Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 13689

1 65 FR 75627 (Dec. 4, 2000).

short-term ratings assigned to the GSE

by a Nationally Recognized Statistical

Rating Organization (NRSRO). Generally

speaking, GSEs currently receive the

highest investment grade rating assigned

by an NRSRO. For all such

counterparties, a Bank’s maximum

allowable unsecured credit exposure

under § 932.9 cannot exceed 15 percent

of the Bank’s total capital or of the

counterparty’s regulatory capital,

whichever amount is lower.

Some Banks have indicated that,

given the magnitude of the reduction in

the allowable credit exposure to a GSE

under § 932.9, they will experience

difficulty in developing new investment

strategies to conform to these new

limits. Since publication of the final

unsecured credit rule, some Banks have

indicated that GSE debt offers an

attractive risk-return profile not

available from other investments,

especially in the immediate future.

Some Banks also have suggested that

GSEs are a better credit risk than other

counterparties, even those

counterparties with the highest

investment grade ratings, and point to

the premium over corporate debt at

which GSE debt trades in the markets as

an indication of the GSEs’ special status.

These Banks further claim that the new

restrictions on their credit exposures to

GSEs may result in greater investment

in instruments with a lesser credit

quality.

In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of the final capital rule, the

Finance Board noted that it ‘‘may solicit

additional comments regarding the

appropriateness of the [unsecured

credit] limits in future rulemaking and

may consider revising them at that

time.’’ 66 FR 8302. The Finance Board

also recognizes that for some Banks, the

magnitude of the reduction in the

allowable unsecured credit limit

applicable to GSEs could be disruptive

and that, historically, GSEs have been

viewed more favorably by debt markets

than even the highest-rated corporate

debt issuers. Thus, the Finance Board is

proposing to amend 12 CFR 932.9 to

raise the limit on a Bank’s unsecured

extensions of credit to a GSE and is

requesting comment and supporting

analysis concerning the appropriate

level for this new limit.

It also has been suggested that the

Finance Board amend 12 CFR 932.9 to

exclude from the unsecured credit

limits the sale of Federal funds with a

maturity of one day or less, or Federal

funds sold under a continuing contract,

as do commercial bank regulators. See

12 CFR Part 32. The Finance Board

requests comment on whether it should

adopt such an exclusion, although it is

not proposing to do so at this time. If

commenters support such an exclusion,

they should provide data indicating

how the lack of such an overnight

Federal funds exclusion in 12 CFR 932.9

would negatively affect the Banks and

should address why such an exclusion

would not raise safety and soundness

concerns.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule applies only to the

Banks, which do not come within the

meaning of small entities as defined in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

See 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Therefore, in

accordance with section 605(b) of the

RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Finance Board

hereby certifies that this proposed rule,

if promulgated as a final rule, will not

have a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule does not contain

any collections of information pursuant

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

See 33 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Therefore, the

Finance Board has not submitted any

information to the Office of

Management and Budget for review.

Dated: February 28, 2001.

By the Board of Directors of the Federal

Housing Finance Board.

Allan I. Mendelowitz,

Chairman.

[FR Doc. 01–5474 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. PL00–1–000]

Dialog Concerning Natural Gas

Transportation Policies Needed To

Facilitate Development of Competitive

Natural Gas Markets

March 2, 2001.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice organizing staff

conference.

SUMMARY: In Order 637, issued on

February 9, 2000, the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)

revised its regulatory policies, amended

its regulations, and established new

procedures to enhance the

competitiveness and efficiency of

markets for the transportation of natural

gas in interstate commerce. This notice

provides the organizational framework

for the second of three public staff

conferences in a dialog between the

industry and Commission staff. This

conference focuses on affiliate issues.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The conference will

take place on March 15, 2001, starting

at 1 p.m. Persons wishing to submit

further comments following the

conclusion of the conference must

submit them by April 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert A. Flanders, Office of Markets,

Tariffs and Rates, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–2084, e-mail:

Robert.Flanders@ferc.fed.us

Notice Organizing Staff Conference on

Competitive Natural Gas Markets

This notice provides the

organizational format for the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission staff

conference to be held on March 15, 2001

to discuss how the changes in the

natural gas market affect the way in

which the Commission should regulate

transportation transactions between

pipelines and their affiliates, as well as

between pipeline capacity holders and

their affiliates, capacity managers and

agents. The purpose of this conference

is to continue the dialog begun with the

September 19, 2000 staff conference to

enable the industry to discuss with staff,

as well as with each other, issues

relating to the development of

Commission policy and regulatory

responses to rate and service revisions

to meet the needs of the changing

natural gas market. The conference will

begin at 1:00 p.m. at the Commission’s

offices, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC in the Commission’s

Meeting Room.

The November 22, 2000 notice 1 of the

conference requested those who were

interested in making presentations or

participating to indicate their interest by

January 5, 2001. Sixteen requests to

participate in the roundtable debate

were made and comments from twentysix interested persons were received.

The conference will be structured as

a roundtable debate with staff as

moderator. Panel participants are

identified below. In order to facilitate a

robust discussion of the affiliate issues

identified in the November 22, 2000

notice, a roundtable debate format was

selected. Accordingly, participants will

not have the opportunity to make oral

13690 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

presentations. Interested persons have

already had the opportunity to submit

written comments reflecting their

positions, and, as discussed below, are

invited to submit additional comments.

Participants should feel free to discuss

or debate all topics during the course of

the roundtable debate.

The composition of the roundtable

panel is as follows:

Dena Wiggins, Process Gas Consumers

Group, et al.

Representative to be designated, Ad Hoc

Marketers Group

Thomas Riley, Independent Oil & Gas

Assoc. of West Virginia

Alice Curtis, American Gas Association

Craig Goodman, National Energy

Marketers Assoc.

Joan Dreskin, Interstate Natural Gas

Assoc. of America

Jeff Holligan, Amoco Production

Company and BP Energy Company

Denise Goulet, National Assoc. of State

Utility Consumer Advocates

John Smith, The Williams Companies

Mark Haskell, Natural Gas Supply

Assoc.

Leslie Lawner, Enron North America

Corporation

Paul Koonce, Dominion Resources, Inc.

Michael Linn, Independent Petroleum

Assoc. of America

Ed Ross, Dynegy, Inc.

Phillip Teumim, New York Public

Service Commission

Kirby Bosley, Reliant Energy Services,

Inc.

Mike Reidy, California Dairy Coalition

of Concerned Energy Consumers

The Capitol Connection patrons in the

Washington, DC area will receive

notices regarding the broadcast of the

conference. The conference will be

available, for a fee, live over the

Internet, via C-Band Satellite, and via

telephone conferencing. Persons

interested in receiving the broadcast, or

who need further information, should

contact David Reininger or Julia Morelli

at the Capitol Connection (703–993–

3100) as soon as possible or visit the

Capitol Connection web site at http://

www.capitolconnection.org and click

on ‘‘FERC.’’

The Commission invites interested

persons and participants to submit

additional comments on the affiliate

issues debated at the conference

including any related matters or

alternative proposals that commenters

may wish to discuss and must be

received by the Commission before 5

p.m. on April 30, 2001.

After-conference comments may be

filed either in paper format or

electronically. Those filing

electronically do not need to make a

paper filing. For paper filings, the

original and 14 copies of such

comments should be submitted to the

Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and

should refer to Docket No. PL00–1–000.

Comments filed via the Internet must

be prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word,

Portable Document Format, or ASCII

format. To file the document, access the

Commission’s website (www.ferc.fed.us)

and click on ‘‘Make An E-Filing,’’ and

then follow the instructions for each

screen. First-time users will have to

establish a user name and password.

The Commission will send an automatic

acknowledgment to the sender’s E-Mail

address upon receipt of comments.

User assistance for electronic filing is

available at 202–208–0258 or by E-Mail

to efiling@ferc.fed.us. Comments should

not be submitted to the E-Mail address.

All comments will be placed in the

Commission’s public files and will be

available for inspection in the

Commission’s Public Reference Room at

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426 during regular business hours.

Additionally, all comments may be

viewed, printed, or downloaded

remotely via the Internet through

FERC’s Homepage using the RIMS link.

User assistance for RIMS is available at

202–208–2222, or by E-Mail to

rimsmaster@ferc.fed.us.

Questions about the conference

should be directed to: Robert Flanders,

Office of Markets Tariffs and Rates,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, 202–208–2084,

Robert.flanders@ferc.fed.us

Linwood A. Watson,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5518 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 43

[CC Docket No. 98–137; FCC 01–68]

1998 Biennial Regulatory Review—

Review of Depreciation Requirements

for Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

SUMMARY: In this document the

Commission denied US West, Inc. (now

Qwest) petition for reconsideration of

our December 30, 1999 Depreciation

Order. The US West, Inc. petition

sought reconsideration of: our denial of

United States Telephone Association

petition for forbearance; the

methodology for certain equipment life

ranges, and the accounting treatment in

waiver situation. The Commission

concluded that US West, Inc had not

provided any new information or

arguments that required us to alter our

prior rulings.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445–12th Street, SW, TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

JoAnn Lucanik, Accounting Safeguards

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at

(202) 418–0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order on

Reconsideration adopted February 21,

2001, and released February 26, 2001.

The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY–

A257), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554. The complete

text may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, Washington, DC

20036, telephone (202) 857–3800.

Summary of Order on Reconsideration

In this order, we deny a petition for

reconsideration filed on May 10, 2000,

by US West, Inc. (now Qwest) of our

December 30, 1999 Order (Depreciation

Order) (which was not published in the

Federal Register). In the Depreciation

Order, which was part of our 1998

Biennial Regulatory Review proceeding,

we undertook an extensive review of

our depreciation requirements for price

cap incumbent local exchange carriers

(ILECs). Although we denied a petition

filed by the United States Telecom

Association (USTA) to forbear from

imposing depreciation requirements on

price cap ILECs, we significantly

streamlined our depreciation

requirements, and set out specific

conditions under which ILECs could

seek waiver of these requirements.

In a subsequent order, released on

November 7, 2000, 66 FR 9681

(February 9, 2001), we reviewed an

alternative proposal for relieving

carriers of our depreciation

requirements. We concluded that the

alternative proposal to permit an abovethe-line accounting treatment of the

financial-to-regulatory book differential

in lieu of a below-the-line accounting

treatment lacked the inherent

protections provided for in the waiver

process adopted in the Depreciation