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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Notices 67475

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. 00–28824 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Companies Acceptable on

Federal Bonds: Termination—The

Connecticut Indemnity Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,

Fiscal Service, Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 6 to

the Treasury Department Circ. 570; 2000

Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65

FR 40868.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that the Certificate of

Authority issued by the Treasury to the

above named Company, under the

United States Code, Title 31, Sections

9304–9308, to qualify as an acceptable

surety on Federal bonds is terminated

effective today.

The Company was last listed as an

acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 65

FR 40877, June 30, 2000.

With respect to any bonds currently

in force with above listed Company,

bond-approving officers should secure

new bonds with acceptable sureties in

those instances where a significant

amount of liability remains outstanding.

In addition, bonds that are continuous

in nature should be replaced.

The Circular may be viewed and

downloaded through the Internet at

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/

index.html. A hard copy may be

purchased from the Government

Printing Office (GPO), Subscription

Service, Washington, DC, telephone

(202) 512–1800. When ordering the

Circular from GPO, use the following

stock number: 048–000–00536–5.

Questions concerning this notice may

be directed to the U.S. Department of

the Treasury, Financial Management

Service, Financial Accounting and

Services Division, Surety Bond Branch,

3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04,

Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Judith R. Tillman,

Assistant Commissioner, Financial

Operations, Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28804 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service

Surety Companies Acceptable on

Federal Bonds: Termination—Security

Insurance Company of Hartford

AGENCY: Financial Management Service,

Fiscal Service, Department of the

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 7 to

the Treasury Department Circ. 570; 2000

Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65

FR 40868.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given that the Certification of

Authority issued by the Treasury to the

above named Company, under the

United States Code, Title 31, Sections

9304–9308, to qualify as an acceptable

surety on Federal bonds is terminated

effective today.

The Company was last listed as an

acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 65

FR 40898, June 30, 2000.

With respect to any bonds currently

in force with above listed Company,

bond-approving officers should secure

new bonds with acceptable sureties in

those instances where a significant

amount of liability remains outstanding.

In addition, bonds that are continuous

in nature should be replaced.

The Circular may be viewed and

downloaded through the Internet at

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/

index.html. A hard copy may be

purchased from the Government

Printing Office (GPO), Subscription

Service, Washington, DC, telephone

(202) 512–1800. When ordering the

Circular from GPO, use the following

stock number: 048–000–00536–5.

Questions concerning this notice may

be directed to the U.S. Department of

the Treasury, Financial Management

Service, Financial Accounting and

Services Division, Surety Bond Branch,

3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04,

Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Judith R. Tillman,

Assistant Commissioner, Financial

Operations, Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28803 Filed 11–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M