Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34533

TABLE 1—GULFSTREAM AIRPLANE MODELS AND ALERT CUSTOMER BULLETINS (ACB)

Model ACB Dated

G–1159 and G–1159B (G–II/IIB) series airplanes .......................................................................... No. 27 ........................ March 20, 2001.

G–1159A (G–III) series airplanes .................................................................................................... No. 13 ........................ March 20, 2001.

G–IV series airplanes ...................................................................................................................... No. 27 ........................ March 20, 2001.

G–V series airplanes ....................................................................................................................... No. 12 ........................ March 20, 2001.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent loss of hydraulic system fluid

due to failure of the door control valve of the

landing gear, which could require the flight

crew to use alternate gear extension

procedures (landing gear blow down) for

landing of all models; accomplish the

following:

Inspection and Replacement of Valves

(a) Within 15 landings or 30 days after the

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs

later: Perform a general visual inspection to

determine if any landing gear door control

valve having Gulfstream part number (P/N)

1159SCH231–33 with Eaton/Sterer P/N

65940–1, –1 Rev. A, or –1 Rev. B, is installed.

Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a

general visual inspection is defined as: ‘‘A

visual examination of an interior or exterior

area, installation, or assembly to detect

obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This

level of inspection is made under normally

available lighting conditions such as

daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or droplight, and may require removal or opening of

access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or

platforms may be required to gain proximity

to the area being checked.’’

(1) If no valve has those P/N’s, no further

action is required by this paragraph.

(2) If all valves found have P/N

1159SCH231–33 with Eaton/Sterer P/N

65940–1, Rev. C, no further action is required

by this paragraph.

(b) If any valve has a door control valve of

the landing gear having Gulfstream P/N

1159SCH231–33 with Eaton/Sterer P/N

65940–1 and a serial number as specified in

paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD: Replace

the set screw with a new set screw, fill with

Dow Corning RTV 732 sealant, and label the

valve as P/N 65940–1 Rev. C; in accordance

with Gulfstream G–II ACB No. 27 (for Model

G–1159 and G–1159B series airplanes), G–III

ACB No. 13 (for Model G–1159A series

airplanes), G–IV ACB No. 27 (for Model G–

IV series airplanes), and G–V ACB No. 12 (for

Model G–V series airplanes); all dated March

20, 2001, as applicable; at the times specified

in paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2), as applicable.

(1) For valves having serial number 1900

or higher: Within 5 landings or 15 days after

the inspection accomplished per the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

(2) For valves having a serial number less

than 1900: Within 50 landings or 90 days

after the inspection accomplished per the

requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD,

whichever occurs later.

Note 3: The Gulfstream ACB’s specified in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this AD reference

Eaton Aerospace Sterer Engineering Service

Bulletin 65940–27–01, dated March 1, 2001,

as an additional source of service

information.

(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane a door

control valve of the landing gear, Gulfstream

P/N 1159SCH231–33 with Eaton/Sterer P/N

65940–1, unless that valve has been modified

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(d) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(e) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Incorporation by Reference

(f) With the exception of the general visual

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, the actions shall be done in accordance

with Gulfstream G–II Alert Customer Bulletin

No. 27, dated March 20, 2001; Gulfstream G–

III Alert Customer Bulletin No. 13, dated

March 20, 2001; Gulfstream G–IV Alert

Customer Bulletin No. 27, dated March 20,

2001; and Gulfstream G–V Alert Customer

Bulletin No.12, dated March 20, 2001; as

applicable. This incorporation by reference

was approved previously by the Director of

the Federal Register as of May 10, 2001 (66

FR 20734, April 25, 2001). Copies may be

obtained from Gulfstream Aerospace

Corporation, P.O. Box 2206, M/S D–10,

Savannah, Georgia 31402–9980. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895

Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta,

Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

Effective Date

(g) The effective date of this amendment

remains May 10, 2001.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21,

2001.

Kalene C. Yanamura,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–16203 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 001116322–1017–02]

RIN 0648–AO74

Amendment to Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary Regulations

Revising the Boundary of the

Northernmost Area To Be Avoided Off

the Coast of Florida

AGENCY: National Ocean Service (NOS),

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NOAA, in cooperation with

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), revises

the boundary of the northernmost Area

To Be Avoided (ATBA) off the coast of

the Florida Keys. This change to the

boundary is expected to increase

maritime safety and to avoid harm to the

marine environment and its resources.

DATES: This final rule is effective July

30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final

Environmental Assessment that was

prepared for this action and the final

rule amendment can be requested by

writing to the Florida Keys National

34534 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Marine Sanctuary headquarters at P.O.

Box 500368, Marathon, Florida 33050.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Billy Causey, Superintendent, Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary,

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Headquarters, P.O. Box 500368,

Marathon, Florida 33050, Tel: (305)

743–2437, E-mail:

billy.causey@noaa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In part, as a result of three large vessel

groundings within an 18-day period in

the fall of 1989 on the coral reef tract of

the Florida Keys, Congress enacted the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

and Protection Act (FKNMSPA),

designating the area surrounding the

Florida Keys as the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS).

The primary goal of this Act is to protect

the health of the fragile ecosystem of the

Florida Keys. Among other things, the

FKNMSPA, established four ATBAs

where tank vessels and vessels larger

than 50 meters are prohibited from

entering. Under the FKNMSPA, NOAA

and the USCG have the authority to

amend the ATBAs.

On April 21, 1998, pursuant to input

from the shipping industry, the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary

Advisory Council (SAC) recommended

a revision to the boundary of the

northernmost ATBA to eliminate a

small portion of the boundary near ‘‘the

Elbow’’ which juts out further than

other portions of the ATBA. The

revision to the boundary will permit

ships in two opposing traffic patterns

located just outside the boundary of the

ATBA to increase the distance between

them, thus increasing maritime safety in

the area. The revised boundary will not

result in bringing ship traffic any closer

to the reef than the other parts of the

ATBA and, by reducing the potential for

collisions, the boundary revision is

beneficial for the protection of the

marine environment.

The north- and east-bound vessels

utilize the Gulf Stream in this area

while the south- and west-bound vessels

try to take advantage of countercurrents

from eddies off of the Gulf Stream. The

existing configuration of the ATBA near

the coral reef known as ‘‘the Elbow,’’

when examined in relation to the axis

of the Gulf Stream, results in a potential

convergence of northeasterly bound and

southwesterly bound traffic. The

potential risk of collision increases

when the Gulf Stream meanders closer

to ‘‘the Elbow.’’ The revision of the

ATBA boundary will permit ships in

these two opposing traffic patterns to

increase the distance between them,

thus increasing maritime safety in the

area. A collision in this area could cause

oil and other material to seep into the

Florida Keys damaging marine

sanctuary resources, the marine

environment, and quite possibly, the

recreational, tourism and fishing

industries of the Florida Keys.

In March 2000, the USCG conducted

a survey of mariners, who frequently

travel through this area, to see whether

they believed ‘‘the Elbow’’ of the ATBA

to be a safety hazard for vessels

traveling in that area. Close to half of the

mariners surveyed felt that ‘‘the Elbow’’

created a ‘‘pinch point’’ for south- and

west-bound vessels that attempt to stay

out of both the ATBA and the lanes of

traffic for the north- and east-bound

vessels. The USCG subsequently

recommended the revision of the ATBA

boundary in order to increase maritime

safety in the area.

Based on these recommendations, and

its own draft environmental assessment

of the recommendations, NOAA

published a proposed rule to revise the

boundary in the Federal Register on

November 22, 2000 (65 FR 70324, Nov.

22, 2000). Two public hearings were

subsequently held on December 12 and

13, 2000. While no formal requests to

present oral testimony at either meeting

were received, a total of six people

spoke at the meetings regarding the

revised boundary. At the first meeting

two individuals spoke in favor of the

revision. At the second meeting one

person spoke in favor of the revision

and three individuals requested further

information as to how the revision

could affect their tugboat operations in

the Florida Keys. Once it was explained

that the ATBA only affects boats larger

than 50 meters in registered length, the

individuals spoke in favor of the change

as well. One written comment was

received supporting the boundary

revision.

Miscellaneous Requirements

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of

the Department of Commerce certified

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration when

the rule was proposed that it will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The basis for that certification has not

changed. Accordingly, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.

National Environmental Policy Act

Requirements

NOAA has concluded that this

regulatory action does not constitute a

major federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment. Therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

required. A final environmental

assessment has been prepared. Copies

are available (see ADDRESSES).

Plain Language Requirement

The President has directed all

agencies to use plain language in their

communications with the public,

including regulations. To comply with

this directive, we seek public comment

on any ambiguity or unnecessary

complexity arising from the language

used in this rule (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922

Administrative practice and

procedure, Coastal zone, Marine

resources, Penalties, Recreation and

recreation areas, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Research.

Margaret A. Davidson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth

in the preamble, 15 CFR part 922 is

amended as follows:

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE

SANCTUARY PROGRAM

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 922

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

Subpart P—Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary

2. Appendix VII to subpart P is

amended in the table by redesignating

the entries for points 23 through 51 as

24 through 52, and by revising the

entries under ‘‘In the vicinity of the

Florida Keys’’ to read as follows:

Appendix VII To Subpart P of Part

922—Areas To Be Avoided Boundary

Coordinates

In the Vicinity of the Florida Keys

[Reference Charts: United States 11466,

27th Edition—September 1, 1990 and United

States 11450, 4th Edition—August 11, 1990]

Point Latitude Longitude

1 .................... 25°45.00′N 80°06.10′W

2 .................... 25°38.70′N 80°02.70′W

3 .................... 25°22.00′N 80°03.00′W

4 .................... 25°06.38′N 80°10.48′W

5 .................... 24°56.37′N 80°19.26′W

6 .................... 24°37.90′N 80°47.30′W

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 34535

Point Latitude Longitude

7 .................... 24°29.20′N 81°17.30′W

8 .................... 24°22.30′N 81°43.17′W

9 .................... 24°28.00′N 81°43.17′W

10 .................. 24°28.70′N 81°43.50′W

11 .................. 24°29.80′N 81°43.17′W

12 .................. 24°33.10′N 81°35.15′W

13 .................. 24°33.60′N 81°26.00′W

14 .................. 24°38.20′N 81°07.00′W

15 .................. 24°43.20′N 80°53.20′W

16 .................. 24°46.10′N 80°46.15′W

17 .................. 24°51.10′N 80°37.10′W

18 .................. 24°57.50′N 80°27.50′W

19 .................. 25°09.90′N 80°16.20′W

20 .................. 25°24.00′N 80°09.10′W

21 .................. 25°31.50′N 80°07.00′W

22 .................. 25°39.70′N 80°06.85′W

23 .................. 25°45.00′N 80°06.10′W

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–16172 Filed 6–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8954]

RIN 1545–AY36

Nondiscrimination Requirements for

Certain Defined Contribution

Retirement Plans

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains final

regulations that permit certain defined

contribution retirement plans to

demonstrate compliance with the

nondiscrimination requirements based

on plan benefits rather than

contributions. Under the final

regulations, a defined contribution plan

can test on a benefits basis if it provides

broadly available allocation rates, agebased allocations, or passes a gateway

requiring allocation rates for nonhighly

compensated employees to be at least

5% of pay or at least one-third of the

highest allocation rate for highly

compensated employees. The

regulations also permit qualified

defined contribution and defined

benefit plans that are tested together as

a single, aggregated plan (and that are

not primarily defined benefit or broadly

available separate plans) to test on a

benefits basis after passing a similar

gateway, under which the allocation

rate for nonhighly compensated

employees need not exceed 71⁄2% of

pay. These final regulations affect

employers that maintain qualified

retirement plans and qualified

retirement plan participants.

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations

are effective June 29, 2001.

Applicability Date: These regulations

apply for plan years beginning on or

after January 1, 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

T. Ricotta, 202–622–6060 or Linda S.F.

Marshall, 202–622–6090 (not toll-free

numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This document contains amendments

to 26 CFR part 1 under section 401(a)(4)

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

(Code).

Section 401(a)(4) provides that a plan

or trust forming part of a stock bonus,

pension, or profit-sharing plan of an

employer shall not constitute a qualified

plan under section 401(a) of the Code

unless the contributions or benefits

provided under the plan do not

discriminate in favor of highly

compensated employees (HCEs) (within

the meaning of section 414(q)). Whether

a plan satisfies this requirement

depends on the form of the plan and its

effect in operation.

Section 415(b)(6)(A) provides that the

computation of benefits under a defined

contribution plan, for purposes of

section 401(a)(4), shall not be made on

a basis inconsistent with regulations

prescribed by the Secretary. The

legislative history of this provision

explains that, in the case of target

benefit and other defined contribution

plans, ‘‘regulations may establish

reasonable earnings assumptions and

other factors for these plans to prevent

discrimination.’’ Conf. Rep. No. 1280,

93d Cong., 2d Sess. 277 (1974).

Under the section 401(a)(4)

regulations, a plan can demonstrate that

either the contributions or the benefits

provided under the plan are

nondiscriminatory in amount. Defined

contribution plans generally satisfy the

regulations by demonstrating that

contributions are nondiscriminatory in

amount, through certain safe harbors

provided for under the regulations or

through general testing.

A defined contribution plan (other

than an ESOP) may, however, satisfy the

regulations on the basis of benefits by

using cross-testing pursuant to rules

provided in § 1.401(a)(4)–8 of the

regulations. Under this cross-testing

method, contributions are converted,

using actuarial assumptions, to

equivalent benefits payable at normal

retirement age, and these equivalent

benefits are tested in a manner similar

to the testing of employer-provided

benefits under a defined benefit plan.

In Notice 2000–14 (2000–10 I.R.B.

737), released February 24, 2000, the

IRS and the Treasury Department

initiated a review of issues related to

use of the cross-testing method by socalled new comparability plans and

requested public comments on this plan

design from plan sponsors, participants

and other interested parties. In general,

new comparability plans are defined

contribution plans that have built-in

disparities between the allocation rates

for classifications of participants

consisting entirely or predominantly of

HCEs and the allocation rates for other

employees.

In a typical new comparability plan,

HCEs receive high allocation rates,

while nonhighly compensated

employees (NHCEs), regardless of their

age or years of service, receive

comparatively low allocation rates. For

example, HCEs in such a plan might

receive allocations of 18 or 20% of

compensation, while NHCEs might

receive allocations of 3% of

compensation. A similar plan design,

sometimes known as a super-integrated

plan, provides for an additional

allocation rate that applies only to

compensation in excess of a specified

threshold, but the specified threshold

(e.g., $100,000) or the additional

allocation rate (e.g., 10%) is higher than

the maximum threshold and rate

allowed under the permitted disparity

rules of section 401(l).

These new comparability and similar

plans rely on the cross-testing method to

demonstrate compliance with the

nondiscrimination rules by comparing

the actuarially projected value of the

employer contributions for the younger

NHCEs with the actuarial projections of

the larger contributions (as a percentage

of compensation) for the older HCEs. As

a result, these plans are able generally

to provide higher rates of employer

contributions to HCEs, while NHCEs are

not allowed to earn the higher allocation

rates as they work additional years for

the employer or grow older.

Notwithstanding the analytical

underpinnings of cross-testing, the IRS

and Treasury Department became

concerned that new comparability and

similar plans were not consistent with

the basic purpose of the

nondiscrimination rules under section

401(a)(4).

After consideration of the comments

received in response to Notice 2000–14,

the IRS and Treasury issued proposed

regulations on this subject (REG–

114697–00), which were published in

the Federal Register on October 6, 2000

(65 FR 59774). The proposed regulations