59780 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Employee

Equivalent

normal allocation rates

for the 1%

accrual

under Plan

O (defined

benefit plan)

percent

Equivalent

normal accrual rates

for the 15%/

3% allocations under

Plan P (defined contribution

plan) percent

C (age 60) ........ 5.91 .51

D (age 45) ........ 1.73 1.73

E (age 35) ......... .77 3.90

F (age 25) ......... .34 8.82

(ii) Although all of the NHCEs benefit

under the Plan O (the defined benefit plan),

the aggregated DB/DC plan is not primarily

defined benefit in character because the

normal accrual rate attributable to defined

benefit plans (which is 1% for all the NHCEs)

is greater than the equivalent accrual rate

under defined contribution plans only for

Employee C. In addition, because the 15%

allocation rate is only available to HCEs, the

defined contribution plan cannot satisfy the

requirements of § 1.401(a)(4)–2 and does not

have broadly available allocation rates within

the meaning of § 1.401(a)(4)–8(b)(1)(iii).

Further, the defined contribution plan does

not satisfy the minimum allocation gateway

of § 1.401(a)(4)–8(b)(1)(iv) (3% is less than 1⁄3

of the 15% HCE rate). Therefore, the defined

contribution plan within the DB/DC plan

cannot separately satisfy § 1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(2)

and does not constitute a broadly available

separate plan within the meaning of

paragraph (b)(2)(v)(C) of this section.

Accordingly, the aggregated plans can satisfy

the nondiscrimination in amounts

requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(2) on the

basis of benefits only if the aggregated plans

satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation

gateway of paragraph (b)(2)(v)(D) of this

section.

(iii) Employee A has an aggregate normal

allocation rate of 18.93% under the

aggregated plans (3.93% from Plan O plus

15% from Plan P), which is the highest

aggregate normal allocation rate for any HCE

under the plans. Employee F has an aggregate

normal allocation rate of 3.34% under the

aggregated plans (.34% from Plan O plus 3%

from Plan P) which is less than the 5%

aggregate normal allocation rate that

Employee F would be required to have to

satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation

gateway of paragraph (b)(2)(v)(D) of this

section.

(iv) However, for purposes of satisfying the

minimum aggregate allocation gateway of

paragraph (b)(2)(v)(D) of this section,

Employer B is permitted to treat each NHCE

who benefits under the Plan O (the defined

benefit plan) as having an equivalent

allocation rate equal to the average of the

equivalent allocation rates under Plan O for

all NHCEs benefitting under that plan. The

average of the equivalent allocation rates for

all the NHCEs under Plan O is 2.19% (the

sum of 5.91%, 1.73%, .77%, and .34%,

divided by 4). Accordingly, Employer B is

permitted to treat all the NHCEs as having an

equivalent allocation rate attributable to Plan

O equal to 2.19%. Thus, all NHCEs can be

treated as having an aggregate normal

allocation rate of 5.19% for this purpose (3%

from the defined contribution plan and

2.19% from the defined benefit plan) and the

aggregated DB/DC plan satisfies the

minimum aggregate allocation gateway of

paragraph (b)(2)(v)(D) of this section.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Restructuring not available for certain

testing purposes. The safe harbor in

§ 1.401(a)(4)–2(b)(3) for plans with uniform

points allocation formulas is not available in

testing (and thus cannot be satisfied by)

contributions under a component plan.

Similarly, component plans cannot be used

for purposes of determining whether a plan

provides broadly available allocation rates (as

defined in § 1.401(a)(4)–8(b)(1)(iii)), or

determining whether a plan is primarily

defined benefit in character or consists of

broadly available separate plans (as defined

in paragraphs (b)(2)(v)(B) and (C) of this

section). In addition, the minimum allocation

gateway of § 1.401(a)(4)–8(b)(1)(iv) and the

minimum aggregate allocation gateway of

paragraph (b)(2)(v)(D) of this section cannot

be satisfied on the basis of component plans.

See §§ 1.401(k)–1(b)(3)(iii) and 1.401(m)–

1(b)(3)(iii) for rules regarding the

inapplicability of restructuring to section

401(k) plans and section 401(m) plans.

David A. Mader,

Acting Deputy Commissioner of Internal

Revenue.

[FR Doc. 00–25652 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01–00–193]

RIN 2115–AE47

Drawbridge Operation Regulations;

Kennebec River, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to

change the drawbridge operating

regulations for the Carlton (U.S. 1)

highway-railroad bridge, at mile 14.0,

across the Kennebec River between Bath

and Woolwich, Maine. This proposed

rule will remove unnecessary operating

restrictions from the regulations and

provide relief to the bridge owner from

the requirement to crew the bridge

during periods when there have been

few requests to open the bridge.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast

Guard on or before December 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to

Commander (obr), First Coast Guard

District, Bridge Branch, at 408 Atlantic

Avenue, Boston, MA 02110–3350, or

deliver them to the same address

between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is (617) 223–

8364. The First Coast Guard District,

Bridge Branch, maintains the public

docket for this rulemaking. Comments

and material received from the public,

as well as documents indicated in this

preamble as being available in the

docket, will become part of this docket

and will be available for inspection or

copying at the First Coast Guard

District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except, Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast

Guard District, (617) 223–8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in

this rulemaking by submitting

comments or related material. If you do

so, please include your name and

address, identify the docket number for

this rulemaking (CGD01–00–193),

indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment

applies, and give the reason for each

comment. Please submit all comments

and related material in an unbound

format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,

suitable for copying. If you would like

to know if they reached us, please

enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope. We will consider

all comments and material received

during the comment period. We may

change this proposed rule in view of

them.

Public Meeting

We do not now plan to hold a public

meeting. But you may submit a request

for a meeting by writing to the First

Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at

the address under ADDRESSES explaining

why one would be beneficial. If we

determine that one would aid this

rulemaking, we will hold one at a time

and place announced by a later notice

in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

The Carlton (U.S. 1) highway-railroad

bridge, at mile 14.0, across the

Kennebec River has a vertical clearance

in the closed position of 10 feet at mean

high water and 16 feet at mean low

water. The existing drawbridge

operating regulations are listed at 33

CFR 117.525. Vehicular traffic no longer

travels over the Carlton Bridge because

a new fixed highway bridge has been

constructed upstream. The bridge will

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59781

continue to operate as a railroad bridge

only.

The bridge owner, Maine Department

of Transportation (MDOT), asked the

Coast Guard to remove the unnecessary

restrictions from the regulations and to

add several time periods during which

the bridge will open on an on call basis.

The bridge presently is allowed to

remain closed to navigation from 6 a.m.

to 7:30 a.m. and from 3:15 p.m. to 5:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. These closed periods were

added to the regulations to prevent

vehicular traffic congestion in Bath

during the shift changes at the Bath Iron

Works. These closed periods are no

longer necessary and will be removed

by this rule.

The bridge owner has also requested

relief from crewing the bridge from 5

p.m. to 8 a.m., daily, and all day on

Saturdays and Sundays from October 1

through May 14. The bridge opening log

data submitted by MDOT indicates a

relatively low number of requests to

open the bridge during the time periods

the bridge owner has requested that the

bridge shall operate on an on call basis.

The greater amount of bridge openings

in 1999, are attributed to construction

vessel traffic during the building of the

new highway bridge upstream from the

Carlton Bridge.

BRIDGE OPENINGS BETWEEN 5 P.M. AND 8 A.M.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 ................................. 0 0 0 0 9 6 7 13 5 12 0 0

1998 ................................. 0 2 1 2 1 6 4 6 3 10 7 6

1999 ................................. 2 7 2 4 21 24 36 5 10 20 29 12

2000 ................................. 0 0 4 0 12

BRIDGE OPENINGS SATURDAYS/SUNDAYS, OCTOBER 1 THROUGH MAY 14

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

1997 ................................................................. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1998 ................................................................. 10 7 3 0 2 0 0 0

1999 ................................................................. 11 13 4 1 5 2 2 1

2000 ................................................................. 0 0 3 0 0

The Coast Guard believes that

operating the Carlton Bridge on an

advance notice basis from 5 p.m. to 8

a.m., daily, and all day on Saturdays

and Sundays, from October 1 through

May 14, is reasonable and will still meet

the needs of navigation. This conclusion

is based upon the low number of

opening requests received over the past

several years and the fact that the bridge

will still open on signal after the

advance notice is given.

Discussion of Proposal

The Coast Guard proposes to revise

the operating regulations listed at 33

CFR 117.525 for the Carlton (U.S. 1)

highway-railroad bridge.

The bridge will no longer be called

the Carlton (U.S. 1) highway-railroad

bridge in the regulations. It will simply

be called the Carlton Bridge.

Paragraph (a)(1), which requires the

bridge to open for emergency situations,

will be removed because it is now listed

at 33 CFR 117.31.

Paragraph (a)(2) will be removed

because the bridge no longer carries

vehicular traffic.

Paragraph (a)(3) will be removed

because train traffic is so infrequent that

regulation to prevent conflicts between

vessel and train traffic is no longer

necessary.

Paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(7) will

be removed and replaced as simply

paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(2)

indicating the new operating regulations

for the Carlton Bridge.

Paragraph (b) for the Route 197

Bridge, mile 27.1, between Richmond

and Dresden, Maine, will remain

unchanged.

The proposed new operating hours for

the Carlton Bridge would require that

from May 15 through September 30, the

draw would open on signal; except that,

from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw would

open on signal if at least a two-hour

advance notice is given.

From October 1 through May 14, the

draw would open on signal; except that,

from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw would

open on signal after a twenty-four hours

advance notice is given and from 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m., on Saturday and Sunday, the

draw would open on signal after an

eight-hour notice is given.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of

Management and Budget has not

reviewed it under that Order. It is not

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040,

Feb. 26, 1979).

We expect the economic impact of

this proposed rule to be so minimal that

a full Regulatory Evaluation, under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary.

This conclusion is based on the fact that

the bridge will still open for marine

traffic at all times provided the advance

notice is given.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this proposed rule would have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

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

section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this

proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

This conclusion is based upon the fact

that the bridge will still open for all

vessel traffic at all times after the

advance notice is given.

If you think that your business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity

and that this rule would have a

significant economic impact on it,

please submit a comment (see

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it

59782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 195 / Friday, October 6, 2000 / Proposed Rules

qualifies and how and to what degree

this rule would economically affect it.

Collection of Information

This proposed rule would call for no

new collection of information under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that this rule does not have implications

for federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

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

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed

rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation

because promulgation of drawbridge

regulations have been found not to have

a significant effect on the environment.

A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion

Determination’’ is available in the

docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 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; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.525(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 117.525 Kennebec River

(a) The draw of the Carlton Bridge,

mile 14.0, between Bath and Woolwich

shall operate as follows:

(1) From May 15 through September

30 the draw shall open on signal; except

that, from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw

shall open on signal if a two-hour notice

is given by calling the number posted at

the bridge.

(2) From October 1 through May 14

the draw shall open on signal; except

that, from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m., the draw

shall open on signal after a twenty-four

hour advance notice is given and on

Saturdays and Sundays from 8 a.m. to

5 p.m. the draw shall open on signal

after an eight-hour advance notice is

given by calling the number posted at

the bridge.

* * * * *

Dated: September 13, 2000.

G.N. Naccara,

U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast

Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–25755 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA088–5051b; FRL–6880–7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

15 Percent Plan for Northern Virginia

Portion of the Metropolitan

Washington, DC Ozone Nonattainment

Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to convert

our conditional interim approval of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia for the

Northern Virginia portion of the

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area to achieve a 15

percent reduction in volatile organic

compound emissions (the 15% plan) to

a full approval. In the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register, we are converting our

conditional interim approval of

Virginia’s 15% plan SIP revision to a

full approval as a direct final rule

because we view this as a

noncontroversial amendment and

because we anticipate no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If we receive no adverse

comments, we will not undertake

further action on this proposed rule. If

we receive adverse comments, we will

withdraw the direct final rule, and it

will not take effect. We will address all

public comments in a subsequent final

rule based on this proposed rule. We

will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Anyone interested

in providing comments on this action

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by November 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief,

Ozone and Mobile Sources Branch,

Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

the Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Lewis, (215) 814–2185, at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at lewis.janice@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information, please see the

direct final rule, with the same title,

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register

publication.

Dated: September 25, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–25471 Filed 10–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P