59834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices

7 Id. at 43.

8Pub. L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338 (1999).

9 16 U.S.C.A. 825d(b)(2) (West Supp. 2000).

10 18 CFR 385.214(d)(2000).

11 16 U.S.C.A. 825d(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2000).

12We use the phrase ‘‘underwriting firm’’ as a

short-hand description of the longer, statutory

‘‘bank, trust company, banking association, or

firm.’’

13See 16 U.S.C.A. 825d(b)(2)(B)(i) (West Supp.

2000).

14Request for Rehearing at 43. 15 18 CFR 45.5(b) (2000).

ceasing to impose the underwriting ban

as a condition of approving the type of

interlock at issue in this proceeding.

Mr. Lientz also requests that, in lieu

of the underwriting ban, the

Commission consider the use of two

alternative, and less onerous, conditions

when approving an interlock between a

public utility and an underwriting firm.

Specifically, that:

(i) the applicant would refrain from

participating, directly, or indirectly, as

director or officer of the public utility or the

affected underwriting firm (or such

underwriting firm’s parent), in any decisions

regarding the financing of the public utility

(or its affiliate(s)) by such underwriting firm;

or

(ii) the applicant would prove, to the

satisfaction of a majority of the disinterested

directors of the public utility and the affected

underwriting firm, respectively, that the

proposed transactions(s) between the public

utility and the underwriting firm are fair and

reasonable to the utility’s shareholders and

ratepayers, such proof to be evidenced by a

vote of the disinterested directors of the

public utility and the affected underwriting

firm.7

On September 14, 1998, Georgia

Power filed an untimely motion to

intervene and a brief in support of Mr.

Lientz’s request for rehearing. On April

20, 1999, first Union Corporation (First

Union) filed an untimely motion to

intervene and an amicus brief in

support of granting rehearing to

reconsider whether the Commission’s

current policy on interlocks between

banks and public utilities should be

continued.

Subsequent and Superseding

Congressional Action

On November 12, 1999, the President

signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley

Financial Modernization Act (Financial

Modernization Act).8 Among other

things, this legislation amends section

305(b) to include four conditions, and if

any one of these were met, they would

remove from our jurisdiction a person

seeking to hold an interlocking

directorate.9 On November 18, 1999,

First Union filed a motion to lodge the

Financial Modernization Act.

Discussion

Pursuant to Rule 214(d) of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure, we will grant the untimely

motions to intervene of Georgia Power

and First Union, given the unique

circumstances present here, their

interest in the outcome of this

proceeding, and the absence of any

prejudice or delay.10

We will dismiss as moot the request

for rehearing. As noted above,

subsequent to the August 13 Letter

Order and Mr. Lientz’s request for

rehearing, Congress amended section

305(b). Section 305(b)(2)(B) now

provides, in relevant part, that the

section 305(b) ban on holding

interlocking directorates, absent

Commission authorization, does not

apply if the person holding the

interlock:

(i) does not participate in any deliberations

or decisions of the public utility regarding

the selection of a bank, trust company,

banking association, or firm to underwrite or

participate in the marketing of securities of

the public utility, if the person serves as an

officer or director of a bank, trust company,

banking association, or firm that is under

consideration in the deliberation process;

(ii) the bank, trust company, banking

association, or firm of which the person is an

officer or director does not engage in the

underwriting of, or participate in the

marketing of, securities of the public utility

of which the person holds the position of

officer or director;

(iii) the public utility for which the person

serves or proposes to serve as an officer or

director selects underwriters by competitive

procedures; or

(iv) the issuance of securities of the public

utility for which the person serves or

proposes to serve as an officer or director has

been approved by all Federal and State

regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over

the issuance.11

Thus, in amending section 305(b)(2),

Congress has eliminated, in certain

circumstances, the need for the holder

of the interlocks to obtain Commission

authorization for such interlocks. These

circumstances include, as relevant here,

where the underwriting firm12 involved

in an interlock is under consideration to

underwrite the securities of the public

utility involved in the interlock and

where persons who would hold the

interlocks do not themselves participate

in the public utility’s selection of the

underwriting firm.13

As noted above, in his request for

rehearing, Mr. Lientz proposed that as a

condition for Commission approval of

an interlock, ‘‘the applicant would

refrain from participating, directly, or

indirectly, as director or officer of the

public utility or the affected

underwriting firm (or such underwriting

firm’s parent), in any decisions affecting

the financing of the public utility (or its

affiliate(s)) by such underwriting

firm.’’ 14 We interpret Mr. Lientz’

proposed condition as effectively

agreeing to the first condition of section

305(b)(2)(B), and we direct Mr. Lientz to

notify the Commission within 30 days if

he believes that further Commission

action is required.

In light of the new legislation

pertaining to section 305(b)(2)(B)(i) and

our understanding that Mr. Lientz meets

at least one of the conditions of section

305(b)(2)(B), he no longer needs

Commission authorization to hold the

interlocking directorate. Thus, we will

dismiss as moot Mr. Lientz’s request for

rehearing.

We also take this opportunity to state

that if there are other individuals who

have been granted authorization to hold

interlocking directorates, but believe

that they now do not need such

Commission authorization because of

section 305(b)(2)(B), they should notify

the Commission of this within 30 days

of the date of publication in the Federal

Register, pursuant to section 45.5(b) of

the Commission’s regulations.15

The Commission orders:

(A) Georgia Power’s and First Union’s

untimely motions to intervene are

hereby granted.

(B) Mr. Lientz’s request for rehearing

of the August 13 Order is hereby

dismissed as moot, as discussed in the

body of this order.

(C) Any individual who has been

granted authorization to hold an

interlock who believes he is affected by

the Financial Modernization Act is

hereby directed to so notify the

Commission, within thirty (30) days of

the date of publication of this order in

the Federal Register, as discussed in the

body of this order.

(D) The Secretary is hereby directed to

publish this order in the Federal

Register.

By the Commission.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25664 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6611–5]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

564–7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Notices 59835

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements

Filed September 25, 2000 Through

September 29, 2000

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 000335, Final EIS, FHW, WI,

WI–113 Wisconsin River Crossing at

Merrimac, Improvements, US Coast

Guard and COE Section 10 and 404

Permits, Columbia and Sauk Counties,

WI, Due: November 06, 2000, Contact:

Peter Garcia (608) 829–7513.

EIS No. 000336, Draft EIS, BLM, MA,

New Bedford Whaling National

Historical Park, General Management

Plan, Implementation, Bristol County,

MA , Due: December 01, 2000,

Contact: John Piltzecker (508) 996–

4095.

EIS No. 000337, Draft Supplement, IBR,

CA, East Bay Municipal Utility

District Supplemental Water Supply

Project and Water Service Contract

Amendment, New and Additional

Information on Alternatives,

American River Division of the

Central Valley Project (CVP),

Sacramento County, CA, Due:

November 20, 2000, Contact: Rob

Schroeder (916) 988–1707.

EIS No. 000338, Draft EIS, STB, SD, WY,

MN, Powder River Basin Expansion

Project, Construction of New Rail

Facilities, Finance Docket No. 33407

Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern

Railroad, SD, WY and MN, Due:

November 20, 2000, Contact: Victoria

Rutson (202) 565–1545.

EIS No. 000339, Final EIS, AFS, KY,

Daniel Boone National Forest,

Implementation, Salvage Harvest Due

to 1998 Storm Damage Timber,

McCreary and Pulaske County, KY,

Due: November 06, 2000, Contact:

Benjamin T. Washington (606) 679–

2018.

EIS No. 000340, Final EIS, AFS, ID,

Warm Springs Ridge Vegetation

Management Project, Improve Forest

Condition, Boise National Forest,

Cascade Resource Area, Boise County,

ID, Due: November 06, 2000, Contact:

Kathy Ramirez (208) 392–6681.

EIS No. 000341, Final Supplement,

COE, CA, Port of Los Angeles Channel

Deepening Project, To Improve

Navigation and Disposal of Dredge

Material for the Inner Harbor

Channels, Los Angeles County, CA,

Due: November 06, 2000, Contact:

Larry Smith (213) 452–3846.

EIS No. 000342, Draft EIS, NOA, AK,

Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Stock,

Federal Actions Associated with the

Management and Recovery,

Implementation, Cook Inlet, AK, Due:

November 20, 2000, Contact: P.

Michael Payne (907) 586–2735.

EIS No. 000343, Draft EIS, UAF, TX,

Brooks City Base Project, To Improve

Mission Effectiveness and Reduce

Cost of Quality Installation Support,

Implementation, Brooks Air Force

Base, Bexar County, TX, Due:

November 20, 2000, Contact: Jonathan

D. Farthing (210) 536–3668.

EIS No. 000344, Draft EIS, BLM, UT, 3R

Minerals Coal Bed Canyon Mine Plan,

Approval, Grand Staircase-Escalante

National Monument, Garfield County,

UT, Due: December 04, 2000, Contact:

Paul Chapman (435) 644–4309.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 000196, Draft EIS, NPS, MN,

Voyageurs National Park General

Management, Visitor Use and

Facilities Plans, Implementation,

Koochiching and St. Louis Counties,

MN, Due: October 23, 2000, Contact:

Kathleen Przybylski (218) 283–9821.

Revision of FR notice published on

06/23/2000: CEQ Comment Date has

been Extended from 09–22–2000 to

10/23/2000.

Dated: October 2, 2000.

Joseph C. Montgomery,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 00–25787 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–6611–6]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared pursuant to the Environmental

Review Process (ERP), under Section

309 of the Clean Air Act and section

102(2)(c) of the National Environmental

Policy Act as amended. Requests for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 564–7167.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–K65359–00 Rating

EC2, Northern Sierra Amendment to the

Toiyabe Land and Resource

Management, To Unify and Revise

Management Direction, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Carson Ranger

District, Stanislaus National Forest,

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit,

Douglas and Washoe Counties, NV and

Alpine and Toulomne Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns

related to purpose and need and the

timing of the plan amendment in

advance of the 15 year deadline for

Forest Plan revision set for June 23,

2001. Specific concerns were expressed

regarding the lack of standards and

guidelines promoting road

decommissioning pursuant to the

Chief’s Natural Resource Agenda and

the Clean Water Action Plan.

ERP No. D–AFS–L65362–ID Rating

EC2, West Mountain North Project,

Timber Harvest, Road Construction and

Reconstruction), Boise National Forest,

Cascade Ranger District, Valley County,

ID.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over water and

air quality. EPA requested that further

information on these concerns be

provided in the final EIS.

ERP No. D–COE–E30041–NC Rating

EC2, Dare County Beaches (Bodie Island

Portion) Hurricane Wave Protection and

Beach Erosion Control, The towns of

Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk,

Dare County, NC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns due to the

open-ended loss of biotic stability along

the project shoreline which was not

mitigated by the incremental gain in sea

turtle nesting habitat.

ERP No. D–FRC–F03008–00 Rating

EO2, Guardian Pipeline Project,

Proposal to Construct and Operate an

Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline that

would extend from Joliet (Will County),

IL and Ixonia (Jefferson County), WI.

Summary: EIS raised objections and

identified several issues that were not

adequately addressed in the Draft EIS,

including the cumulative impacts

analysis, mitigation measures, and the

definition of the project purpose and

need.

ERP No. D–IBR–K29000–AZ Rating

EC2, Central Arizona Project (CAP),

Allocation of Water Supply and LongTerm Contract Execution, Maricopa,

Pinal and Pima Counties, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed concern

that there was minimal discussion and

commitment to available tools for

enhancing water management

flexibility/reliability and providing

long-term sustainable use of the

allocated water. EPA also had concerns

regarding the potential impacts to soil

salinity, land subsidence, sustainable

groundwater yields, and the specifics of

the long-term water supply contracts.

EPA did express strong support for the

underlying goal of a long-term

sustainable water supply by achieving a

balance between water use/demand and

available water resources EPA also

urged Reclamation to take a role beyond