35420 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices

In addition to an exemption from 49

U.S.C. 10903, petitioner seeks

exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10904 (offer

of financial assistance procedures) and

49 U.S.C. 10905 (public use conditions).

In support, UP contends that exemption

from these provisions is necessary to

permit its conveyance to the sole

shipper on the line, Cargill, Inc.

(Cargill), of a segment of the line

between mileposts 312.1 and 315 for

construction of a plant switching

facility. The switching operation is

necessary for construction by Cargill of

a private rail line that will run south

from the plant to The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway

Company’s main line. UP also requests

expedited consideration of the

exemption petition, including

effectiveness of the exemption on

service of the final decision. UP avers

that expedited action is necessary here

because Cargill urgently needs the rightof-way. These requests will be

addressed in the final decision.

The line does not contain federally

granted rights-of-way. Any

documentation in UP’s possession 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 issuance of this notice, the Board

is instituting an exemption proceeding

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

decision will be issued by September 1,

2000.

Any offer of financial assistance

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

be due no later than 10 days after

service of a decision granting the

petition for exemption. Each offer must

be accompanied by a $1,000 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 June 22, 2000. Each

trail use request must be accompanied

by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR

1002.2(f)(27).

All filings in response to this notice

must refer to STB Docket No. AB–33

(Sub-No. 153X) and must be sent to: (1)

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423–

0001, and (2) James P. Gatlin, 1416

Dodge Street, Room 830, Omaha, NE

68179–0830. Replies to the UP petition

are due on or before June 22, 2000.

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) 565–1545. [TDD for the

hearing impaired is available 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 website at

‘‘WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.’’

Decided: May 25, 2000.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director,

Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–13856 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

May 26, 2000.

The Department of the Treasury has

submitted the following public

information collection requirement(s) to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Copies of the

submission(s) may be obtained by

calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the Treasury Department

Clearance Officer, Department of the

Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before July 3, 2000, to be

assured of consideration.

Departmental Offices/Office of

International Investment

OMB Number: 1505–0121.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Regulations Pertaining to

Mergers, Acquisitions and Takeovers by

Foreign Persons.

Description: Treasury disseminates to

other agencies that are members of the

Committee on Foreign Investment in the

United States (CFIUS) information

collected under the regulations from

parties involved in a foreign acquisition

of a U.S. company in order to do a

national security analysis of the

acquisition.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

100.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 60 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

6,000 hours.

Clearance Officer: Lois K. Holland,

(202) 622–1563, Departmental Offices,

Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue,

N.W., Washington, DC 20220.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt,

(202) 395–7860, Office of Management

and Budget, Room 10202, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–13877 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–25–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency

[Docket No. 00–12]

Notice of Request for Preemption

Determination

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the

Currency, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for

comment a written request for the OCC’s

determination of whether Federal law

preempts certain provisions of the West

Virginia Insurance Sales Consumer

Protection Act (West Virginia Law). The

purpose of this notice and request for

comment is to provide interested

persons with an opportunity to submit

comments prior to the OCC’s issuance of

any final opinion in this matter.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Communications Division, Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices 35421

Street, SW, Third Floor, Attention:

Docket No. 00–12, Washington, DC

20219. You may submit comments

electronically to

regs.comments@occ.treas.gov or by

facsimile transmission to (202) 874–

5274. You can inspect and photocopy

the comments at the OCC’s Public

Reference Room, 250 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and

5:00 p.m. on business days. You can

make an appointment to inspect the

comments by calling (202) 874–5043.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MaryAnn Orr Nash, Senior Attorney, or

Stuart Feldstein, Assistant Director,

Legislative and Regulatory Activities

Division, (202) 874–5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The OCC has received a request from

the West Virginia Bankers Association

(Requester) for a determination that

Federal law preempts certain provisions

of the West Virginia Law.

Section 114 of the Riegle-Neal

Interstate Banking and Branching

Efficiency Act of 1994 (section 114),

Pub. L. 103–328 (12 U.S.C. 43) generally

requires the OCC to publish in the

Federal Register a descriptive notice of

certain requests that the OCC receives

for preemption opinions. Under section

114, the OCC must publish notice before

it issues any opinion letter or

interpretive rule concluding that

Federal law preempts the application to

a national bank of any State law in four

designated areas: community

reinvestment, consumer protection, fair

lending, or the establishment of

intrastate branches. Pursuant to section

114, interested persons have at least 30

days to submit written comments.

Without making a determination as to

whether section 114 applies to this

request, the OCC has decided that it is

appropriate to use notice and comment

procedures given the broad interest in

the issues presented. The OCC will

publish in the Federal Register any final

opinion letter or interpretive rule that

concludes that Federal law preempts

State law.

Specific Request for OCC Preemption

Determination

The OCC has been asked to determine

whether section 104 the Gramm-LeachBliley Act (GLBA) preempts certain

provisions of West Virginia Law.

Section 104(d)(2)(A) of GLBA

provides that ‘‘[i]n accordance with the

legal standards for preemption set forth

in the decision of the Supreme Court of

the United States in Barnett Bank of

Marion County N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S.

25 (1996), no State may, by statute,

regulation, order, interpretation, or

other action prevent or significantly

interfere with the ability of a depository

institution, or an affiliate thereof, to

engage, directly or indirectly, either by

itself or in conjunction with an affiliate

or any other person, in any insurance

sales, solicitation, or cross marketing

activity.’’ However, GLBA does not

preempt state actions that are

‘‘substantially the same as but no more

burdensome or restrictive than’’ any of

the thirteen specific actions described in

section 104(d)(2)(B) of GLBA (Safe

Harbors). The Requester asserts that the

following provisions contained in seven

sections of the West Virginia Law are

preempted by the GLBA—

(1) Section 33–11A–6 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Insurance sales

separate from loan transaction,’’

generally prohibits financial institution

employees with lending responsibilities

from soliciting the purchase or sale of

insurance. Specifically, the law

provides that:

(a) Solicitation for the purchase or

sale of insurance by a financial

institution shall be conducted only by

individuals whose responsibilities do

not include loan transactions or other

transactions involving the extension of

credit. Provided, That for a financial

institution location having three or less

individuals with lending authority,

solicitation for the sale of insurance may

be conducted by an individual with

responsibilities for loan transactions or

other transactions involving the

extension of credit, as long as the

individual primarily responsible for

making the specific loan or extension of

credit is not the same individual

engaged in the solicitation of the

purchase or sale of insurance for that

same transaction.

(b) In the event that in any small

office, the same individual is the

licensed agent or broker and the sole

individual with lending authority, the

commissioner may grant a waiver of the

requirements of this section upon a

written request. Such request shall

include documentation that, due to the

small office staff, compliance is not

possible, and include identification of

other steps which will be taken to

minimize the customer confusion

prohibited by this article.

The Requester contends that Federal

law preempts this provision because it

does not fit within any of the Safe

Harbors and, if given effect, would

prevent or significantly interfere with

the ability of financial institutions to

engage in insurance activities. The

Requester asserts that limitations on

bank use of personnel will significantly

interfere with the ability of community

banks to offer insurance services to

customers and generally will require the

use of more personnel than may be

needed to conduct the business. The

Requester also contends that this

provision will significantly limit the use

of supermarket branches and developing

technologies that are intended to

minimize use of personnel.

(2) Section 33–11A–8 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Tying of

products prohibited,’’ generally

prohibits a financial institution from

requiring or implying that the purchase

of an insurance product from that

institution is required as a condition to

the approval of a loan. Specifically, that

section provides that:

(a) No person shall require or imply

that the purchase of an insurance

product from a financial institution by

a customer or prospective customer of

the institution is required as a condition

of the lending of money or extension of

credit.

(b) No financial institution may offer

an insurance product in combination

with its other products, unless all the

products are available separately from

the financial institution.

The Requester contends that this

provision is not within the Safe Harbor

set forth in section 104(d)(2)(B)(viii) of

GLBA, which protects state restrictions

prohibiting the tying of loan and

insurance products. The Requester

asserts that this provision is preempted

because it essentially prohibits a loan

officer from mentioning to a customer

that insurance products may be

available at a discount as part of a

package of bank services, and thus,

would significantly interfere with bank

sales of insurance products. The

Requester also contends that this

provision is more restrictive than the

anti-tying provisions of the Bank

Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. 1972

and the implementing Federal

regulation.

(3) Section 33–11A–9 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Disclosures,’’

generally provides that a financial

institution engaged in the sale of

insurance must disclose to customers in

writing the nature of the product sold.

Specifically, the section provides that—

(a) A financial institution soliciting

the purchase of or selling insurance, and

any person soliciting the purchase of or

selling insurance on the premises of, in

connection with a product offering, or

using a name identifiable with, a

financial institution, shall prominently

disclose to customers, in writing, in

clear and concise language, including in

any advertisement or promotional

material, and orally during any

35422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices

customer contact, that insurance

offered, recommended, sponsored, or

sold:

(1) Is not a deposit;

(2) Is not insured by the federal

deposit insurance corporation or, where

applicable, the National Credit Union

Share Insurance Fund;

(3) Is not guaranteed by any insured

depository institution; and

(4) Where appropriate, involves

investment risk, including potential loss

of principal.

(b) Any financial institution engaged

in the making of loans or other

extensions of credit and the sale of

insurance shall prominently disclose to

customers in writing, in clear and

concise language, that the insurance

product may be purchased from an

agent or broker of the customer’s choice,

and the customer’s choice of another

insurance provider will not affect the

customer’s credit relationship with the

person. For purposes of this subsection,

loans and extensions of credit shall not

include financing in connection with

the insurance product offered or sold.

(c) Any person required under

subsections (a) or (b) of this section to

make disclosures to a customer shall

obtain a written acknowledgment of

receipt by the customer of such

disclosures, including the date of

receipt and the customer’s name,

address, and account number, prior to

or at the time of any application for

insurance sold by the person. Such

acknowledgment shall be in a separate

document.

(d) The commissioner may grant a

waiver of the requirements of this

section to any person required to give

the disclosures required by this section

solely because that person has a name

identifiable with a financial institution

upon a written request by such person

demonstrating that his, her or its

customer would not reasonably benefit

from, or might in fact be confused by,

these required disclosures.

The Requester contends that Federal

law preempts subsection (a) of this

section because the requirement that a

financial institution include the

disclosure ‘‘in any advertisement or

promotional material’’ is more

burdensome and restrictive than the

disclosure requirement contained in

section 104(d)(2)(B)(x) of the Safe

Harbors. The Requester further contends

that this requirement is not protected by

section 104(d)(2)(B)(iii) of the Safe

Harbors, which permits restrictions

prohibiting a bank from using

misleading advertising. The Requester

asserts that Federal law also preempts

subsection (c) of this section because the

requirement that the bank obtain the

written disclosures in a separate

document is unduly burdensome and

restrictive, and thus, would significantly

interfere with bank insurance sales.

(4) Section 33–11A–10 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Timing of

insurance solicitation,’’ generally

prohibits a financial institution from

making an insurance-related referral or

solicitation of a loan customer until

after the loan has been approved.

Specifically, the section provides that—

(a) No individual who is an employee

or agent of a financial institution, or of

a subsidiary or affiliate thereof, may,

directly or indirectly, make an

insurance-related referral to or solicit

the purchase of any insurance from a

customer knowing that such customer

has applied for a loan or extension of

credit from that financial institution

before such times as the customer has

received a written commitment with

respect to such loan or extension of

credit, or, in the event that no written

commitment has or will be issued in

connection with the loan or extension of

credit, before such time as the customer

receives notification of approval of the

loan or extension of credit by the

financial institution and the financial

institution creates a written record of

the loan or extension of credit approval.

(b) This provision shall not prohibit

any individual subject to subsection (a)

above from:

(1) Informing a customer that

insurance is required in connection

with a loan; or

(2) Contacting persons in the course of

direct or mass mailing to a group of

persons in a manner that bears no

relation to the person’s loan application

or credit decision.

The Requester contends that Federal

law preempts this provision because it

does not fit within the Safe Harbors and

would prevent or significantly interfere

with the ability of a financial institution

to engage in insurance sales activities by

prohibiting loan officers from marketing

the full range of products offered by an

institution.

(5) Section 33–11A–11 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Insurance in

connection with the loan,’’ generally

provides that extensions of credit and

insurance sales be completed

independently and through separate

documents. Specifically, the section

provides that—

(a) If insurance is required as a

condition of obtaining a loan, the credit

and insurance transactions shall be

completed independently and through

separate documents.

(b) A loan for premiums on required

insurance shall not be included in the

primary credit without the written

consent of the customer.

(c) No title insurance shall be issued

until the title insurance company has

obtained a title opinion of an attorney

licensed to practice law in West

Virginia, which attorney is not an

employee, agent, or owner of the

insured bank or its affiliates. Said

attorney shall have conducted or cause

to have conducted under the attorney’s

direct supervision a reasonable

examination of the title. In no event

shall the authority of a state-chartered

bank to sell title insurance exceed the

authority of a nationally chartered bank

to do so.

The Requester contends that the use

of the term ‘‘independently’’ removes

the provision from the protection of

section 104(d)(2)(B)(xiii) of the Safe

Harbors which requires the maintenance

of separate and distinct books and

records relating to insurance

transactions. The Requester also

contends that Federal law should

preempt this provision because the West

Virginia Law would impose burdens on

the bank and require its customers to

make separate trips to the bank and sign

separate documents to purchase bank

and insurance products, thus

significantly interfering with bank

insurance sales.

(6) Section 33–11A–13 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Confidentiality

of insurance information obtained by

financial institutions,’’ generally

prohibits a financial institution from

using insurance information obtained in

the making of a loan unless the

customer consents to such use.

Specifically, the section provides that—

(a) When a financial institution

requires a borrower to provide

insurance information in connection

with the making of a loan or extension

of credit, neither such financial

institution nor an insurance agent or

broker affiliated with such financial

institution may later use the information

so obtained to solicit or offer insurance

to such borrower, unless the consent

required in subsection (b) below is first

obtained.

(b) A borrower may consent to the

financial institution’s disclosure of

insurance information to an agent or

broker affiliated with the financial

institution, but any such consent must

be in writing and be given at a time

subsequent, which shall be no less than

two days, to the time of the application

for, approval of and making of the loan

or extension of credit.

(c) Consent under subsection (b) of

this section shall be obtained in a

separate document, distinct from any

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices 35423

other transaction, and shall not be

required as a condition for performance

of other services for the customer.

The Requester contends that this

provision is more burdensome and

restrictive than section 104(d)(2)(B)(vi)

of the Safe Harbors, which protects

restrictions on the release of insurance

information to non-affiliated third

parties for the purpose of soliciting or

selling insurance. The Requester states

that the West Virginia Law goes beyond

the protection of the Safe Harbor

because it prohibits transfers to

affiliated as well as non-affiliated third

parties. The Requester further contends

that Federal law should preempt this

provision because it significantly

interferes with national bank insurance

sales by limiting an institution’s ability

to identify customer needs and suitable

products to meet the needs of those

customers.

(7) Section 33–11A–14 of the West

Virginia Law, entitled ‘‘Physical

location of insurance sales,’’ generally

provides that the sale of an insurance

product by a financial institution must

take place in an office physically

separated from the institution’s lending

and deposit-taking activities.

Specifically, the section provides that —

The place of solicitation or sale of

insurance by any financial institution or

on the premises of any financial

institution shall be clearly and

conspicuously signed so as to be readily

distinguishable by the public as separate

and distinct from the financial

institution’s lending and deposit-taking

activities. In the event that a person

which would otherwise be subject to the

requirements set forth in this provision

does not have the physical space to so

comply, the commissioner may grant a

waiver of the requirements of this

section upon a written request by such

person demonstrating that, due to its

small physical facilities, compliance is

not possible, and including

identification of other steps which will

be taken to minimize customer

confusion.

The Requester contends that Federal

law preempts this provision because it

does not fall within any Safe Harbor and

would prevent or significantly interfere

with the ability of a financial institution

to engage in insurance sales activities by

requiring physical separation of the

insurance activities from core banking

activities. The Requester states that this

requirement would significantly

interfere with bank sales of insurance

products, particularly with regard to

smaller institutions with limited space

and personnel.

Request for Comments

The OCC requests comments on

whether Federal law preempts the

provisions of the West Virginia Law

cited above.

Dated: May 25, 2000.

John D. Hawke, Jr.,

Comptroller of the Currency.

[FR Doc. 00–13855 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Quarterly Publication of Individuals,

Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as

Required by Section 6039G

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is provided in

accordance with IRC section 6039G, as

amended, by the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act

(HIPPA) of 1996. This listing contains

the name of each individual losing

United States citizenship (within the

meaning of section 877(a)) with respect

to whom the Secretary received

information during the quarter ending

March 31, 2000.

Last name First Middle

ADAMS JR. ............................................................................. CLIFTON

AHN ......................................................................................... BYUNG SUHN

AKA SISTER M. CHRISTOPHORIS ....................................... HELGA IGLBRIND

ALATALO ................................................................................ ALVAR

APPLEGATE ........................................................................... YANGSON

ARCHER ................................................................................. MICHAEL DIXON

ASHBROOK ............................................................................ JOHN B.

AUYANG ................................................................................. WILLIAM MANYUNG

BAKER .................................................................................... RICHARD KARL

BANOS .................................................................................... MARIE

BANOS .................................................................................... OSVALDO

BARSAMIAN ........................................................................... SUZANNE KOHAR

BENICY ................................................................................... FRANCOIS J.

BERG ...................................................................................... CHRISTIAN

BERNARD ............................................................................... CHARLES WILLIAM

BEUPRE .................................................................................. DENNISFF ALBERT

BLOM ...................................................................................... THOMAS EDGAR

BOHANNON ............................................................................ CLINTON NATHANIEL

BRADFORD ............................................................................ KEVIN JOSEPH

BURKART ............................................................................... ELIZABETH ANN

CAMU ...................................................................................... PHILIPPE LOUIS

CANDRAY ............................................................................... RONALD CARLOS

CANTERBURY ........................................................................ DAVIDF EDWARD

CARHART ............................................................................... JEFFREY COLWILL

CATTIER ................................................................................. ANNE SOPHIE

CHAN ...................................................................................... KAM TAI

CHANTLER ............................................................................. ANGELA MARGARET-JENNIFER

CHIODO .................................................................................. ERIKA ELISABETH

CHO ........................................................................................ HYUN-CHAN

CHO ........................................................................................ YONG CHA

CHO (AKA HYUN-CHAN CHO) .............................................. SUNGWOOK

CLARK .................................................................................... JAMES ADAMS

COCKSWORTH ...................................................................... GRAHAM ROGER

CORNISH ................................................................................ FRANCESCA SHARON