63542 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices

kangaroo rat, Kern mallow and Hoover’s

eriastrum, the HCP involves

implementation of measures to

minimize effects to the environment by

utilizing previously disturbed lands for

construction related activities to the

greatest extent practicable, and

designating Habitat Management Lands

to compensate for the loss of natural

lands. Compensation ratios for

permanently disturbed habitat areas will

be 3:1 (3 acres will be preserved for

every 1 acre permanently disturbed); for

areas considered to be temporarily

disturbed, a ratio of 1.1:1 will be used

(1.1 acres will be preserved for every 1

acre temporarily disturbed). In addition,

direct harassment of any covered

species will be avoided to the greatest

extent practicable.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of four alternatives. The

no project alternative would result in no

immediate environmental impacts.

However, state and Federal agencies

regulating oil and gas activities would

still require a variety of abandonment

activities to occur over time; these

activities may result in take of listed

species. Thus, this alternative may place

ARCO in violation of state and/or

Federal regulations while denying

ARCO Western Energy the opportunity

to develop, recover and maintain

potential oil resources. For these

reasons, this alternative was rejected.

Alternative 1, the proposed action, was

selected because: (1) It best satisfies the

needs and purpose of the proposed

project; (2) it is likely to result in a

relatively low level of incidental take;

(3) impacts are mitigated through the

establishment of the Coles Levee

Ecosystem Preserve and the use of take

reduction methods; (4) funding is

available for the project as designed;

and (5) high quality compensation

habitat is present on the Coles Levee

Ecosystem Preserve. It is anticipated

that up to 330 acres of endangered

species habitat may be impacted by

implementation of this alternative.

Alternative 2 involves the full

development of the Coles Levee area for

oil production. It is anticipated that up

to 3,000 acres of endangered species

habitat may be impacted by

implementation of this alternative. This

alternative was rejected because: (1) The

level of incidental take would likely be

greater than under the preferred

alternative; (2) the additional level of

mitigation funding is not economically

feasible; (3) this intensity of

development is not appropriate at this

site based on oil reserves and extraction

techniques. Alternative 3 involves the

development of oil production facilities

on an alternative site. This alternative is

severely constrained by the lack of

facilities on-site, the costs of

constructing alternative facilities, land

purchase, and the likelihood of any

other areas suitable for oil production in

this portion of California having similar

endangered species concerns. It is

anticipated that up to 10,000 acres of

endangered species habitat may be

impacted by implementation of this

alternative. For these reasons this

alternative was rejected.

The Service considers

implementation of the proposed HCP in

connection with a section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit, to be an effective means to

reconcile oil drilling activities with the

section 9 listed species take prohibition

and other conservation mandates under

the Act.

This notice is provided pursuant to

section 10(a) of the Act and National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

The Service will evaluate the

application, associated documents, and

comments submitted thereon to

determine whether the application

meets the requirements of NEPA

regulations and section 10(a) of the Act.

If it is determined that the requirements

are met, a permit will be issued for the

incidental take of the listed species. The

final NEPA and permit determination

will be made no sooner than 30 days

from the date of this notice.

Dated: December 5, 1995.

Thomas Dwyer,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon.

[FR Doc. 95–30058 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

National Park Service

Golden Gate National Recreation Area

and Point Reyes National Seashore

Advisory Commission Notice of Public

Meeting

Notice is hereby given in accordance

with the Federal Advisory Committee

Act that a meeting of the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and

Point Reyes National Seashore Advisory

Commission will be held at 7:30 p.m.

(PST) on Wednesday, January 24, 1996

at GGNRA Park Headquarters, Building

201, Fort Mason, Bay and Franklin

Streets, San Francisco, California to hear

presentations on issues related to

management of the Golden Gate

National Recreation Area and Point

Reyes National Seashore. This meeting

was previously scheduled for

Wednesday, November 15, 1995, but

due to the federal shutdown affecting

national parks that week, the meeting

was rescheduled.

The Advisory Commission was

established by Public Law 92–589 to

provide for the free exchange of ideas

between the National Park Service and

the public and to facilitate the

solicitation of advice or other counsel

from members of the public on

problems pertinent to the National Park

Service systems in Marin, San Francisco

and San Mateo Counties. Members of

the Commission are as follows:

Mr. Richard Bartke, Chairman

Ms. Amy Meyer, Vice Chair

Ms. Naomi T. Gray

Dr. Howard Cogswell

Mr. Michael Alexander

Mr. Jerry Friedman

Ms. Lennie Roberts

Ms. Yvonne Lee

Ms. Sonia Bolaos

Mr. Trent Orr

Mr. Redmond Kernan

Ms. Jacqueline Young

Mr. Merritt Robinson

Mr. R. H. Sciaroni

Mr. John J. Spring

Dr. Edgar Wayburn

Mr. Joseph Williams

Mr. Mel Lane

The main agenda item at this meeting

will be a presentation of a GGNRA Staff

Report on the Golden Gate Bridge

Seismic Upgrade Project. A public

hearing on this project was held on

Wednesday, December 13, 1995 at the

Board of Supervisors and Planning

Chambers, Marin County Civic Center,

San Rafael, California. An overview of

the Golden Gate Bridge District Seismic

Retrofit Project was presented to this

Advisory Commission on August 16,

1995 by Merv Giacomini, District

Engineer, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway,

and Transportation District. The major

impacts to the park are anticipated to be

on lands directly under the bridge, at

Fort Point National Monument

(requiring the Fort to close for several

days a week during the one-year

construction period), the Fort Scott area

of the Presidio (which will be a staging

area for construction work), and the

north end of the bridge. Following

approval of the Staff Report and

approval of a Negative Declaration by

the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and

Transportation District board, and a

Finding of No Significant Impact by the

Federal Highway Administration and

the National Park Service, a permit for

construction activities on GGNRA land

will be issued by the National Park

Service incorporating agreed upon

mitigation.

Also on the agenda at this meeting

will be briefings on the status of a park
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices 63543

1Legislation to terminate the Commission on

December 31, 1995, is now pending enactment.

Until further notice, parties submitting pleadings

should continue to use the current name and

address.

2 ATC was also licensed as a broker, but its

broker status is of no particular consequence in the

present context.

3 The cited figures (the 78.4% holdings of the

principal stockholders; the 21.6% holdings of the

ESOP, on behalf of approximately 675 ATC

employees; and the 415 shares held by the 39

former ATC employees) have varied somewhat

through the course of this proceeding. We have

therefore used the figures provided in the most

recent pleading (the petition filed November 14,

1995), which we understand to represent the exact

figures as they stood immediately prior to the

merger of ATC into ANR Freight. We realize, of

course, that the described ATC holdings add up to

415 shares above 100%. The context, however,

suggests that either the 78.4% figure or the 21.6%

figure has been rounded off, because the 415 shares

held outright by former employees amount to

approximately 0.07% of ATC’s stock.

entrance at East Fort Miley, on the

Historical Compliance Process on the

Presidio and GGNRA, and an update on

the Bolinas Lagoon Management Plan.

This meeting will also contain a

GGNRA Superintendent’s Report and a

Presidio General Manager’s Report.

A specific final agenda for this

meeting will be made available to the

public at least 15 days prior to this

meeting and can be received by

contacting the Office of the Staff

Assistant, Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, Building 201, Fort

Mason, San Francisco, California 94123

or by calling (415) 556–4484.

This meeting is open to the public. It

will be recorded for documentation and

transcribed for dissemination. Minutes

of the meeting will be available to the

public after approval of the full

Advisory Commission. A transcript will

be available three weeks after the

meeting. For copies of the minutes

contact the Office of the Staff Assistant,

Golden Gate National Recreation Area,

Building 201, Fort Mason, San

Francisco, California 94123.

Dated: December 1, 1995.

Brian O’Neill,

General Superintendent, Golden Gate

National Recreation Area.

[FR Doc. 95–29946 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[No. MC–F–20757]

ANR Advance Holdings, Inc.—Merger

and Control Exemption—ANR Freight

System, Inc., Transport USA, Inc., and

Advance Transportation Company

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice that the Commission has

been requested to issue a finding that

the cash price of $10 per share payable

to the minority stockholders of Advance

Transportation Company in connection

with the recent merger of that

corporation into ANR Freight System,

Inc., is just and reasonable.

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995,

Advance Transportation Company was

merged into ANR Freight System, Inc.,

which has been renamed ANR Advance

Transportation Company, Inc. The terms

and conditions of the merger included,

among other things, a ‘‘cashing out’’ of

all minority stockholders of Advance

Transportation Company at a price of

$10 per share. The Commission has

been requested to issue a finding that

the cash price of $10 per share payable

to the minority stockholders of Advance

Transportation Company in connection

with the merger is just and reasonable.

DATES: Comments must be filed by

January 10, 1996. Replies must be filed

by January 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All pleadings should refer

to No. MC–F–20757. Comments (an

original and 10 copies) should be sent

to: Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20423.1

Comments should also be served (one

copy each) on: (1) Warren Belmar,

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 801

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20004; and (2) James

F. Moriarty, Fleischman & Walsh, P.C.,

Suite 600, 1400 16th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036. Replies (an

original and 10 copies) should be sent

to: Office of the Secretary, Case Control

Branch, Interstate Commerce

Commission, 1201 Constitution Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20423. Replies

should also be served (one copy each)

on: any persons filing comments; each

of the approximately 675 participants in

the employee stock ownership plan that

formerly held stock in Advance

Transportation Company; and each of

the 39 former employees that held stock

in Advance Transportation Company

immediately prior to the recent merger.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. [TDD for

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

merger consummated November 3,

1995, was incidental to a control

transaction that involved three motor

carriers: ANR Freight System, Inc. (ANR

Freight); Transport USA, Inc.

(Transport); and Advance

Transportation Company (ATC).2

Immediately prior to the merger and

the control transaction, (1) ANR Freight

and Transport were wholly owned

direct subsidiaries of ANR Advance

Holdings, Inc. (AA Holdings), which

was itself a wholly owned direct

subsidiary of ANRFS Holdings, Inc.

(ANRFS), which was in its turn a

wholly owned indirect subsidiary of

The Coastal Corporation, and (2) ATC’s

stock was held by ‘‘principal

stockholders’’ and by ‘‘minority

stockholders.’’ The ATC principal

stockholders were eight individual

family members, who collectively

owned 78.4% of ATC’s stock. The ATC

minority stockholders included both an

employee stock ownership plan (an

ESOP), under which approximately 675

ATC employees were the beneficial

owners of the stock held by the ESOP,

and 39 former ATC employees, each of

whom owned outright ATC stock that

had formerly been held by the ESOP.

The ESOP held 21.6% of ATC’s stock;

the 39 former employees held an

additional 415 shares of ATC’s stock.3

The control transaction of which the

merger was a part involved the common

control of ANR Freight, Transport, and

ATC. Common control of these three

motor carriers was obtained by AA

Holdings, which already controlled

ANR Freight and Transport, and which

received, as part of the control

transaction, the 78.4% stock ownership

of ATC that had previously been held by

the eight principal stockholders of ATC.

In connection with and incidental to

the control transaction, (1) ATC was

merged into ANR Freight, and ANR

Freight was renamed (its new acronym

is AATC), and (2) the principal

stockholders of ATC acquired 50% of

the stock of AA Holdings (prior to the

transaction, ANRFS had held 100% of

the stock of AA Holdings). In

connection with and incidental to the

merger of ATC into ANR Freight, ATC’s

minority stockholders (the ESOP and

the former employees) were ‘‘cashed

out’’ at a price of $10 per each share of

ATC stock formerly held by such

minority stockholders.

The merger and the broader control

transaction were subject to our

jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. 11343(a).

Accordingly, by notice of exemption

filed August 23, 1995, five parties (ANR

Freight, Transport, AA Holdings,

ANRFS, and ATC) invoked the 49

U.S.C. 11343(e) class exemption

codified at 49 CFR Part 1186. The notice

was published in the ICC Register on

September 1, 1995 (at pages 15–16), and

it indicated that we had exempted,

subject to public comment, both the

merger of ATC into ANR Freight and the