65112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

any C stock prior to year 6, D purchased 20 

percent of the C stock in year 6, and then 

acquired all of the remaining C stock in year 

7, the C stock purchased in year 6 and the 

C stock acquired in year 7 (even if purchased) 

would not be treated as ‘‘other property’’ 

because C becomes a DSAG member. See 

paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section. 

Example 3. Intra-SAG transaction. For 

more than five years, D has owned all of the 

stock of S. D and S, in the aggregate, have 

owned section 368(c) stock but not section 

1504(a)(2) stock of C. Therefore, D and S are 

DSAG members, but C is not. In year 6, D 

purchases S’s C stock. If D distributes all of 

its C stock within five years after the year 6 

purchase, the distribution of the C stock 

purchased in year 6 would not be treated as 

‘‘other property.’’ D’s purchase of the C stock 

from S is disregarded for purposes of 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section because that 

C stock was owned by the DSAG 

immediately before and immediately after the 

purchase. See paragraph (g)(1) of this section. 

Example 4. Affiliate exception. For more 

than five years, P has owned 90 percent of 

the sole outstanding class of the stock of D 

and a portion of the stock of C, and X has 

owned the remaining 10 percent of the D 

stock. Throughout this period, D has owned 

section 368(c) stock but not section 

1504(a)(2) stock of C. In year 6, D purchases 

P’s C stock. However, D does not own section 

1504(a)(2) stock of C after the year 6 

purchase. If D distributes all of its C stock to 

X in exchange for X’s D stock within five 

years after the year 6 purchase, the 

distribution of the C stock purchased in year 

6 would not be treated as ‘‘other property’’ 

because the C stock was purchased from a 

member (P) of the affiliated group (as defined 

in § 1.355–3(b)(4)(iv)) of which D is a 

member, and P did not purchase that C stock 

within the pre-distribution period. See 

paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(i) Effective/applicability date. 

Paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this 

section apply to distributions occurring 

after October 20, 2011. For rules 

regarding distributions occurring on or 

before October 20, 2011, see § 1.355– 

2T(i), as contained in 26 CFR part 1, 

revised as of April 1, 2011. 

§ 1.355–0T [Removed] 

■ Par. 5. Section 1.355–0T is removed. 

§ 1.355–2T [Removed] 

■ Par. 6. Section 1.355–2T is removed. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: October 14, 2011. 

Emily S. McMahon, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 

(Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2011–27240 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 104 

[Docket No. CIV 151] 

RIN 1105–AB39 

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 

Compensation Act of 2010 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is 

correcting a final rule that appeared in 

the Federal Register of August 31, 2011 

(76 FR 54112). That document issued 

regulations implementing the 

amendments made by the James 

Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation 

Act of 2010 (Zadroga Act) with respect 

to the September 11th Victim 

Compensation Fund of 2001. 

DATES: Effective October 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth L. Zwick, Director, Office of 

Management Programs, Civil Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Main 

Building, Room 3140, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, 

telephone 855–885–1555 (TTY 855– 

885–1558). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 

2011–22160 appearing on page 54112 in 

the Federal Register on Wednesday, 

August 31, 2011, the following 

correction is made: 

1. On page 54119, in the third 

column, the paragraph following the 

heading ‘‘Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996’’ is 

revised to read as follows: 

‘‘The Office of Management and 

Budget has determined that this rule is 

a major rule as defined by section 251 

of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 

804. This rule will not result in a major 

increase in costs or prices, or significant 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based companies to compete with 

foreign-based companies in domestic 

and export markets. However, the 

compensation benefits awarded to 

eligible claimants will have an annual 

beneficial impact on the economy of 

$100,000,000 or more in certain years 

until the amounts authorized and 

appropriated for the Victims 

Compensation Fund are fully 

distributed. 

‘‘Title II of the Zadroga Act reactivates 

the September 11th Victim 

Compensation Fund of 2001 and 

requires a Special Master, appointed by 

the Attorney General, to provide 

compensation to any individual (or a 

personal representative of a deceased 

individual) who suffered physical harm 

or was killed as a result of the terroristrelated aircraft crashes of September 11, 

2001, or the debris removal efforts that 

took place in the immediate aftermath of 

those crashes. In view of the need to 

begin processing compensation claims 

as soon as possible, it is impracticable 

for the Department to comply with the 

requirements of section 801 of the 

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, 

pertaining to delayed effective dates of 

major rules without unduly delaying the 

processing of claims. Section 808(2) of 

the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

808(2), provides: ‘‘Notwithstanding 

section 801—* * * (2) any rule which 

an agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefor in the rule 

issued) that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, 

or contrary to the public interest, shall 

take effect at such time as the Federal 

agency promulgating the rule 

determines.’’ Were the Department not 

to invoke the exception provided in 

section 808(2) of the Congressional 

Review Act, eligible claimants would 

have to wait substantially longer to 

begin filing their claims, thereby 

impairing Congress’s goal of providing 

compensation in as expeditious a 

manner as possible (as evidenced by the 

short statutory deadline for 

implementation). Such a delay in 

implementing the compensation process 

would be clearly contrary to the public 

interest. For the foregoing reasons, the 

Special Master finds pursuant to section 

808(2) of the Congressional Review Act, 

5 U.S.C. 808, that good cause exists to 

make this final rule effective October 3, 

2011.’’ 

Dated: October 12, 2011. 

Sheila L. Birnbaum, 

Special Master. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27121 Filed 10–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

32 CFR Part 211 

[Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0054; RIN 0790– 

AI69] 

Mission Compatibility Evaluation 

Process 

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, DoD. 


pmangrum on DSK29S0YB1PROD with RULES