54804 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices 

1SCVTA filed a Notice of Exemption to acquire 

a line of railroad (which encompasses the two lines 

at issue here) from Union Pacific Railroad Company 

(UP) in 2002. See Santa Clara Valley 

Transportation Authority—Acquisition 

Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company, STB 

Finance Docket No. 34292 (STB served Dec. 26, 

2002). SCVTA filed a Motion to Dismiss and Vacate 

the Notice of Exemption on December 31, 2002, 

arguing that it acquired only the physical assets of 

the line, and not UP’s common carrier obligation. 

SCVTA subsequently filed a Notice of Withdrawal 

of its Motion to Dismiss and Vacate the Notice of 

Exemption on April 22, 2003. 

UP has discontinued its trackage rights and 

abandoned its freight easements over these lines 

pursuant to the following exemptions: (1) over the 

Industrial line, in Union Pacific Railroad 

Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Santa 

Clara County, CA, STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 

221X) (STB served Nov. 26, 2004); and (2) over the 

Milpitas line, in Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Abandonment Exemption—in Alameda County, 

CA, STB Docket No. AB–33 (Sub-No. 211X) (STB 

served Nov. 12, 2003). 

Grimmer Boulevard in and near 

Fremont, Alameda County, CA (Milpitas 

line).1 The lines traverse United States 

Zip Codes 94536, 94538, 94539, 95112, 

95116 and 95122. 

The lines do not contain federally 

granted rights-of-way. Any 

documentation in the possession of 

SCVTA will be made available promptly 

to those requesting it. 

The interest of railroad employees 

will be protected by the conditions set 

forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.—

Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 

(1979). 

By issuing this notice, the Board is 

instituting an exemption proceeding 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final 

decision will be issued by December 16, 

2005. 

Any offer of financial assistance 

(OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will 

be due no later than 10 days after the 

service of a decision granting the 

petition for exemption. Each OFA must 

be accompanied by a $1,200 filing fee. 

See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). 

All interested persons should be 

aware that, following abandonment of 

rail service and salvage of the line, the 

line may be suitable for other public 

use, including interim trail use. Any 

request for a public use condition under 

49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail 

banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be 

due no later than October 6, 2005. Each 

trail use request must be accompanied 

by a $200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 

1002.2(f)(27). 

All filings in response to this notice 

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–980X, 

and must be sent to: (1) Surface 

Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20423–0001; and 

Charles A. Spitulnik, McLeod, 

Watkinson & Miller, One Massachusetts 

Avenue, NW., Suite 800, Washington, 

DC 20001. Replies to the petition are 

due on or before October 6, 2005. 

Persons seeking further information 

concerning abandonment procedures 

may contact the Board’s Office of Public 

Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to 

the full abandonment or discontinuance 

regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. 

Questions concerning environmental 

issues may be directed to the Board’s 

Section of Environmental Analysis 

(SEA) at (202) 565–1539. [Assistance for 

the hearing impaired is available 

through the Federal Information Relay 

Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] 

An environmental assessment (EA) (or 

environmental impact statement (EIS), if 

necessary) prepared by SEA will be 

served upon all parties of record and 

upon any agencies or other persons who 

commented during its preparation. 

Other interested persons may contact 

SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). 

EAs in these abandonment proceedings 

normally will be made available within 

60 days of the filing of the petition. The 

deadline for submission of comments on 

the EA will generally be within 30 days 

of its service. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: September 12, 2005. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18570 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

Release of Waybill Data 

The Surface Transportation Board has 

received a request from Mayer, Brown, 

Rowe & Maw on behalf of The 

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 

Railway Company (BNSF) (WB461–12—

9/9/2005) for permission to use certain 

data from the Board’s Carload Waybill 

Samples. A copy of this request may be 

obtained from the Office of Economics, 

Environmental Analysis, and 

Administration. 

The waybill sample contains 

confidential railroad and shipper data; 

therefore, if any parties object to these 

requests, they should file their 

objections with the Director of the 

Board’s Office of Economics, 

Environmental Analysis, and 

Administration within 14 calendar days 

of the date of this notice. The rules for 

release of waybill data are codified at 49 

CFR 1244.9. 

Contact: Mac Frampton, (202) 565–

1541. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18414 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 32299 (Sub–No. 

1)] 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company—

Consolidation of Operations—CSX 

Transportation, Inc. (Petition for 

Supplemental Order) 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Decision No. 2 in STB Finance 

Docket No. 32299 (Sub-No. 1); Notice of 

Filing of Petition for Supplemental 

Order; Issuance of Procedural Schedule. 

SUMMARY: On August 17, 2005, CSX 

Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) and Norfolk 

Southern Railway Company (NSR) filed 

with the Surface Transportation Board 

(Board) a petition (the Joint Petition) for 

a supplemental order authorizing the 

modification of one aspect of a series of 

transactions that the Board’s 

predecessor, the Interstate Commerce 

Commission (ICC), approved in 1993. 

The contemplated modification is to 

have CSXT, rather than NSR, perform 

switching services for both carriers in 

the Newberry, SC area. 

DATES: The effective date of this 

decision is September 16, 2005. Any 

person who wishes to file comments 

respecting the petition must do so by 

October 6, 2005. Petitioners will have 

until October 21, 2005, to reply to those 

comments. 

ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this 

proceeding must be submitted either via 

the Board’s e-filing format or in the 

traditional paper format. Any person 

using e-filing should comply with the 

instructions found on the Board’s Web 

site at http://www.stb.dot.gov at the ‘‘EFILING’’ link. Any person submitting a 

filing in the traditional paper format 

should send an original and 10 paper 

copies of the filing (and also an IBMcompatible 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. Comments should also be served 

(one copy each) on: (1) John W. Humes, 

Jr., 4135 Lakeside Drive, Jacksonville, 

FL 32210 (CSXT’s representative); and 

(2) Richard A. Allen, Zuckert, Scoutt & 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices 54805 

1Petitioners claim that the ICC imposed the 

employee protective conditions described in 

Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.—Trackage Rights—

BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in 

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate, 360 

I.C.C. 653 (1980). See Joint Petition at 7; compare 

Coordination Decision, slip op. at 3 n.3, 4. 

Rasenberger, LLP, 888 Seventeenth 

Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 

20006 (NSR’s representative). Any reply 

should also be served (one copy each) 

on each commenting party. Comments 

and replies may be served by e-mail, but 

only if service by e-mail is acceptable to 

the recipient. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa A. Ziembicki, 202–565–1604. 

[Assistance for the hearing impaired is 

available through the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 7, 

1993, CSXT and NSR filed an 

application pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11343 

(now 49 U.S.C. 11323) et seq. and 49 

CFR Part 1180 seeking ICC approval for 

a series of transactions that involved the 

consolidation of certain operations in 

South Carolina. The proposed 

consolidation consisted of a series of 

trackage rights agreements, joint use 

agreements, and operating agreements. 

Two of those agreements—a 1993 

Newberry Operating Rights Agreement 

and a 1993 Newberry Switching 

Agreement—concerned operations in 

the Newberry area, where both railroads 

have lines and serve customers. Those 

two agreements provided that NSR 

would perform switching services for 

both railroads in the Newberry area, 

switching cars between interchange 

tracks in Newberry owned by CSXT and 

customers located on the lines of both 

railroads in Newberry and nearby 

Prosperity. The 1993 Newberry 

Switching Agreement detailed the terms 

of NSR’s switching services, and the 

1993 Newberry Operating Rights 

Agreement provided for a grant by 

CSXT to NSR of operating rights over 

certain CSXT lines in the Newberry area 

necessary to permit NSR to switch cars 

to/from CSXT customers in the area. 

In Norfolk Southern Railway 

Company—Consolidation of 

Operations—CSX Transportation, Inc., 

Finance Docket No. 32299 (ICC served 

Nov. 26, 1993) (Coordination Decision), 

the ICC approved the application. The 

ICC found the proposed consolidation to 

be a ‘‘minor transaction,’’ see 49 CFR 

1180.2(c), and it found that the 

proposed consolidation would not 

result in a change in the competitive 

balance between CSXT and NSR in 

South Carolina. 

Based on their experience under the 

agreements approved in 1993, 

petitioners have concluded that a minor 

modification to one aspect of the 1993 

consolidation—the switching at 

Newberry—would improve the 

efficiency of operations and enhance 

rail service to their customers. 

Petitioners explain that, at Newberry, 

NSR now performs the local switching 

for both carriers with its own crews, 

even though the vast majority of the 

linehaul shipments are for the account 

of CSXT, and even though CSXT 

provides the locomotives and maintains 

most of the tracks used in the switching 

operations. Petitioners now believe that 

this arrangement is inefficient and that 

service to all customers at Newberry 

would be improved if CSXT, rather than 

NSR, were to provide all switching 

services to CSXT and NSR customers at 

Newberry and nearby Prosperity. 

Petitioners indicate that they have 

now entered into two new agreements—

a 2005 Newberry Operating Rights 

Agreement and a 2005 Newberry 

Switching Agreement—under which 

CSXT would provide the switching for 

both railroads in the Newberry area, 

NSR would grant CSXT the operating 

rights over NSR lines necessary to 

perform such switching to/from NSR 

customers, and NSR would cease using 

the operating rights over CSXT lines 

that it acquired in 1993 to perform the 

switching. Specifically: (1) NSR would 

cease operations over CSXT trackage 

between Milepost (MP) 33.1 and MP 

47.5 in Newberry County, SC, which 

NSR now uses to perform switching 

services in the Newberry, SC, area for 

both itself and CSXT; and (2) CSXT 

would acquire rights over NSR tracks to 

operate (i) between NSR MP V 47.1 and 

NSR MP V 49.0 in Newberry County, 

SC, and (ii) between NSR MP V 42.0 and 

NSR MP V 36.0 in Prosperity, SC, for 

the sole purpose of performing 

switching operations for the customers 

of both carriers. 

Because the proposed changes would 

constitute a modification of 

arrangements approved by the ICC in 

1993, petitioners seek Board 

authorization via a supplemental order 

under 49 U.S.C. 11327. 

Effects on Shippers. Petitioners 

contend that the contemplated changes 

would improve service to customers in 

the Newberry area and would have no 

adverse effect on competition between 

CSXT and NSR. Petitioners explain that 

CSXT and NSR would continue to have 

the same commercial access to existing 

customers in the Newberry area and to 

new facilities that may locate on their 

lines in the future. Petitioners add that 

NSR cars switched by CSXT to 

customers on NSR lines would continue 

to be in the account of NSR; that CSXT 

cars switched to customers on CSXT 

lines would continue to be in the 

account of CSXT; and that CSXT 

switching service would simply replace 

NSR switching service. 

Effects on Employees. The ICC’s 

approval of the 1993 consolidation was 

subject to the employee protective 

conditions described in Mendocino 

Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and Operate, 354 

I.C.C. 732 (1978), as modified in 

Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.—Lease and 

Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980) 

(Mendocino Coast), as clarified in 

Wilmington Term. RR, Inc.—Pur. & 

Lease—CSX Transp., Inc., 6 I.C.C.2d 799 

(1990). See Coordination Decision, slip 

op. at 4.1 Petitioners advise that the 

employee protective conditions 

imposed in 1993 would apply to any 

employees that may be adversely 

affected by the transaction approved in 

1993 or by the modification proposed 

here. Petitioners contend that the 

modification proposed here should not 

have a significant adverse effect on 

employees of the carriers because, 

although the proposed modification 

would result in the abolishment of a 

three-man NSR switching assignment 

currently performing switching services 

in Newberry, it is anticipated that the 

employees currently assigned to that job 

would exercise seniority to other 

positions in their seniority district. 

Petitioners assert that the modification 

proposed here would have no adverse 

effect on CSXT employees. 

Proposed Schedule. Petitioners have 

asked that the Board publish notice of 

the Joint Petition in the Federal Register 

within 30 days of the filing date (i.e., by 

September 16, 2005). Petitioners have 

also asked that comments be due 20 

days after publication (i.e., on October 

6, 2005), that replies to comments be 

due 35 days after publication (i.e., on 

October 21, 2005), and that the Board 

serve a decision within 45 days of the 

filing of replies (i.e., by December 5, 

2005). 

Procedural Schedule Adopted by the 

Board. The Board has arranged to 

publish this decision in the Federal 

Register on September 16, 2005, to 

provide notice to interested persons that 

petitioners seek the relief contemplated 

in the Joint Petition. 

Petition Available To Interested 

Persons. Interested persons may view 

the Joint Petition on the Board’s Web 

site at http://www.stb.dot.gov, at the ‘‘ELIBRARY/Filings’’ link. The petition 

was filed on August 17, 2005, and may 

be viewed with the filings for that date. 

Any person wishing to secure a paper 

copy of the petition may request a copy 

54806 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2005 / Notices 

1Penn Eastern notes that Consolidated Rail 

Corporation (Conrail) formerly operated this track 

as exempt industrial trackage under 49 U.S.C. 

10906 until the last customer ceased rail operations 

in 2002. Penn Eastern states that the track connects 

with portions of the NEC over which Conrail 

currently has operating rights. Penn Eastern also 

states that the line will initially serve three 

customers within the Park, but that it eventually 

expects to attract additional customers. 

in writing or by phone from petitioners’

representatives (1) John W. Humes, Jr., 

4135 Lakeside Drive, Jacksonville, FL 

32210, telephone number 904–388–

4883, and (2) Richard A. Allen, Zuckert, 

Scoutt & Rasenberger, LLP, 888 

Seventeenth Street, NW., Suite 700, 

Washington, DC 20006, telephone 

number 202–298–8660. 

Comments and Replies. Any person 

who wishes to file comments respecting 

the Joint Petition must file such 

comments by October 6, 2005. 

Petitioners will have until October 21, 

2005, to reply to any comments filed by 

interested persons. 

Decision By The Board. The Board 

will endeavor to issue its decision on 

the merits of the Joint Petition by 

December 5, 2005. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

It is ordered: 

1. Comments of interested persons are 

due by October 6, 2005. 

2. Petitioners’ reply is due by October 

21, 2005. 

3. This decision is effective on 

September 16, 2005. 

Decided: September 8, 2005. 

By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice 

Chairman Buttrey, and Commissioner 

Mulvey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18246 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34745] 

Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc.—

Operation Exemption—Expressway 95 

Industrial Park 

Penn Eastern Rail Lines, Inc. (Penn 

Eastern), a Class III rail carrier, has filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1150.41 to operate as a rail 

common carrier, approximately 1.15 

miles of track and right-of-way on 

easements in the Expressway 95 

Industrial Park (the Park) in Bensalem, 

Bucks County, PA. The track known as 

the Bensalem Branch is located along 

the east side of Amtrak’s Northeast 

Corridor (NEC) at ATK milepost 70.2, 

between Philadelphia, PA, and Trenton, 

NJ.1

Penn Eastern certifies that its 

projected annual revenues as a result of 

this transaction will not result in the 

creation of a Class I or Class II rail 

carrier, and that its annual revenues will 

not exceed $5 million. The transaction 

was expected to be consummated on 

August 26, 2005, the effective date of 

the exemption (7 days after the 

exemption was filed). 

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. 34745, 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, 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: September 9, 2005. 

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–18352 Filed 9–15–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Government Securities: Call for Large 

Position Reports 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary 

for Domestic Finance, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the 

Treasury (‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘Treasury’’) 

called for the submission of Large 

Position Reports by those entities whose 

reportable positions in the 43⁄8% 

Treasury Notes of August 2012 equaled 

or exceeded $2 billion as of close of 

business September 12, 2005. 

DATES: Large Position Reports must be 

received before noon Eastern Time on 

September 20, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The reports must be 

submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank 

of New York, Government Securities 

Dealer Statistical Unit, 4th Floor, 33 

Liberty Street, New York, New York 

10045; or faxed to 212–720–5030. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori 

Santamorena, Executive Director; Lee 

Grandy, Associate Director; or Kevin 

Hawkins, Government Securities 

Specialist; Bureau of the Public Debt, 

Department of the Treasury, at 202–

504–3632. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a press 

release issued on September 14, 2005, 

and in this Federal Register notice, the 

Treasury called for Large Position 

Reports from entities whose reportable 

positions in the 43⁄8% Treasury Notes of 

August 2012, Series D–2012, equaled or 

exceeded $2 billion as of the close of 

business Monday, September 12, 2005. 

This call for Large Position Reports is 

pursuant to the Department’s large 

position reporting rules under the 

Government Securities Act regulations 

(17 CFR part 420). Entities whose 

reportable positions in this note equaled 

or exceeded the $2 billion threshold 

must report these positions to the 

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 

Entities with positions in this note 

below $2 billion are not required to file 

reports. Large Position Reports must be 

received by the Government Securities 

Dealer Statistical Unit of the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York before noon 

Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 

20, 2005, and must include the required 

position and administrative 

information. The Reports may be faxed 

to (212) 720–5030 or delivered to the 

Bank at 33 Liberty Street, 4th floor. 

The 43⁄8% Treasury Notes of August 

2012, Series D–2012, have a CUSIP 

number of 912828 AJ 9, a STRIPS 

principal component CUSIP number of 

912820 HF 7, and a maturity date of 

August 15, 2012. 

The press release and a copy of a 

sample Large Position Report, which 

appears in Appendix B of the rules at 17 

CFR part 420, are available at the 

Bureau of the Public Debt’s Internet site 

at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov. 

Questions about Treasury’s large 

position reporting rules should be 

directed to Treasury’s Government 

Securities Regulations Staff at Public 

Debt on (202) 504–3632. Questions 

regarding the method of submission of 

Large Position Reports should be 

directed to the Government Securities 

Dealer Statistical Unit of the Federal 

Reserve Bank of New York at (212) 720–

7993. 

The collection of large position 

information has been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act under OMB Control Number 1535–

0089.