17324 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

group’s limitations period to May 30 of Year 

7 (by operation of sections 6213(a) and 

6503(a)) have the derivative effect of 

extending the period of limitations on 

assessment of U’s transferee liability to May 

30 of Year 8. By operation of section 6901(f), 

the issuance of the notice of transferee 

liability to U and the expiration of the 90-day 

period for filing a petition in the Tax Court 

have the effect of further extending the 

limitations period on assessment of U’s 

liability as a transferee by 150 days, from 

May 30 of Year 8 to October 27 of Year 8. 

Accordingly, the Commissioner may send a 

notice of transferee liability to U at any time 

on or before May 30 of Year 8 and assess the 

unpaid liability against U at any time on or 

before October 27 of Year 8. The result would 

be the same even if S–1 ceased to exist before 

March 1 of Year 5, the date P executed the 

waiver. 

Example 14. Consent to extend the statute 

of limitations for a partnership where a 

member of the consolidated group is a 

partner of such partnership subject to the 

provisions of the Code and the tax matters 

partner is not a member of the group. (i) 

Facts. P is the common parent and agent for 

the P consolidated group consisting of P and 

its two subsidiaries, S and S–1. The P group 

has a November 30 fiscal year end and P files 

consolidated returns for the P group for the 

years ending November 30, Year 1 and 

November 30, Year 2. S–1 is a partner in the 

PRS partnership, which is subject to the 

provisions of sections 6221 through 6234. 

PRS has a calendar year end and A, an 

individual, is the tax matters partner of the 

PRS partnership. PRS files a partnership 

return for the year ending December 31, Year 

1. On January 10, Year 5, A, as the tax 

matters partner for the PRS partnership, 

executes a consent to extend the period for 

assessment of partnership items of PRS for all 

partners, and the Commissioner co-executes 

the consent on the same day for the year 

ending December 31, Year 1. 

(ii) Analysis. A’s consent to extend the 

statute of limitations for the partnership 

items of PRS partnership for the year ending 

December 31, Year 1, extends the statute of 

limitations with respect to the partnership 

items for all members of the P group, 

including P, S, and S–1 for the consolidated 

return year ending November 30, Year 2. This 

is because S–1 is a partner in the PRS 

partnership for which A, the tax matters 

partner for the PRS partnership, consents, 

pursuant to section 6229(b)(1)(B), to extend 

the statute of limitations for the year ending 

December 31, Year 1. However, under 

paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section, such 

agreement with respect to the statute of 

limitations for the PRS partnership for the 

year ending December 31, Year 1 does not 

obviate the need to obtain a consent from P, 

the agent for the P consolidated group, to 

extend the statute of limitations for the P 

consolidated group for the P group’s 

consolidated return years ending November 

30, Year 1 and November 30, Year 2 

regarding any items other than partnership 

items or affected items of the PRS 

partnership. 

Example 15. Contacting subsidiary member 

in order to facilitate the conduct of an 

examination, appeal, or settlement where a 

member of the consolidated group is a 

partner of a partnership subject to the 

provisions of the Code. (i) Facts. P is the 

common parent and agent for the P 

consolidated group consisting of P and its 

two subsidiaries, S and S–1. The P group has 

a November 30 fiscal year end, and P files 

consolidated returns for the P group for the 

years ending November 30, Year 1 and 

November 30, Year 2. S–1 is a partner in the 

PRS partnership, which is subject to the 

provisions of sections 6221 through 6234. 

PRS has a calendar year end and A, an 

individual, is the tax matters partner of the 

PRS partnership. PRS files a partnership 

return for the year ending December 31, Year 

1. The Commissioner, on January 10, Year 4, 

in the course of an examination of the PRS 

partnership for the year ending December 31, 

Year 1, seeks to obtain information in the 

course of that examination to resolve the 

audit. 

(ii) Analysis. Because the direct contact 

with a subsidiary member of a consolidated 

group that is a partner in a partnership 

subject to the provisions under sections 6221 

through 6234 may facilitate the conduct of an 

examination, appeal, or settlement, the 

Commissioner, under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of 

this section, may communicate directly with 

either S–1, P, or A regarding the PRS 

partnership without breaking agency 

pursuant to paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section. 

However, if the Commissioner were instead 

seeking to execute a settlement agreement 

with respect to S–1 as a partner with respect 

to its liability as a partner in PRS 

partnership, P would need to execute such 

settlement agreement for all members of the 

group including the partner subsidiary. 

(h) Cross-reference. For further rules 

applicable to groups that include 

insolvent financial institutions, see 

§ 301.6402–7 of this chapter. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(j) Effective/applicability date—(1) In 

general. The rules of this section apply 

to consolidated return years beginning 

on or after April 1, 2015. For prior years 

beginning before June 28, 2002, see 

§ 1.1502–77A. For prior years beginning 

on or after June 28, 2002, and before 

April 1, 2015, see § 1.1502–77B. 

(2) Application of this section to prior 

years. Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1) 

of this section, an agent may apply the 

rules of paragraph (c)(7) of this section 

to resign as agent for a completed year 

that began before April 1, 2015. 

§ 1.1502–78 [Amended] 

■ Par. 6. Section 1.1502–78 is amended 

as follows: 

■ 1. Paragraph (a) is amended by 

removing every occurrence of the 

language ‘‘(or substitute agent 

designated under § 1.1502–77(d) for the 

carryback year)’’ and adding ‘‘(or the 

agent determined under § 1.1502–77(c) 

or § 1.1502–77B(d) for the carryback 

year)’’ in its place. 

■ 2. Paragraph (b)(1) is amended by 

removing the language ‘‘(or substitute 

agent designated under § 1.1502–77(d) 

for the carryback year)’’ and adding ‘‘(or 

the agent determined under § 1.1502– 

77(c) or § 1.1502–77B(d) for the 

carryback year)’’ in its place. 

■ 3. Paragraph (c) is amended by 

removing each occurrence of the 

language ‘‘1966’’ and adding ‘‘2003’’ in 

its place; removing the language ‘‘1967’’ 

and adding ‘‘2004’’ in its place; 

removing each occurrence of the 

language ‘‘1968’’ and adding ‘‘2005’’ in 

its place; and removing each occurrence 

of the language ‘‘1969’’ and adding 

‘‘2006’’ in its place. 

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

UNDER THE PAPERWORK 

REDUCTION ACT 

■ Par. 7. The authority citation for part 

602 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. 

■ Par. 8. In § 602.101, revise paragraph 

(b) by adding an entry in numerical 

order to the table to read as follows: 

§ 602.101 OMB Control numbers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR part or section where 

identified and described 

Current OMB 

control No. 

* * * * * 

1.1502–77B .......................... 1545–1699 

* * * * * 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: February 23, 2015. 

Mark D. Mazur, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax 

Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2015–07182 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–0082] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Ontonagon River, Ontonagon, MI 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17325 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing 

the existing drawbridge operation 

regulation for the S64 drawbridge across 

Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, at 

Ontonagon, Ontonagon County, 

Michigan. The drawbridge was replaced 

with a fixed bridge in 2006 and the 

operating regulation is no longer 

applicable or necessary. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this final 

rule, [USCG–2015–0082] is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Type the 

docket number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box 

and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open 

Docket Folder on the line associated 

with this final rule. You may also visit 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the Department of Transportation West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email Mr. Lee Soule, Bridge 

Management Specialist, Ninth Coast 

Guard District; telephone (216) 902– 

6085, email lee.d.soule@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing the docket, 

call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Regulatory History and Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this final 

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), the Coast Guard finds that good 

cause exists for not publishing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with 

respect to this rule because the S64 

drawbridge, that once required draw 

operations in 33 CFR 117.639, was 

replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. 

Therefore, the regulation is no longer 

applicable and shall be removed from 

publication. It is unnecessary to publish 

an NPRM because this regulatory action 

does not purport to place any 

restrictions on mariners but rather 

removes a restriction that has no further 

use or value. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective in less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The bridge has been a fixed 

bridge for 9 years and this rule merely 

requires an administrative change to the 

Federal Register, in order to omit a 

regulatory requirement that is no longer 

applicable or necessary. The 

modification has already taken place 

and the removal of the regulation will 

not affect mariners currently operating 

on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed 

effective date is unnecessary. 

B. Basis and Purpose 

The S64 drawbridge across the 

Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, was removed 

and replaced with a fixed bridge in 

2006. It has come to the attention of the 

Coast Guard that the governing 

regulation for this drawbridge was never 

removed subsequent to the removal of 

the drawbridge and completion of the 

fixed bridge that replaced it. The 

elimination of this drawbridge 

necessitates the removal of the 

drawbridge operation regulation, 33 

CFR 117.639,that pertained to the 

former drawbridge. 

The purpose of this rule is to remove 

33 CFR 117.639 from the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) since it 

governs a bridge that is no longer able 

to be opened. 

C. Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is changing the 

regulation in 33 CFR 117.639 by 

removing restrictions and the regulatory 

burden related to the draw operations 

for this bridge that is no longer a 

drawbridge. The change removes the 

regulation governing the S64 

drawbridge since the bridge has been 

replaced with a fixed bridge. This Final 

Rule seeks to update the CFR by 

removing language that governs the 

operation of the S64 drawbridge, which 

in fact is no longer a drawbridge. This 

change does not affect waterway or land 

traffic. 

D. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes or executive 

orders. 

1. Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under 

section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The 

Office of Management and Budget has 

not reviewed it under those Orders. 

The Coast Guard does not consider 

this rule to be ‘‘significant’’ under that 

Order because it is an administrative 

change and does not affect the way 

vessels operate on the waterway. 

2. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 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 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. 

This rule will have no effect on small 

entities since this drawbridge has been 

replaced with a fixed bridge and the 

regulation governing draw operations 

for this bridge is no longer applicable. 

There is no new restriction or regulation 

being imposed by this rule; therefore, 

the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

3. Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

4. Federalism 

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 does not have 

implications for federalism. 

5. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact 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. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
17326 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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. 

7. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

8. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

9. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

10. Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

11. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

12. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded 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 

removing drawbridge operating 

regulations. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(32)(e), of the Instruction. 

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of 

the Instruction, an environmental 

analysis checklist and a categorical 

exclusion determination are not 

required for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

§ 117.639 [Removed] 

■ 2. Remove § 117.639. 

Dated: March 19, 2015. 

F. M. Midgette, 

Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, 

Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07318 Filed 3–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 161 and 164 

[Docket No. USCG–2005–21869] 

RIN 1625–AA99 

Vessel Requirements for Notices of 

Arrival and Departure, and Automatic 

Identification System 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a 

final rule in the Federal Register on 

January 30, 2015, to expand the 

applicability of notice of arrival and 

automatic identification system (AIS) 

requirements and make related 

amendments regarding AIS. In that rule 

there is an error in the definition of 

Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) User and 

one in the AIS applicability regulation. 

This rule corrects those errors. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email call or email Mr. Jorge Arroyo, 

Office of Navigation Systems (CG–NAV– 

2), Coast Guard; telephone 202–372– 

1563, email Jorge.Arroyo@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Viewing Documents Associated With 

This Rule 

To view the final rule published on 

January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other 

documents in the docket for this 

rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov, 

type the docket number, USCG–2005– 

21869, in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder’’ in the first item listed. Use the 

following link to go directly to the 

docket: www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869. 

Background 

On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard 

published a final rule to expand the 

applicability of notice of arrival and 

automatic identification system (AIS) 

requirements and make related 

amendments regarding AIS. 80 FR 5282. 

We have identified two errors in this 

correction document. 

In the final rule, we revised the 

definition of ‘‘VTS User’’ (Vessel Traffic 

Service User) in 33 CFR 161.2. 80 FR 

5334. Paragraph (3) of that definition 

should only have included vessels 

required to install and use a Coast 

Guard type-approved AIS, instead the 

definition included all vessels equipped 

with a Coast Guard type-approved AIS 

whether it is required or not. The 

definition published in the final rule is 

inconsistent with the discussion in the 

preambles of both the NPRM and final 

rule which encourage all vessel owners 

to use AIS. 73 FR 76295, 76301, 

December 16, 2008; and 80 FR 5311, 

Jan. 30, 2015. The definition of ‘‘VTS 

User’’ in the final rule is also 

inconsistent with our authority to 

impose VTS User requirements. 

Also in the final rule at paragraph 

(b)(1)(iii) of 33 CFR 164.46, we omitted 

the word ‘‘self-propelled’’ when 

describing vessels certificated to carry 

more than 150 passengers that are 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES