67472 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

1Carriers are not liable for loss or injury that they

do not cause, such as losses due to acts of God.

2Motor carriers of freight other than household

goods may establish released rates without having

to obtain the Board’s permission. 40 U.S.C.

14706(c)(1)(A).

3The 60-cent limitation predates the 1993 plan.

See Household Goods Carriers’ Bureau v. ICC, 584

F.2d 437, 439 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

4Of course, if the carrier lost an item that was

new and unused, it would be liable for the

discussed below, has decided that the

noncompliance of the Subaru seat belt

assemblies is inconsequential to motor

vehicle safety.

First, we note that seat belt assemblies

were distributed through the Subaru

parts system, without the required

‘‘installation instructions.’’ FMVSS No.

209, S4.1(k), requires that seat belt

assemblies sold as replacement

equipment have ‘‘installation

instructions’’ to ensure that the correct

seat belt is selected as a replacement

part, and that the seat belt is installed

correctly. Subaru assures us that its

parts ordering system and the box labels

are quite specific and adequate to

ensure that the proper seat belt is

provided as a replacement part. We also

believe that Subaru is correct in stating

that the parts are so specific that if a

mechanic tried to install the wrong part,

the seat belt would not fit properly.

Thus, we conclude that adequate

safeguards are being taken by Subaru to

ensure that the correct replacement seat

belts are provided.

There seems to be little need for the

installation instructions with

replacements for original equipment

seat belts. The SAE J800c

Recommended Practice incorporated in

FMVSS No. 209 appears to have been

written as a guide on how to install a

seat belt where one does not exist. The

Recommended Practice discusses such

things as how to determine the correct

location for anchorages, how to create

adequate anchorages and how to

properly attach webbing to the newly

installed anchorages. These instructions

do not apply to today’s replacement

market. Additionally, vehicle

manufacturers provide service manuals

on how seat belts should be replaced.

NHTSA does not believe the ‘‘how to’’

instructions are necessary in this case.

Next, we note that the subject seat belt

assemblies were distributed without the

required ‘‘usage and maintenance

instructions’’ specified in FMVSS No.

209, S4.1(l), which requires that seat

belt assemblies sold as replacement

equipment have owner instructions on

how to wear the seat belt and how to

properly thread the webbing on seat

belts where the webbing is not

permanently attached. NHTSA believes

that the proper usage is adequately

described in the vehicle owner’s

manual. NHTSA does not believe that

instructions about the proper threading

of webbing is applicable to modern

original equipment automobile seat belt

systems. This second instruction sheet

is either duplicated in the owner’s

manual or not applicable.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that the applicant

has met its burden of persuasion that

the noncompliance that it describes is

inconsequential to safety. The

determination is limited to the vehicles

and equipment covered by the Part 573

report. All products manufactured on

and after the date Subaru determined

the existence of this noncompliance

must fully comply with the

requirements of FMVSS No. 209.

Accordingly, Subaru’s application is

granted, and the applicant is exempted

from providing the notification of the

noncompliance that is required by 49

U.S.C. 30118 and from remedying the

noncompliance, as required by 49

U.S.C. 30120.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(b), 30120(h),

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 150 and

501.8.

Issued on: November 6, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–28835 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Released Rates Decision No. MC–999]

Notice of Filing of an Application To

Amend Released Rate Provisions (and

Corresponding Limits of Liability) for

Motor-Carrier Shipments of Household

Goods, and Request for Public

Comments

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

SUMMARY: The Household Goods

Carriers’ Bureau Committee

(Committee), on behalf of its member

motor carriers, seeks authority to amend

Released Rates Decision No. MC–999 by

changing the terms under which the

carriers would limit their liability for

damage to, or loss of, household-goods

shipments, and thus changing the

resulting charges to shippers.

DATES: Comments are due December 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original

and 10 copies) referring to Released

Rates Decision No. MC–999, to: Surface

Transportation Board, Office of the

Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James W. Greene, (202) 565–1578, or

Lawrence C. Herzig, (202) 565–1576.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

565–1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 14706(a)(1), motor

carriers of household goods ordinarily

are liable for the actual loss or injury

that they cause to the property they

transport.1 However, under 49 U.S.C.

14706(f), household-goods carriers may

establish ‘‘released rates,’’ under which

the carriers’ liability is limited to a

value established by written declaration

of the shipper or by a written agreement

between the carrier and shipper, if they

obtain permission from the Board.2

2. Current Provisions

The released rates currently offered by

most household-goods carriers are based

upon authority granted by the Board’s

predecessor, the Interstate Commerce

Commission (ICC), in Released Rates of

Motor Common Carriers of Household

Goods, 9 I.C.C.2d 523 (1993). Under the

plan approved in 1993, the freight

charges paid by a household-goods

shipper depend upon the level of

liability assumed by the carrier. A

shipper pays the carrier’s lowest rate,

the ‘‘base rate’’ when it agrees, by

indicating in writing on the bill of

lading, that the carrier’s liability will be

60 cents per pound per article for goods

lost or damaged, but not more than the

actual, depreciated value of the item.

According to the Committee, the

percentage of household-goods shippers

choosing to move their goods under the

60-cents-per-pound limitation on

liability remained relatively constant

from 1985 through 1996, decreasing

from 33.1 to 31.2 percent.3

A second option available to shippers

allows them to protect more of the value

of the shipment for a higher

transportation charge. The shipper

declares a lump sum value for the entire

shipment, and pays the base rate plus a

charge of 70 cents for each $100, or

fraction, of the ‘‘declared value’’ of the

shipment. Under this second option,

there is a minimum valuation: if the

shipper’s declared value is less than

$1.25 times the weight (in pounds) of

the shipment, the minimum declared

value of $1.25 per pound will apply

instead. The recovery under this option

for lost goods is the actual (depreciated)

value of the (typically used) goods up to

the declared value of the shipment.4

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67473

replacement value of the item. In that case, the

‘‘actual value’’ of the lost item would be its new,

or replacement, value.

5We note that the protection under the third

option could amount to less than full value if a

shipper chose a declared value that is less than the

replacement cost for all of the items in its shipment

and the entire shipment were lost.

6Again, we note that a shipper that chooses a

declared value that is lower than the replacement

value of its household goods would not be able to

replace all of its goods with new goods if the entire

shipment were destroyed or lost.

7The Committee’s proposal is the result of

collective action by its members pursuant to 49

U.S.C. 13703. The Committee’s request for renewed

Board approval of (and resulting antitrust immunity

for) discussing and taking actions collectively is

currently pending before the Board. Our action in

moving this proceeding forward is not intended to

prejudge our disposition of the Committee’s

renewal request.

Many carriers today also offer a third

option for an even higher charge: ‘‘full

value protection’’ (FVP) within broad

ranges of declared values in which the

carrier is liable for the full replacement

value of items, up to the declared value

of the shipment.5 The breadth of the

ranges of declared values to which a

single charge applies under this third

option is greater than the $100

increments provided under the second

option. The Committee states that, from

1985 through 1996, shippers’ election of

FVP increased from 38.8 to 55.4 percent

of shipments.

Under any of these options, when

goods are damaged rather than lost, the

carrier has the option of paying the cost

of repairs to restore the damaged goods

to their prior condition.

3. The New Proposal

The Committee now proposes to offer

only two options rather than three. It

would retain the same first option of

paying a base rate, for which the

carrier’s liability is limited to 60 cents

per pound per article. The only other

option would be an FVP option based

upon a declared value for the shipment.

It would differ from the currently

available options in two ways. First,

there would be no choice under which

the carrier is liable for the actual,

depreciated value of the goods lost or

damaged. Rather, the carriers would be

liable for full replacement value.

Second, the minimum declared value

for shipments would increase from

$1.25 to $4.00 times the weight of the

shipment (in pounds). The Committee

established this figure after concluding

that $4.00 per pound, rather than $1.25

per pound, more closely approximates

the average value of recent householdgoods shipments.

The proposed FVP option would use

the broad ranges of declared values from

the current FVP option that many

carriers offer. At the lower end, the

valuation charge would increase as the

declared values increased in $5,000

increments. As the declared values go

up, the increments to which a single

valuation charge would apply also

would expand, up to $25,000 worth of

declared values. The proposed ranges of

declared values and corresponding

charges are:

Declared value Charge

$0 to $5,000 ..................................... $76

$5,001 to $10,000 ............................ 113

$10,001 to $15,000 .......................... 149

$15,001 to $20,000 .......................... 182

$20,001 to $25,000 .......................... 216

$25,001 to $30,000 .......................... 258

$30,001 to $35,000 .......................... 298

$35,001 to $40,000 .......................... 338

$40,001 to $50,000 .......................... 380

$50,001 to $60,000 .......................... 440

$60,001 to $75,000 .......................... 508

$75,001 to $100,000 ........................ 624

$100,001 to $125,000 ...................... 754

$125,001 to $150,000 ...................... 825

$150,001 to $175,000 ...................... 933

$175,001 to $200,000 ...................... 1,041

$200,001 to $225,000 ...................... 1,155

$225,001 to $250,000 ...................... 1,280

Over $250,000 .................................. 1,2801

1Plus $.50 for each $100, or fraction thereof, in excess of $250,000 declared value.

Within any of the proposed valuation

ranges, lower charges would apply if the

shipper elects a $250 or $500

deductible. If goods were lost, the

carrier would be fully liable for the loss

of the property, at its replacement value

with no reduction for depreciation, up

to the declared value of the shipment.6

If a shipper did not, in writing, either

select the 60-cents-per-pound-per-article

limit or declare a value for the

shipment, the declared value would be

deemed to be $4.00 times the weight of

the shipment in pounds. Also, when

goods are damaged, the carrier would

retain the option of paying repairs to

restore the damaged items to their

condition when the carrier received

them, up to the declared value of the

shipment.

4. Comments Requested

We wish to ensure that any proposal

we might approve represents an

appropriate liability regime for

individual homeowners who would be

affected. Therefore, we seek comments,

especially from individual shippers of

household goods and organizations or

government entities that represent their

interests, concerning the Committee’s

new proposal and particularly the issues

we outline below.7 We also seek

additional information from the

Committee, as discussed below.

A. 60-cents-per-pound Limitation

The limit of 60 cents per pound per

article may no longer be appropriate if

the estimated current average value of

$4.00 per pound of household-goods

shipments is accurate. There may be

some appeal to having low base rates

with minimal carrier liability for

shippers who want to insure their

household goods through other means.

However, the rates for separate

insurance likely will be higher, with

lower carrier liability, because insurers

typically seek to recover from the

carriers, to the extent of the carrier’s

liability. Thus, any savings to the

shipper from continuing an

unrealistically low 60-cents-per-poundper-article limitation could be illusory.

We request comments on whether and

why we should allow a 60 cents-perpound-per-article limit.

In addition, we have received

informal complaints from householdgoods shippers who, despite our clear

rule on this matter, state that they did

not knowingly request the 60-cents-perpound limitation but were somehow

deemed to have selected it. Therefore,

we also request comments on ways to

better ensure that shippers make

informed, conscious decisions regarding

the level of carrier liability and

understand any applicable limitations to

liability.

B. Use of Deductibles

Under the proposal, if a shipper

chooses a rate that includes a

deductible, a carrier might lack a

liability-based incentive to exercise

reasonable care to avoid minor damages

to shipments. We request comment on

this aspect of the proposal.

C. Elimination of Actual (Depreciated)

Value Option

We are concerned that the FVP

proposal eliminates the current option

under which motor carriers are liable for

the actual (depreciated) value of the

household goods in a shipment—the

level of liability contemplated by the

statute. We ask for comment on whether

carriers should be allowed to eliminate

this intermediate option.

D. Rate Levels

According to the Committee, today

some 22.9 percent of FVP shipments

result in paid claims. The Committee

projects that 25 percent of FVP

shipments under the proposed $4.00-

per-pound minimum would result in

67474 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices

8The Committee asserts that fewer claims were

filed in the past because the $1.25-per-pound

minimum had the effect of discouraging claims for

small losses. But current FVP shipments have not

been subject to the $1.25-per-pound minimum.

Therefore, we question the Committee’s assumption

that there would be an increase in the amount of

paid claims under the proposed new FVP option.

9Concerning the supporting data, we seek an

explanation of the basis for arriving at the proposed

charges for each of the 19 levels shown in Table 5

of the application. It would be helpful to have

information similar to that submitted by the

Committee in Attachment No. 3 to its October 1992

application to amend earlier released rate orders

(Nos. MC–505 and MC–672).

paid claims.8 We do not know if this

projection is based on a trend of an

increasing number of paid claims. If the

expected increase in paid claims did not

occur, the additional revenues generated

would have the same effect as a rate

increase. We ask the Committee to

submit all supporting data, including

work papers, associated with the

proposed fees and the prediction that a

higher percentage of FVP shipments

will result in paid claims.9

E. Different Carrier Liability on Identical

Shipments

We do not know if the Committee

intends a difference in carrier liability

for two otherwise identical shipments,

one of which has a declared lump sum

value and one of which does not. As

worded, the proposal would seem to

provide a different result. Under the

Committee’s proposed terms:

All shipments (other than those released to

a value not exceeding 60¢ per pound per

article) will be deemed released to a

minimum lump sum value of $5,000 or $4.00

times the actual total weight (in pounds) of

the shipment. If the shipper declares or

releases the shipment to a valuation that falls

between the valuation amounts shown, the

next higher valuation amount and the

applicable charge associated therewith will

apply.

An example will illustrate our

concern. There would be a different

maximum amount of carrier liability on

two identical shipments each weighing

4,000 pounds, with the same charge,

depending on whether the shipper

wrote in a declared value or left the line

for a declared value blank. If the shipper

wrote in the figure $16,000 on the blank

for a declared value and the entire

shipment were lost, the carrier could be

liable for up to $20,000 (if the shipper

demonstrated that the replacement

value of his lost goods were that high)

because the chosen figure, $16,000,

‘‘falls between the valuation amounts

shown’’ on the carriers’ proposed table

of charges. But if the shipper does not

write anything in the blank for declared

value, the declared value of this

shipment would be deemed to be

$16,000 ($4.00 × 4,000) and the shipper

would pay the same valuation charge;

however, the carrier’s maximum

liability would be $16,000 if the entire

shipment were lost. We ask whether the

Committee intended this disparate

result and if so, whether that is

appropriate.

F. Annual Adjustments

The Committee requests authority to

affect annual adjustments in both the

proposed minimum valuation per

pound and the proposed valuation

charges for shipments, based on changes

in the ‘‘household furnishings and

operations’’ item within the Consumer

Price Index, U.S. City Average,

published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS) of the United States

Department of Labor. We understand

that BLS has restructured the household

furnishings and operations index, and

that certain items frequently included in

household goods shipments (televisions

and sound equipment, for example)

were moved to other indexes. We

request additional justification from the

Committee regarding the relevance of

the proposed index, comparing the

items included in the index with all the

items commonly included in shipments

of household goods.

We invite comments regarding the

merits of this or any other index that

may be appropriate to establish

adjustments in the minimum valuation

of shipments and the corresponding

charges. Additionally, we invite

comments as to whether any

methodology for adjusting minimum

valuations of household-goods

shipments should apply also to the

carriers’ charges, as the relationship

between the costs of providing a specific

dollar amount of carrier liability and

changes in the value of household goods

has not been explained.

5. Summary

We encourage interested persons to

participate in this proceeding by

submitting written data, views, or

arguments for or against the proposed

changes in the released rates authority

for motor carriers of household goods.

While we are interested particularly in

receiving comments on certain issues, as

discussed above, we invite comments

on all aspects of the proposal. All

comments and other materials referred

to in this notice will be available for

inspection and copying at the Board’s

address given above. Normal office

hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

holidays.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice

Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner

Clyburn.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–28826 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

November 1, 2000.

The Department of 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 December 11, 2000

to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545–1691.

Regulation Project Number: REG–

120882–97 Final.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Continuity of Interest.

Description: Taxpayers who entered

into a binding agreement on or after

January 28, 1998 (the effective date of

§ 1.368–1T), and before the effective

date of the final regulations under

§ 1.368–1(e) may request a private letter

ruling permitting them to apply § 1.368–

1(e) to their transaction. A private letter

ruling will not be issued unless the

taxpayer establishes to the satisfaction

of the IRS that there is not a significant

risk of different parties to the

transaction taking inconsistent

positions, for U.S. tax purposes with

respect to the applicability of § 1.368–

1(e) to the transaction.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

10.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 150 hours.

Frequency of Response: Other (once).

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

1,500 hours.

Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear,

Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244,

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20224.