20354 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

in making its recommendation and 

report, available to the tribe, subject to 

the confidentiality requirements in 25 

U.S.C. 2716(a), and shall afford the tribe 

an opportunity to respond. 

(4) The report shall include: 

(i) Findings as to whether each of the 

eligibility criteria is met, and a summary 

of the basis for each finding; 

(ii) Findings as to whether each of the 

approval criteria is met, and a summary 

of the basis for each finding; 

(iii) A recommendation to the 

Commission as to whether it should 

issue the tribe a certificate of selfregulation; and 

(iv) A list of any documents and other 

information received in support of the 

tribe’s petition. 

(5) A tribe shall have 30 days from the 

date of issuance of the report to submit 

to the Office of Self-Regulation a 

response to the report. 

(d) After receiving the Office of SelfRegulation’s recommendation and 

report, and a tribe’s response to the 

report, the Commission shall issue 

preliminary findings as to whether the 

eligibility and approval criteria are met. 

The Commission’s preliminary findings 

will be provided to the tribe within 45 

days of receipt of the report. 

(e) Upon receipt of the Commission’s 

preliminary findings, the tribe can 

request, in writing, a hearing before the 

Commission, as set forth in § 518.8. 

Hearing requests shall be made to the 

Office of Self-Regulation and shall 

specify the issues to be addressed by the 

tribe at the hearing and any proposed 

oral or written testimony the tribe 

wishes to present. 

(f) The Commission shall issue a final 

determination within 30 days after 

issuance of its preliminary findings if 

the tribe has informed the Commission 

in writing that the tribe does not request 

a hearing or within 30 days after the 

conclusion of a hearing, if one is held. 

The decision of the Commission to 

approve or deny a petition shall be a 

final agency action. 

(g) A tribe may withdraw its petition 

and resubmit it at any time prior to the 

issuance of the Commission’s final 

determination. 

■ 3. Revise § 518.11 to read as follows: 

§ 518.11 Does a tribe that holds a 

certificate of self-regulation have a 

continuing duty to advise the Commission 

of any additional information? 

Yes. A tribe that holds a certificate of 

self-regulation has a continuing duty to 

advise the Office of Self-Regulation 

within ten business days of any changes 

in circumstances that are material to the 

approval criteria in § 518.5 and may 

reasonably cause the Commission to 

review and revoke the tribe’s certificate 

of self-regulation. Failure to do so is 

grounds for revocation of a certificate of 

self-regulation. 

■ 4. Revise §§ 518.13 and 518.14 to read 

as follows: 

§ 518.13 When may the Commission 

revoke a certificate of self-regulation? 

If the Office of Self-Regulation 

determines that the tribe no longer 

meets or did not comply with the 

eligibility criteria of § 518.3, the 

approval criteria of § 518.5, the 

requirements of § 518.10, or the 

requirements of § 518.11, the Office of 

Self-Regulation shall prepare a written 

recommendation to the Commission and 

deliver a copy of the recommendation to 

the tribe. The Office of Self-Regulation’s 

recommendation shall state the reasons 

for the recommendation and shall 

advise the tribe of its right to a hearing 

under part 584 of this chapter or right 

to appeal under part 585 of this chapter. 

The Commission may, after an 

opportunity for a hearing, revoke a 

certificate of self-regulation by a 

majority vote of its members if it 

determines that the tribe no longer 

meets or did not comply with the 

eligibility criteria of § 518.3, the 

approval criteria of § 518.5, the 

requirements of § 518.10, or the 

requirements of § 518.11. 

§ 518.14 May a tribe request a hearing on 

the Commission’s proposal to revoke its 

certificate of self-regulation? 

Yes. A tribe may request a hearing 

regarding the Office of Self-Regulation’s 

recommendation that the Commission 

revoke a certificate of self-regulation. 

Such a request shall be filed with the 

Commission pursuant to part 584 of this 

chapter. Failure to request a hearing 

within the time provided by part 584 of 

this chapter shall constitute a waiver of 

the right to a hearing. At any hearing 

where the Commission considers 

revoking a certificate, the Office of SelfRegulation bears the burden of proof to 

support its recommendation by a 

preponderance of the evidence. The 

decision to revoke a certificate is a final 

agency action and is appealable to 

Federal District Court pursuant to 25 

U.S.C. 2714. 

Date: March 24, 2022. 

E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, 

Chairman. 

Jeannie Hovland, 

Vice Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06617 Filed 4–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–114339–21] 

RIN 1545–BQ16 

Affordability of Employer Coverage for 

Family Members of Employees 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal of a notice of proposed 

rulemaking; notification of hearing. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed regulations under section 36B 

of the Internal Revenue Code (the 

‘‘Code’’) that would amend the existing 

regulations regarding eligibility for the 

premium tax credit (‘‘PTC’’) to provide 

that affordability of employer-sponsored 

minimum essential coverage (employer 

coverage) for family members of an 

employee is determined based on the 

employee’s share of the cost of covering 

the employee and those family 

members, not the cost of covering only 

the employee. The proposed regulations 

also would add a minimum value rule 

for family members of employees based 

on the benefits provided to the family 

members. The proposed regulations 

would affect taxpayers who enroll, or 

enroll a family member, in individual 

health insurance coverage through a 

Health Insurance Exchange 

(‘‘Exchange’’) and who may be allowed 

a PTC for the coverage. This document 

also provides a notice of a public 

hearing on these proposed regulations. 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

must be received by June 6, 2022. As of 

April 7, 2022, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking published in the Federal 

Register on September 1, 2015 (80 FR 

52678), is withdrawn. A public hearing 

has been scheduled for Monday, June 

27, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. EDT. The IRS 

must receive speakers’ outlines of topics 

to be discussed at the public hearing by 

Monday, June 13, 2022. If no outlines 

are received by Monday, June 13, 2022, 

the public hearing will be cancelled. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit public comments 

electronically. Submit electronic 

submissions via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–114339–21) by following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The IRS 

expects to have limited personnel 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 20355 

1As adjusted, the required contribution 

percentage is 9.61 percent for 2022. See Rev. Proc. 

2021–36, 2021–35 I.R.B. 357. For simplicity, this 

preamble refers to 9.5 percent as the required 

contribution percentage. 

available to process public comments 

that are submitted on paper through 

mail. Until further notice, any 

comments submitted on paper will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

The Department of the Treasury 

(‘‘Treasury Department’’) and the IRS 

will publish for public availability any 

comment submitted electronically, and, 

to the extent practicable any paper 

comments submitted, to its public 

docket. Send paper submissions to: 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–114339–21), Room 

5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. 

Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 

Washington, DC 20044. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the proposed regulations, 

Clara Raymond at (202) 317–4718; 

concerning submission of comments or 

outlines, the hearing, or any questions 

to attend the hearing by 

teleconferencing, Regina Johnson at 

(202) 317–5177 (not toll-free numbers) 

or preferably by email to 

publichearings@irs.gov. If emailing, 

please include the following 

information in the subject line: Attend, 

Testify, or Question and REG–114339– 

21. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document contains proposed 

amendments to the Income Tax 

Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under 

section 36B of the Code. 

Section 36B provides a PTC for 

applicable taxpayers who meet certain 

eligibility requirements, including that a 

member of the taxpayer’s family enrolls 

in a qualified health plan (‘‘QHP’’) 

through an Exchange for one or more 

‘‘coverage months.’’ Under § 1.36B–1(d) 

of the Income Tax Regulations, a 

taxpayer’s family consists of the 

taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse if filing 

jointly, and any dependents of the 

taxpayer. 

Section 1.36B–3(d)(1) provides that 

the PTC for a coverage month is the 

lesser of: (i) The premiums for the 

month, reduced by any amounts that 

were refunded, for one or more QHPs in 

which a taxpayer or a member of the 

taxpayer’s family enrolls (‘‘enrollment 

premiums’’); or (ii) the excess of the 

adjusted monthly premium for the 

applicable benchmark plan over 1/12 of 

the product of a taxpayer’s household 

income and the applicable percentage 

for the taxable year (‘‘taxpayer’s 

contribution amount’’). 

Under section 36B(c)(2)(B) and 

§ 1.36B–3(c), a month is a coverage 

month for an individual only if the 

individual is not eligible for minimum 

essential coverage (‘‘MEC’’) for that 

month (other than coverage under a 

health care plan offered in the 

individual market within a state). Under 

section 5000A(f)(1)(B) of the Code, the 

term MEC includes employer coverage. 

If an individual is eligible for employer 

coverage for a given month, no PTC is 

allowed for the individual for that 

month. 

Section 36B(c)(2)(C) generally 

provides that an individual is not 

eligible for employer coverage if the 

coverage offered is unaffordable or does 

not provide minimum value. However, 

if the individual enrolls in employer 

coverage, the individual is eligible for 

MEC, irrespective of whether the 

employer coverage is affordable or 

provides minimum value. See section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(iii) and § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(vii). 

Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) and 

§ 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) generally 

provide that employer coverage is 

unaffordable for an employee if the 

share of the annual premium the 

employee must pay for self-only 

coverage is more than the required 

contribution percentage of household 

income. The required contribution 

percentage is 9.5 percent and is indexed 

annually under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(iv).1

Likewise, § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) 

generally provides that employer 

coverage is unaffordable for individuals 

eligible to enroll in employer coverage 

because of their relationship to the 

employee (related individuals) if the 

share of the annual premium the 

employee must pay for self-only 

coverage is more than the required 

contribution percentage of household 

income. Thus, the employee’s share of 

the premium for family coverage, as 

defined in § 1.36B–1(m), is not 

considered in determining whether 

employer coverage is affordable for 

related individuals. 

Under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 

§ 1.36B–6(a)(1), an eligible employersponsored plan provides minimum 

value only if the plan’s share of the total 

allowed costs of benefits provided to an 

employee is at least 60 percent. On 

November 4, 2014, the IRS released 

Notice 2014–69, 2014–48 I.R.B. 903, 

which advised taxpayers of the intent to 

propose regulations providing that plans 

that fail to provide substantial coverage 

for inpatient hospitalization or 

physician services also do not provide 

minimum value. Notice 2014–69 noted 

that the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) was 

concurrently issuing parallel guidance 

and also provided that, pending 

issuance of final Treasury regulations, 

an employee will not be required to 

treat a non-hospital/non-physician 

services plan as providing minimum 

value for purposes of an employee’s 

eligibility for a PTC. 

On November 26, 2014, HHS issued 

proposed regulations providing that an 

eligible employer-sponsored plan 

provides minimum value only if, in 

addition to covering at least 60 percent 

of the total allowed costs of benefits 

provided under the plan, the plan 

benefits include substantial coverage of 

inpatient hospital services and 

physician services. See 79 FR 70674. On 

February 27, 2015, HHS finalized this 

minimum value rule at 45 CFR 

156.145(a). See 80 FR 10750, 10872. On 

September 1, 2015, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS issued 

proposed regulations under section 36B 

(REG–143800–14, 80 FR 52678) (2015 

proposed regulations) incorporating the 

substance of the minimum value rule in 

the HHS final regulations. The rule in 

the 2015 proposed regulations issued by 

the Treasury Department and the IRS 

relating to substantial coverage of 

inpatient hospital services and 

physician services has not been 

finalized. 

On January 28, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14009, 

Strengthening Medicaid and the 

Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 3(a) 

of E.O. 14009 directs the Secretary of 

the Treasury to review, as soon as 

practicable, all existing regulations and 

other agency actions to determine 

whether the actions are inconsistent 

with the policy to protect and 

strengthen the ACA. Section 3(a)(v) of 

E.O. 14009 also directs the Secretary of 

the Treasury, as part of this review, to 

examine policies or practices that may 

reduce the affordability of coverage or 

financial assistance for coverage, 

including for dependents. 

Consequently, the Treasury Department 

and the IRS have reviewed the 

regulations under section 36B, 

including § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2), 

which provides that the affordability of 

employer coverage for related 

individuals is based on the employee’s 

share of the annual premium for selfonly coverage, not the cost of family 

coverage. The Treasury Department and 

the IRS have tentatively determined that 

the rule in § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) is not 

required by the relevant statutes and is 

inconsistent with the overall purpose of 

the ACA to expand access to affordable 

health care coverage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20356 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2Section 5000A provides rules regarding the 

individual shared responsibility payment, 

including an exemption from the payment for 

individuals who have an offer of employer coverage 

that is unaffordable. 

3For example, see https://www.healthaffairs.org/ 

do/10.1377/hblog20210520.564880/full/. 

4Section 5000A(e)(1) provides an exemption from 

the requirement to maintain MEC for individuals 

who are eligible only for coverage that is 

unaffordable. Under section 5000A(e)(1)(A), 

coverage is unaffordable for an individual if the 

individual’s required contribution exceeds a certain 

percentage of the individual’s household income for 

the taxable year. 

Explanation of Provisions 

I. Reasons for Regulatory Changes to 

Affordability Rule 

As explained in the Background 

section of this preamble, individuals 

generally are not allowed a PTC if they 

are eligible for non-individual market 

MEC, including employer coverage. 

However, individuals are not eligible for 

employer coverage if the coverage is 

unaffordable or does not provide 

minimum value, unless they enroll in 

the coverage. Coverage is not affordable 

for an employee if the portion of the 

premiums required to be paid by the 

employee for self-only coverage exceeds 

9.5 percent of household income. The 

current regulations under section 36B 

provide that if self-only employer 

coverage is affordable for an employee, 

then the coverage is also affordable for 

a spouse with whom the employee is 

filing a joint return and any dependents 

of the employee who may be eligible to 

enroll in the employer coverage, 

regardless of the amount the employee 

must pay to cover the spouse and 

dependents. See § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2). 

Section 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) was 

promulgated as a final regulation in 

2013. See TD 9611 (78 FR 7264). The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

explained in the preamble to the 2013 

final regulation that the language of 

section 36B, through the cross-reference 

to section 5000A(e)(1)(B),2 specifies that 

the affordability test for related 

individuals is based on the cost of selfonly coverage. However, the approach 

in the current regulations has 

potentially impacted millions of 

Americans. Among those impacted are 

families with children, some of whom 

have suffered economic hardship. In 

addition, the current approach has 

undermined access to more affordable 

health care coverage by preventing 

access to lower-premium subsidized 

Exchange plans. Under the current 

regulations, a PTC is not allowed for 

children and other family members who 

have been offered employer coverage if 

the cost of the employee’s self-only 

coverage is affordable, regardless of the 

employee’s cost to cover those family 

members. Many of these families 

purchase health insurance, either 

through a family member’s job or an 

Exchange, but pay high portions of their 

income towards premiums. Other 

families forgo coverage altogether due to 

the high premium costs. Several studies 

have analyzed this problem.3

Pursuant to E.O. 14009, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS have 

reexamined the current interpretation of 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) in § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2). The Treasury 

Department and the IRS have 

preliminarily determined that section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(i) does not compel the 

result that if self-only employer 

coverage is affordable for an employee, 

then the coverage also is affordable for 

a spouse and any dependents. To the 

contrary, the Treasury Department and 

the IRS believe that the statute is better 

read to require a separate affordability 

determination for employees and for 

family members. Further, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS are now of the 

view that the interpretation in the 

current regulations unduly weakens the 

ACA by basing affordability solely on 

the premium cost for the employee’s 

self-only coverage and, therefore, the 

interpretation in the current regulations 

is contrary to the policy of the ACA to 

expand access to affordable health care 

coverage. 

As discussed more fully in part II of 

this Explanation of Provisions, the 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

believe that section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) is 

best interpreted in a manner that 

requires consideration of the premium 

cost to the employee to cover not just 

the employee, but also other members of 

the employee’s family who may enroll 

in the employer coverage. This 

interpretation would create consistency 

across parallel provisions of the Code 

enacted by the ACA, specifically with 

regard to the affordability tests in 

sections 36B and 5000A. Consequently, 

the Treasury Department and the IRS 

propose to exercise the regulatory 

authority granted in section 36B(h) to 

adopt an alternative reading of section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(i). Under this alternative 

reading, affordability of employer 

coverage for related individuals in the 

employee’s family is determined based 

on the cost of covering the employee 

and those related individuals. 

II. Affordability Rule for Related 

Individuals 

A. Approach in Current Regulations 

When the Treasury Department and 

the IRS promulgated § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) as a final regulation in 

2013, it was after considerable 

deliberation regarding the affordability 

rule for related individuals. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS first 

issued proposed regulations under 

section 36B in August 2011. See REG– 

131491–10 (76 FR 50931). In addition to 

proposing general rules on all aspects of 

the PTC, the 2011 proposed regulations 

provided that affordability for related 

individuals was based on the amount an 

employee must pay for self-only 

coverage. In response to the 2011 

proposed regulations, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS received a 

significant number of comments on the 

proposed affordability rule for related 

individuals. To fully consider those 

comments and ensure a comprehensive 

analysis of the issue, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS promulgated 

final regulations in May 2012 that 

reserved with respect to the affordability 

rule for related individuals and stated 

that future regulations would address 

the issue. See TD 9590 (77 FR 30377). 

In February 2013, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS finalized the 

affordability rule for related individuals 

as initially proposed in 2011. See TD 

9611 (78 FR 7264). In finalizing the rule 

as initially proposed in 2011—that is, 

providing that affordability for related 

individuals was based on the amount an 

employee must pay for self-only 

coverage—the Treasury Department and 

the IRS focused on the relevant statutory 

provisions in sections 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II), 

5000A(e)(1)(B), and 5000A(e)(1)(C). 

Under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II), an 

employee who does not enroll in 

employer coverage is not considered 

eligible for the coverage if ‘‘the 

employee’s required contribution 

(within the meaning of section 

5000A(e)(1)(B)) with respect to the plan 

exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable 

taxpayer’s household income.’’ The 

flush language following this provision 

provides that ‘‘[t]his clause shall also 

apply to an individual who is eligible to 

enroll in the plan by reason of a 

relationship the individual bears to the 

employee.’’ This flush language does 

not specify how the language in section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) is intended to apply 

with respect to related individuals or 

how the cross-reference to section 

5000A(e)(1)(B) is to be understood with 

regard to coverage of related 

individuals. 

Section 5000A(e)(1)(B)(i) 4 provides 

that, for an employee eligible to 

purchase employer coverage, the term 

‘‘required contribution’’ means ‘‘the 

portion of the annual premium which 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 20357 

5 In Joint Committee on Taxation, Technical 

Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the 

’’Reconciliation Act of 2010,’’ as amended, in 

combination with the ‘‘Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act,’’ (JCX–18–10), March 21, 2010 

(the JCT report), the Joint Committee staff initially 

explained that ‘‘[u]naffordable is defined as 

coverage with a premium required to be paid by the 

employee that is 9.5 percent or more of the 

employee’s household income, based on the type of 

coverage applicable (e.g., individual or family 

coverage).’’ The quoted language was later revised 

to state that ‘‘[u]naffordable is defined as coverage 

with a premium required to be paid by the 

employee that is 9.5 percent or more of the 

employee’s household income, based on self-only 

coverage.’’ See ERRATA for JCX–18–10, (JCX–27– 

10), May 4, 2010. Although the JCT report does not 

compel any particular reading of section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) as it relates to family coverage, 

these differing interpretations by the Joint 

Committee staff further demonstrate the statutory 

ambiguity that renders either interpretation 

available under the ACA. 

would be paid by the individual . . . for 

self-only coverage.’’ For related 

individuals, the definition of ‘‘required 

contribution’’ in section 

5000A(e)(1)(B)(i) is modified by a 

‘‘special rule’’ in section 5000A(e)(1)(C). 

Section 5000A(e)(1)(C) provides that 

‘‘[f]or purposes of [section 

5000A(e)(1)](B)(i), if an . . . individual 

is eligible for minimum essential 

coverage through an employer by reason 

of a relationship to an employee, the 

determination under subparagraph (A) 

shall be made by reference to the 

required contribution of the employee.’’ 

The regulations under section 5000A 

interpret section 5000A(e)(1)(C) as 

modifying the required contribution 

rule in section 5000A(e)(1)(B)(i) with 

regard to coverage for related 

individuals to take into account the cost 

of covering the employee and the 

related individuals, not just the 

employee. Specifically, with respect to 

related individuals, § 1.5000A– 

3(e)(3)(ii)(B) provides that the required 

contribution for related individuals is 

the amount an employee must pay to 

cover the employee and the related 

individuals. The affordability rule for 

related individuals in § 1.5000A– 

3(e)(3)(ii)(B) was proposed on the same 

day that the affordability rule for related 

individuals in § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) 

was finalized in TD 9611. 

When § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) was 

promulgated as a final regulation in 

2013, the Treasury Department and the 

IRS considered the statutory language of 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) and its crossreference to section 5000A(e)(1)(B), as 

well as the statutory language of section 

5000A(e)(1)(B) and the cross-reference 

in section 5000A(e)(1)(C) to section 

5000A(e)(1)(B). Under one reading of 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II), the 

affordability rule for related individuals 

is determined solely by reference to 

section 5000A(e)(1)(B), without the 

modification to that section for related 

individuals provided by section 

5000A(e)(1)(C). This reading results in 

affordability being determined based on 

the cost of self-only coverage to the 

employee. Under an alternative reading, 

the affordability rule for related 

individuals is determined by reference 

to section 5000A(e)(1)(B) taking into 

account the modification by section 

5000A(e)(1)(C). With the issuance of 

current § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2), the 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

adopted the interpretation that 

affordability of employer coverage for 

related individuals is based on the cost 

of self-only coverage to the employee. 

B. Approach in Proposed Regulations 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

recognize that the statutory language in 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) supports two 

different readings. Under one reading, 

reflected in current § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2), the affordability rule for 

related individuals is determined solely 

by reference to section 5000A(e)(1)(B), 

without the modification to that section 

for related individuals provided by 

section 5000A(e)(1)(C). This reading 

results in affordability being determined 

based on the cost of self-only coverage 

to the employee. Under an alternative 

reading, however, the affordability rule 

for related individuals is determined by 

reference to section 5000A(e)(1)(B), but 

also encompasses the modification of 

5000A(e)(1)(B) by section 

5000A(e)(1)(C), which provides a 

special rule for related individuals. 

These proposed regulations would 

adopt the alternative reading, which the 

Treasury Department and the IRS have 

now preliminarily concluded is the 

better reading of these provisions. 

Under this interpretation, because 

section 5000A(e)(1)(C) begins with the 

language ‘‘[f]or purposes of [section 

5000A(e)(1)](B)(i),’’ the parenthetical 

cross reference in section 

36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) to section 

5000A(e)(1)(B)(i) is understood to 

incorporate the special rule in section 

5000A(e)(1)(C) that modifies the 

required contribution rule in section 

5000A(e)(1)(B)(i) when the coverage in 

question is for related individuals. 

Under this interpretation, a specific 

reference in the flush language of 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) to section 

5000A(e)(1)(C) is not necessary to 

require the consideration of section 

5000A(e)(1)(C) in determining 

affordability for related individuals for 

section 36B purposes.5

This proposed amendment to the 

affordability rule for related individuals 

would create greater consistency 

between the affordability rules in 

section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) and the 

affordability rules in section 

5000A(e)(1). The proposed amendment 

would also promote consistency 

between the affordability rules in these 

provisions and 42 U.S.C. 18081(b)(4)(C), 

which requires Exchange applicants to 

separately provide the required 

contributions of employees and of 

related individuals in order to 

determine PTC eligibility; in the 

Treasury Department’s and the IRS’s 

view, the requirement to provide this 

information would make little sense if 

PTC eligibility depended only on the 

cost to the employee for self-only 

coverage. In addition, the proposed 

amendment would also support efforts 

to achieve the goal of the ACA to 

provide affordable, quality health care 

for all Americans. See H.R. Rep. No. 

111–243 (2009). 

The proposed regulations would 

provide that an eligible employersponsored plan is affordable for related 

individuals if the portion of the annual 

premium the employee must pay for 

family coverage, that is, the employee’s 

required contribution, does not exceed 

9.5 percent of household income. For 

this purpose, family coverage means all 

employer plans that cover any related 

individual other than the employee, 

including a self plus-one plan for an 

employee enrolling one other family 

member in the coverage. An employee’s 

required contribution for family 

coverage is the portion of the annual 

premium the employee must pay for 

coverage of the employee and all other 

individuals included in the employee’s 

family who are offered the coverage. 

Some individuals who are not part of 

the tax family might nonetheless be 

offered the employer coverage. For 

example, children up to age 26 might be 

offered coverage by the taxpayer’s 

employer, but those adult children 

might not be reported on the employee’s 

tax return because they do not qualify 

as dependents of the employee. The cost 

of covering individuals who are offered 

the coverage but are not in the 

employee’s family is not considered in 

determining whether the employee’s 

family members have an offer of 

affordable employer coverage, regardless 

of whether the non-family member 

enrolls in the coverage. That is because, 

under § 1.36B–2(c)(4)(i), a related 

individual who is not a spouse filing 

jointly with the employee or a 

dependent of the employee, such as a 

child of the employee who is no longer 

the employee’s dependent, is treated as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20358 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6The proposed rule for offers from multiple 

employers is consistent with the treatment under 

§ 1.36B–2(c)(3)(i) for situations in which an 

employee or family member may choose from 

multiple plans offered by an employer. In those 

situations, an individual has an offer of affordable 

coverage if at least one of the plans offered by the 

employer is affordable. 

eligible for the employer coverage only 

if he or she is enrolled in the coverage. 

Consequently, a related individual who 

is not a spouse filing jointly with the 

employee or a dependent of the 

employee does not need a determination 

of unaffordable coverage to be eligible 

for the PTC. As a result, the cost of 

covering that individual should not be 

considered in determining whether 

other related individuals have an offer 

of affordable employer coverage. 

The proposed regulations would make 

changes only to the affordability rule for 

related individuals; they would make no 

changes to the affordability rule for 

employees. As required by statute, 

employees continue to have an offer of 

affordable employer coverage if the 

employee’s required contribution for 

self-only coverage of the employee does 

not exceed the required contribution 

percentage of household income. 

Accordingly, under the proposed 

regulations, a spouse or dependent of an 

employee may have an offer of employer 

coverage that is unaffordable even 

though the employee has an affordable 

offer of self-only coverage. 

The proposed regulations also address 

situations in which an individual has 

offers of coverage from multiple 

employers. Under the proposed 

regulations, an individual with offers of 

coverage from multiple employers, 

either as an employee or a related 

individual, has an offer of affordable 

coverage if at least one of the offers is 

affordable.6 Thus, for example, assume 

X is married and files a joint return with 

X’s spouse, Y. If X has offers of coverage 

from X’s employer and Y’s employer, X 

has an offer of affordable coverage if the 

self-only cost of X’s employer coverage 

is affordable or if the family cost of Y’s 

employer coverage is affordable. This 

rule regarding multiple offers of 

coverage is consistent with section 

36B(c)(2)(B), under which a month is 

not a coverage month for an individual 

if the individual is eligible for MEC for 

the month, including employer coverage 

that is affordable and provides 

minimum value. In this example, X is 

eligible for affordable employer 

coverage if one or both of the offers of 

coverage to X is affordable. 

The proposed change to the 

affordability rule for related individuals 

in § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) requires a 

conforming change to § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(B), which provides that the 

affordability of employer coverage for an 

employment period that is less than a 

full calendar year is based on the 

employee’s required contribution for 

self-only coverage (‘‘part-year period 

rule’’). The proposed regulations would 

amend § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(B) to provide a 

part-year period rule for employees that 

is based on the employee’s required 

contribution for self-only coverage and 

a part-year period rule for related 

individuals that is based on the 

employee’s required contribution for 

family coverage. Changes to other 

existing rules such as § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(v)(A)(4) (wellness incentive 

programs) and (5) (employer 

contributions to health reimbursement 

arrangements integrated with eligible 

employer-sponsored plans) are not 

necessary because those paragraphs 

refer to an ‘‘employee’s required 

contribution,’’ which, under the 

proposed regulations, would cover both 

the required contribution for self-only 

coverage and the required contribution 

for family coverage. 

III. Minimum Value 

A. Minimum Value Cost of Benefits Rule 

for Related Individuals 

Section 1.36B–6(a)(1) provides that an 

eligible employer-sponsored plan 

provides minimum value if the plan’s 

share of the total allowed cost of 

benefits provided to an employee is at 

least 60 percent. The proposed 

regulations would expand § 1.36B–6(a) 

to provide a similar minimum value 

rule for related individuals that is based 

on the level of coverage provided to 

related individuals under an employersponsored plan. 

Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) provides that 

an employee is not eligible for employer 

coverage when the employer-sponsored 

plan does not provide minimum value. 

Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) does not 

specifically mention related individuals. 

Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii) could be 

interpreted to mean that there is no 

minimum value requirement for related 

individuals so that a related individual 

is eligible for employer coverage as long 

as the coverage is affordable, regardless 

of whether the employer coverage 

provides minimum value. Under such 

an interpretation, if an employer offers 

coverage to an employee and related 

individuals that is affordable, but does 

not provide minimum value for the 

employee, an employee who does not 

enroll in the coverage would not be 

eligible for the coverage, but related 

individuals offered the coverage would 

be eligible because section 36B does not 

have a minimum value requirement for 

related individuals. 

That approach, however, was not 

adopted with the issuance of § 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(i)(A), which was promulgated in 

final regulations in 2012. See TD 9590 

(77 FR 30377). Section 1.36B– 

2(c)(3)(i)(A) clarifies that there is a 

minimum value requirement for both 

employees and related individuals, 

stating that ‘‘an employee who may 

enroll in an eligible employer-sponsored 

plan . . . that is minimum essential 

coverage, and . . . a related individual, 

are eligible for minimum essential 

coverage under the plan for any month 

only if the plan is affordable and 

provides minimum value.’’ Under this 

long-standing rule, a related individual 

who receives an offer of employersponsored coverage that does not 

provide minimum value is ineligible for 

the coverage, provided that the related 

individual does not enroll in the 

coverage. 

Section 1.36B–2(c)(3)(i)(A) clarifies 

that there is a minimum value 

requirement for related individuals; 

however, § 1.36B–6(a) provides the rule 

for determining whether an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan provides 

minimum value to related individuals. 

As explained in the Background section 

of this preamble, under § 1.36B–6(a)(1), 

an eligible employer-sponsored plan 

provides minimum value if the plan’s 

share of the total allowed cost of 

benefits provided to an employee is at 

least 60 percent, regardless of the total 

allowed costs of benefits provided to the 

related individual. Thus, under this 

rule, if the plan’s share of the total 

allowed cost of benefits provided to an 

employee is below 60 percent, the plan 

does not provide minimum value to 

employees nor to any related 

individuals offered the coverage. 

Without a separate minimum value rule 

for related individuals based on the 

costs of benefits provided to related 

individuals, a PTC would not be 

allowed for a related individual offered 

coverage under a plan that was 

affordable but that provided minimum 

value to employees and not to related 

individuals. This outcome would 

undermine the benefit a related 

individual would derive from the 

proposed amendment of the 

affordability rule for related individuals. 

That is, the affordability of employer 

coverage for related individuals would 

be based on the employee’s cost of 

covering the related individuals, but 

there would be no assurance that 

affordable coverage offered to the 

related individuals provided a 

minimum value of benefits to the 

related individuals. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 20359 

7The terms ‘‘premium assistance amount’’ and 

‘‘premium tax credit’’ (or PTC) have the same 

meaning. 

The lack of a separate minimum value 

rule for related individuals also would 

be inconsistent with the overall goal of 

the ACA in providing comprehensive, 

affordable health coverage, as well as 

the goal of improving access to quality 

and affordable health care. Therefore, 

these proposed regulations provide in 

§ 1.36B–6(a)(2)(i) that an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan satisfies the 

minimum value requirement only if the 

plan’s share of the total allowed costs of 

benefits provided to related individuals 

is at least 60 percent, similar to the 

existing rule in § 1.36B–6(a)(1) for 

employees. Further, to be considered to 

provide minimum value under § 1.36B– 

6(a)(2)(ii) of these proposed regulations, 

an eligible-employer sponsored plan 

would have to include substantial 

coverage of inpatient hospital services 

and physician services, as discussed in 

more detail in section III.B. of this 

preamble. 

B. Minimum Value Rule Regarding 

Inpatient Hospitalization and Physician 

Services 

As noted earlier in the Background 

section of this preamble, the Treasury 

Department and the IRS issued 

proposed regulations in September 2015 

incorporating the substance of the 

minimum value rule that was finalized 

by HHS in February 2015. The HHS 

final regulations and § 1.36B–6(a)(2) of 

the 2015 proposed regulations provide 

that an eligible employer-sponsored 

plan provides minimum value only if, 

in addition to covering at least 60 

percent of the total allowed costs of 

benefits provided to an employee under 

the plan, the plan benefits include 

substantial coverage of inpatient 

hospital services and physician services. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

have not finalized these regulations. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS are 

withdrawing the 2015 proposed 

regulations and reproposing in § 1.36B– 

6(a)(1)(ii) without substantive change 

the minimum value rule regarding 

inpatient hospital services and 

physician services for employees. 

Pending issuance of final Treasury 

regulations, an employee will not be 

required to treat a non-hospital/nonphysician services plan as providing 

minimum value for purposes of an 

employee’s eligibility for a PTC. See 

Notice 2014–69. 

In addition, the Treasury Department 

and the IRS are proposing in this 

document to expand the minimum 

value rule in § 1.36B–6(a)(2) of the 2015 

proposed regulations to apply to related 

individuals. Thus, § 1.36B–6(a)(2)(ii) of 

the proposed regulations would provide 

that an eligible employer-sponsored 

plan provides minimum value to a 

related individual only if, in addition to 

covering at least 60 percent of the total 

allowed costs of benefits provided to the 

related individual, the plan benefits 

include substantial coverage of inpatient 

hospital services and physician services. 

IV. Premium Refunds Affecting the PTC 

Computation 

Section 1.36B–3(d)(1)(i) provides that, 

in determining a taxpayer’s premium 

assistance amount 7 for a coverage 

month, the taxpayer’s enrollment 

premiums for the month are the 

premiums for the month, reduced by 

any amounts that were refunded, for one 

or more QHPs in which a taxpayer or a 

member of the taxpayer’s family enrolls. 

Questions have arisen concerning 

refunds paid to a taxpayer in a taxable 

year that is after the taxable year the 

premium is paid and whether those 

refunds should be considered in 

determining the taxpayer’s premium 

assistance amount for the month to 

which the refund relates. A medical loss 

ratio rebate under section 2718 of the 

Public Health Service Act is an example 

of a premium refund that may be paid 

to a taxpayer in a taxable year that is 

after the taxable year the taxpayer paid 

the premium. 

Tax liability for a taxable year 

generally is determined based on events 

occurring in that taxable year (the 

current taxable year). Events occurring 

in a later taxable year, such as a refund 

of a deductible amount paid in the 

current taxable year, generally don’t 

affect the tax liability of the current 

taxable year. Thus, a taxpayer’s 

premium assistance amount for a month 

in the current taxable year should not be 

affected by a premium refund that was 

paid in a later taxable year. 

Consequently, the proposed 

regulations would clarify that, in 

computing the premium assistance 

amount for a coverage month, a 

taxpayer’s enrollment premiums for the 

month are the premiums for the month, 

reduced by any amounts that were 

refunded in the same taxable year the 

taxpayer incurred the premium liability. 

V. Severability 

If any provision in this rulemaking is 

held to be invalid or unenforceable 

facially, or as applied to any person or 

circumstance, it shall be severable from 

the remainder of this rulemaking, and 

shall not affect the remainder thereof, or 

the application of the provision to other 

persons not similarly situated or to 

other dissimilar circumstances. 

Statement of Availability of IRS 

Documents 

Guidance cited in this preamble is 

published in the Internal Revenue 

Bulletin and is available from the 

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

Government Publishing Office, 

Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting 

the IRS website at https://www.irs.gov. 

Proposed Applicability Dates 

The proposed regulations under 

§§ 1.36B–2, 1.36B–3, and 1.36B–6(a)(2) 

are proposed to apply for taxable years 

beginning after the date these 

regulations are published as final 

regulations in the Federal Register. As 

of the publication date of these 

proposed regulations, the proposed 

regulations are expected to be finalized 

no later than the end of this year. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS have 

been working closely with HHS to 

ensure that the federally-facilitated 

Exchange would be ready to implement 

the proposed changes before the open 

enrollment for 2023 coverage. HHS, in 

coordination with the Treasury 

Department and the IRS, intends to take 

all necessary steps to support efforts by 

state-based Exchanges to implement any 

changes before the open enrollment for 

2023 coverage. 

The proposed regulations under 

§ 1.36B–6(a)(1)(i) are proposed to apply 

for taxable years ending after December 

31, 2013. 

The proposed regulations under 

§ 1.36B–6(a)(1)(ii) are proposed to apply 

for plan years beginning after November 

3, 2014. 

Special Analyses 

I. Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Economic Analysis 

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies 

to assess 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. 

These proposed regulations have been 

designated as subject to review under 

E.O. 12866 pursuant to the 

Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 

2018) (MOA) between the Treasury 

Department and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regarding review of tax regulations. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20360 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

A. Background 

1. Affordability of Employer Coverage 

for Family Members of an Employee 

As noted earlier in this preamble, 

section 36B provides a PTC for 

applicable taxpayers who meet certain 

eligibility requirements, including that 

the taxpayer or one or more family 

members is enrolled in a QHP through 

an Exchange (Exchange coverage) for 

one or more months in which they are 

not eligible for other MEC. However, an 

individual who is eligible to enroll in 

employer coverage, but chooses not to, 

is not considered eligible for the 

employer coverage if it is 

‘‘unaffordable.’’ Section 36B defines 

employer coverage as unaffordable for 

an employee if the employee’s share of 

the self-only premium is more than 9.5 

percent of the employee’s household 

income. 

Section 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) 

provides that affordability of employer 

coverage for each related individual of 

the employee is determined by the cost 

of self-only coverage. Thus, the 

employee and any related individuals 

included in the employee’s family, 

within the meaning of § 1.36B–1(d), are 

eligible for MEC and are ineligible for 

the PTC if (1) the plan provides 

minimum value and (2) the employee’s 

share of the self-only coverage is not 

more than 9.5 percent of household 

income (that is, the self-only coverage 

for the employee is ‘‘affordable’’). 

2. Description of the Proposed 

Regulations 

The proposed regulations would 

revise § 1.36B–2(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) to 

provide a separate affordability test for 

related individuals based on the cost to 

the employee of family coverage. The 

proposed regulations do not change the 

affordability test for the employee. As a 

result, whenever a family applies for 

Exchange coverage and one or more 

family members has an offer of 

employer coverage, the Exchange will 

perform the following affordability 

determinations: One determination for 

the employee based on the cost of selfonly coverage, one determination for the 

related individuals based on the cost of 

family coverage, and additional 

determinations for any related 

individuals who have an offer of 

coverage from another employer. It is 

therefore possible that family members 

would be eligible for PTC but the 

employee would not. In this case, if the 

entire family chooses to enroll in 

Exchange coverage with advance 

payments of the premium tax credit 

(APTC), the APTC would be paid only 

for coverage of the employee’s family 

members but would not be paid for 

coverage of the employee. 

B. Baseline 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

have assessed the benefits and costs of 

the proposed regulations relative to a 

no-action baseline reflecting anticipated 

Federal income tax-related behavior in 

the absence of these regulations. 

C. Affected Entities 

Some families with an offer of 

employer coverage to the employee and 

at least one other family member would 

be newly eligible for a PTC for the 

Exchange coverage of the non-employee 

family members. The proposed 

regulations would have no effect on 

families for whom self-only employer 

coverage costs more than 9.5 percent of 

household income—given that family 

coverage is more expensive than selfonly coverage—because the affordability 

status of their employer coverage is 

unchanged. Similarly, the proposed 

regulations would not affect families for 

whom the cost of family employer 

coverage does not exceed 9.5 percent of 

household income because their 

coverage is determined to be affordable 

either way. In contrast, the proposed 

regulations would affect only family 

members—other than the employee—for 

whom the employee’s cost for the 

available employer coverage does not 

exceed 9.5 percent of household income 

for a self-only plan but exceeds 9.5 

percent of household income for a 

family plan or for whom the offer of the 

family plan is affordable but doesn’t 

provide minimum value. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS are unable to 

estimate the size of the population 

affected by the proposed regulations 

because contribution amounts for family 

coverage are not observed in the tax 

data. 

Employers may see a shift for some of 

their employees from family coverage to 

self-only coverage when family 

members newly qualify for PTC. The 

cost per enrollee could increase or 

decrease depending on the 

characteristics of those that remain 

covered. However, this shift would 

likely lead to a decrease in the total 

amount employers are spending on 

health insurance as the Federal 

government increases spending on PTC 

for the non-employee family members. 

D. Economic Analysis of the Proposed 

Regulations 

1. Overview 

For some families, the proposed 

regulations would lower the premium 

contributions required to purchase 

coverage for all family members by 

allowing family members other than the 

employee to qualify for a PTC. For some 

families with offers of employer 

coverage who will be newly eligible for 

the PTC, the combined cost of split 

coverage (self-only employer coverage 

for the employee plus PTC-subsidized 

Exchange coverage for related 

individuals) would be lower than what 

they pay for family coverage through the 

employer. Some low-income families 

with uninsured individuals where the 

employee is offered low-cost, self-only 

employer coverage and relatively highcost family employer coverage would 

gain access to a lower-cost option 

through eligibility for the PTC on behalf 

of one or more related individuals. 

However, the cost for families to 

purchase Exchange coverage with APTC 

is determined in part by the applicable 

percentage and household income, 

which are the same regardless of the 

number of individuals actually covered. 

Therefore, if the number of individuals 

needing Exchange coverage is small— 

such as when some family members 

have access to other MEC—the cost of 

Exchange coverage per enrollee is 

relatively high when added to the cost 

of the employee share of self-only 

employer coverage. Furthermore, split 

coverage also means multiple 

deductibles and maximum out-of-pocket 

limits for the family, which potentially 

increases out-of-pocket costs for 

families. As a result of these features, 

many families with offers of employer 

coverage who would be newly eligible 

for the PTC under the proposed 

regulations—including families with 

some uninsured individuals—would not 

see any savings in the combined cost of 

out-of-pocket premiums and cost 

sharing. Lastly, many families may 

prefer the benefits and provider 

networks of employer coverage, 

compared to Exchange coverage. Taking 

all these factors into account, the 

Treasury Department and the IRS have 

determined that new take-up of 

Exchange coverage may be modest for 

eligible families because many would 

either still prefer employer coverage or 

prefer to purchase other goods and 

services, or save or invest, rather than 

insure all family members. 

2. Benefits 

Gain of health insurance coverage. 

For those individuals who are 

uninsured because the premiums for 

family coverage through a family 

member’s employer are unaffordable, 

gaining access to PTC for the purchase 

of Exchange coverage may be more 

affordable and prompt some of them to 

take up coverage. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 20361 

Additional health insurance option. 

For those individuals who are covered 

by family coverage through a family 

member’s employer that costs more than 

9.5 percent of their household income, 

the proposed regulations would, by 

providing access to a PTC, give them an 

additional option that could provide 

coverage at a lower cost or with more 

comprehensive benefits. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

are unable to estimate the size of the 

benefits of the proposed regulations 

because contribution amounts for family 

coverage are not observed in the tax 

data. The Treasury Department and the 

IRS request comments that provide data, 

other evidence, or models that provide 

insight on this issue. 

3. Costs 

Administrative costs. Adding this new 

option for eligibility for PTC increases 

the cost to the IRS to evaluate PTC 

claims. The IRS’s PTC infrastructure 

will require one-time changes to certain 

processes, forms, and instructions to be 

implemented in time for the 2023 tax 

year, and the cost of these changes is 

expected to be negligible. The Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

(‘‘CMS’’), as the administrator of the 

Federally-facilitated Exchanges and the 

federal Exchange eligibility and 

enrollment platform, and the Statebased Exchanges that operate their own 

Exchange eligibility and enrollment 

platforms will also incur administrative 

costs as the Exchanges will have 

primary responsibility for implementing 

the rule as part of the eligibility and 

enrollment process when families are 

applying for Exchange coverage with 

APTC. Exchanges will incur one-time 

costs to update Exchange eligibility 

systems to account for the new 

treatment of family contribution 

amounts for employer coverage for 

purposes of determining eligibility for 

APTC, and CMS, State-based Exchanges, 

State Medicaid Agencies, and CMSapproved Enhanced Direct Enrollment 

partners will incur administrative costs 

to make conforming updates to their 

respective consumer applications and 

consumer-facing affordability tools. The 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

anticipate total administrative costs to 

CMS, Exchanges, State Medicaid 

Agencies, and Enhanced Direct 

Enrollment partners associated with the 

proposed regulation to be modest, and 

request comments from impacted 

stakeholders to inform administrative 

cost estimates. 

4. Transfers 

Increased PTC costs for new Exchange 

enrollees. Because some individuals 

may be newly eligible for PTC, some 

individuals may move from employer 

coverage or uninsured status to 

Exchange coverage. Thus, the proposed 

regulations may increase the amount of 

PTC being paid by the government and 

reduce employer contributions. 

Decreased employer exclusion for 

people who drop employer coverage. If 

individuals drop their employer 

coverage, or do not enroll when they 

otherwise would have, to take up 

Exchange coverage, the amount of 

money that was going toward their 

employer coverage, which provides taxpreferred health benefits, will go into 

the employee’s wages, other employees’ 

wages, and employer profits and will no 

longer be tax exempt. Thus, the 

proposed regulations may increase the 

amount of tax revenue received from 

income and payroll taxes. 

The Treasury Department and the IRS 

are unable to estimate the size of the 

population affected by the proposed 

regulations because contribution 

amounts for family coverage are not 

observed in the tax data. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS request 

comments that provide data, other 

evidence, or models that provide insight 

on this issue. 

5. Impact on Small Entities 

When an agency issues a proposed 

rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) (the ‘‘Act’’) 

requires the agency to ‘‘prepare and 

make available for public comment an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis’’ 

that ‘‘describe[s] the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities.’’ See 5 

U.S.C. 603(a). The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601 to mean 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction,’’ 

which are also defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. 

Small business size standards define 

whether a business is ‘‘small’’ and have 

been established for types of economic 

activities, or industry, generally under 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). See title 

13, part 121 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (titled ‘‘Small Business Size 

Regulations’’). The size standards look 

at various factors, including annual 

receipts, number of employees, and 

amount of assets, to determine whether 

the business is small. See title 13, 

§ 121.201 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations for the Small Business Size 

Standards by NAICS Industry. 

Section 605 of the Act provides an 

exception to the requirement to prepare 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

if the agency certifies that the proposed 

rulemaking will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS hereby certify 

that these proposed regulations will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This certification is based on the fact 

that the majority of the effect of the 

proposed regulations falls on individual 

taxpayers, and entities will experience 

only small changes. 

6. Impact on Small Business 

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the 

Code, these proposed regulations have 

been submitted to the Chief Counsel for 

the Office of Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration for comment 

on their impact on small business. 

II. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘UMRA’’) requires that agencies assess 

anticipated costs and benefits and take 

certain other actions before issuing a 

final rule that includes any Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

in any one year by a state, local, or tribal 

government, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million (updated 

annually for inflation). This proposed 

rule does not include any Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

by state, local, or tribal governments, or 

by the private sector in excess of that 

threshold. 

III. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

E.O. 13132 (titled ‘‘Federalism’’) 

prohibits an agency from publishing any 

rule that has federalism implications if 

the rule either imposes substantial, 

direct compliance costs on state and 

local governments, and is not required 

by statute, or preempts state law, unless 

the agency meets the consultation and 

funding requirements of section 6 of the 

E.O. This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications and does not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on state and local governments or 

preempt state law within the meaning of 

the E.O. 

Comments and Public Hearing 

Before these proposed regulations are 

adopted as final regulations, 

consideration will be given to comments 

that are submitted timely to the IRS as 

prescribed in this preamble in the 

ADDRESSES section. The Treasury 

Department and the IRS request 

comments on all aspects of the proposed 

regulations, including the economic 

impact of the proposed regulations. Any 

electronic comments submitted, and to 

the extent practicable any paper 

comments submitted, will be made 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20362 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

available at www.regulations.gov or 

upon request. 

A public hearing has been scheduled 

for June 27, 2022, beginning at 10:00 

a.m. EDT. Announcement 2020–4, 

2020–17 IRB 1, provides that until 

further notice, public hearings 

conducted by the IRS will be held 

telephonically. 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. Individuals who 

wish to testify (by telephone) at the 

public hearing must send an email to 

publichearings@irs.gov to receive the 

telephone number and access code for 

the hearing. The subject line of the 

email must contain the regulation 

number (REG–114339–21) for the 

hearing and the word TESTIFY. For 

example, the subject line may say: 

Request to TESTIFY at Hearing for REG– 

114339–21. The email should also 

include a copy of the speaker’s outline 

of topics. The email requesting to speak 

must be received by June 13, 2022. 

Speakers will have up to ten minutes to 

testify and may be asked questions by 

the panel. 

Individuals who want to attend the 

public hearing by telephone must also 

send an email to publichearings@irs.gov 

to receive the telephone number and 

access code for the hearing. The subject 

line of the email must contain the 

regulation number (REG–114339–21) 

and the word ATTEND. For example, 

the subject line may say: Request to 

ATTEND Hearing for REG–114339–21. 

Email requests to attend the public 

hearing must be received by 5:00 p.m. 

EDT on June 23, 2022. 

The telephonic hearing will be made 

accessible to people with disabilities. To 

request special assistance during the 

telephonic hearing, please contact the 

Publications and Regulations Branch of 

the Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Procedure and Administration) by 

sending an email to publichearings@

irs.gov (preferred) or by telephone at 

(202) 317–5177 (not a toll-free number) 

by June 22, 2022. Any questions 

regarding speaking at or attending the 

public hearing may also be emailed to 

publichearings@irs.gov. 

Drafting Information 

The principal author of these 

proposed regulations is Suzanne R. 

Sinno of the Office of Associate Chief 

Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). 

However, other personnel from the 

Treasury Department and the IRS 

participated in the development of the 

regulations. 

Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Accordingly, under the authority of 

26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–143800–14) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 1, 2015 (80 FR 52678), is 

withdrawn. 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

Par. 2. Section 1.36B–2 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Revising the first sentence and 

adding a sentence following the first 

sentence of paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2). 

■ 2. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(8). 

■ 3. Revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(B). 

■ 4. In paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D), Examples 

1 through 9 are designated as 

paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(D)(1) through (9), 

respectively. 

■ 5. In newly designated paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(3), (5), (6), (7), and (9), 

redesignating the paragraphs in the first 

column as the paragraphs in the second 

column: 

Old paragraphs New paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(3)(i) 

through (ii).

(c)(3)(v)(D)(3)(i) 

through (ii). 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(5)(i) 

through (ii).

(c)(3)(v)(D)(5)(i) 

through (ii). 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(6)(i) 

through (ii).

(c)(3)(v)(D)(6)(i) 

through (ii). 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(7)(i) 

through (iv).

(c)(3)(v)(D)(7)(i) 

through (iv). 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(9)(i) 

through (ii).

(c)(3)(v)(D)(9)(i) 

through (ii). 

■ 6. Revising newly designated 

paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(D)(1) and (2). 

■ 7. Redesignating paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(3) through (9) as paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(7) through (13), respectively. 

■ 8. Adding new paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(3) through (6); 

■ 9. Revising the heading for newly 

redesignated paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(7), 

the heading and first sentence of newly 

redesignated paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(8), 

the heading of newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(9), and the first 

sentence of newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(9)(i). 

■ 10. In the headings for newly 

redesignated paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(D)(10) 

through (13), removing the first period 

and adding a colon in its place. 

■ 11. Revising paragraph (e)(1). 

■ 12. Adding paragraph (e)(5). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1.36B–2 Eligibility for premium tax 

credit. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(2) * * * Except as provided in 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(3) of this section, 

an eligible employer-sponsored plan is 

affordable for a related individual if the 

employee’s required contribution for 

family coverage under the plan does not 

exceed the required contribution 

percentage, as defined in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(C) of this section, of the 

applicable taxpayer’s household income 

for the taxable year. For purposes of this 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2), an employee’s 

required contribution for family 

coverage is the portion of the annual 

premium the employee must pay for 

coverage of the employee and all other 

individuals included in the employee’s 

family, as defined in § 1.36B–1(d), who 

are offered coverage under the eligible 

employer-sponsored plan. * * * 

* * * * * 

(8) Multiple offers of coverage. An 

individual who has offers of coverage 

under eligible employer-sponsored 

plans from multiple employers, either as 

an employee or a related individual, has 

an offer of affordable coverage if at least 

one of the offers of coverage is 

affordable under paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(B) * * * Coverage under an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan is affordable 

for a part-year period if the annualized 

required contribution for self-only 

coverage, in the case of an employee, or 

family coverage, in the case of a related 

individual, under the plan for the partyear period does not exceed the 

required contribution percentage of the 

applicable taxpayer’s household income 

for the taxable year. * * * 

* * * * * 

(D) * * * 

(1) Example 1: Basic determination of 

affordability. For all of 2023, taxpayer C 

works for an employer, X, that offers its 

employees and their spouses a health 

insurance plan under which, to enroll in 

self-only coverage, C must contribute an 

amount for 2023 that does not exceed 

the required contribution percentage of 

C’s 2023 household income. Because C’s 

required contribution for self-only 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 20363 

coverage does not exceed the required 

contribution percentage of C’s 

household income, under paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) of this section, X’s plan is 

affordable for C, and C is eligible for 

minimum essential coverage for all 

months in 2023. 

(2) Example 2: Basic determination of 

affordability for a related individual. (i) 

The facts are the same as in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(1) of this section (Example 

1), except that C is married to J, they file 

a joint return, and to enroll C and J, X’s 

plan requires C to contribute an amount 

for coverage for C and J for 2023 that 

exceeds the required contribution 

percentage of C’s and J’s household 

income. J does not work for an employer 

that offers employer-sponsored 

coverage. 

(ii) J is a member of C’s family as 

defined in § 1.36B–1(d). Because C’s 

required contribution for coverage of C 

and J exceeds the required contribution 

percentage of C’s and J’s household 

income, under paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2) 

of this section, X’s plan is unaffordable 

for J. Accordingly, J is not eligible for 

minimum essential coverage for 2023. 

However, under paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) of this section, X’s plan is 

affordable for C, and C is eligible for 

minimum essential coverage for all 

months in 2023. 

(3) Example 3: Multiple offers of 

coverage. The facts are the same as in 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(2) of this section 

(Example 2), except that J works all year 

for an employer that offers employersponsored coverage to employees. J’s 

required contribution for the cost of selfonly coverage from J’s employer does 

not exceed the required contribution 

percentage of C’s and J’s household 

income. Although the coverage offered 

by C’s employer for C and J is 

unaffordable for J, the coverage offered 

by J’s employer is affordable for J. 

Consequently, under paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(1) and (8) of this section, J 

is eligible for minimum essential 

coverage for all months in 2023. 

(4) Example 4: Cost of covering 

individuals not part of taxpayer’s 

family. (i) D and E are married, file a 

joint return, and have two children, F 

and G, under age 26. F is a dependent 

of D and E, but G is not. D works all year 

for an employer that offers employersponsored coverage to employees, their 

spouses, and their children under age 

26. E, F, and G do not work for 

employers offering coverage. D’s 

required contribution for self-only 

coverage under D’s employer’s coverage 

does not exceed the required 

contribution percentage of D’s and E’s 

household income. D’s required 

contribution for coverage of D, E, F, and 

G exceeds the required contribution 

percentage of D’s and E’s household 

income, but D’s required contribution 

for coverage of D, E, and F does not 

exceed the required contribution 

percentage of the household income. 

(ii) E and F are members of D’s family 

as defined in § 1.36B–1(d). G is not a 

member of D’s family under § 1.36B– 

1(d), because G is not D’s dependent. 

Under paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(1) of this 

section, D’s employer’s coverage is 

affordable for D because D’s required 

contribution for self-only coverage does 

not exceed the required contribution 

percentage of D’s and E’s household 

income. D’s employer’s coverage also is 

affordable for E and F, because, under 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section, 

D’s required contribution for coverage of 

D, E, and F does not exceed the required 

contribution percentage of D’s and E’s 

household income. Although D’s cost to 

cover D, E, F, and G exceeds the 

required contribution percentage of D’s 

and E’s household income, under 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section, 

the cost to cover G is not considered in 

determining whether D’s employer’s 

coverage is affordable for E and F, 

regardless of whether G actually enrolls 

in the plan, because G is not in D’s 

family. D, E, and F are eligible for 

minimum essential coverage for all 

months in 2023. Under paragraph 

(c)(4)(i) of this section, G is considered 

eligible for the coverage offered by D’s 

employer only if G enrolls in the 

coverage. 

(5) Example 5: More than one family 

member with an employer offering 

coverage. (i) K and L are married, file a 

joint return, and have one dependent 

child, M. K works all year for an 

employer that offers coverage to 

employees, spouses, and children under 

age 26. L works all year for an employer 

that offers coverage to employees only. 

K’s required contribution for self-only 

coverage under K’s employer’s coverage 

does not exceed the required 

contribution percentage of K’s and L’s 

household income. Likewise, L’s 

required contribution for self-only 

coverage under L’s employer’s coverage 

does not exceed the required 

contribution percentage of K’s and L’s 

household income. However, K’s 

required contribution for coverage of K, 

L, and M exceeds the required 

contribution percentage of K’s and L’s 

household income. 

(ii) L and M are members of K’s family 

as defined in § 1.36B–1(d). Under 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(1) of this section, 

K’s employer’s coverage is affordable for 

K because K’s required contribution for 

self-only coverage does not exceed the 

required contribution percentage of K’s 

and L’s household income. Similarly, 

L’s employer’s coverage is affordable for 

L, because L’s required contribution for 

self-only coverage does not exceed the 

required contribution percentage of K’s 

and L’s household income. Thus, K and 

L are eligible for minimum essential 

coverage for all months in 2023. 

However, under paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section, K’s 

employer’s coverage is unaffordable for 

M, because K’s required contribution for 

coverage of K, L, and M exceeds the 

required contribution percentage of K’s 

and L’s household income. Accordingly, 

M is not eligible for minimum essential 

coverage for 2023. 

(6) Example 6: Multiple offers of 

coverage for a related individual. (i) The 

facts are the same as in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(5) of this section (Example 

5), except that L works all year for an 

employer that offers coverage to 

employees, spouses, and children under 

age 26. L’s required contribution for 

coverage of K, L, and M does not exceed 

the required contribution percentage of 

K’s and L’s household income. 

(ii) Although M is not eligible for 

affordable employer coverage under K’s 

employer’s coverage, paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(8) of this section dictates 

that L’s employer coverage must be 

evaluated to determine whether L’s 

employer coverage is affordable for M. 

Under paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this 

section, L’s employer’s coverage is 

affordable for M, because L’s required 

contribution for K, L, and M does not 

exceed the required contribution 

percentage of K’s and L’s household 

income. Accordingly, M is eligible for 

minimum essential coverage for all 

months in 2023. 

(7) Example 7: Determination of 

unaffordability at enrollment. ***

(8) Example 8: Determination of 

unaffordability for plan year. The facts 

are the same as in paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(7) of this section (Example 

7), except that X’s employee health 

insurance plan year is September 1 to 

August 31. * * * 

(9) Example 9: No affordability 

information affirmatively provided for 

annual redetermination. (i) The facts are 

the same as in paragraph (c)(3)(v)(D)(7) 

of this section (Example 7), except the 

Exchange redetermines D’s eligibility for 

advance credit payments for 2015. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(e)(2) through (5) of this section, this 

section applies to taxable years ending 

after December 31, 2013. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
20364 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(5) The first two sentences of 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(A)(2), paragraph 

(c)(3)(v)(A)(8), the second sentence of 

paragraph (c)(3)(v)(B), paragraphs 

(c)(3)(v)(D)(1) through (6), and the first 

sentences of paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(D)(8) 

and (9) of this section apply to taxable 

years beginning after [date final 

regulations are published in the Federal 

Register]. 

■ Par. 3. Section 1.36B–3 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (n)(1) 

and adding paragraph (n)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.36B–3 Computing the premium 

assistance credit amount. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The premiums for the month, 

reduced by any amounts that were 

refunded in the same taxable year as the 

premium liability is incurred, for one or 

more qualified health plans in which a 

taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s 

family enrolls (enrollment premiums); 

or 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * (1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (n)(2) and (3) of this section, 

this section applies to taxable years 

ending after December 31, 2013. 

* * * * * 

(3) Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section 

applies to taxable years beginning after 

[the date final regulations are published 

in the Federal Register]. 

■ Par. 4. Section 1.36B–6 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (g)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1.36B–6 Minimum value. 

(a) In general—(1) Employees. An 

eligible employer-sponsored plan 

provides minimum value (MV) for an 

employee of the employer offering the 

coverage only if— 

(i) The plan’s MV percentage, as 

defined in paragraph (c) of this section, 

is at least 60 percent based on the plan’s 

share of the total allowed costs of 

benefits provided to the employee; and 

(ii) The plan provides substantial 

coverage of inpatient hospital services 

and physician services. 

(2) Related individuals. An eligible 

employer-sponsored plan provides MV 

for an individual who may enroll in the 

plan because of a relationship to an 

employee of the employer offering the 

coverage (a related individual) only if— 

(i) The plan’s MV percentage, as 

defined in paragraph (c) of this section, 

is at least 60 percent based on the plan’s 

share of the total allowed costs of 

benefits provided to the related 

individual; and 

(ii) The plan provides substantial 

coverage of inpatient hospital services 

and physician services. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) Exceptions. (i) Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 

of this section applies for plan years 

beginning after November 3, 2014; and 

(ii) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section 

applies to taxable years beginning after 

[date final regulations are published in 

the Federal Register]. 

Douglas W. O’Donnell, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07158 Filed 4–5–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2022–0179] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; St. Mary’s 

River, St. George’s Creek, Piney Point, 

MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish temporary special local 

regulations for certain waters of the St. 

Mary’s River. This action is necessary to 

provide for the safety of life on these 

navigable waters located at Piney Point, 

MD, during a high-speed power boat 

demonstration event on June 4, 2022, 

and June 5, 2022. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from being in the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port, Maryland-National Capital Region 

or the Coast Guard Event Patrol 

Commander. We invite your comments 

on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2022–0179 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email MST3 Melissa 

Kelly, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region; 

telephone 410–576–2596, email 

Melissa.C.Kelly@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The Southern Maryland Boat Club of 

Leonardtown, MD, notified the Coast 

Guard that it will be conducting the 

Southern Maryland Boat Club Piney 

Point Rumble on the River Regatta from 

8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 4, 2022, and 

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on June 5, 2022. 

The high-speed power boat 

demonstration event consists of 

approximately 55 participating vintage 

and historic race boats—including 

runabouts, v-bottoms, tunnel hulls, and 

hydroplanes—8 to 21 feet in length. The 

vessels will be participating in an 

exhibition, operating in heats along a 

marked racetrack-type course 1 mile in 

length and 200 feet in width, located in 

the St. George Creek at Piney Point, MD. 

The regatta is not a competition, but 

rather a demonstration of vintage race 

craft. Hazards from the high-speed 

power boat demonstration event include 

participants operating within and 

adjacent to designated navigation 

channels and interfering with vessels 

intending to operate within those 

channels, as well as operating near 

approaches to local public boat 

landings. The COTP Maryland-National 

Capital Region has determined that 

potential hazards associated with the 

high-speed power boat event would be 

a safety concern for anyone intending to 

participate in this event and for vessels 

that operate within specified waters of 

St. George Creek. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

protect event participants, nonparticipants, and transiting vessels 

before, during, and after the scheduled 

event. The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70041. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP Maryland-National Capital 

Region proposes to establish special 

local regulations from 7:30 a.m. on June 

4, 2022, through 5 p.m. on June 5, 2022. 

The regulations would be enforced from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS