Notices. Request for comments

3,569 words·~16 min read·/register/2006/02/06/06-1039·

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

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34814] Cassatt Management, LLC d/b/a Bay Coast Railroad-Lease and Operation Exemption—Canonie Atlantic Co. on Behalf of Accomack-Northampton Transportation District Commission Cassatt Management, LLC d/b/a/ Bay Coast Railroad (BCR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from Canonie Atlantic Co. (Canonie), acting on behalf of the Accomack-Northampton Transportation District Commission, and to operate approximately 68.3 miles of rail line as follows:

(1)Between ESHR milepost 30.5 at Pocomoke City, MD (Norfolk Southern Railway Company

(NS)interchange), and ESHR milepost 94.8 at Cape Charles, VA (float bridge);

(2)between ESHR milepost 95.0 at Little Creek (Virginia Beach), VA, and ESHR milepost 97.6 at Camden Heights (Norfolk), VA; and

(3)between ESHR milepost 100.7 at North Junction and ESHR milepost 102.1 at St. Julian, VA. As part of the transaction, BCR is being assigned to operate a 4.6-mile line of railroad leased by Canonie from NS extending

(a)between ESHR milepost 97.6 at Camden Heights and ESHR milepost 100.7 at North Junction; and

(b)on the Diamond Springs Line between NS milepost SN 5.2 and NS milepost SN 6.7. BCR also is being assigned to operate Canonie's trackage rights over a 4.0-mile line of railroad owned by NS, extending between Coleman Place and NS's Portlock Yard for interchange purposes. The Eastern Shore Railroad, Inc. currently operates these lines. BCR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of the transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million. The transaction was expected to be consummated on or after January 18, 2006. If the verified 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. 34814, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, John D. Heffner, PLLC, 1920 N Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: January 27, 2006. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1487 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 575] Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues—Renewed Petition of the Western Coal Traffic League AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT. ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board is requesting comments on the renewed petition of the Western Coal Traffic League

(WCTL)for a rulemaking to address agreements to sell or lease a rail line that restrict the ability of the purchaser or tenant to interchange traffic with competitors of the seller or landlord railroad. DATES: Opening comments may be filed by any interested member of the public by March 8, 2006. Reply comments may be filed by March 28, 2006. ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this proceeding must refer to STB Ex Parte No. 575 and may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing must comply with the instructions found on the Board's *http://www.stb.dot.gov* Web site, at the “E-FILING” link. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format must submit an original and 10 paper copies of the filing (and also an IBM-compatible floppy disk with any textual submission in any version of either Microsoft Word or WordPerfect) to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Because all comments will be posted to the Board's Web site, persons filing them with the Board need not serve them on other participants but must furnish a hard copy on request to any participant. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar,

(202)565-1609. [Federal Information Relay Service for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since enactment of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, larger railroads have sold or leased many rail lines to small, newly created short line railroads. Some of the lease or sale agreements have had “paper barrier” provisions that limit the incentive or ability of the short line railroad to interchange traffic with connecting carriers that could compete with the lessor or vendor. Such paper barriers may result from credits for cars interchanged with the lessor or vendor, or they may involve a penalty for traffic interchanged with a competitor of the lessor or vendor, or a total ban on such interchange. Concerns about such paper barriers were raised in STB Ex Parte No. 575, *Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues,* an ongoing umbrella proceeding to examine various issues concerning competition between railroads. 1 In response, on September 10, 1998, the Association of American Railroads

(AAR)and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) executed a broad “Railroad Industry Agreement” (“RIA” or “agreement”) that addressed paper barriers as well as various other issues. 2 1 In STB Ex Parte No. 575, the Board initiated a broad review of several railroad access and competition issues. *Review of Rail Access and Competition Issues,* 3 S.T.B. 92 (1998). 2 The broader RIA was evaluated by the Board in STB Docket No. S5R 100. In that proceeding, the Board requested comments on, and granted interim approval for, the rate-related provisions of the broader agreement for which the parties requested approval. Assn. of American Railroads et al.—Agreement—49 U.S.C. 10706, 3 S.T.B. 673 (1998). The Board subsequently granted final approval of these rate-related provisions. Assn. of American Railroads et al.—Agreement—49 U.S.C. 10706, 3 S.T.B. 910 (1998). The Board made no findings as to the paper barrier and other non-rate provisions because approval for them was not sought. The original 1998 version of the RIA is included in Attachment 2 of the renewed petition of WCTL, filed on March 21, 2005, that is the subject of this notice. The agreement has been amended at least once: see the comments of the Rail Industry Working Group filed May 2, 2005. The provisions of the RIA specifically pertaining to paper barriers establish a few general principles, 3 applicable only to new traffic (traffic that did not exist when a line was spun off), and illustrate their application by presenting the outcome (access/no access) under hypothetical situations with diagrams illustrating the relationships between the parties. The paper barrier provisions do not grant enforcement rights to shippers. Rather, the RIA provides for non-binding arbitration under Board auspices and creates a Rail Industry Working Group

(RIWG)that can issue interpretations and provide a forum for discussion. 3 *See, e.g.* , the following provisions: *Paper Barriers* : Only legitimate paper barriers should be enforceable. Paper barriers are restrictions on interchange imposed by contract at the time of creation of the Short Line. Legitimate paper barriers are those that are designed as fair payment for the sale or rental value of the line that created the Short Line. Such barriers should not restrict the Short Line's ability to develop New Traffic with another carrier if the selling or leasing Large Railroad can not or will not participate in the New Traffic. Excessive per car charges or other penalties imposed if a car is interchanged to another Large Railroad (other than legitimate paper barriers) are unreasonable and should not be permitted. 3. Paper Barriers and New Routes (applies to participating Class I and III Railroads)

(a)General Premise: If the requested Access or routing helps the connecting Short Line and does not harm the Large railroad, then the request should be approved as it will improve shipper rail service while strengthening the rail industry. By petition filed on December 21, 1998, in STB Ex Parte No. 575, WCTL asked the Board to initiate a separate rulemaking to consider eliminating unreasonable paper barriers. WCTL argued that the agreement negotiated between AAR and ASLRRA did not adequately deal with the barriers. WCTL proposed rules that would restrict paper barriers. By decision served on March 2, 1999, the Board deferred action on WCTL's petition in order to gain experience under the AAR/ASLRRA agreement with respect to paper barriers. By petition filed on March 21, 2005, WCTL renewed its 1998 request for rulemaking on the paper barrier issue. WCTL asserts that, since 1999, there have been significant changes in the Board's policies regarding competition, citing in particular the Board's revised merger guidelines for Class I railroads. 4 WCTL argues that, given the benefit of experience, unreasonable paper barriers should be subject to challenge by shippers as well as short lines and that any restrictions on these provisions should cover pre-existing traffic as well as new traffic. WCTL proposes specific rules that would establish a rebuttable presumption that a paper barrier is unreasonable and contrary to the public interest if the paper barrier

(1)lasts longer than 5 years,

(2)includes any financial penalty for interchanging traffic with another carrier, or

(3)includes a credit for interchanging traffic with the seller or landlord railroad against a rental or sale price that reflects a return on the “fair market value” of the properties sold or leased that is greater than the railroad industry's cost of capital. 4 *See Major Rail Consolidation Procedures,* 5 S.T.B. 539 (2001). WCTL argues that these procedures require that the Board be proactive in taking steps to promote competition. Replies in support of WCTL's petition were filed on April 29, 2005, by Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy); and on May 2, 2005, by Albany & Eastern Railroad Company

(AERC)and jointly by Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation and Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Arkansas Electric/Entergy). Replies in opposition to WCTL's petition were filed on May 2, 2005, by: ASLRRA; AAR; and RIWG. On May 5, 2005, the Union Pacific Railroad Company filed a statement rebutting statements in the replies of Arkansas Electric/Entergy and Entergy, to which Entergy responded on May 17, 2005. BNSF Railway Company responded to the AERC filing on May 20, 2005. We are especially interested in comments that:

(a)Discuss our statutory authority to address pre-existing paper barriers;

(b)identify and describe existing paper barriers so that we can determine the extent of the problem alleged by WCTL;

(c)identify and quantify any problems experienced by shippers as a result of paper barriers;

(d)address the short and long term economic impacts of paper barriers;

(e)address the effectiveness of the existing AAR/ASLRRA agreement on paper barriers; and

(f)include information about the RIA, including the most recent version, amendment history, interpretations, proceedings, handbooks, etc. Board filings, decisions, and notices are available on its Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Decided: January 30, 2006. By the Board, Chairman Buttrey and Vice Chairman Mulvey. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-1558 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; Proposed Renewal Without Change; Comment Request; Anti-Money Laundering Programs for Various Financial Institutions. AGENCY: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite comment on a proposed renewal, without change, to information collections found in existing regulations requiring money services businesses, mutual funds, operators of credit card systems, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and certain insurance companies to develop and implement written anti-money laundering programs reasonably designed to prevent those financial institutions from being used to facilitate money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. Comment also is invited on an existing proposed regulation that would require unregistered investment companies to establish and maintain written anti-money laundering programs and to file a notice with us identifying themselves and providing related basic information. This request for comments is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). DATES: Written comments are welcome and must be received on or before April 7, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183, Attention: Anti-Money Laundering Program Comments. Comments also may be submitted by electronic mail to the following Internet address: *regcomments@fincen.gov,* again with a caption, in the body of the text, “Attention: Anti-Money Laundering Program Comments.” *Inspection of comments.* Comments may be inspected, between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., in our reading room in Washington, DC. Persons wishing to inspect the comments submitted must request an appointment by telephoning

(202)354-6400 (not a toll free number). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Regulatory Policy and Programs Division at

(800)949-2732. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Abstract:* The Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is the delegated administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act. The Act authorizes the Director to issue regulations to require all financial institutions defined as such in the Act to maintain or file certain reports or records that have been determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings, or in the conduct of intelligence or counter-intelligence activities, including analysis, to protect against international terrorism, and to implement anti-money laundering programs and compliance procedures. 1 1 Public Law 91-508, as amended and codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959 and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5332. Language expanding the scope of the Bank Secrecy Act to intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against international terrorism was added by section 358 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Ob struct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56. Regulations implementing section 5318(h)(1) of the Act are found in part at 31 CFR 103.125, 103.130, 103.132, 103.135, 103.137, and 103.140. In general, the regulations require financial institutions, as defined in 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) and 31 CFR 103.11 to establish, document, and maintain anti-money laundering programs as an aid in protecting and securing the U.S. financial system. 1. *Titles:* Anti-money laundering programs for money services businesses (31 CFR 103.125), Anti-money laundering programs for mutual funds (31 CFR 103.130), Anti-money laundering programs for operators of credit card systems (31 CFR 103.135). *Office of Management and Budget Control Number:* 1506-0020. *Abstract:* Money services businesses, mutual funds, and operators of credit card systems are required to develop and implement written anti-money laundering programs. A copy of the written program must be maintained for five years. *Current Action:* There is no change to existing regulations. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Burden:* Estimated Number of Respondents: 203,006. 31 CFR 103.125 = 200,000. 31 CFR 103.130 = 3,000. 31 CFR 103.135 = 6. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 203,006. 31 CFR 103.125 = 200,000. 31 CFR 103.130 = 3,000. 31 CFR 103.135 = 6. *Estimated Number of Hours:* 203,006. Estimated at one hour per respondent. 31 CFR 103.125 = 200,000. 31 CFR 103.130 = 3,000. 31 CFR 103.135 = 6. 2. *Title:* Anti-money laundering programs for unregistered investment companies (31 CFR 103.132). *Office of Management and Budget Control Number:* 1506-0028. *Abstract:* This proposed rule would require unregistered investment companies to establish and maintain written anti-money laundering programs. A copy of the written program would have to be maintained for five years. These companies would also be required to file notices with us, identifying themselves and providing related basic information. *Current Action:* There is no change to the proposed regulation. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit institutions *Description of Recordkeepers and Responders:* Unregistered investment companies as defined in 31 CFR 103.132(a). *Estimated Number of Recordkeepers:* 5,000. *Estimated Average Annual Burden per Recordkeeper:* The estimated average burden associated with the recordkeeping requirement in this proposed rule is one hour per recordkeeper. *Estimated Total Annual Recordkeeping Burden:* 5,000 hours. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 5,000. *Estimated Average Annual Burden Per Respondent:* The estimated average burden associated with the notice requirement in this proposed rule is 30 minutes per respondent. *Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden:* 2,500 hours. 3. *Title:* Anti-money laundering programs for dealers in precious metals, precious stones, or jewels (31 CFR 103.140). *Office of Management and Budget Control Number:* 1505-0030. *Abstract:* Dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels are required to establish and maintain written anti-money laundering programs. A copy of the written program must be maintained for five years. *Current Action:* There is no change to existing regulations. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Burden:* Estimated Number of Respondents = 20,000. Estimated Number of Responses = 20,000. Estimated Number of Hours = 20,000. 4. *Title:* Anti-money laundering programs for insurance companies (31 CFR 103.137). *Office of Management and Budget Control Number:* 1506-0035. *Abstract:* Insurance companies are required to establish and maintain written anti-money laundering programs. A copy of the written program must be maintained for five years. *Current Action:* There is no change to existing regulations. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection. *Affected Public:* Business and other for-profit institutions. *Burden:* Estimated Number of Respondents = 1,200. Estimated Number of Responses = 1,200. Estimated Number of Hours = 1,200. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Records required to be retained under the Bank Secrecy Act must be retained for five years. Generally, information collected pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act is confidential but may be shared as provided by law with regulatory and law enforcement authorities. Request for Comments Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:

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

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected:

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e)estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information. Dated: January 30, 2006. William D. Langford, Jr., Associate Director, Regulatory Policy and Programs Division, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. [FR Doc. E6-1524 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-02-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission Notice of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)gives notice under Pub. L. 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission has scheduled a town hall meeting for February 15, 2006, at the Hilton St. Petersburg Bayfront, 333 First Street South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The town hall meeting will begin at 7 p.m. and end at 9 p.m. A one half day business session of the Commission has been scheduled for February 16, 2006 at the same location. The half day meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 11:30 a.m. Both meetings are open to the public. The purpose of the Commission is to carry out a study of the benefits under the laws of the United States that are provided to compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. The Commission's visit to St. Petersburg will be the first of eight fact-finding, data-gathering site visits throughout the United States. The St. Petersburg/Tampa area was selected based upon criteria that included the concentration of veterans, active-duty service members and National Guard and Reserves, and the co-location of Veterans Benefits Administration, Veterans Health Administration, and Department of Defense

(DoD)facilities, with particular interest in transition activities. The goal of this visit is to allow the commissioners the opportunity to tour local Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)and DoD facilities; examine the processes in place, which assist veterans in their efforts to obtain their benefits; and to present veterans, survivors and the general public with an opportunity to learn about the work of the Commission and to offer comments in a face-to-face forum. The agenda for the half day meeting will include updates of the research work plans and work in progress by the Center for Naval Analyses

(CNA)and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an overview of the Tampa VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center, and an opportunity for public comments. Interested persons may attend either or both meetings and present oral statements to the Commission. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may provide written comments for review by the Commission prior to the meeting, by e-mail to *veterans@vetscommission.intranets.com* or by mail to Mr. Ray Wilburn, Executive Director, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004. Dated: January 26, 2006. By Direction of the Secretary. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 06-1039 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 5

Traces to 5 documents

U.S. Code

15 references not yet in our index