Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49533 

number of this document (NHTSA– 

2010–0116) in your comments. 

Your primary comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 

553.21). However, you may attach 

additional documents to your primary 

comments. There is no limit on the 

length of the attachments. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477) or you may visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Please send two paper copies of your 

comments to Docket Management, fax 

them, or use the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal. The mailing address is U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Management Facility, M–30, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. The fax number 

is 1–202–493–2251. To use the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

We also request, but do not require 

you to send a copy to Bob Sivinski, 

Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS– 

431, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Room W53–440, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590 (or e-mail them to 

robert.sivinski@dot.gov). He can check if 

your comments have been received at 

the Docket and he can expedite their 

review by NHTSA. 

How can I be sure that my comments 

were received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

How do I submit confidential business 

information? 

If you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, send 

three copies of your complete 

submission, including the information 

you claim to be confidential business 

information, to the Chief Counsel, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Include a cover letter supplying the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR part 512). 

In addition, send two copies from 

which you have deleted the claimed 

confidential business information to 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Management Facility, M–30, 

West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, or submit them 

via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 

Will the agency consider late 

comments? 

In our response, we will consider all 

comments that Docket Management 

receives before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above under DATES. To the extent 

possible, we will also consider 

comments that Docket Management 

receives after that date. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information in the 

Docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the Docket for new 

material. 

How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the materials placed in 

the docket for this document (e.g., the 

comments submitted in response to this 

document by other interested persons) 

at any time by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

You may also read the materials at the 

Docket Management Facility by going to 

the street address given above under 

ADDRESSES. The Docket Management 

Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; 

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

James F. Simons, 

Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and 

Evaluation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20234 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0114] 

Spyker Automobielen B.V.; Receipt of 

Application for Temporary Exemption 

from FMVSS No. 126 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

a temporary exemption from Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 126, Electronic Stability Control 

Systems. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. (Spyker) has applied 

for a temporary exemption for its C line 

of vehicles from the requirements of 

FMVSS No. 126, the standard for 

electronic stability control systems. The 

basis of the application is that 

compliance would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. 

NHTSA is publishing this notice of 

receipt of the application in accordance 

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(2), and has made no judgment 

on the merits of the application. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments not later than August 25, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th 

Floor, Room W41–212, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: 

(202) 366–3820. 

Comments: We invite you to submit 

comments on the application described 

above. You may submit comments 

identified by the docket number at the 

heading of this notice by any of the 

following methods: 

• Web Site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help and Information’’ or ‘‘Help/ 

Info.’’ 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC, 

between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

1Spyker has requested confidential treatment 

under 49 CFR Part 512 for certain business and 

financial information submitted as part of its 

petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the 

information placed in the docket does not contain 

the information that is the subject of this request. 

2 Dang, J., Statistical Analysis of the Effectiveness 

of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Systems—Final 

Report, DOT HS 810 794, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Washington, DC (July 2007). 

Available at Docket No. NHTSA–2007–28629, item 

2. 

3 Id. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act discussion 

below. We will consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

above. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 am 

and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above. 

When you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR Part 512). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview of Petition for Economic 

Hardship Exemption 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 

and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Temporary Exemption from Motor 

Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, 

Spyker has submitted a petition (dated 

November 19, 2010) asking the agency 

for a temporary exemption from the 

requirements of FMVSS No. 126, 

Electronic Stability Control Systems, for 

its C line of vehicles. The basis for the 

application is that compliance would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. 

NHTSA established part 555 to 

implement the statutory provisions 

concerning temporary exemptions. 

Vehicle manufacturers may apply for 

temporary exemptions from Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards on 

several bases, one of which is that 

compliance would cause substantial 

economic hardship to a manufacturer 

that has tried in good faith to comply 

with the standard. 

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for 

a hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113). 

A petitioner must provide specified 

information in submitting a petition for 

exemption. Foremost among these 

requirements are that the petitioner 

must set forth the basis of the 

application under 49 CFR 555.6, and the 

reasons why the exemption would be in 

the public interest and, as applicable, 

consistent with the objectives of the 

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 

Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301. In a petition for economic 

hardship, the petitioner must explain in 

detail ‘‘how compliance or failure to 

obtain an exemption would cause 

substantial economic hardship.’’ 49 CFR 

555.6(a)(1). The petition must also 

describe the efforts of the petitioner to 

comply with the standard at issue. 

The agency closely examines and 

considers the information provided by 

manufacturers in support of these 

factors, and, in addition, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A), determines 

whether an exemption is in the public 

interest and consistent with the Safety 

Act. Spyker requests a temporary 

exemption until September 1, 2013. 

Copies of Spyker’s petition 1 are 

available for review and have been 

placed in the docket for this notice. 

II. Electronic Stability Control Systems 

Requirements 

NHTSA published a final rule 

requiring that vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms 

(kg) (10,000 pounds) and less be 

equipped with electronic stability 

control (ESC) in April of 2007. The rule 

seeks to reduce the risk of rollover 

crashes by assisting the driver in 

maintaining control of his or her vehicle 

in situations in which the vehicle begins 

to lose directional stability at the rear 

wheels (spin out) or directional control 

at the front wheels (plow out). 

Preventing single-vehicle loss-of 

control crashes is the most effective way 

to reduce deaths resulting from rollover 

crashes. NHTSA’s crash data study 

shows that ESC systems reduce fatal 

single-vehicle crashes of passenger cars 

by 36 percent and fatal single-vehicle 

crashes of LTVs (light trucks and vans, 

including pickup trucks, SUVs, 

minivans, and full-size vans) by 63 

percent.2 The agency further estimates 

that ESC has the potential to prevent 70 

percent of the fatal passenger car 

rollovers and 88 percent of the fatal LTV 

rollovers that would otherwise occur in 

single-vehicle crashes.3

ESC utilizes automatic computercontrolled braking of the individual 

wheels of the vehicle in order to assist 

the driver in maintaining vehicle 

control. An anti-lock brake system 

(ABS) is a prerequisite for an ESC 

system because ESC uses many of the 

same components as ABS. Thus, the 

cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 

is less for vehicle models already 

equipped with ABS. The ESC 

requirement becomes effective as to 

Spyker September 1, 2011. 

III. Spyker’s Petition 

Spyker bases its request for exemption 

on the argument that compliance with 

FMVSS No. 126 ‘‘would cause 

substantial economic hardship to a 

manufacturer that has tried to comply 

with the standard in good faith.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i). Spyker requests 

that the exemption period begin on 

September 1, 2011 and extend 24 

months until September 1, 2013. 

A. Eligibility 

A manufacturer is eligible to apply for 

a hardship exemption if its total motor 

vehicle production in its most recent 

year of production did not exceed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 49535 

4All dollar values are based on an exchange rate 

of 1 Euro = $1.30. 

5Spyker states that it does not have the available 

financial resources to travel to other parts of the 

world to conduct winter testing and thus must wait 

for winter in Europe to complete ESC testing. 

6Spyker also submitted a request for an extension 

of its previously granted exemption from 

compliance with the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208 on October 13, 2010. 

10,000 vehicles, as determined by the 

NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 

30113(d)). In determining whether a 

manufacturer of a vehicle meets that 

criterion, NHTSA considers whether a 

second vehicle manufacturer also might 

be deemed the manufacturer of that 

vehicle. The statutory provisions 

governing motor vehicle safety (49 

U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not state that a 

manufacturer has substantial 

responsibility as manufacturer of a 

vehicle simply because it owns or 

controls a second manufacturer that 

assembled that vehicle. However, the 

agency considers the statutory 

definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’ (49 U.S.C. 

30102) to be sufficiently broad to 

include sponsors, depending on the 

circumstances. NHTSA has stated that a 

manufacturer may be deemed to be a 

sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a 

vehicle assembled by a second 

manufacturer if the first manufacturer 

had a substantial role in the 

development and manufacturing 

process of that vehicle. 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. is a small 

volume manufacturer of luxury sports 

cars. Since 2005, Spyker Automobielen 

B.V. has manufactured less than 100 

vehicles annually worldwide, and the 

company projects that it will 

manufacture 103 vehicles in 2011. 

However, the petition states that Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of Spyker Cars NV, a publicly 

traded Netherlands corporation. Spyker 

Cars NV also owns Saab Automobile 

AG, a large Swedish car manufacturer. 

Spyker asserts that Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. is financially and 

operationally independent from Saab 

Automobile AG and that, based on past 

NHTSA determinations regarding the 

issue of sponsorship, Spyker 

Automobielen B.V. remains eligible for 

a temporary exemption based on 

economic hardship. 

Since filing its petition, Spyker has 

informed the agency that Spyker Cars 

NV plans to sell Spyker Automobielen 

B.V. to CPP Global Holdings, a private 

holding company in the United 

Kingdom. Because of the relationship 

between Spyker Automobielen B.V., 

Spyker Cars NV, and Saab Automobile 

AG, and, in light of the plans to sell 

Spyker Automobielen B.V. to CPP 

Global Holdings, NHTSA will closely 

examine whether Spyker is eligible for 

a financial hardship exemption. NHTSA 

specifically requests comments on the 

issue of Spyker’s eligibility. 

B. Substantial Economic Hardship 

Spyker states that it is suffering 

financial hardship because of lower 

than anticipated sales volumes due to 

the recent world wide economic 

recession. Specifically, Spyker suffered 

a net operating loss of approximately 

132,000,000 Euros ($171,600,000) 4 from 

2004 to 2009. Spyker projected a further 

loss in 2010 of 12,000,000 Euros 

($15,600,000). Based on 2011–2013 

financial projections, Spyker estimates 

that, if its petition were denied, it would 

bear a loss over three years of more than 

41,000,000 Euros ($53,300,000) as 

opposed to an 8,000,000 Euros 

($10,400,000) loss should the petition be 

granted, representing a difference of 

33,000,000 Euros ($42,900,000). Spyker 

also states that the loss of sales in the 

U.S. that would result if the exemption 

petition were denied could not be made 

up in the rest of the world because the 

U.S. is the largest and most important 

market for the vehicle. Spyker argues 

that such consequences demonstrate 

‘‘substantial economic hardship’’ within 

the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(3)(B)(i). 

C. Good Faith Efforts To Comply 

Spyker states that in 2008 it began 

working with Bosch Engineering, GmbH 

(Bosch) to develop an ESC system for 

the Spyker C line and D line models. 

Spyker states that in order to develop an 

ESC system, it first had to develop a 

new ABS system. In an effort to achieve 

compliance with FMVSS No. 126, 

Spyker has developed a vehicle to test 

its new ABS system and created a new 

ABS software package. Under its 

original testing schedule, Spyker 

planned to complete development of the 

ABS/ESC system before the September 

1, 2011 compliance date of FMVSS No. 

126. However, due to the drop in sales 

resulting from the global economic 

recession, Spyker did not have funds 

available to continue ESC development 

as planned. 

Spyker states that its inability to 

commence testing in 2010 delayed its 

development schedule for ESC because 

it will have to wait an additional year 

for winter conditions necessary to test 

ESC.5 Spyker states that it has spent 

781,000 Euros ($1,015,300) developing 

an ESC system thus far. Spyker states 

that it will likely not have sufficient 

funds to continue work on its ESC 

system until the end of 2011. Spyker 

states that it will be able to have a test 

vehicle completed by the end of 2012 

and an ESC system fully developed by 

2013. 

D. Public Interest 

The petitioner put forth several 

arguments in favor of a finding that the 

requested exemption is consistent with 

the public interest and would not have 

a significant adverse impact on safety. 

Specifically: 

1. Spyker states that the exempted 

vehicles will comply with all FMVSSs 

other than the advanced airbag 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

Occupant crash protection, and the 

standard that is the subject of this 

exemption request.6

2. The petitioner states that an 

exemption will benefit U.S. 

employment and U.S. companies 

because Spyker vehicles are distributed 

by a U.S. company, Spyker of North 

America, and are sold and serviced in 

the U.S. through a network of 18 

dealers. Spyker argues that the denial of 

this exemption will negatively impact 

these companies. 

3. Spyker argues that if the exemption 

is not granted, U.S. consumer choice 

would be harmed and that the agency 

has long maintained that the Safety Act 

seeks, if possible, to avoid limiting 

consumer choice. 

4. The petitioner argues that given 

their exotic design and highperformance nature, the C line vehicles 

are not expected to be used extensively, 

nor are they expected to carry children 

with any significant frequency. 

IV. Issuance of Notice of Final Action 

Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA 

conducts an initial review of the 

petition with respect to whether the 

petition is complete and whether the 

petitioner appears to be eligible to apply 

for the requested petition. The agency 

has tentatively concluded that the 

petition is complete and that the 

petitioner is eligible to apply for the 

requested exemption. The agency has 

not made any judgment on the merits of 

the application and is placing a nonconfidential copy of the petition in the 

docket. 

We are providing a 15-day comment 

period in an effort to provide a decision 

with respect to the petition before the 

September 1, 2011 compliance date for 

FMVSS No. 126. After considering 

public comments and other available 

information, we will publish a notice of 

final action on the application in the 

Federal Register. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 10, 2011 / Notices 

Issued on: August 5, 2011. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20283 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

[REG–146895–05; TD 9412] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Regulation Project 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

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, 

Public Law 104–13(44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning election 

to expense certain refineries. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before October 11, 2011 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the regulations should be 

directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal 

Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224, or at (202) 622–6665, or 

through the Internet at 

Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Election To Expense Certain 

Refineries. 

OMB Number: 1545–2103. 

Regulation Project Number: REG– 

146895–05 (TD 9412). 

Abstract: This document contains 

temporary regulations relating to the 

election to expense qualified refinery 

property under section 179C of the 

Internal Revenue Code, and affects 

taxpayers who own refineries located in 

the United States. These temporary 

regulations reflect changes to the law 

made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

The text of these temporary regulations 

also serves as the text of the proposed 

Regulations. 

Current Actions: There is no change to 

this existing regulation. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

12. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 10 

Hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 120. 

The following paragraph applies to all 

of the collections of information covered 

by this notice: 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless the collection of information 

displays a valid OMB control number. 

Books or records relating to a collection 

of information must be retained as long 

as their contents may become material 

in the administration of any internal 

revenue law. Generally, tax returns and 

tax return information are confidential, 

as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103. 

Request for Comments: Comments 

submitted in response to this notice will 

be summarized and/or included in the 

request for OMB 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. 

Approved: August 3, 2011. 

Yvette Lawrence, 

IRS Reports Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20220 Filed 8–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

[REG–209826–96] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request for Regulation Project 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

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, 

Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is 

soliciting comments concerning 

application of the grantor trust rules to 

nonexempt employees’ trusts. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before October 11, 2011 

to be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Yvette Lawrence, Internal Revenue 

Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the regulations should be 

directed to Allan Hopkins at Internal 

Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20224, or at (202) 622–6665, or 

through the Internet at 

Allan.M.Hopkins@irs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Application of the Grantor Trust 

Rules to Nonexempt Employees’ Trusts. 

OMB Number: 1545–1498. 

Regulation Project Number: REG– 

209826–96. 

Abstract: This regulation provides 

rules for the application of the grantor 

trust rules to certain nonexempt 

employees’ trusts. Under Section 1.671– 

1(h)(3)(iii) of the regulation, the 

overfunded amount for certain foreign 

employees’ trusts will be reduced to the 

extent the taxpayer demonstrates to the 

Commissioner, and indicates on a 

statement attached to a timely filed 

Form 5471, that the overfunded amount 

is attributable to a reasonable funding 

exception. The IRS needs this 

information to determine accurately the 

portion of the trust that is properly 

treated as owned by the employer. 

Current Actions: There is no change to 

this existing regulation. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

1,000. 

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 

hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 1,000. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES