Notices. Request for public comment on proposed collection of information

4,902 words·~22 min read·/register/2006/01/11/06-190

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53051; File No. SR-MSRB-2005-17] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to Administrative Rules (Rules A-3(f) and A-6(c)) Relating to Board Member Compensation January 4, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on December 16, 2005, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB” or “Board”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB.

The MSRB has filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act, 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change consisting of amendments to Rules A-3(f) and A-6(c) relating to Board member compensation.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site ( *http://www.msrb.org* ), at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change.

The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The MSRB has been reviewing its Administrative Rules (“A-Rules”) to make sure that they are consistent with Virginia law (where the MSRB is incorporated) and current good corporate governance practices.

Rule A-3(f), on compensation and expenses, and Rule A-6(c), on committees of the Board, both pertain to Board member compensation practices. These two provisions are somewhat outdated and do not allow the Board appropriate administrative flexibility to implement improved compensation and reimbursement practices consistent with the Board's corporate governance practices. To accomplish this goal, the Board determined that Rule A-6(c) should be deleted and Rule A-3(f) should be modeled on a provision found in the NASD and Nasdaq By-Laws 5 such that the Board has a general grant of authority to provide for reasonable compensation and/or reimbursement to Board and committee members. 5 *See* NASD By-Law Sec. 9.1, on Compensation of Board, Council, and Committee Members (Amended by SR-NASD-97-71 eff.

Jan 15, 1998.); and Nasdaq By-Law Sec. 6.1, on Compensation of Board, Council, and Committee Members (Amended by SR-NASD-97-71 eff. Jan 15, 1998.) 2. Statutory Basis The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 15B(b)(2)(I) of the Act, 6 which provides that MSRB rules shall “provide for the operation and administration of the Board, including the selection of a Chairman from among the members of the Board, the compensation of the members of the Board, and the appointment and compensation of such employees, attorneys, and consultants as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Board's functions under this section.” 7 The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these provisions in that it relates to the operation and administration of the Board and the compensation of members of the Board. 6 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(I). 7 *Id.* B.

Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply solely to internal operational and administrative matters. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder 9 because it is concerned solely with the administration of the MSRB. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 10 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3). 10 *See* section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-MSRB-2005-17 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M.

Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2005-17. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2005-17 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-135 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2006-23530] Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket notice numbers cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Please identify the proposed collection of information for which a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is requested, but not required, that 2 copies of the comment be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Toth, Office of Data Acquisitions (NPO-110), Room 6213, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Toth's telephone number is

(202)366-5378. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the **Federal Register** providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

(i)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(iv)How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information: *Title:* National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). *Type of Request:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0021. *Affected Public:* Passenger Motor Vehicle Operators. *Abstract:* The collection of crash data that support the establishment and enforcement of motor vehicle regulations that reduce the severity of injury and property damage caused by motor vehicle crashes is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-563, Title 1, Sec. 106, 108, and 112). The National Automotive Sampling System

(NASS)Crashworthiness Data System

(CDS)of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigates high severity crashes. Once a crash has been selected for investigation, researchers locate, visit, measure, and photograph the crash scene; locate, inspect, and photograph vehicles; conduct a telephone or personal interview with the involved individuals or surrogate; and obtain and record injury information received from various medical data sources. NASS CDS data are used to describe and analyze circumstances, mechanisms, and consequences of high severity motor vehicle crashes in the United States. The collection of interview data aids in this effort. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 5,807 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 13,500. Issued on: January 4, 2006. Joseph S. Carra, Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. [FR Doc. E6-137 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC., (MBUSA) in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, *Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard,* for the S-Line Chassis vehicle line. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. MBUSA requested confidential treatment for some of the information and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated August 29, 2005, the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2007 model year. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated August 8, 2005, MBUSA requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2007 S-Line Chassis vehicle line. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition, MBUSA provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new vehicle line. MBUSA will install its passive, antitheft device as standard equipment beginning with MY 2007. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key and ignition lock, an intelligent gearshift module, a passive immobilizer and a visible and audible alarm. MBUSA's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6. MBUSA stated that the proposed device will utilize a transmitter key, an electronic ignition starter control unit and an engine control unit, which will collectively work to perform the immobilizer function. The immobilizer will prevent the engine from running unless a valid key is used. Immobilization is activated when the key is removed from the ignition switch. Once activated, a valid, coded-key must be inserted into the ignition switch to disable immobilization and permit starting of the vehicle. In addressing the specific content requirements of § 543.6, MBUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, and to validate the performance of the device under extreme conditions, MBUSA conducted various tests based on its own internal specifications. MBUSA provided information on the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements for each test. Specifically, the components of the immobilizer device were tested in various climatic, mechanical, electrical, and chemical environments and immunity to various electromagnetic radiation. MBUSA also compared the proposed device to other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. MBUSA stated that its proposed device is functionally equivalent to the systems used in previous vehicle lines which were deemed effective and granted exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for the S-Line Chassis vehicles that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which MBUSA proposes to install on the new line. Specifically, MBUSA notes that the theft rate for the S-Line Chassis vehicle line was initially reduced by 39.5% from 4.65 stolen vehicles per thousand produced in CY 1999 to 2.86 stolen vehicles per thousand produced in CY 2000. MBUSA believes that the effectiveness of the immobilizer device is reflected in the theft rates that were further reduced to 2.73 stolen vehicles per thousand produced in CY 2001, 1.97 stolen vehicles per thousand vehicles produced in CY 2002, and 1.93 stolen vehicles per thousand vehicles produced in CY 2003. On the basis of this comparison, MBUSA has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. Based on the evidence submitted by MBUSA, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the S-Line Chassis vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6 (a)(4) and (5), the agency finds that MBUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information MBUSA provided about its device, much of which is confidential. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full MBUSA's petition for exemption for the vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. Therefore, although MBUSA has been granted confidential treatment for most aspects of its petition, the agency notes that the information that may be published in the **Federal Register** includes the make and model of vehicle, the model year for which the exemption is granted and a general description of the proposed antitheft device, with a mention of such elements as key activation, starter motor interrupt, and the general location of the sensors triggering the alarm. If MBUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if MBUSA wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.” The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be *de minimis* . Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be characterized as *de minimis* , it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: January 4, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-146 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Nissan North America, Inc., (Nissan) in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, *Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard,* for the Quest vehicle line. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. Nissan requested confidential treatment for the information and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated August 4, 2005, the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year

(MY)2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 19, 2005, Nissan requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Nissan Quest vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new vehicle line. Nissan will install its antitheft device as standard equipment beginning with MY 2006. Nissan's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Nissan also provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements for each test. Nissan also compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Nissan stated that its proposed device is functionally equivalent to the systems used in previous vehicle lines which were deemed effective and granted exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Additionally, theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which Nissan proposes to install on the new line. On the basis of this comparison, Nissan has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Quest vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6 (a)(4) and (5), the agency finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided about its device, much of which is confidential. This confidential information included a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by Nissan for the antitheft device and its components. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Nissan's petition for exemption for the Quest vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. Therefore, although Nissan has been granted confidential treatment for most aspects of its petition, the agency notes that the information that may be published in the **Federal Register** includes the make and model of the vehicle, the model year for which the exemption is granted and a general description of the proposed antitheft device, with a mention of such elements as key activation, starter motor interrupt, and the general location of the sensors triggering the alarm. If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for the Quest vehicle line, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.” The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be *de minimis* . Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be characterized as *de minimis* , it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. We note that Nissan requested confidential treatment for the information and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. While the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition, we have released the model year for which the exemption is granted. This information is necessary for the law enforcement efforts to combat motor vehicle theft. That is, law enforcement officials need to know whether a given motor vehicle line was subject or exempted from the parts-marking requirements for a given model year. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: January 4, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E6-145 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34803] The Town of Corinth, NY—Acquisition and Operation Exemption—Canadian Pacific Railway The Town of Corinth, NY (Town), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, Inc., doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), certain assets of an approximately 16.45-mile rail line between Adirondack Branch milepost 39.44 at or near Saratoga Springs, NY, and Adirondack Branch milepost 55.89 at or near Corinth, NY. In addition, the Town will acquire from CPR approximately .69 miles of incidental trackage rights, extending from milepost 37.10 to milepost 38.20 in Saratoga Springs, NY. At the time of filing of the verified notice, the Town and CPR were in the process of finalizing one or more agreements whereby the Town will acquire the right-of-way, track and other rail assets associated with the line, subject to CPR's reservation of an exclusive and permanent freight easement. The Town states that it will have neither the right nor the obligation to perform common carrier freight service over the line, but instead intends to provide intrastate scenic tour passenger operations. 1 1 For these reasons, the Town has simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the notice of exemption in this proceeding. The Board will address the motion in a separate decision. The Town certifies that its projected revenues as a result of this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier. The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after December 31, 2005. If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34803, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Rose-Michele Nardi, Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider PC, 1300 19th Street, NW., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-1609. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: January 4, 2006. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-190 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

U.S. Code

CFR