 NEW PROCEDURES IN MOTOR CARRIER Decided June 9, 1978 Upon consideration of the record and various petitions, informal conference found appropriate to address continuing problem areas. Tentative revisions to our procedures governing revenue proceedings of general commodity carriers (49 CFR 1104) formulated, but their adoption deferred until after the forthcoming conference. Date of conference to be determined later. Appearances as shown in prior report; and in addition, Norman Powell for Central & Southern Motor Freight Tariff Association, Inc.; J. Alan Royal for Middle Atlantic Conference; Sherman Schwartzberg for Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc.; J. Anthony Terilla for Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association, Inc.; and J. P. Wolonsky for Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc. INTERIM DECISION BY THE COMMISSION: In prior reports, 339 I.C.C. 324, 340 I.C.C. 1, 351 I.C.C. 1, we prescribed and subsequently modified new procedures (set forth at 49 CFR 1104) governing the data and information to be submitted by motor common carriers of general commodities in general revenue proceedings. Our most recent modifications (351 I.C.C. 1, 54) were stayed by subsequent order of November 14, 1975, pending "further order of the Commission." Thereafter, various parties' filed 'Petitions for further reconsideration and modification of the prior report and order 351 L.C.C. 1, et seq., were filed on January 21, 1976, by the Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association, Inc.; on January 30, 1976, by Rocky Mountain Tariff Bureau; on February 2, 1976, individually, by Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau. Inc.. the Central and Southern Motor Freight Tariff Association. Inc., and the Motor Carriers Traffic Association. Inc.. and jointly by the Central States Motor Freight Bureau. Inc., and Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference. Inc., by the Middle Atlantic Conference, Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau, the New England Motor Rate Bureau. Inc., and Pacific Inland Tariff Bureau. Inc. on February 3, 1976, by the National Small Shipments Traffic Conference and Drug and Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference. petitions seeking reconsideration, modification, or further changes to the procedures to which replies2 were filed. These petitions as well as issues raised in Ex Parte No. MC-98, New Procedures in Motor Carriers Restructuring Proceedings, 359 I.C.C. 397 (1978), lead us to reconsider certain revisions we found appropriate in our most recent report and to conclude that other additional changes in the procedures are appropriate. Before discussing these matters, a similar request by both carrier and shipper interests should be addressed. Central and Southern Motor Freight Tariff Association, Rocky Mountain Motor Bureau, and the Drug and Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference and National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, filing jointly, stress the importance of the issues in this proceeding and request an informal conference to consider certain problem areas. From its very inception we have considered the Ex Parte No. MC82 proceeding to be an "open" one, which includes constant reevaluation to insure the development of a reasonable and reliable data base for regulatory decisionmaking. Consistent with this position and notably because of the technical ramifications of Ex Parte No. MC-98, supra, and docket No. 36556, Revision of the Annual Report and Uniform System of Accounts for Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of Properties (not printed), served October 13, 1977, we conclude that the increasingly technical matters before us can be constructively addressed in a conference-type atmosphere. By so doing, shipper and carrier expertise can be applied to the issues (and tentative conclusions herein), and where appropriate enable us expeditiously to revise, clarify, and supplement them. Such an approach is most appropriate because our decisions in Ex Parte No. MC-98 and docket No. 36556 were reached after petitioners filed their pleadings in this proceeding. In the informal conference we envision our technical staff meeting with participants and formulating final proposals for our consideration. Accordingly, an informal conference will be scheduled. No formal agenda is contemplated. Matters of clarification and suggested modifications will be discussed on a "section-by-section" basis, that is, in the same order as the instant report is structured. Parties 'Replies to the various petitions were filed on March 17, 1976, individually, by the Eastern Central Motor Carriers Association, Inc.; on April 8, 1976, by Rocky Mountain Tariff Bureau; on April 12th by Central States Motor Freight Bureau, Inc., by Middle Atlantic Conference, by Central and Southern Motor Tariff Association, Inc., by the National Industrial Traffic League, and jointly by National Small Shipments Traffic Conference and Drug and Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference. should come prepared to submit in writing their ideas for clarification and modification, and to discuss the merits of those changes. Parties unable to attend may submit their comments to the Commission no later than 15 days prior to its convening. Appropriate notice will be given. In this report we shall address the matters raised on petition, make tentative findings, and set forth other appropriate changes. We shall not, however, adopt any changes until after the conference so that shipper and carrier expertise can be reflected in the final regulations. In discussing the issues, the organization in 49 CFR 1104 will be followed. Issues will be considered as they pertain to: (1) Application of the Procedures (section 1104.1), (2) the Traffic Study (section 1104.2), (3) the Cost Study (section 1104.3), and (4) Computation of Revenue Need (section 1104.4). I. APPLICATION (SECTION 1104.1) We have reexamined arguments concerning the need for adding the Motor Carriers' Traffic Association, Inc. (MCTA) and the Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc. (Niagara), to the bureaus subject to these procedures. We believe their addition is appropriate and will add them to the list of bureaus effective January 1, 1979. By this date Niagara should have completed its program to develop costs applicable to traffic between Canada and the United States. A decision whether it shall be required to furnish all the financial data called for under the prescribed procedures will be addressed at the informal conference. Our decision not to include these bureaus within the application of the rules until January 1, 1979, accords them adequate lead time to prepare themselves. II. TRAFFIC STUDY (SECTION 1104.2) A. Timely traffic study data.-A review of the justification statements for rate increases, having effective dates of July 1, 1975, filed by nine rate bureaus reveals that seven were able to submit cost and revenue data for the base calendar year-actual, based on the 1974 traffic study year. This shows that the bureaus can now meet a 6-month time frame for the accumulation and processing of traffic and cost study data, rather than the previous 7-month period (340 I.C.C. 1, 28 and 351 I.C.C. 1, 55). As the more current data is desirable, section 1104.2 of the prescribed procedures will be revised to reflect the carriers' improved capability in this regard. The motor carrier industry's Continuous Traffic Study (CTS) is, in many respects, the heart of the prescribed procedures. It is indispensable to the development of operating ratios for the various traffic segments. It allows us to determine the revenues applicable to the traffic as well as the kind and number of traffic service units to which the Highway Form B service unit costs are applied. The traffic study identifies not only the level of traffic activity and its influence on the cost of service, but also the characteristics and consists within that traffic level. This information is significant to the relationship of the operating ratios among the various weight brackets of issue and nonissue traffic. Motor common carriers of general freight, the rate bureaus, and all others associated with the CTS are commended for their efforts in developing this valuable tool for regulatory and managerial purposes. Nevertheless, our continuing evaluation of the CTS procedures and data relative to the Ex Parte No. MC-82 rules indicates a significant area for improvement with regard to the problem of updating costs. For example, even under the 6-month time frame, a rate proposal with an effective date of April 1, 1978, would require a CTS for the calendar year 1976, with the resulting problem of updating 1976 costs through the various pro forma years to an April 1978 level. While this updating process is generally satisfactory when accomplished through Highway Form B procedures and the latest quarterly data available, the question is whether there have been any significant changes in the traffic characteristics for the year 1976 as compared with April 1978. This question might be largely answered if the CTS were conducted and the data accumulated on a semiannual rather than calendar-year basis, as now done. Thus, in the example cited, the CTS traffic and cost study data could be provided on an actual basis for the two semiannual periods ending June 30, 1977. Accordingly, we plan to require the bureaus to develop CTS data every 6 months (instead of annually) unless the carriers can clearly demonstrate that the burden would be prohibitive. B. Traffic study carriers.-Despite criticism, we believe it is necessary to prescribe rules governing the selection of the traffic study carriers. While differences exist among the bureaus, we shall continue to strive for uniform procedures and data. Thus, section 1104.2(b)(1) as prescribed in our prior report will be revised to give effect to a new definition of traffic study carriers. Because of this new definition, issue traffic revenues need no longer be used in selecting these study carriers. Rather, the total |