Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11383

46See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita

Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 494 F. Supp 1263, 1266

(E.D.Pa. 1980).

47 McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional de Marineros

de Honduras, 370 U.S. 10, 21 (1963).

48 Id. See, also, Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v.

Avagliano, et al., 457 U.S. 176 (1982).

1A redacted version of the amendment to the

trackage rights agreement between TP&W and P&PU

was filed with the verified notice of exemption. The

full version of the agreement, as required by 49 CFR

1180.6(a)(7)(ii), was concurrently filed under seal

along with a motion for a protective order. A

protective order was served on February 14, 2001.

1, 2001 or ‘‘to the owner [of the vessel]

on October 1, 2001 if any ownership

interest in that owner is transferred to

or otherwise acquired by a foreign

individual or entity after such date,’’

(emphasis added).

‘‘Petitioners are ‘‘owners’’ and

‘‘mortgagees’’ who acquired their

interests in the Vessels prior to October

1, 2001, and who intend to continue to

hold those interests on and after October

1, 2001. The U.S.-Japan FCN is a selfexecuting treaty which is binding on

MARAD as a matter of federal domestic

law.46 Under ordinary principles of

statutory construction, the AFA and the

Treaty should be construed to avoid

conflict and to give effect to each. The

federal courts have recognized that

federal statutes should be construed in

a manner to avoid conflict with

international treaties. Thus, federal

statutes ‘‘ought never to be construed to

violate the law of nations if any other

possible construction remains.’’ 47 Only

where Congress has expressed the clear

intent to depart from the obligations of

a treaty will the provisions of later

federal legislation be found to conflict

with and supersede U.S. treaty

obligations.48 Here, it is apparent from

the terms of Section 213(g) that

Congress affirmatively intended to avoid

conflict with international treaties such

as the U.S.-Japan FCN by exempting

‘‘owners’’ and ‘‘mortgagees’’ from

provisions of the AFA which would

otherwise be inconsistent with U.S.

treaty obligations. The inconsistency

between Sections 202 and 203 of the

AFA and the requirements of the U.S.-

Japan FCN is demonstrated above with

respect to Petitioners. Accordingly,

under Section 213(g) of the Act, the

provisions of Sections 202 and 203

‘‘shall not apply’’ to Petitioners ‘‘to the

extent of * * * such inconsistency.’’

‘‘The exemption provided by Section

213(g) is not limited to ownership or

mortgage interests in existence on

October 1, 2001, but rather applies to an

‘‘owner’’ or ‘‘mortgagee’’ on October 1,

2001 and extends the exemption ‘‘to the

extent of the inconsistency’’ between

the Act and the Treaty ‘‘with respect to’’

the vessel in which the ‘‘owner’’ or

‘‘mortgagee’’ holds an interest.

Petitioners qualify as ‘‘owners’’ and

‘‘mortgagees.’’ Petitioners are, therefore,

exempt from the requirements of the

AFA ‘‘to the extent of the

inconsistency’’ between the AFA and

the Treaty. As demonstrated above, the

‘‘inconsistency’’ between the AFA and

the Treaty is two-fold: (1) The Treaty

protects the existing ownership and

preferred mortgage interests of

Petitioners in the Vessel and related

contract rights (including the exclusive

marketing agreement) which the AFA

would impair, prohibit or restrict; and

(2) the Treaty protects future

transactions between Alyeska or its

Japanese shareholders and the Vessel

Owner, which the AFA would prohibit

or restrict, including future loans,

preferred mortgages and other financing

and contractual arrangements which

Petitioners may deem necessary or

appropriate to protect their existing

businesses and their existing interests in

the Vessel and the Vessel Owner. Thus,

Section 213(g) exempts Petitioners

entirely from the restrictions and

limitations of Sections 202, 203 and 204

of the AFA and MARAD’s implementing

rules with respect to the Vessel.’’

This concludes the analysis submitted

by Petitioner for consideration.

Dated: February 16, 2001.

By order of the Maritime Administrator.

Joel Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–4468 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34009]

Toledo, Peoria & Western Railway

Corporation—Trackage Rights

Exemption—Peoria and Pekin Union

Railway Company

Peoria and Pekin Union Railway

Company (P&PU) has agreed to grant

overhead trackage rights to Toledo,

Peoria & Western Railway Corporation

(TP&W) over P&PU’s track between the

point of connection between The

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company and P&PU near Darst

Street in Peoria, IL, milepost 2.1, and

the point of connection between P&PU

and TP&W at North Main Street in East

Peoria, IL, commonly known as P&PU

Junction, milepost 0.0, a distance of

approximately 4 miles.1

The transaction is scheduled to be

consummated on or shortly after

February 16, 2001.

The trackage rights will enable TP&W

to enhance competitive service for

intermodal traffic and provide more

efficient and economical routings and

service for this traffic.

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board

may not use its exemption authority to

relieve a rail carrier of its statutory

obligation to protect the interests of its

employees. Section 11326(c), however,

does not provide for labor protection for

transactions under sections 11324 and

11325 that involve only Class III rail

carriers. Because this transaction

involves Class III rail carriers only, the

Board, under the statute, may not

impose labor protective conditions for

this transaction.

This notice is filed under 49 CFR

1180.2(d)(7). If it 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. 34009 must be filed with the

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on Louis E.

Gitomer, Esq., Ball Janik LLP, 1455 F

Street, N.W., Suite 225, Washington, DC

20005.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: February 15, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–4524 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, invites the general public and

other Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing information

collections, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,