Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 2751 

8A basis for the Board’s historic pricing policy 

under Staggers and ICCTA was to permit demandbased differential pricing and allow captive 

shippers to bear a greater share of the carriers’ fixed 

and common costs to help the railroads achieve 

revenue adequacy. 

parties may address pre-Staggers 

practice, Staggers’ effect on this issue, 

and whether there are statutory 

constraints on the Board’s ability to 

change policy at this time. The Board is 

also interested in how the definition of 

‘‘terminal facility’’ evolved over time. 

4. 49 U.S.C. 11102(c) (reciprocal 

switching agreements). Parties are 

invited to discuss, separately from the 

terminal facilities access provision, how 

to construe this provision in light of 

current transportation market 

conditions. Again, parties may address 

pre-Staggers practice, Staggers’ effect on 

this issue, and whether there are 

statutory constraints on the Board’s 

ability to change policy at this time. In 

particular, parties should address 

whether the broad ‘‘practicable and in 

the public interest’’ standard in the 

statute should be constrained by the 

provision permitting relief ‘‘where 

* * * necessary to provide competitive 

rail service.’’ Finally, parties may 

discuss the distance limitations, if any, 

associated with this provision. 

5. Bottleneck Rates. Parties are invited 

to discuss whether the Board could and 

should change its precedent finding 

only narrow authority to compel a 

railroad to quote a separately 

challengeable rate for a portion of a 

movement. Parties are also asked to 

comment on how the Great Northern 

Railway decision—holding that the 

reasonableness of a through rate 

established by carriers is only relevant 

to the shipper as to the total rate 

charged, and thus should be evaluated 

from origin to destination rather than on 

a segment-by-segment basis—can 

reasonably be applied in today’s 

transportation world. In particular, we 

want to explore how the agency would 

evaluate the reasonableness of the more 

elaborate through rates used in today’s 

global transportation industry 

including, for example, a local truck 

movement at origin, a transload to rail 

for shipment to a port, an international 

water movement, and finally a foreign 

rail or truck movement to destination. In 

such an example, do Great Northern 

Railway and other precedent require the 

agency to evaluate the reasonableness of 

the rates exclusively from origin to 

destination? If so, how could the agency 

evaluate the entire through rate when a 

portion of that rate includes 

transportation outside the Board’s 

jurisdiction? Or does the agency have 

the discretion to permit the shipper to 

challenge just the rail carrier’s division 

of the international through rate? Does 

the agency have discretion in other 

purely domestic settings? Participants 

may also address the role that short 

lines play in through rates, and whether 

the reasoning in Great Northern Railway 

encompasses ‘‘bottleneck’’ situations and 

a more highly concentrated rail 

industry. Should freight rail customers 

be allowed to determine intermediate 

origin and destination points that would 

enable a competing carrier or mode to 

serve the shipper’s final destination? 

6. Access Pricing. If the Board were to 

modify its competitive access rules, it 

would also need to address the access 

price. The Board seeks comments on 

what tools it can and should consider 

using (within statutory and 

constitutional limits) in evaluating how 

the carriers can assess terminal access 

prices, reciprocal switch fees, or 

segment rates, such as Constrained 

Market Pricing principles, or an 

alternative set of principles, such as 

cost-based pricing principles or Efficient 

Component Pricing. What role, if any, 

should a carrier’s current financial 

standing and future prospects bear in 

this determination? 8

7. Impact. Finally, we invite 

comments from all interested parties on 

the positive and negative impact any 

proposed change would have on the 

railroad industry, the shipper 

community, and the economy as a 

whole. The introduction of greater railto-rail competition could improve 

service and lower rates for captive 

shippers. But a loss of revenue could 

lead to less capital investment, 

constraining capacity and deteriorating 

service for future traffic. Any party 

advocating a change should address 

these impacts. 

In addition to the guidance provided 

above, parties are welcome to offer their 

comments on any other aspect of our 

competitive access rules. Parties are also 

invited to comment on the specific 

questions in our prior order on this 

similar subject. Policy Alts. to Increase 

Competition in the R.R. Indus., EP 688 

(STB served Apr. 14, 2009). Board 

Releases and Live Video Streaming 

Available Via the Internet: Decisions 

and notices of the Board, including this 

notice, are available on the Board’s Web 

site at http://www.stb.dot.gov. This 

hearing will be available on the Board’s 

Web site by live video streaming. To 

access the hearing, click on the ‘‘Live 

Video’’ link under ‘‘Information Center’’ 

at the left side of the home page 

beginning at 9 a.m. on May 3, 2011. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

It is ordered: 

1. A public hearing in this proceeding 

will be held on Tuesday, May 3, 2011, 

at 9:30 a.m., in the Surface 

Transportation Board Hearing Room, at 

395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC, as 

described above. 

2. Initial comments are due on 

February 18, 2011. 

3. Reply comments are due on March 

18, 2011. 

4. By April 4, 2011, parties wishing to 

speak at the hearing shall file with the 

Board a notice of intent to participate 

identifying the party, the proposed 

speaker, and the time requested. With 

the notice of intent, the party shall 

provide written testimony on the issues 

it will address at the hearing. Written 

submissions by interested persons who 

do not wish to appear at the hearing are 

also due by April 4, 2011. 

5. This decision is effective on the 

date of service. 

Decided: January 11, 2011. 

By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Andrea Pope-Matheson, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2011–774 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 10, 2011. 

The Department of the Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirement to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. A copy of 

the submission may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding 

these information collections should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury PRA Clearance 

Officer, Department of the Treasury, 

1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 

11010, Washington, DC 20220. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 14, 2011 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–1623. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: REG–246256–96 (Final) Excise 

Taxes on Excess Benefit Transactions 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

2752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2011 / Notices 

Abstract: The rule affects 

organizations described in Internal 

Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) and (4) 

applicable tax-exempt organizations). 

The collection of information entails 

obtaining and relying on appropriate 

comparability data and documenting the 

basis of an organization’s determination 

that compensation is reasonable, or a 

property transfer (or transfer of the right 

to use property) is at fair market value. 

These actions comprise two of the 

requirements specified in the legislative 

history for obtaining the rebuttable 

presumption of reasonableness. 

Respondents: Private Sector: Not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

910,083 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–2182. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: REG–125592–10, Affordable 

Care Act Internal Claims and Appeals 

and External review Disclosures. 

Abstract: Section 2719 of the Public 

Health Service Act, incorporated into 

Code section 9815 by section 1563(f) of 

the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act, Public Law 111–148, requires 

group health plans and issuers of group 

health insurance coverage, in 

connection with internal appeals of 

claims denials, to provide claimants free 

of charge with any evidence relied upon 

in deciding the appeal that was not 

relied on in making the initial denial of 

the claim. This is a third party 

disclosure requirement. Individuals 

appealing a denial of a claim should be 

able to respond to any new evidence the 

plan or issuer relies on in the appeal, 

and this disclosure requirement is 

essential so that the claimant knows of 

the new evidence. 

Respondents: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 150 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1010. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: U.S. Income Tax Return for 

Regulated Investment Companies. 

Form: 1120–RIC. 

Abstract: Form 1120–RIC is filed by a 

domestic corporation electing to be 

taxed as a RIC in order to report its 

income and deductions and to compute 

its tax liability. IRC uses Form 1120–RIC 

to determine whether the RIC has 

correctly reported its income, 

deductions, and tax liability. 

Respondents: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

369,021 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1186. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Form 8825—Rental Real Estate 

Income and Expense of a Partnership or 

an S Corporation. 

Form: 8825. 

Abstract: Form 8825 is used to verify 

that partnerships and S corporations 

have correctly reported their income 

and expenses from rental real estate 

property. The form is filed with either 

Form 1065 or Form 1120S. 

Respondents: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

6,288,600 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–0971. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Estimated Income Tax for 

Estates and Trusts. 

Form: 1041–ES, 1041–ES (PR). 

Abstract: Internal Revenue Code 

section 6654(1) imposes a penalty on 

trusts, and in certain circumstances, a 

decedent’s estate, for underpayment of 

estimated tax. Form 1041–ES is used by 

the fiduciary to make the estimated tax 

payments. For ‘‘first-time’’ filers, the 

form is available in an Over The 

Counter (OTC) version at IRS offices. 

For previous filers, the form is sent to 

them by the IRS with preprinted 

vouchers in the Optical Character 

Resolution (OCR) version. 

Respondents: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

3,161,236 hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–0056. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Form 1023, Application for 

Recognition of Exemption Under 

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Abstract: Form 1023 is filed by 

applicants seeking Federal income tax 

exemption as organization described in 

section 501(c)(3). IRS uses the 

information to determine if the 

applicant is exempt and whether the 

applicant is a private foundation. 

Form: 1023. 

Respondents: Private Sector: Not-forprofit institutions. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

3,138,550 hours. 

Bureau Clearance Officer: Allan 

Hopkins, Internal Revenue Service, 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20224; (202) 622–6665 

OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, 

Office of Management and Budget, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395–7873 

Celina Elphage, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–810 Filed 1–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

January 10, 2010. 

The Department of the Treasury will 

submit the following public information 

collection requirements to OMB for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13 on or after the date 

of publication of this notice. A copy of 

the submission may be obtained by 

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 

Officer listed. Comments regarding 

these information collections should be 

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed 

and to the Treasury PRA Clearance 

Officer, Department of the Treasury, 

1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 

11010, Washington, DC 20220. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 14, 2011 

to be assured of consideration. 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

OMB Number: 1545–1292. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change to a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: PS–97–91 and PS–101–90 (T.D. 

8448) Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit. 

Abstract: This regulation provides 

guidance concerning the costs subject to 

the enhanced oil recovery credit, the 

circumstances under which the credit is 

available, and procedures for certifying 

to the Internal Revenue Service that a 

project meets the requirements of 

section 43(c) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. 

Respondents: Private sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,460 

hours. 

OMB Number: 1545–1324. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: CO–88–90 (TD 8530—Final) 

Limitation on Net Operating Loss 

Carryforwards and Certain Built-in 

Losses Following Ownership Change; 

Rule for Value of a Loss Corporation 

Under the Jurisdiction of a Court in a 

Title II Case. 

Abstract: This information serves as 

evidence of an election to apply section 

382(1)(6) in lieu of section 382(1)(5) and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES