The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2020 (85 FR 49322). The NPRM was prompted by the detection of melt-related freckles in the billet, which may reduce the life limits of certain HPT rotor stage 2 disks and certain rotating CDP HPT seals. The NPRM proposed to require the replacement of certain HPT rotor stage 2 disks and certain rotating CDP HPT seals. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comments received. Boeing Commercial Airplanes supported the NPRM. The Air Line Pilots Association and United Airlines reviewed the NPRM and have no objections.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

The FAA reviewed GE Service Bulletin GE90-100 S/B 72-0845, Revision 1, dated July 17, 2020. The service information describes procedures for the removal of affected HPT rotor stage 2 disks and rotating CDP HPT seals from service.

The FAA considers this AD an interim action. This issue is still under investigation by the manufacturer and, depending on the results of that investigation, the FAA may consider further rulemaking action.

The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 1 engine installed on an airplane of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2019-0815 (85 FR 51329, August 20, 2020), removing Jet Route J-590, amending VOR Federal airways V-11 and V-70, and establishing RNAV routes T-362 and T-365 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Greene County, MS, VORTAC NAVAID. The effective date for that final rule is November 5, 2020. Subsequent to the final rule, the required flight inspection activities for related VOR MON projects supporting the Greene County VOR decommissioning were not able to be accomplished in time due to NAVAID outages associated with the related VOR MON projects. The FAA anticipates the NAVAID outages will be resolved and the required flight inspection activities accomplished by June 17, 2021.

To facilitate the safe and continuous use of existing air traffic procedures, and in anticipation the NAVAID outages will be resolved and the required flight inspection activities for the related VOR MON projects accomplished, the planned decommissioning date for the Greene County, MS, VOR has been slipped to June 17, 2021. Therefore, the rule removing J-590, amending V-11 and V-70, and establishing T-362 and T-365 is delayed to coincide with that date.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, (the Administrative Procedure Act) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. The FAA finds that prior notice and public comment to this final rule is unnecessary due to the brief length of the extension of the effective date and the fact that there is no substantive change to the rule.”

On August 28, 2020, President Trump issued Proclamation 10064 (85 FR 54877), Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, which lowered one of the section 232 quantitative limitations applicable to Brazil for the remainder of 2020 and added a new basis for relief from those lowered quantitative limitations. The President determined that the modification to the quantitative limitations applicable to certain steel products was necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the alternative means to address the threatened impairment of national security posed by steel article imports which were previously agreed to with Brazil. This temporary final rule implements the President's directive to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to grant relief from the modified quantitative limitations in a limited aggregate amount under specific circumstances related to the fulfillment of existing contracts.

On January 11, 2018, the Secretary transmitted to President Trump a report on his investigation into the effect of imports of steel mill articles (steel articles) on the national security of the United States under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862). The Secretary found and advised President Trump that steel articles were being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States.

In Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States) (83 FR 11625), President Trump concurred in the Secretary's finding that certain steel articles were being imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States, and decided to adjust the imports of these steel articles by imposing a 25 percent ad valorem tariff on such articles imported from most countries.

In Proclamation 9705, President Trump further stated that any country with which the United States has a security relationship is welcome to discuss with the United States alternative ways to address the threatened impairment of the national security caused by imports from that country. The President noted that, should the United States and any such country arrive at a satisfactory alternative means to address the threat to the national security such that he determines that imports from that country no longer threaten to impair the national security, the President may remove or modify the restriction on steel article imports from that country.

In Proclamation 9759 of May 31, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States) (85 FR 25857), President Trump noted that the United States had agreed on measures with Brazil that would provide effective, long-term alternative means to address Brazil's contribution to the threatened impairment to our national security. These included quantitative limitations that restrict the volume of steel articles imported into the United States from Brazil. In light of these agreed-upon measures, President Trump determined that steel article imports from Brazil would no longer threaten to impair the national security and decided to exclude Brazil from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended.

In Proclamation 9759, President Trump also noted that the United States would monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the quantitative limitations applicable to steel article imports from Brazil, and directed the Secretary to inform him of any circumstance that in the Secretary's opinion might indicate that an adjustment of the quantitative limitation is necessary.

The Secretary has advised President Trump that there have been significant changes in the United States steel market since the President decided to exclude Brazil, on a long-term basis, from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended. The United States steel market has contracted in 2020. After increasing in 2018 and 2019, steel shipments by domestic producers through June of this year were approximately 15 percent lower than shipments for the same time period in 2019, with shipments in April and May of this year more than 30 percent lower than the shipments in the same months in 2019. The Secretary has further advised President Trump that domestic producers' adjusted year-to-date capacity utilization rate through August 15, 2020 is below 70 percent and that the rate has been near or below 60 percent since the second week of April. Brazil is the second largest source of steel imports to the United States and the largest source of imports of semi-finished steel products. Moreover, while imports from most countries have declined this year in a manner commensurate with this contraction, imports from Brazil have decreased only slightly.

In light of these significantly changed market conditions, President Trump determined in Proclamation 10064 that absent modifications, the alternative measures applicable to Brazilian steel imports would be ineffective in eliminating the threat to the national security posed by imports of such articles in the current environment. The United States and Brazil have held consultations regarding Brazil's steel exports to the United States in light of the changed market conditions. As a result of these discussions, the United States will lower, for the remainder of 2020, one of the quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9759 applicable to steel articles imported from Brazil.

In President Trump's judgment, this modification will preserve the effectiveness of the alternative means to address the threatened impairment to U.S. national security by further restraining steel article exports to the United States from Brazil during the current period of market contraction. In light of these modifications, President Trump has determined that steel article imports from Brazil will not threaten to impair the national security and thus has decided to continue to exclude Brazil from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended. The United States and Brazil will hold further consultations in December 2020 to discuss the state of the steel trade between the two countries in light of then-prevailing market conditions.

President Trump in Proclamation 10064 noted that he has been informed that a reduction in the quantitative limitation set forth in Proclamation 9759 applicable to certain steel article imports from Brazil may delay or disrupt specific production activities in the United States for which imports of the steel articles covered by the quantitative limitations have already been contracted for delivery in the fourth quarter of this year. In light of these circumstances, and after considering the impact on the economy and the national security objectives of section 232, President Trump in Proclamation 10064 determined to direct the Secretary to provide relief from the modified quantitative limitations in certain limited circumstances specified in more detail below and in paragraph (j) of this rule. This relief is in addition to the relief from the quantitative limitations that the Secretary is already authorized to provide pursuant to clause 1 of Proclamation 9777 of August 29, 2018 (Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States) (83 FR 45025). However, exclusion requests submitted under paragraph (j) involve different criteria and procedures than those submitted under existing paragraph (c) and determined pursuant to the criteria and procedures described in existing paragraphs (a)-(i). In addition, the Secretary may not, prior to January 1, 2021, grant relief under paragraph (c) for steel articles for which relief is granted under paragraph (j).

Proclamation 10064 sets forth several directives that are being implemented in this rule. Clause 1 of Proclamation 10064 specifies that the quantitative limitation applicable to imports of steel articles classified under subheading 9903.80.57 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS from Brazil are being lowered for the remainder of calendar year 2020, and specifies that the new quantitative limitation is described in the Annex to the proclamation. For calendar year 2021 and for subsequent years, the annual aggregate limit for steel articles classified under this subheading from Brazil reverts to the annual aggregate limit for Brazil set forth in the Annex to Proclamation 9759, unless that limit is further modified or terminated by President Trump.

Under clause 2 of Proclamation 10064, President Trump directed that the Secretary shall, on an expedited basis, grant relief from the modified quantitative limitation now applicable to subheading 9903.80.57 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS for Brazil for any steel article where:

(i) The party requesting relief entered into a contract or other written agreement for the production and shipment of such steel article before August 28, 2020;

(ii) such agreement specifies the quantity of such steel article that is to be produced and shipped to the United States prior to December 31, 2020;

(iii) such steel article is to be used in production activities in the United States and such steel article cannot be procured from another supplier to meet the delivery schedule and specifications contained in such agreement; and

(iv) lack of relief from the quantitative limitation on such steel article would significantly disrupt the production activity in the United States for which the steel article specified in such agreement is intended.

Also under clauses 2 and 5, President Trump specified that the volume of imports for which the Secretary grants relief under this clause shall not exceed 60,000,000 kilograms in the aggregate, and under clauses 1 and 5 that any steel article for which relief is granted must be entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or before December 31, 2020. Also under clause 5, President Trump further provided that the Secretary may not, prior to January 1, 2021, grant further relief for such an article through the preexisting exclusion request process (set out in paragraphs (a)-(i) of this supplement) applicable to items not available in the United States in sufficient or reasonably available quantity or of satisfactory quality or based on specific national security considerations, as provided for by clause 1 of Proclamation 9777.

Under clause 3 of Proclamation 10064, President Trump directed that the Secretary shall grant relief under clause 2 of this proclamation only upon receipt of a sworn statement signed by the chief executive officer and the chief legal officer of the party requesting relief, attesting that:

(i) The steel article for which relief is sought and the associated contract or other written agreement meet the criteria for relief set forth in clause 2(i) through (iv) of Proclamation 10064;

(ii) the party requesting relief will accurately report to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in the manner that CBP prescribes, the quantity of steel articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, pursuant to any grant of relief; and

(iii) the quantity of steel articles entered pursuant to a grant of relief will not exceed the quantity for which the Secretary has granted relief.

Clause 3 of Proclamation 10064 also specified that the Secretary shall notify CBP of any grant of relief made pursuant to Proclamation 10064. Clause 3 further provided that the Secretary shall revoke any grant of relief under clause 2 of the proclamation if the Secretary determines at any time after such grant that the criteria for relief have not been met and may, if the Secretary deems it appropriate, notify the Attorney General of the facts that led to such revocation.

Under clause 4 of Proclamation 10064, President Trump directed that as soon as practicable, the Secretary shall issue procedures for the requests for relief described in clauses 2 and 3 of the proclamation, which BIS is doing on behalf of the Secretary with the publication of this temporary final rule. Lastly, clause 4 specified that CBP shall implement relief provided under clause 2 of this proclamation as soon as practicable.

Under clause 5 of Proclamation 10064, until the modified quantitative limitation provided under subheading 9903.80.57 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS from Brazil has been reached, CBP will count steel articles granted relief under clause 2 of Proclamation 10064 toward that modified quantitative limitation when the steel article is entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption. (Clause 5 also provides that steel articles for which relief is granted pursuant to clause 2 of Proclamation 10064 shall be subject to the duty treatment provided in subheading 9903.80.62 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS for Brazil, as established by the Annex to Proclamation 10064).

In Supplement No. 1 to Part 705—Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018 Adjusting Imports of Steel Articles into the United States, under new paragraph (j) ( Certification for requesting relief from quantitative limitation for Brazil ), this temporary final rule makes the following changes:

In Note to paragraph (c)(2), this temporary final rule adds one sentence to the end of this note to provide a cross reference to new paragraph (j) which is added by this rule. The Note to paragraph (c)(2) provides guidance to directly affected individuals or organizations located in the United States seeking exclusions from quantitative limitations imposed on certain countries. The new sentence that this rule adds to the note specifies that directly affected individuals or organizations located in the United States and importing steel articles from Brazil, a country subject to quantitative limitations, should first review new paragraph (j) prior to submitting any exclusion requests.

This temporary final rule adds new paragraph (j) to describe the requirements to request relief from the quantitative limitations applicable to steel article imports from Brazil under the new process created by clause 2 of Proclamation 10064. The introductory text of paragraph (j) provides background on the quantitative limitations for steel articles for Brazil. This introductory text references Proclamation 9759 on May 31, 2018 and the most recent Proclamation 10064 of August 28, 2020. The introductory text explains that paragraph (j) provides a process for relief separate from the section 232 exclusions process as required by Proclamation 10064. Under this process a party may request relief from the quantitative limitation for certain steel articles from Brazil, which will be approved by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) under stated criteria.

Paragraph (j) describes the requirements for a party to obtain this relief, how the Department reviews these requests for relief, the administration and use of granted requests of relief, and when revocation of grants of relief may occur. These procedures are all contained in paragraph (j), which unless extended on or before December 31, 2020, will be removed from the regulations on January 1, 2021. This process of requesting grants for relief from the quantitative limitations for Brazil is a separate process from the 232 exclusions process described elsewhere in supplement no. 1 to part 705.

New paragraph (j) consists of five paragraphs: (j)(1) ( Sworn statement required to grant relief ); (j)(2) ( Where to submit requests for grants of relief? ); (j)(3) ( Disposition of requests for grants of relief ); (j)(4) ( Administration and use of granted requests of relief ); and (j)(5) ( Revocation of grants of relief ).

New paragraph (j)(1) specifies that pursuant to clause 3 of Proclamation 10064, the Secretary will grant relief from the lowered quantitative limitation for steel articles under subheading 9903.80.57 of subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS for Brazil only upon receipt of a sworn statement signed by the chief executive officer and the chief legal officer of the party requesting relief. The sworn statement made under new paragraph (j)(1) must attest to the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) to (iii). These criteria are required in order to determine whether the steel article for which relief is sought and the associated contract or other written agreement meet the criteria for relief set forth in clause 2(i) through (iv) of Proclamation 10064.

The party requesting relief must certify under paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) that they entered into a contract or other written agreement for the production and shipment of such steel article before August 28, 2020. The party requesting relief must also include in the certification a description of the steel article by HTS classification and Chapter 99 quota category HTS classification. The certification must also specify under paragraph (j)(1)(i)(B) that the associated contract or other written agreement states the quantity of such steel article that is to be produced and shipped to the United States prior to December 31, 2020. The party requesting relief must certify under paragraph (j)(1)(i)(C) that such steel article is to be used in production activities in the United States. This includes certifying that such steel article cannot be procured from another supplier to meet the delivery schedule and specifications contained in such agreement. Lastly, under the certification requirement under paragraph (j)(1)(i)(D), the party requesting relief must certify that lack of relief from the quantitative limitation on such steel article would significantly disrupt the production activity in the United States for which the steel article specified in such agreement is intended.

Requesters are required to comply with the certification requirement under paragraph (j)(1)(ii) in order to ensure that if approved, the relief provided can be properly administered and enforced by CBP. Specifically, the party requesting relief must accurately report to CBP, in the manner that CBP prescribes, the quantity of steel articles entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, pursuant to any grant of relief. The last requirement of the certification under paragraph (j)(1)(iii) is to acknowledge that the requester will not, in entering steel articles pursuant to any grant of relief, exceed the quantity for which the Secretary grants relief.

Under new paragraph (j)(2), this temporary final rule specifies where to submit requests for grants of relief. This paragraph specifies that all requests for grants of relief pursuant to paragraph (j) must be in electronic form and submitted by email to steel232-exp@bis.doc.gov. This paragraph specifies that in order to submit a request for a grant of relief under paragraph (j), the request must be submitted as an attachment to the email sent to steel232-exp@bis.doc.gov. Paragraph (j)(2) specifies the only information required to be submitted for these requests is the sworn statement under paragraph (j)(1).

New paragraph (j)(3) describes how the Department will dispose of requests for grants of relief. Paragraph (j)(3) specifies that the Department will grant requests for relief that meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) until such time as the maximum quantity under this relief program is met. Paragraph (j)(3) specifies that pursuant to Proclamation 10064, the volume of imports for which the Secretary grants relief under this paragraph shall not exceed 60,000,000 kilograms in the aggregate. The Department will use a “first submitted, first approved” process until such time as the maximum aggregate limit has been approved and will not accept submissions after this limit is reached.

This rule also adds a Note to paragraph (j)(3) to provide guidance on when the Department will deny a requested grant for relief. This note specifies that denials will occur if the sworn statement does not meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (2). It also specifies that requests for relief will be denied to the extent granting the request would result in the aggregate amount of imports for which relief is granted under paragraph (j) exceeding 60,000,000 kilograms. This note also clarifies that once the aggregate amount of approved grants for relief reaches 60,000,000 kilograms, the Department will post a statement on the BIS website under www.bis.doc.gov/232-steel-Brazil to alert requesters that the aggregate limit has been reached, so that they are informed that they may no longer submit requests for grants of relief. This statement will save time for requesters, as well as the Department.

This temporary final rule adds new paragraph (j)(4) to specify how granted requests for relief will be administered and the validity periods for these granted requests for relief. Any relief granted under paragraph (j) will only be valid if the subject steel article is entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or before December 31, 2020. Paragraph (j)(4) also specifies that further relief may not be granted for such article by the Secretary under clause 1 of Proclamation 9777.

This temporary final rule adds new paragraph (j)(5) to specify when the Secretary may revoke grants of relief made pursuant to paragraph (j). Paragraph (j)(5) specifies that the Secretary will revoke any such grant of relief if the Secretary determines at any time after relief is granted that the criteria for relief have not been met. Paragraph (j) also specifies that if the Secretary deems it appropriate, he may notify the Attorney General of the facts that led to such revocation.

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to clause 4 of Proclamation 10064 of August 28, 2020, this rule is exempt from Executive Order 13771 (85 FR 54877, September 2, 2020).

2. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA) provides that an agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, unless that collection has obtained Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

This temporary final regulation involves one collection currently approved by OMB with the following control number: Procedures for Submitting Requests for Expedited Relief from Quantitative Limits—Existing Contract: Section 232 National Security Investigations of Steel Imports (OMB control number 0694-0140).

BIS is making a change to this collection for OMB control number 0694-0140 to account for the certification in the form of a sworn statement that needs to be made and submitted to the Department by requesters via email to steel232-exp@bis.doc.gov under Supplement No. 1 to 15 CFR part 705, paragraphs (j)(1) and (2), when requesting relief from the quantitative limitation applicable to Brazil for certain steel articles. Any comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to Jasmeet_K._Seehra@omb.eop.gov, or online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain .

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. ( See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). The reduction in the quantitative limitation for certain steel articles from Brazil is needed to protect U.S. national security interests in light of recent deterioration in the U.S. steel industry that was being further harmed by steel imports from Brazil, as described further below. This needed measure to protect U.S. national security could also result in adverse impacts on certain parties in the United States that import steel articles from Brazil, so this rule creates a process to allow those parties to request relief that meet specified criteria. Creating this process to allow parties to request relief is needed to ensure that the required actions needed to protect U.S. national security can be taken without doing unintended harm to other parts of the U.S. economy and national security.

As explained in the report submitted by the Secretary to the President on January 11, 2018, steel is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security of the United States and therefore the President has implemented these remedial adjustments of imports (as described in in Proclamation 9705 of March 8, 2018, as amended) to protect U.S. national security interests.

In Proclamation 9759, President Trump directed the Secretary to monitor implementation of quantitative limitations applicable to steel article imports from Brazil and inform him of any circumstance that in the Secretary's opinion might indicate that an adjustment of the quantitative limitation is necessary. The Secretary has advised President Trump that there have been significant changes in the United States steel market since the time President Trump decided to exclude, on a long-term basis, Brazil from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705.

The United States steel market has contracted in 2020. After increasing in 2018 and 2019, steel shipments by domestic producers through June of this year are approximately 15 percent lower than shipments for the same time period in 2019, with shipments in April and May of this year more than 30 percent lower than the shipments in the same months in 2019. The Secretary has further advised President Trump that domestic producers' adjusted year-to-date capacity utilization rate through August 15, 2020 is below 70 percent and that the current rate has been near or below 60 percent since the second week of April. Brazil is also the second largest source of steel imports to the United States and the largest source of imports of semi-finished steel products. Moreover, imports from most countries have declined this year in a manner commensurate with this contraction, whereas imports from Brazil have decreased only slightly.

In light of these significantly changed market conditions, President Trump determined in Proclamation 10064 that the alternative measures regarding Brazilian steel imports, without any modifications, would be ineffective in eliminating the threat to the national security posed by imports of such articles in the current environment. The United States and Brazil have held consultations regarding Brazil's steel exports to the United States. As a result of these discussions, the United States will lower, for the remainder of 2020, one of the quantitative limitations set forth in Proclamation 9759 applicable to steel articles imported from Brazil. In President Trump's judgment, this modification will preserve the effectiveness of the alternative means to address the threatened impairment to U.S. national security by further restraining steel article exports to the United States from Brazil during this period of market contraction. In light of this modification, President Trump has determined that steel article imports from Brazil will not threaten to impair the national security and thus has decided to continue to exclude Brazil from the tariff proclaimed in Proclamation 9705, as amended.

President Trump in Proclamation 10064 noted that he has been informed that a reduction in this quantitative limitation set forth in Proclamation 9759 applicable to steel article imports from Brazil may delay or disrupt specific production activities in the United States for which imports of steel articles covered by the quantitative limitation have already been contracted for delivery in the fourth quarter of this year. In light of these circumstances, and after considering the impact on the economy and the national security objectives of section 232, President Trump directed the Secretary in Proclamation 10064 to provide relief from the modified quantitative limitations in certain limited circumstances specified in paragraph (j) of this rule.

The implementation of the President's directive includes the creation of a process by which domestic parties can submit a certification requesting relief from this modified quantitative limitation for Brazil. Establishing these procedures in this temporary final rule are needed to ensure that the reduction in this quantitative limitation for Brazil can occur as needed to protect U.S. national security interests while not causing unintended economic harm for those affected parties in the U.S. with existing contracts that meet the specified criteria in this rule.

In addition, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (d)(3) to waive the delay in effective date because this rule is a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption and such delays would be either impracticable or contrary to the public interest.

Under clause 4 of Proclamation 10064, President Trump directed that as soon as practicable, the Secretary shall issue procedures for the requests for relief described in clauses 2 and 3 of this proclamation, which BIS is doing on behalf of the Secretary with the publication of this temporary final rule. Clause 4 also specified that CBP shall implement relief provided under clause 2 of this proclamation as soon as practicable, which is also contingent on the publication of this temporary final rule. If this rule was delayed for public comment, those impacted parties that are intended to benefit from this relief would not be allowed to benefit from this exemption and may not be able to import steel articles from Brazil when above the reduced quantitative limitations.

The provisions of new paragraph (j) are of a temporary nature. As directed by President Trump, any steel article for which relief is granted under clause 2 of Proclamation 10064 must be entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or before December 31, 2020. Because of the immediate need for these provisions and the short term during which these provisions will be effective ( i.e., from October 13, 2020 through December 31, 2020), it would be impractical to allow for public comments or a delay in effective date because by the time the changes became effective the public would have very little time to benefit from these changes.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for prior public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 705 of subchapter A of 15 CFR chapter VII is amended as follows:

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 24 and 152 of the Code relating to statutory amendments enacted in Public Law 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017), commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).

Section 152(a) generally defines a “dependent” as a “qualifying child” or a “qualifying relative.” The definition of a qualifying relative in section 152(d)(1) includes the requirement that the individual have gross income for the calendar year that is less than the “exemption amount” as defined in section 151(d) (exemption amount). Such an individual also must satisfy the requirement of section 152(d)(1)(C) that the individual receive more than one-half of his or her support from the taxpayer claiming the individual as a qualifying relative (support test). As described in parts I through IV of this Background, these final regulations provide that, in determining whether an individual is a qualifying relative for purposes of various provisions of the Code that refer to section 152 in years in which the exemption amount is zero, the section 151(d) exemption amount will be the inflation-adjusted section 152(d)(1)(B) exemption amount in the annual revenue procedure setting forth inflation-adjusted items that is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

Generally, section 151 allows a taxpayer to claim a deduction equal to the exemption amount for each of the taxpayer and his or her spouse, and for any dependents. Prior to the TCJA, section 151(d) provided for an exemption amount of $2,000 that was adjusted annually for inflation beginning with calendar year 1990. Before the enactment of the TCJA, the IRS had determined that the exemption amount for taxable year 2018 was $4,150. Rev. Proc. 2017-58, 2017-45 I.R.B. 489, modified and superseded by Rev. Proc. 2018-18, 2018-10 I.R.B. 392.

Section 11041(a)(2) of the TCJA added section 151(d)(5) to provide special rules for taxable years 2018 through 2025 regarding the exemption amount. Section 151(d)(5)(A) provides that, for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026, the exemption amount is zero, thereby suspending the deductions for personal exemptions and the dependency exemption. H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 202-204 (2017) (Conference Report). However, section 151(d)(5)(B) provides that the reduction of the exemption amount to zero is not taken into account in determining whether a deduction under section 151 is allowed or allowable to a taxpayer, or whether a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction under section 151, for purposes of any other provision of the Code. The Conference Report states that this provision clarifies that the reduction of the personal exemption to zero “should not alter the operation of those provisions of the Code which refer to a taxpayer allowed a deduction . . . under section 151,” including the child tax credit in section 24(a). Id. at 203 n.16. For example, the definition of head of household in section 2(b)(1)(A) includes the requirement that the taxpayer maintain as his or her home a household for a qualifying individual for a specified period of time. A qualifying individual under section 2(b)(1)(A)(ii) includes a person who is a qualifying relative under section 152(d) if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction under section 151 for the person for the taxable year.

The section 152(d)(1)(C) support test requires that an individual receive more than one-half of his or her support from the taxpayer to be claimed as a qualifying relative of that taxpayer. Prior to the TCJA, payments of alimony or separate maintenance paid to a spouse or former spouse were not treated as support of a dependent provided by the payor spouse. Additionally, alimony and separate maintenance payments were deductible by the payor spouse and includible in income by the recipient spouse under sections 61(a)(8), 71(a), and 215(a) of the Code. Under section 71(c), child support payments were not treated as alimony includible in income.

Section 11051 of the TCJA repealed sections 61(a)(8), 71 and 215, and, in a conforming change, also repealed section 682 of the Code for any divorce or separation instrument executed after 2018, and for any instrument executed before 2019 and later modified to apply the provisions of the TCJA. Consistent with prior law, the TCJA provides that payments of alimony or separate maintenance paid to a spouse or former spouse are not treated as support of a dependent provided by the payor spouse. To conform with the repeal of sections 71 and 682 by the TCJA, section 11051(b)(3)(B) of the TCJA amended section 152(d)(5) of the Code regarding the source of a qualifying relative's support by revising the language of section 152(d)(5) to eliminate references to former sections 71 and 682.

Section 11022(a) of the TCJA amended section 24 of the Code to create a $500 credit for certain dependents of a taxpayer other than a qualifying child described in section 24(c) for whom the child tax credit is allowed. The $500 credit applies to two categories of dependents: (1) Qualifying children for whom a child tax credit is not allowed, and (2) qualifying relatives as defined in section 152(d). Section 24(h)(4)(A) and (C). Like the amendment to section 151(d) reducing the exemption amount to zero, this new credit applies for taxable years 2018 through 2025. The Conference Report explains that “[t]he credit is further modified to temporarily provide for a $500 nonrefundable credit for qualifying dependents other than qualifying children. The provision generally retains the present-law definition of dependent.” H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 227.

On August 28, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2018-70. This notice announced the intent to issue proposed regulations providing that the reduction of the exemption amount to zero under section 151(d)(5)(A) for taxable years 2018 through 2025 will not be taken into account in determining whether an individual meets the requirement of section 152(d)(1)(B) to be a qualifying relative. Notice 2018-70 also stated that, before the issuance of the proposed regulations described in the notice, a taxpayer may rely on the rules described in the notice.

On June 9, 2020, the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-118997-19) in the Federal Register (85 FR 35233) proposing regulations under sections 24 and 152 (proposed regulations). Consistent with Notice 2018-70, the proposed regulations provide that, in determining whether an individual is a qualifying relative for purposes of various provisions of the Code that refer to section 152 in taxable years in which the exemption amount is zero, the section 151(d) exemption amount will be the inflation-adjusted section 152(d)(1)(B) exemption amount in the annual revenue procedure setting forth inflation-adjusted items that is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Thus, the exemption amount to be used for this purpose is $4,150 for taxable year 2018 (section 3.24 of Rev. Proc. 2017-58, 2017-45 I.R.B. 489, modified and superseded by Rev. Proc. 2018-18, 2018-10 I.R.B. 392); $4,200 for taxable year 2019 (section 3.25 of Rev. Proc. 2018-57, 2018-49 I.R.B. 827); and $4,300 for taxable year 2020 (section 3.25 of Rev. Proc. 2019-44, 2019-47 I.R.B. 1093).

Section 1.152-3(c)(3) and (d)(2) of the proposed regulations were proposed as changes to an earlier notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-137604-07) also providing rules regarding the definition of a dependent under section 152, which was published in the Federal Register (82 FR 6370) on January 19, 2017 (January 2017 Proposed Regulations). Section 1.152-3(d)(2) of the January 2017 Proposed Regulations, which have not yet been finalized, originally included references to sections 71 and 682. Accordingly, the proposed regulations withdrew § 1.152-3(d)(2) of the January 2017 Proposed Regulations and replaced it with a proposed rule to reflect the amendments to section 152(d)(5) discussed in part II of this Background.

The Treasury Department and the IRS received three comments in response to the proposed regulations through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. As no request for a public hearing was received, no hearing was held.

Although two of the comments received did not relate to the proposed regulations, the third comment generally asked for additional clarity regarding the definition of a qualifying relative. As described in the Background, these regulations implement specific changes to the law enacted in the TCJA, which did not modify the definition of qualifying relative in section 152(d) other than to make conforming changes to section 152(d)(5) to account for the repeal of sections 71 and 682. When the January 2017 Proposed Regulations are finalized, they will provide additional clarity to the regulations under section 152 and related provisions.

The third comment also suggested that, because the final regulations would not be published earlier than 2020, it was not necessary to reference the exemption amount for purposes of section 152 for taxable years 2018 and 2019. Although these final regulations are being published in 2020, § 1.152-2(e) of these final regulations applies to taxable years ending after August 28, 2018, the date the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2018-70, pursuant to section 7805(b)(1)(C). Further, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined it appropriate to clarify that, in defining qualifying relative for purposes other than determining the amount allowable as a deduction under section 151(a), the exemption amount is not zero, but is the inflation-adjusted section 152(d)(1)(B) exemption amount in the annual revenue procedure setting forth inflation-adjusted items that is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

This document adopts the proposed regulations as final regulations with no substantive change. However, because § 1.152-3(c)(3) and 1.152-3(d)(2) of the proposed regulations originally were proposed as changes to provisions of the January 2017 Proposed Regulations, which have not yet been finalized, the proposed regulations have been redesignated in the final regulations to coordinate with the existing regulations. Specifically, proposed § 1.152-3(c)(3)(i) and (ii) is finalized as new § 1.152-2(e)(1) and (2) and proposed § 1.152-3(d)(2) is finalized as § 1.152-2(b). When the January 2017 Proposed Regulations are finalized, the provisions again will be appropriately redesignated.

Therefore, the provisions of the proposed regulations are adopted without substantive change to: (1) Provide that the exemption amount, for purposes other than a deduction for a personal or dependency exemption under section 151, is $4,150 for taxable year 2018, and for taxable years 2019 through 2025, the exemption amount, as adjusted for inflation, is the section 152(d)(1)(B) exemption amount, as set forth in guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin; and (2) describe certain payments to a payee spouse for purposes of the support test without references to repealed sections 71 and 682.

Finally, these regulations clarify an issue raised regarding a statutory cross reference in section 24(h)(4) to “a qualifying child described in subsection (c).” As was proposed in the proposed regulations, these regulations clarify in § 1.24-1 that the statutory cross reference is a reference to section 24(c), rather than to section 152(c).

Section 7805(b)(1) of the Code generally provides that no temporary, proposed, or final regulation relating to the internal revenue laws may apply to any taxable period ending before the earliest of (A) the date on which the regulation is filed with the Federal Register , or (B) in the case of a final regulation, the date on which a proposed or temporary regulation to which the final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register . However, section 7805(b)(1)(C) provides that a regulation may apply to a taxable period ending after the date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of a regulation is issued to the public.

Accordingly, §§ 1.24-1 and 1.152-2(b) of these regulations apply to taxable years beginning on or after October 13, 2020. Section 1.152-2(e) of these regulations applies to taxable years ending after August 28, 2018, the date the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2018-70.

These regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget, regarding the review of tax regulations.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations primarily affect individuals and therefore will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Treasury's delegate certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to section 7805(f), the proposed regulations preceding these regulations were submitted to the Office of the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of the final regulations is Victoria Driscoll of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

IRS notices and other guidance cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under sections 807 and 816 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Sections 807 and 816 were added to the Code by section 211(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 494. Section 807 was amended by sections 13513 and 13517 of Public Law 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054, 2143, 2144 (2017), commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). These amendments by the TCJA apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

This document also amends or removes the following regulations in 26 CFR: §§ 1.338-11, 1.381(c)(22)-1, 1.801-2, 1.801-5, 1.801-7, 1.801-8, 1.806-4, 1.807-1, 1.809-2, 1.809-5, 1.810-3, 1.817A-0, 1.817A-1, 1.818-2, 1.818-4, 1.848-1, 1.6012-2, and 301.9100-6T. These changes are conforming changes to regulations that (i) relate to repealed or amended law, (ii) reference regulations that are being removed, (iii) have no future application, or (iv) relate to other regulations made final by this document.

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published proposed regulations (REG-132529-17) in the Federal Register (85 FR 18496) on April 2, 2020 (proposed regulations). A correction to the proposed regulations was published in the Federal Register (85 FR 21129) on April 16, 2020. The Treasury Department and the IRS received six public comments on the proposed regulations. Copies of the comments received are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.

After consideration of all of the comments received on the proposed regulations, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury decision (final regulations).

This section discusses the public comments received on the proposed regulations, explains the revisions adopted in the final regulations in response to those comments, and describes guidance the Treasury Department and the IRS are providing contemporaneously with publication of the final regulations in the Federal Register .

Section 807(d) of the Code provides the method of computing life insurance reserves for purposes of determining the income of an insurance company subject to Federal income tax under subchapter L of chapter 1 of the Code (subchapter L). Section 807(d)(1)(A) provides generally that the amount of life insurance reserves for a life insurance contract (other than a variable contract subject to section 807(d)(1)(B)) is the greater of (i) the net surrender value of such contract, or (ii) 92.81 percent of the reserve determined under the tax-reserve method applicable to the contract under section 807(d)(3).

Section 1.807-1(a) of the proposed regulations (proposed § 1.807-1(a)) provides that no asset adequacy reserve may be included in the amount of life insurance reserves under section 807(d). Proposed § 1.807-1(a) describes an asset adequacy reserve as “includ[ing] any reserve that is established as an additional reserve based upon an analysis of the adequacy of reserves that would otherwise be established or any reserve that is not held with respect to a particular contract.” Further, proposed § 1.807-1(a) provides that an asset adequacy reserve is “any reserve or portion of a reserve that would have been established pursuant to an asset adequacy analysis required by the National Association of Insurance Commissioner's Valuation Manual 30 as it existed on December 22, 2017, the date of enactment of Public Law115-97 . . . .”

Two commenters requested that the first quoted provision be changed to provide that asset adequacy reserves are those reserves established pursuant to an analysis of the adequacy of reserves only if that analysis is pursuant to the requirements of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) Valuation Manual 30. Both commenters suggested the final regulations state what an asset adequacy reserve “is” as opposed to what it “includes.” Moreover, both commenters would remove the language that includes within the definition of “asset adequacy reserve” any reserve that is not held with respect to a particular contract.

The final regulations generally incorporate these comments. The final regulations, however, also incorporate in the definition of asset adequacy reserves any reserve that is similar to an asset adequacy reserve that is determined under the NAIC's requirements as of the date the reserve is determined.

With respect to the second provision previously quoted, one commenter proposed removing the December 22, 2017, fixed date and replacing it with a reference to “the date the reserve is determined.” The commenter believed that such a change would make the provision more consistent with section 807(d)(3), which generally requires using the tax reserve method that is applicable as of the date the reserve is determined.

The final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Section 807(d)(3) specifically provides that the tax reserve method (for example, the Commissioners' Reserve Valuation Method (CRVM) or Commissioners' Annuity Reserve Valuation Method (CARVM)) to be used in determining a reserve is the tax reserve method that is applicable when the reserve is determined. No such rule exists with respect to asset adequacy reserves.

The reserves determined based on the application of those parts of the NAIC Valuation Manual, as it existed when the TCJA was enacted, that implement and define CRVM and CARVM are not asset adequacy reserves. See Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, 115th Cong., General Explanation of Public Law 115-97, 235 (Comm. Print 2018) (Bluebook) (“Under NAIC-prescribed principle-based reserve methodology in effect at the time of the enactment of the provision, principle-base[d] reserves for any contract do not include any asset adequacy reserve component.”) (citation omitted). On the other hand, any additional reserve required to be set aside under Valuation Manual 30, as it existed when the TCJA was enacted, based on an analysis of the adequacy of the reserves otherwise determined, constitutes an asset adequacy reserve under § 1.807-1 of the final regulations.

One commenter proposed the addition of a general provision explaining the significance and selection of the tax reserve method for a contract. The final regulations include such a provision.

The commenter also proposed the addition of an example illustrating the determination of life insurance reserves under section 807(d)(1) and the exclusion of asset adequacy reserves from life insurance reserves. The Treasury Department and the IRS did not include the example in the final regulations, but the principles illustrated by the example are explained in this preamble.

Section 807(f)(1) of the Code provides that if the basis for determining any item referred to in section 807(c) as of the close of any taxable year differs from the basis for such determination as of the close of the preceding taxable year, then so much of the difference between (A) the amount of the item at the close of the taxable year, computed on the new basis, and (B) the amount of the item at the close of the taxable year, computed on the old basis, as is attributable to contracts issued before the taxable year must be taken into account under section 481 as adjustments attributable to a change in method of accounting initiated by the taxpayer and made with the consent of the Secretary.

Section 1.807-4 of the proposed regulations (proposed § 1.807-4) provides guidance relating to both the change in basis of computing reserves of a life insurance company and the change in basis of computing life insurance reserves of an insurance company other than a life insurance company (a nonlife insurance company). Under proposed § 1.807-4(a), a change in basis of computing an item referred to in section 807(c) is a change in method of accounting for purposes of § 1.446-1(e), unless § 1.446-1(e) provides otherwise. Accordingly, under proposed § 1.807-4(a), both a life insurance company changing the basis of computing an item referred to in section 807(c) and a nonlife insurance company changing the basis of computing life insurance reserves must follow the administrative procedures prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or his delegate (Commissioner) to obtain the consent of the Commissioner to such a change.

One commenter suggested that § 1.807-4(a) state at the outset that section 807(f) treats a change in basis of computing reserves as a change in method of accounting. The commenter thought this would better establish why § 1.446-1(e) applies to the change in basis of computing reserves. The final regulations incorporate this suggestion. The amendment of section 807(f) by the TCJA led to the requirement in § 1.807-4(a) that changes in basis of computing an item referred to in section 807(c) must follow the same administrative procedures as other changes in method of accounting. Accordingly, this Treasury decision removes or obsoletes contrary guidance (for example, § 1.806-4 and Rev. Rul. 94-74, 1994-2 C.B. 157).

Another commenter took the position that a change in basis of computing an item referred to in section 807(c) is not a change in method of accounting that should require consent under section 446(e). The commenter believed that the IRS's consent should be needed under section 481(c) only to reflect a multi-year spread of a section 481(a) adjustment that may result from a change in basis of computing reserves. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not agree with this position. The computation of reserves has always been a method of accounting. See Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. United States, 90-1 USTC (CCH) ¶ 50,010 (M.D. Tenn. 1989) (“[W]hile the government is correct in classifying the change at issue as a change in method of accounting, it is also more specifically a change in the method of computing reserves.”); Rev. Rul. 94-74 (stating that “§ 807(f) is a more specific application of the general tax rules governing a change in method of accounting”). Under the specific provisions of former section 807(f), the general change in method of accounting procedures did not apply to a change in basis of computing reserves. With the TCJA's amendment to section 807(f), the procedures generally applicable to a change in method of accounting apply to a change in basis of computing reserves under section 807(c). See Bluebook at 228 (stating that a company that changes its method of computing reserves must comply with applicable IRS procedures).

The same commenter recommended that if the final regulations do not remove the requirement that a change in basis of computing reserves under section 807(f) requires consent under section 446(e), then the preamble to the final regulations should clarify that section 446(b) does not apply to the determination of insurance reserves. This recommendation is similar to another commenter's recommendation that the preamble should acknowledge that the application of the consent provisions of section 446(e) and § 1.446-1(e) does not affect the role of sections 811(a) and 807(d) with respect to the determination of section 807(c) reserves.

Except in extraordinary circumstances, section 446(b) does not affect the requirement that a life insurance company compute its reserves for Federal income tax purposes as required by subchapter L. Similarly, subchapter L does not affect the requirement under section 446(e) that an insurance company secure the consent of the Commissioner before changing its basis of computing reserves.

Proposed § 1.807-4 contains four examples illustrating the principles of proposed § 1.807-4(a) through (c). One commenter suggested several clarifications to Example 1 and Example 2 in proposed § 1.807-4(d). Additionally, the commenter requested additional guidance on how the standard for what constitutes a change in basis of computing reserves applies to frequently-encountered fact patterns involving life insurance reserves, such as under principle-based reserve methodologies.

The final regulations do not include what had been Example 1 and Example 2 in proposed § 1.807-4(d). The principles illustrated in these examples are sufficiently illustrated in the remaining examples. Moreover, the Treasury Department and the IRS are providing additional guidance on the fact patterns that constitute a change in basis of computing life insurance reserves in Rev. Rul. 2020-19, 2020-40 I.R.B. 611, released contemporaneously with publication of these final regulations in the Federal Register .

Currently, section 26.04 of Rev. Proc. 2019-43, 2019-48 I.R.B. 1107, provides for automatic consent to a change in method of accounting if that change relates to section 807(c) items (which include life insurance reserves for a nonlife insurance company). One commenter requested that the same treatment be extended to changes in method of accounting for the unearned premium reserves and the unpaid loss reserves of nonlife insurance companies.

The final regulations do not incorporate this request, and the Treasury Department and the IRS do not anticipate that Rev. Proc. 2019-43 will be amended to allow for the requested automatic consent. The automatic consent procedures provided in section 26.04 of Rev. Proc. 2019-43 to life insurance companies for a change in basis of computing reserves and to nonlife insurance companies for a change in basis of computing life insurance reserves were a response to the specific change in section 807(f) made by the TCJA. No such change was made by the TCJA for unearned premium reserves or unpaid loss reserves of nonlife insurance companies.

The preamble to the proposed regulations proposes obsoleting the following revenue rulings because they are inconsistent with section 807(f), as amended by the TCJA: Rev. Rul. 2002-6, 2002-1 C.B. 460, Rev. Rul. 94-74, 1994-2 C.B. 157, Rev. Rul. 80-117, 1980-1 C.B. 143, Rev. Rul. 80-116, 1980-1 C.B. 141, Rev. Rul. 78-354, 1978-2 C.B. 190, Rev. Rul. 77-198, 1977-1 C.B. 190, Rev. Rul. 75-308, 1975-2 C.B. 264, Rev. Rul. 74-57, 1974-1 C.B. 163, Rev. Rul. 70-568, 1970-2 C.B. 140, Rev. Rul. 70-192, 1970-1 C.B. 153, Rev. Rul. 69-444, 1969-2 C.B. 145, Rev. Rul. 65-240, 1965-2 C.B. 236, Rev. Rul. 65-233, 1965-2 C.B. 228, Rev. Rul. 65-143, 1965-1 C.B. 261.

One commenter believes Rev. Rul. 2002-6, Rev. Rul. 94-74, and Rev. Rul. 69-444 contain principles that provide guidance on what constitutes a change in basis of computing reserves and that additional guidance is needed if these revenue rulings are obsoleted. While this Treasury decision obsoletes those revenue rulings, the Treasury Department and the IRS are providing additional guidance on the fact patterns that constitute a change in basis of computing life insurance reserves contemporaneously with publication of the final regulations in the Federal Register . See Rev. Rul. 2020-19.

The preamble to the proposed regulations also proposes to obsolete Notice 2010-29, 2010-15 I.R.B. 547, which provided interim guidance relating to variable annuity contracts as a result of the adoption by the NAIC of Actuarial Guideline 43, which describes a principle-based reserve method. No comments were received regarding this proposed obsolescence, and this Treasury decision obsoletes Notice 2010-29.

The preamble to the proposed regulations describes revisions that the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to make to section 26.04 of Rev. Proc. 2019-43. First, section 26.04(2)(b)(ii) of Rev. Proc. 2019-43 provides that multiple changes during the same taxable year for the same type of contract are considered a single change in basis and the effects of such changes are netted and treated as a single section 481(a) adjustment. Section 807(f)(1), however, provides that the section 481(a) adjustment is the difference between the amount of any item referred to in section 807(c) computed on the new basis and the amount of such item computed on the old basis. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to revise section 26.04 of Rev. Proc. 2019-43 to require netting of the section 481(a) adjustments at the level of each item referred to in section 807(c) so there is a single section 481(a) adjustment for each of the items referred to in section 807(c).

Second, section 26.04(1) of Rev. Proc. 2019-43 provides that the automatic change procedures apply to a nonlife insurance company. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to revise section 26.04 of Rev. Proc. 2019-43 to clarify the manner in which nonlife insurance companies implement changes to the basis of computing life insurance reserves (as defined in section 816(b)) during a taxable year (year of change). Specifically, the clarification would provide that, if a nonlife insurance company changes the basis of computing its life insurance reserves, then for purposes of applying section 832(b)(4), (i) for the year of change, life insurance reserves at the end of the year of change with respect to contracts issued before the year of change are determined on the old basis and (ii) for the year following the year of change, life insurance reserves at the end of the preceding taxable year with respect to contracts issued before the year of change are determined on the new basis. Life insurance reserves attributable to contracts issued during the year of change and thereafter must be computed on the new basis.

One commenter agreed with the intended revisions.

Section 13517 of the TCJA added section 807(e)(6) to the Code, which provides that the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate (Secretary) “shall require reporting (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) with respect to the opening and closing balance of reserves and with respect to the method of computing reserves for purposes of determining income.” In accordance with section 807(e)(6), § 1.807-3 of the proposed regulations (proposed § 1.807-3) provides that the IRS may require reporting on Form 1120-L with respect to the opening and closing balances of the items described in section 807(c) and with respect to the method of computing such items for the purposes of determining income.

One commenter requested further consultation with the life insurance industry before any additional reserve reporting requirements are implemented. According to the commenter, this consultation will be necessary to ensure that the information provided is useful to the government and that providing the information is not unduly burdensome to taxpayers relative to the information's utility.

The IRS understands the importance of obtaining the life insurance industry's input before changing the reporting requirements. Proposed § 1.807-3 is adopted as final by this Treasury decision, and the IRS expects to consult with the life insurance industry before making any changes to reporting requirements. Further, as discussed in the Special Analysis section of this preamble, any future changes to tax return form requirements stemming from this provision would be subject to burden analysis and public notice and comment under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requirements the IRS is committed to follow.

Section 1.816-1(a) of the proposed regulations (proposed § 1.816-1(a)) provides that a reserve (other than an asset adequacy reserve) that is computed using a tax reserve method as defined in section 807(d)(3) and that meets the requirements of section 816(b)(1) and (b)(2) will not be disqualified as a life insurance reserve solely because the method used to calculate the reserve takes into account factors other than those prescribed by section 816(b)(1) and (b)(2). Thus, for instance, reserves calculated using principle-based reserve methodologies will not fail to qualify as life insurance reserves solely because the reserves might be calculated using certain factors in addition to assumed rates of interest and recognized mortality or morbidity tables.

One commenter requested the preamble for the final regulations state that in some cases the use of additional factors in computing reserves for taxable years prior to the effective date of these final regulations is not prohibited. The commenter did not want any negative inference that proposed § 1.816-1 is making permissible what was before impermissible (namely using certain additional factors in computing reserves).

The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that certain factors other than those prescribed by section 816(b)(1) and (b)(2) may be taken into account in determining life insurance reserves for taxable years prior to the effective date of these final regulations if the use of such factors would make the calculation of the reserve more accurate. See, e.g., Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner, 488 F.2d 1101, 1106 (3d Cir. 1974).

The Conference Report to the TCJA contemplates requiring the electronic filing of annual statements to improve reporting of insurance reserves, as necessary to carry out and enforce section 807. H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 478-79 (2017) (Conference Report). In response to the Conference Report, the proposed regulations propose to remove § 1.6012-2(c)(4), which prohibits an insurance company that files its Form 1120-L or Form 1120-PC electronically from attaching its annual statement (or pro forma annual statement) to its return.

One commenter stated that for some of the largest groups of companies, the size limits found in section 2.1.2 of IRS Publication 4164, Modernized e-File (MeF) Guide to Software Developers and Transmitters, Processing Year 2020, would likely be exceeded if the annual statement were to be filed electronically, and for other groups of companies, the size limit would likely be exceeded by the return and the annual statement when combined. The commenter suggested retaining the existing rule that electronic filers should not submit their annual statements with their returns, or alternatively, changing the requirement such that electronic filers must only submit limited parts of the annual statement.

The final regulations retain § 1.6012-2(c)(4), but it now provides that electronic filers must file their annual statement or a portion thereof in accordance with the applicable rules in the forms or instructions. The Treasury Department and the IRS anticipate that once the IRS has the capacity to accept the electronic filing of annual statements, the tax return forms and instructions will require electronic filing of all or portions of the annual statement. The IRS, however, expects to consult with the insurance industry before requiring such electronic filing.

The proposed regulations propose to remove parts of § 1.817A-1 that pertain to sections 807(d)(2)(B) and 812(b)(2)(A). Those sections were removed by the TCJA. The notice of proposed rulemaking requested comments on whether § 1.817A-1 should continue to provide a current market interest rate to be used in computing reserves under section 807(c)(3) during the temporary guarantee period of a modified guaranteed contract (MGC) given that the TCJA modified the flush language of section 807(c) to provide a specific interest rate to be used in making section 807(c)(3) computations.

One commenter recommended that § 1.817A-1 be removed in its entirety. The final regulations remove provisions relating to section 807(c)(3) but retain the provision (and related definitions) that waives section 811(d) for non-equity indexed MGCs during the temporary guarantee period, because these rules continue to remain relevant.

The proposed regulations also propose to remove or amend the following regulatory provisions: §§ 1.338-11, 1.381(c)(22)-1, 1.801-2, 1.801-5, 1.801-7, 1.801-8, 1.806-4, 1.809-2, 1.809-5, 1.810-3, 1.817A-0, 1.818-2, 1.818-4, 1.848-1, and 301.9100-6T. These provisions were proposed to be removed or amended because they related to repealed or amended law or to regulations that were proposed to be removed or amended or they had no future application.

One commenter suggested that parts of paragraph (a) of § 1.801-7, a provision proposed to be removed in its entirety, continue to remain relevant under section 817. By its terms, § 1.801-7 is not applicable to any taxable year beginning after 1962. See § 1.801-7(d). Because § 1.801-7 is not applicable to any taxable year after 1962, the commenter's suggestion is not adopted.

More generally, the commenter requested removal of more “deadwood” provisions than provided for in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The removal of additional “deadwood” provisions is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. No other specific comments were received with respect to these proposed conforming changes.

The Code contains a statutory definition of a life insurance contract under section 7702, rules applicable to certain flexible premium contracts under section 101(f), distribution on death requirements under section 72(s), and diversification requirements under section 817(h). These statutory requirements, which reflect Congress's concern that the tax-favored treatment generally accorded life insurance and annuity contracts was available to contracts that were too investment oriented or provided for undue tax deferral, are relevant to the tax treatment of a policyholder, annuitant, or beneficiary as well as the entity that issues or reinsures a life insurance or annuity contract.

In response to a request to promulgate regulations that exempt certain contracts from the statutory requirements of sections 72(s), 101(f), 817(h), and 7702, the preamble to the proposed regulations asks for comments on whether such regulations should be promulgated. As described in the preamble to the proposed regulations, the requested exemption would apply to contracts issued by a non-U.S. insurance company and reinsured by a U.S. insurance company if (i) no policyholder, insured, annuitant, or beneficiary with respect to the contract is a U.S. person and (ii) such contract is regulated as a life insurance or annuity contract by a foreign regulator. The preamble to the proposed regulations states that the Treasury Department and the IRS are evaluating the request, including whether to address it as part of this rulemaking, and requests comments including in respect of statutory interpretation and implications in various contexts and provisions outside of subchapter L.

Three comments were received. One commenter (whose comment was endorsed by another commenter) generally repeated the original request (but narrowed the requested exemptions to only sections 7702 and 72(s)) and stated that such regulations would assist U.S. reinsurers of exempted contracts to qualify as life insurance companies under section 816. The commenter asserted that the proposal would (i) align with domestic and U.S. international tax policy considerations because they would be applicable only to contracts owned by and benefitting persons not subject to Federal income tax and (ii) support policy goals of the TCJA to bring profitable business operations into the United States. The commenter further asserted that such regulations would not (i) affect the character, source, or separate category basket in which income derived from the reinsurance is included for U.S. withholding tax or foreign tax credit purposes, (ii) alter the application of any applicable U.S. withholding tax on income from sources within the United States paid by a domestic insurance company to any foreign corporation, or (iii) affect the treatment under section 59A of any claims and benefits or any other amounts paid by a domestic insurance company to a foreign related party under a reinsurance contract. The commenter acknowledged that it may not be possible for a U.S. insurance company to know the identity of a contract's underlying beneficial owners unless the beneficial owner and the policyholder were the same person and requested that U.S. insurance companies be able to rely upon the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act beneficial ownership rules to determine if a contract has a U.S. person as a beneficial owner.

Another commenter stated that tax reserve deductions are already available for failed life insurance contracts under other provisions of section 807(c), just in a different amount than would be the case with life insurance reserve treatment. The commenter stated that there could nevertheless be benefits of conformity and suggested an alternative proposal. The commenter recommended that the Treasury Department and the IRS use their authority under sections 811(a) and 7805(a) to issue regulations that provide that reserves held by a U.S. reinsurer relating to indemnity reinsurance of contracts issued by a foreign insurance company be treated as life insurance reserves for purposes of subchapter L if: (i) The underlying contracts are issued by a foreign insurer, (ii) such contracts are regulated as life insurance or annuity contracts both under the applicable law in the foreign jurisdiction and by the regulator of the reinsuring domestic insurance company, (iii) the NAIC prescribes reserves for such contracts that are computed as reserves applicable to life insurance or annuity contracts, and (iv) the initial issuance of the insurance contract to the policyholder was not through the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

The considerations surrounding the issuance of the requested regulations are complex and require further study. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have decided not to issue the requested regulations as part of this rulemaking and will continue to carefully consider these comments.

The rules in the final regulations apply to taxable years beginning after October 13, 2020.

A taxpayer may rely on § 1.807-4 or 1.816-1 of the proposed regulations for a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, and on or before October 13, 2020. Alternatively, a taxpayer may choose to apply § 1.807-4, 1.816-1, or 1.817A-1(b) of the final regulations to a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017, the effective date of the revision of section 807 made by the TCJA, and on or before October 13, 2020, provided the taxpayer consistently applies the relevant regulation to that taxable year and all subsequent taxable years. See section 7805(b)(7).

The following revenue rulings are obsoleted for taxable years beginning after October 13, 2020: Rev. Rul. 2002-6, 2002-1 C.B. 460, Rev. Rul. 94-74, 1994-2 C.B. 157, Rev. Rul. 80-117, 1980-1 C.B. 143, Rev. Rul. 80-116, 1980-1 C.B. 141, Rev. Rul. 78-354, 1978-2 C.B. 190, Rev. Rul. 77-198, 1977-1 C.B. 190, Rev. Rul. 75-308, 1975-2 C.B. 264, Rev. Rul. 74-57, 1974-1 C.B. 163, Rev. Rul. 70-568, 1970-2 C.B. 140, Rev. Rul. 70-192, 1970-1 C.B. 153, Rev. Rul. 69-444, 1969-2 C.B. 145, Rev. Rul. 65-240, 1965-2 C.B. 236, Rev. Rul. 65-233, 1965-2 C.B. 228, and Rev. Rul. 65-143, 1965-1 C.B. 261.

Notice 2010-29 is obsoleted for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

The collection of information relating to the final regulations was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under OMB Control Number 1545-0123 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)).

In response to the Conference Report and comments on the proposed regulations, § 1.6012-2(c)(4), as revised by the final regulations, provides that an insurance company should include the insurance company's annual statement (as defined in § 1.6012-2(c)(5)), or a portion thereof, with an electronically filed Federal income tax return (Form 1120-L for a life insurance company and Form 1120-PC for a nonlife insurance company) as required by the applicable forms or instructions. Federal income tax items of an insurance company are determined in part based upon the insurance company's annual statement. Providing the annual statement, or a portion thereof, to the IRS with an electronically filed Federal income tax return will allow the IRS to better and more efficiently examine an insurance company's Federal income tax return. However, until the applicable forms or instructions are revised, the current rules for including the annual statement with an electronically filed Federal income tax return continue to apply.

For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the burden for the collection of information associated with § 1.6012-2 of the final regulations will be reflected in the burden on the Form 1120-L and in the burden on the Form 1120-PC (OMB Control Number 1545-0123) when the burden for each is revised to reflect the collection of information associated with § 1.6012-2 of the final regulations. The respondents to the collection of information are life insurance companies that file the Form 1120-L electronically and nonlife insurance companies that file the Form 1120-PC electronically. The Treasury Department and the IRS expect to consult with the life insurance industry before making any changes to these reporting requirements.

In accordance with section 807(e)(6), as added by the TCJA, § 1.807-3 of the final regulations provides that the IRS may require reporting on Form 1120-L of the opening balance and closing balance of items described in section 807(c) (for example, life insurance reserves) and the method of computing such items for purposes of determining income. Providing this information will allow the IRS to better examine an insurance company's Federal income tax return. However, under § 1.807-3 of the final regulations, this information is not required to be provided on any prescribed forms, such as the Form 1120-L, until the relevant prescribed forms or instructions are revised to require the reporting of such information.

For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the burden for the collection of information associated with § 1.807-3 of the final regulations will be reflected in the burden on the Form 1120-L (OMB Control Number 1545-0123) when the burden is revised to reflect the collection of information associated with § 1.807-3 of the final regulations. The respondents to the collection of information are life insurance companies that file a Form 1120-L. The Treasury Department and the IRS expect to consult with the life insurance industry before making any changes to these reporting requirements.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

It is hereby certified that the final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6).

Section 13517 of the TCJA added section 807(e)(6) to the Code. Under section 807(e)(6), the Secretary may require reporting (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe) with respect to the opening balances and the closing balances of reserves and with respect to the method of computing reserves for purposes of determining income. Section 1.807-3 of the final regulations allows the IRS to require the reporting of this information on any prescribed forms, such as the Form 1120-L.

The Conference Report provides that, under existing authority, the Secretary may require an insurance company to provide its annual statement via a link, electronic copy, or other similar means. See Conference Report at 478-79. Section 1.6012-2(c)(4) of the final regulations provides that an insurance company should include the insurance company's annual statement, or a portion thereof, with an electronically filed Federal income tax return (Form 1120-L for a life insurance company and Form 1120-PC for a nonlife insurance company) as required by the applicable forms or instructions. Under current procedures, an insurance company can only electronically file a Form 1120-L or Form 1120-PC if the insurance company is part of an affiliated group filing a consolidated return, the parent of which files a Form 1120. Although data are not readily available, the Treasury Department and the IRS expect that any reporting burden associated with § 1.6012-2(c) will fall primarily on financial and insurance firms with annual receipts greater than $41.5 million and, therefore, will not affect a substantial number of small entities. See 13 CFR 121.201, sector 52 (finance and insurance).

As stated in the preceding paragraph, the rule is not expected to affect a substantial number of small entities; however, even if a substantial number of small entities were affected, the economic impact of the regulation is not likely to be significant. Section 1.807-3 of the final regulations is limited in scope to time and manner of information reporting, and any economic impact associated with this regulation is expected to be minimal. Further, the information reported to the IRS is information that the insurance company has readily available and the Treasury Department and the IRS expect to consult with the life insurance industry before making any changes to the reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Secretary certifies that the final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding the Final Regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received from the Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The principal author of these regulations is Ian Follansbee, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

The IRS notices, revenue procedures, and revenue rulings cited in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are amended as follows:

Hoonigan Industries, of Long Beach, CA, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a film project using barges and other marine equipment positioned at two locations in Spa Creek, at Annapolis, MD. In response, on September 11, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zones; Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD” (85 FR 56186). In that NPRM we proposed to establish 2 security zones—the first within a portion of Market Slip (Ego Alley) and the second across the width of Annapolis Harbor. The first safety zone was to be enforced from 5 a.m. to noon on October 19, 2020, or if necessary due to inclement weather on October 19, 2020, from 5 a.m. to noon on October 20, 2020. The second safety zone was to be enforced from 7 a.m. on October 20, 2020, through noon on October 22, 2020, or if necessary due to inclement weather continued through noon on October 23, 2020.

After NPRM had been sent to the Office of the Federal Register and scheduled for publication, the Coast Guard was notified by the film company that they were making three changes to the project. First, the filming date at Spa Creek within Market Slip (Ego Alley) was rescheduled from October 19, 2020, to October 22, 2020 (additional rain date of October 23, 2020, if needed.) Second, the company also informed the Coast Guard that another vessel would be used during filming at this location. No changes to the filming hours at this location were made. Filming is scheduled to take place from 5 a.m. to noon on October 22nd (with additional filming on October 23rd if necessary due to inclement weather on the preceding dates). Finally, the film company notified the Coast Guard that the filming scheduled for the location across the width of Spa Creek between Annapolis City Dock and Eastport had been cancelled.

Due to the date of the scheduled event, the Coast Guard did not have time to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). To the extent, if any, that the Coast Guard's inability to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking invalidates the notice requirement required by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Coast Guard issues this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to do so. Immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. It is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish an NPRM or SNPRM because a final rule needs to be in place by October 22, 2020, to minimize potential danger to the film crew and nearby public.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to restrict vessel traffic to protect life, property and the environment and respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the film project.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the film project will be a safety concern for anyone within Market Slip (Ego Alley), Annapolis, MD, during filming. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

We received 7 comments on our NPRM published September 11, 2020. The comments are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under docket USCG-2020-0511. We address the commenter's concerns below.

A few commenters questioned whether it was necessary for the Coast Guard to issue a rule (create a safety zone) for this event. The Coast Guard has determined that access to the water, shoreline to shoreline, in the area near where filming will take place needs to be restricted to ensure the safety of those involved in the filming and the nearby public. Safety zones are only necessary under certain conditions. Not every event on the water requires access to be restricted. A safety zone for this event is needed because the project is likely to pose an extra or unusual hazard to the safety of human life on and near the navigable waters of the United States at Market Slip (Ego Alley), Annapolis MD. Hazardous activities associated with the project include aerial stunt car jumps with minimum heights across the entire width of the waterway. Filming and associated activities may be conducted on the water or shore area. 1 The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70034.

Some commenters expressed concern about a lack of specificity of the planned activities associated with the film project. Certain details of the planned event were still being developed at the time of publishing the proposed rule. The Coast Guard wanted to ensure the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on its proposal, even if final details had not yet been provided by the film company. The Coast Guard is focused on the importance of identifying and mitigating the potential hazards posed by the event, not on items such as what the film project is actually filming or who may be involved.

One commenter requested clarification about whether the entire width of Spa Creek could be covered by the safety zone and whether it would include navigable waters immediately adjacent to the Annapolis City Dock. Yes, it would have. However, with the changes made by the film company, the safety zone no longer covers all of Spa Creek, but covers only all navigable waters of Spa Creek within Market Slip (Ego Alley), from shoreline to shoreline, within coordinates specified in the regulation. It includes navigable waters immediately adjacent to the Annapolis City Dock. Coast Guard vessels will be present to enforce this safety zone. No persons or vessels will be authorized to transit the area of the safety zone during actual filming, however, they may be allowed to do so immediately before and after, and at the discretion of the COTP or the COTP's representative, following consultation with on scene film project representatives. Waterway users can seek permission to enter the safety zone by contacting the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16.

One commenter asked why the Coast Guard only provided a 15-day comment period rather than the agency's normal 30 days. The Coast Guard considers public participation essential to effective rulemaking. However, the Administrative Procedure Act does not specify a minimum time for submission of written comments. And, while the Coast Guard normally tries to allow 30 days of comment, cases and circumstances may arise that make it prudent to have a shorter comment period. 2 It was not possible to publish the NPRM for this action sooner as the necessary details were not yet available to the Coast Guard. And, we were concerned that a 30-day comment period would not leave the agency enough time to review all comments, respond to any significant comments, and have a final rule drafted and published in the Federal Register in time for the scheduled event. Considering all the factors—the time frame before the event, the length of the NPRM, the relatively short proposed regulatory text, and the location of the event—we felt that 15 days allowed sufficient time for members of the interested public to review the notice and provide us with informed feedback on the proposal. This analysis in determining the sufficiency of a 15-day comment period is consistent with the legislative history of the Administrative Procedure Act, which indicates that an NPRM “must be sufficient to fairly apprise interested parties of the issues involved, so that they may present responsive data or argument.”  3

One commenter was concerned about whether or not their company would be allowed to conduct a planned sailing cruise for the affected area of Annaopolis Harbor and Spa Creek. The Coast Guard's rule allows vessels desiring to transit to or from local waterside businesses located within the safety zone during enforcement to seek permission to enter the zone. Such vessels can contact the Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).

The Coast Guard amended the regulatory text from that proposed in the NPRM to account for the date change to the first safety zone and the removal of the second safety zone. Otherwise, this rule adopts the text of the NPRM without change.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 5 a.m. on October 22, 2020, to noon on October 23, 2020. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Spa Creek, within Market Slip (Ego Alley), from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the southeast by a line commencing at latitude 38°58′34.2″ N, longitude 076°29′05.6″ W, thence southwest to latitude 38°58′32.9″ N, longitude 076°29′06.4″ W, located at Annapolis, MD. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 5 a.m. to noon film project. Except for vessels operated by Hoonigan Industries and marine equipment, which includes any vessel, barge or other equipment operated by Smith Marine Towing, Inc., or its subcontractors, no vessel or person will be permitted to enter this safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP will notify the public that the safety zone will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register , as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 (previously codified in 33 U.S.C. 1232) and 46 U.S.C. 70052 (previously codified in 50 U.S.C. 192).

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day, day-of-week and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Spa Creek within Market Slip (Ego Alley) for 14 total enforcement hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 14 total enforcement hours that will prohibit entry within a portion of Spa Creek within Market Slip (Ego Alley). It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The EPA is making the following corrections to the final MSW Landfills NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA) as published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2020 (85 FR 17244).

The EPA is correcting cross-referencing errors that were the result of extensive changes to the structure and content of the MSW Landfills NESHAP during the RTR. The initial restructuring is described in the proposed RTR for the MSW Landfills NESHAP (84 FR 36670, July 29, 2019). Further changes to the MSW Landfills NESHAP occurred between proposal and promulgation and those changes are described in the final RTR for the MSW Landfills NESHAP (85 FR 17244, March 26, 2020). Operating facilities cannot comply with certain requirements of the rule as written because the requirements include citations to paragraphs in the rule that do not exist, do not contain the cited content, and/or are inconsistent with the same requirements as they were previously promulgated in section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). As described in the preambles to the proposed and final MSW Landfills NESHAP rules, landfills are subject to regulations under CAA sections 111 (40 CFR part 60, subparts Cf and XXX) and 112 (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA). The rules were written to promote consistency among MSW Landfills regulations under the CAA. See section IV.D of the preamble to the proposed rule at 84 FR 36689 (July 29, 2019) and section III.D of the preamble to the final rule at 85 FR 17248 (March 26, 2020). Therefore, where requirements are the same, the regulatory text was copied from 40 CFR part 60, subpart XXX and adapted to cite corresponding references in 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. During this process, some errors were made due to differences in the structures of the two rules. With this action, the EPA is correcting the following errors. These corrections do not change the requirements with which landfills must comply.

First, the EPA is correcting two formatting errors.

• 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Revise the heading of subpart WWW to read: Subpart WWW—Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification on or After May 30, 1991, but Before July 18, 2014. This change is consistent with the discussion in the preamble to the final rule (85 FR at 17248), but the change was inadvertently not made to the relevant title in the regulatory text. This action implements the revision.

• 40 CFR 63.1983(h)(2)(ii). Remove paragraph (ii). Paragraph (i) is not subordinate to 40 CFR 63.1983(h)(2); rather, it follows 40 CFR 63.1983(h) as 40 CFR 63.1983(i); therefore, there is no need to reserve a paragraph (ii). The proposed regulatory text was correctly printed in the proposed rule at 84 FR 36721 (July 29, 2019).

Additionally, the EPA is correcting the following cross-referencing errors.

• 40 CFR 63.1947(c)(2). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1980(e) and (f) to 40 CFR 63.1982(c) and (d). The reference specifies procedures to use to determine bioreactor moisture content but refers to paragraphs that no longer exist. The requirements in 40 CFR 63.1947(c)(2) were originally promulgated in 40 CFR 63.1945(a)(2) in 2003 and referred to the requirements that are now found in 63.1982(c) and (d). The content of the requirements was not changed in the 2020 amendments to the MSW Landfills NESHAP and/or this correction.

• 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(3)(i), 40 CFR 63.1959(c)(3)(i), and 40 CFR 63.1959(e)(1). Correct the references from 40 CFR 63.1981(i) to 40 CFR 63.1981(l)(1). These three standards refer to procedures for the submittal of performance test reports, but the reference leads to requirements for an initial report instead of ongoing requirements to submit reports electronically. Section III.D.9 of the preamble to the final rule stated that performance tests must be submitted electronically using the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1981(l)(1). Additionally, matching requirements in 40 CFR 60.764(a)(3)(i), 40 CFR 60.764(b)(3)(i), and 40 CFR 60.764(e)(1), respectively, refer to the electronic reporting requirements of 40 CFR 60.767(i)(1), which match those of 40 CFR 63.1981(l)(1).

• 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(4)(i)(A). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1981(e) to 40 CFR 63.1981(d). The standard discusses the procedures for submitting a gas collection and control system design plan if a landfill's emissions exceed the stated threshold according to one method of calculation, but the reference does not include the intended procedures. Corresponding requirements for plan submittal using different calculation methods in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(2)(ii)(A), 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(3)(iv)(A), and 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(i) all refer to 40 CFR 63.1981(d). Additionally, the requirements in 40 CFR 63.1959(a)(4)(i)(A) align with those of 40 CFR 60.764(a)(4)(i)(A), which refer to requirements that match those in 40 CFR 63.1981(d).

• 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A). Correct the reference from “paragraph (f) of this section” to “paragraph (e) of this section.” The requirements reference an exception to the requirements of 40 CFR 63.11(b). This exception is stated explicitly in 40 CFR 63.1959(e), not (f). The text in 40 CFR 63.1959(b)(2)(iii)(A) mirrors that in 40 CFR 60.762(b)((2)(iii)(A), which references 40 CFR 60.764(e) for the exception. The requirements in 40 CFR 60.764(e) align with those in 40 CFR 63.1959(e).

• 40 CFR 63.1960(a). Correct the reference from “paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section,” to “paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section.” Paragraph (a)(6) does not exist. This reference was copied from corresponding text in 40 CFR 60.765(a). The requirements in 40 CFR 60.765(a) are found in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6), but paragraph (a)(4) is reserved. The reserved paragraph was removed from 40 CFR 63.1960(a) but the corresponding change in numbering for the reference was not made.

• 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(B). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(5) to 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(4). The reference refers to a specific report, whose requirements are included in 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(4). Additionally, the text in 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(4) refers back to 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(3)(i)(B). These requirements mirror those in 40 CFR 60.765(a)(3)(ii), which references 40 CFR 60.768(e)(4). The corresponding requirements for 40 CFR 60.768(e)(4) are found in 40 CFR 63.1983(e)(4).

• 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(5). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1981(c)(3) to 40 CFR 63.1981(d)(3). These requirements discuss the need for alternative collection systems to demonstrate compliance with the MSW Landfills standards. The original reference is for a report on emissions, instead of the design plan that requires the demonstration of sufficiency of alternatives. The requirements in 40 CFR 63.1960(a)(5) mirror those in 40 CFR 60.765(a)(6), which refers to 40 CFR 60.767(c)(3). The requirements in 40 CFR 60.767(c)(3) match those in 40 CFR 63.1981(d)(3).

• 40 CFR 63.1960(b). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1981(b) to 40 CFR 63.1981(d). The requirements discuss the timing of installation for system components included in the landfill's design plan, but the reference points to a report for landfill capacity instead of the design plan. The requirements in 40 CFR 63.1960(b) match those in 40 CFR 60.765(b), which refers to 40 CFR 60.767(c). The requirements corresponding to those in 40 CFR 60.767(c) are found in 40 CFR 63.1981(d).

• 40 CFR 63.1960(e)(2). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1958(c)(1) to 40 CFR 63.1958(e)(1). The text in 40 CFR 63.1960(e) describes the requirements for MSW landfills during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). At proposal, the regulatory text incorrectly referenced operational standards for temperature instead of SSM events in two places. While one of the references was corrected in the final rule, the second was overlooked and is being corrected here. See Section IV.D.3 of the preamble to the final rule (at 85 FR 17255, March 26, 2020).

• 40 CFR 63.1961(f). Correct the reference from 40 CFR 63.1981(i) to 40 CFR 63.1981(h). The requirements for demonstrating compliance with the surface methane operational standard state that certain information must be included in the semi-annual report but cite the paragraph for the initial performance test report instead of the paragraph containing requirements for semi-annual reporting.

• 40 CFR 63.1983(g). Correct the reference from paragraphs 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(1) through (5) to 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(1) through (6). This section discusses the requirement to keep records of certain gas collection and control system parameters that are measured during system operation. While the requirements were revised from 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(1) through (5) in the proposal to 40 CFR 63.1961(a)(1) through (6) in the final, the corresponding reference was not updated. The changes to the requirements were discussed in section IV.D.1 of the preamble to the final rule at 85 FR 17253-17254 (March 26, 2020).

With this document, the EPA is also clarifying its intent on certain requirements in the March 26, 2020, final rule where questions have arisen on implementation.

• 40 CFR 63.1958(c). Add text to clarify when the revised wellhead interior operating standard applies. Prior to compliance with the amended standards, a landfill owner must operate each interior wellhead in the collection system as specified in 40 CFR 60.753(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. The requirements in 40 CFR 60.753(c) require landfill owners to operate each interior wellhead with landfill gas temperatures less than 55 degrees Celsius and with either a nitrogen level less than 20 percent or an oxygen level less than 5 percent. As explained in the preamble to the final rule at 85 FR 17248 (March 26, 2020), the amendments to the MSW Landfills NESHAP eliminated the operational standards for nitrogen and oxygen and increased the temperature operating standard. The final regulatory text was unclear as to whether or not the nitrogen and oxygen standards remained in effect after the compliance date of September 27, 2021. Thus, the correction clarifies that landfill owners do not need to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.753(c) of 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW once they comply with the amended standards.

• Table 1 to Subpart AAAA—Applicability of NESHAP General Provisions to Subpart AAAA. Revise Footnote 2 to clarify the intent that landfill owners or operators do not need to submit duplicate notifications under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA if they have already submitted notifications under either 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW or subpart XXX, or a state or federal plan implementing 40 CFR part Cc or Cf, that contain the same information as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. This clarification is consistent with the regulatory text in the introductory paragraph to 40 CFR 63.1981 that states that submission of parallel reports under 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW; 40 CFR part XXX; or a state or federal plan implementing 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cc or 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf constitutes compliance with parallel requirements in that section.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because, as explained here and in each bullet above, the changes to the rule are minor technical corrections, are noncontroversial in nature, and do not substantively change the requirements of the MSW Landfills NESHAP. Rather, the changes align the cross-references in the requirements of the MSW Landfills NESHAP with corresponding cross-references in the requirements of the Emission Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for MSW Landfills in 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cf and XXX. Additionally, the revisions correct the regulatory text to match other intended minor revisions described in the preamble to the final rule. Thus, notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR parts 60 and 63 as follows:

In FR Doc. 2020-11342 of June 2, 2020 (85 FR 33796), there were a number of technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document. The provisions in this correction document are effective as if they had been included in the document published June 2, 2020. Accordingly, the corrections are effective August 3, 2020.

On page 33820, in our discussion of dual eligible special needs plans, we inadvertently included a disclaimer that was not applicable to the published final rule.

On pages 33876 and 33877, in our discussion of the information collection requirements regarding Special Supplemental Benefits for the Chronically Ill (SSBCI), we inadvertently identified the wrong Paperwork Reduction Act package in our narrative and omitted several Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers from Table 3.

On page 33881, in our discussion of the information collection requirements regarding medical savings account (MSA) medical loss ratio (MLR), we made inadvertent errors the amount of time it would take beneficiaries to complete an enrollment form.

On page 33883, in the table that provides a summary of the annual information collection burden (Table 6), we made the following typographical errors:

• In the table title, we included the term “requirements” instead of “burden”.

• In the SSBCI entries there were errors in the identification numbers in the “OMB Control No.” column.

• In the MSA MLR entries, there were errors in the values and numbers for the “Regulatory citation”, “OMB Control No.”, “Total number of respondents”, and the “Total number of responses”.

On pages 33889 and 33890, in the table that displays the per-year calculations regarding kidney acquisition costs (Table 11), we made inadvertent errors in the table title (we omitted “s” in the term “costs”). Additionally, on page 33890, the column headings are listed for the years 2013 to 2020 instead of 2021 to 2030.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register before the provisions of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 1871(b)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary to provide for notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA, and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandate a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the notice and comment and delay in effective date APA requirements; in cases in which these exceptions apply, sections 1871(b)(2)(C) and 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provide exceptions from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA and section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorize an agency to dispense with normal rulemaking requirements for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, both section 553(d)(3) of the APA and section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allow the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and an agency includes a statement of support.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

We believe that this correcting document does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements of the APA or section 1871 of the Act. This correcting document corrects technical errors in the preamble and regulation text of the final rule but does not make substantive changes to the policies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this correcting document is intended to ensure that the information in the final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that final rule.

In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest to ensure that final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering payment eligibility or benefit methodologies or policies, but rather, simply implementing correctly the policies that we previously proposed, received comment on, and subsequently finalized. This correcting document is intended solely to ensure that the final rule accurately reflects these policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements.

In FR Doc. 2020-11342 of June 2, 2020 (85 FR 33796), make the following corrections:

1. On page 33820, lower third of the page, the text box that includes the phrase “DISCLAIMER: Based on the tight time constraints and the need to expedite” is corrected by removing the text box.

2. On page 33876, lower three-fourths of the page (after the table), second column, sixth full paragraph, lines 6 and 7, the reference to “control number 0938-0763 (CMS-R-262)” is corrected to read “control number 0938-0753 (CMS-R-267)”.

3. On page 33877, lower third of the page, the table titled “TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF BURDEN FOR SSBCI AT § 422.102” is corrected by correcting the third column (OMB Control No.) for the listed entries (SSBCI provisions) to read as follows:

4. On page 33881, first column, fourth full paragraph, line 8, the phrase “0.5 hours at $25.72/hr” is corrected to read “0.3333 hours at $25.72/hr”

5. On page 33883, in the table titled “TABLE 6—ANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS” the table is corrected by—

a. Correcting the table title “TABLE 6—ANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS” to read “TABLE 6—ANNUAL INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN”.

b. Correcting the second (Regulatory citation), third (OMB Control No.), sixth (Total number of respondents), and seventh columns (Total number of responses) for the listed entry (third row the first MSA MLR provision) to read as follows:

c. Correcting the identification numbers in third column (OMB Control No.) for the listed entries (SSBCI provisions) to read as follows:

d. Correcting the second (Regulatory citation) and seventh columns (Total number of responses) for the listed entries (the specified MSA MLR provisions) to read as follows:

e. Correcting column 2 (Regulatory citation) for the listed entry (the specified MSA MLR provision) to read as follows:

6. On pages 33889 and 33890, in the table titled “Table 11, Per-Year Calculations, Representing the Pre-Statute Baseline Based on Medicare FFS Coverage of Kidney Acquisition Cost”, the table title and table are corrected to read as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 20-718, adopted and released on August 5, 2020. The full text of this document is available by downloading the text from the Commission's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-718A1.pdf.

1. Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, requires a regulatory flexibility analysis in notice and comment rulemaking proceedings. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). As we are adopting these rules without notice and comment, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

3. The Commission will not send a copy of the Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the adopted rules are rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not “substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.” See 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).

4. In the Order, the Office of Managing Director of the Federal Communications Commission amends the Commission's rules to reflect the upcoming new address for the Commission's headquarters, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554 in light of the Commission's upcoming move to a new headquarters building. 1 In addition, the Order clarifies that certain documents are now available for inspection through the Commission's website, removes references to a Commission copy contractor, and performs minor formatting corrections. Finally, the Order notes that in a separate order released on May 28, 2020, the Commission's rules were amended to reflect the new address for filing hand-carried documents at the FCC's headquarters and establish a new closing time for accepting such filings. Those changes remain in effect and are not impacted by the actions here.

5. This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated by §§ 0.11 and 0.231 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.11 and 0.231.

6. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 5(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(e) and 155(d), it is ordered that the respective parts of the Commission's rules are amended in the manner indicated in the Appendix of the Order, to be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 3, 11, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 52, 64, 67, 68, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 87, 90, 95, and 101 as follows:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on or after the effective date and time of a closure notice for that category until the opening of the relevant subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.

The current baseline General and Reserve category quotas are 555.7 mt and 29.5 mt, respectively. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. The baseline subquotas for each time period are as follows: 29.5 mt for January; 277.9 mt for June through August; 147.3 mt for September; 72.2 mt for October through November; and 28.9 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward from one time period to the next, and is available for use in subsequent time periods. To date, NMFS has taken several actions that resulted in adjustments to the General and Reserve category quotas, resulting in currently adjusted quotas of 128.7 mt of quota for the Reserve category, 100 mt for the General category January through March 2020 subquota period, and 9.4 mt for the December 2020 subquota period (85 FR 17, January 2, 2020; 85 FR 6828, February 6, 2020; 85 FR 43148, July 16, 2020; 85 FR 59445, September 22, 2020; and 85 FR 61872, October 1, 2020).

Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering regulatory determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

Regarding the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)), biological samples collected from BFT landed by General category fishermen and provided by bluefin tuna dealers continue to provide valuable data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT in the General category would support the continued collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota to date (including during the fall and winter fisheries in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii) and (ix)). Preliminary landings data as of October 7, 2020, indicate that the General category landed 67.3 mt for the October through November period. This represents 93 percent of the baseline October through November subquota (72.2 mt). At the time of drafting of this inseason action, the General category subquota has not yet been exceeded, but without a quota transfer at this time, NMFS would likely close the General category fishery shortly, and participants would have to stop bluefin tuna fishing activities while commercial-sized bluefin tuna remain available in the areas where General category permitted vessels operate at this time of year. Transferring 40 mt of quota from the Reserve category would result in 112.2 mt being available for the October through November 2020 subquota period, thus effectively providing limited additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. bluefin tuna quota while avoiding exceeding it. Given the lag between initiation of an inseason action and its implementation, however, this notice also closes the fishery, as NMFS anticipates the transferred quota will be caught quickly. NMFS plans to account for General category overharvest from the September 2020 subquota period (preliminarily 43.5 mt as of October 7, 2020), as well as additional landings from the June through August period not previously accounted for in 85 FR 59445 (September 22, 2020), in a subsequent notice, such as the notice NMFS would prepare to announce a quota transfer from the Reserve to the General category December subquota period.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota (here, the General category) to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iii)), NMFS anticipates that all of the 40 mt of transferred quota will be used by October 9, based on current figures and the amount of quota being transferred, but this is also subject to weather conditions and BFT availability. In the unlikely event that any of this quota is unused by November 30, such quota will roll forward to the next subperiod within the calendar year ( i.e., the December period), and NMFS anticipates that it would be used before the end of the fishing year. Thus, this quota transfer would allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish on the fishing grounds, and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full U.S. BFT quota.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2020 landings and dead discards. In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. NMFS will need to account for 2020 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that, even with the 40-mt transfer to the General category for the October through November fishery. NMFS anticipates that General category participants in all areas and time periods will have opportunities to harvest the General category quota in 2020, through active inseason management such as the timing of quota transfers, as practicable. Thus, this quota transfer would allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish on the fishing grounds to the extent consistent with the available amount of transferrable quota and other management objectives, while avoiding quota exceedance.

NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on the BFT stock and the effects of the transfer on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be consistent with the current quotas, which were established and analyzed in the 2018 BFT quota final rule (83 FR 51391, October 11, 2018), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments and is not expected to negatively impact stock health or to affect the stock in ways not already analyzed in those documents. Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)). Specific to the General category, this includes providing opportunity equitably across all time periods.

Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 40 mt of the available 128.7 mt of Reserve category quota to the General category for the October through November 2020 fishery, resulting in a subquota of 112.2 mt for the October through November 2020 fishery and 88.7 mt in the Reserve category.

Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery, NMFS has determined that the adjusted October through November subquota of 112.2 mt, adjusted in this action, is projected to be reached shortly ( i.e., as of October 7, reported landings total approximately 67.3 mt) and that the General category should be closed. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General category and HMS Charter/Headboat category (while fishing commercially) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on October 9, 2020. The General category will automatically reopen December 1, 2020, for the December 2020 subquota time period. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent overharvest of the available adjusted October through November subquota.

Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/outreach-and-education/careful-catch-and-release-brochure/.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

After the fishery reopens on December 1, depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 635, which was issued pursuant to section 304(c), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, for the following reasons: The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. This fishery is currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in BFT landings exceeding the adjusted October through November 2020 General category quota. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as such a delay would likely result in exceedance of the General category October through November fishery subquota or earlier closure of the fishery while fish are available on the fishing grounds. Subquota exceedance may result in the need to reduce quota for the General category later in the year and thus could affect later fishing opportunities. This action does not raise conservation and management concerns. Transferring quota from the Reserve category to the General category does not affect the overall U.S. BFT quota, and available data shows the adjustment would have a minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

In the BSAI, the 2020 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ reserves are 4,915 metric tons (mt) and 16,425 mt, respectively, as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020) and as revised (85 FR 61875, October 1, 2020). The 2020 rock sole and yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves are 11,538 mt and 11,493 mt, respectively, as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020) and as revised (85 FR 61875, October 1, 2020).

The Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association has requested that NMFS exchange 300 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 300 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves under § 679.31(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.31(d), NMFS exchanges 300 mt of rock sole CDQ reserves for 300 mt of yellowfin sole CDQ ABC reserves in the BSAI. This action also decreases and increases the TACs and CDQ ABC reserves by the corresponding amounts. Tables 11 and 13 of the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (85 FR 13553, March 9, 2020 and 85 FR 61875, October 1, 2020) are further revised as follows:

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the flatfish exchange by the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 1, 2020.