19290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

with respect to the following specific 

areas: 

25. What costs and benefits are 

associated with expanding electronic 

distribution of required plan 

disclosures? Do costs and benefits vary 

across different types of participants, 

sponsors, plans, or disclosures? Are the 

printing costs being transferred from 

plans to plan participants and 

beneficiaries when information is 

furnished electronically? 

26. If electronic disclosure were the 

default method for distributing required 

plan disclosures, and assuming ‘‘opting 

out’’ were an option, what percentage of 

participants would likely ‘‘opt-out’’ of 

electronic disclosure in order to receive 

paper disclosures? Should participants 

be informed of increased plan costs, if 

any, attendant to furnishing paper 

disclosures at the time they are afforded 

the option to opt out or into an 

electronic disclosure regime? 

27. Do participants prefer receiving 

certain plan documents on paper rather 

than electronically (e.g., summary plan 

descriptions versus quarterly benefit 

statements), and what reasons are given 

for such preference? Would this 

preference change if participants were 

aware of the additional cost associated 

with paper disclosure? 

28. What impact would expanding 

electronic disclosure have on small 

plans? Are there unique costs or benefits 

for small plans? What special 

considerations, if any, are required for 

small plans? 

29. Is it more efficient to send an email with the disclosure attached (e.g., 

as a PDF file) versus a link to a Web 

site? Which means of furnishing is more 

secure? Which means of furnishing 

would increase the likelihood that a 

worker will receive, read, retain and act 

upon the disclosure? 

30. Employee benefit plans often are 

subject to more than one applicable 

disclosure law (e.g., ERISA, Internal 

Revenue Code) and regulatory agency. 

To what extent would such employee 

benefit plans benefit from a single 

electronic disclosure standard? 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

April, 2011. 

Phyllis C. Borzi, 

Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8288 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0197] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Commencement Bay, 

Tacoma, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR 165.1305 to expand 

the established safety zone during the 

annual Tacoma Freedom Air Show on 

the fourth of July. The proposed safety 

zone expansion would establish a larger 

clear area for low flying aircraft during 

this event. This rule is necessary to help 

ensure the safety of the maritime public 

and event participants during this 

annual event and will do so by 

prohibiting any person or vessel from 

entering or remaining within the safety 

zone during this event. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before May 9, 2011. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before May 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2011–0197 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail Ensign Anthony P. 

LaBoy, USCG Sector Puget Sound 

Waterways Management Division, Coast 

Guard; telephone 206–217–6323, e-mail 

SectorPugetSoundWWM@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2011–0197), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2011–0197’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2; by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 

change the rule based on your 

comments. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19291 

Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 

become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 

0197’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 

‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 

column. You may also visit the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the Department 

of Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. We have an agreement with 

the Department of Transportation to use 

the Docket Management Facility. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone can search the electronic 

form of comments received into any of 

our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding our public dockets 

in the January 17, 2008, issue of the 

Federal Register (73 FR 3316). 

Public Meeting 

We do not now plan to hold a public 

meeting. But you may submit a request 

for one using one of the four methods 

specified under ADDRESSES. Please 

explain why you believe a public 

meeting 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. 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

public meeting, contact Ensign Anthony 

P. LaBoy at the telephone number or email address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this notice. 

Basis and Purpose 

The Coast Guard is proposing to 

modify the boundaries of the safety zone 

established in 33 CFR 165.1305. In 

general, this safety zone is necessary 

because of the numerous potential 

hazards associated with the Tacoma 

Freedom Fair Air Show events. The 

proposed modification is necessary 

because the air show has expanded 

since the initial final rule was codified 

and the event sponsor has requested a 

larger safety zone to protect participants 

and spectators. In addition, expanding 

the zone would allow safety vessels to 

patrol inside the safety zone and would 

minimize vessel traffic along the 

shoreline which could impede the 

movement of the safety vessels. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The safety zone created by this 

proposed rule encompasses all waters 

bounded by the following points 

Latitude 47°17′38′′ N, Longitude 

122°28′43′′ W; thence south easterly to 

Latitude 47°17′4′′ N, Longitude 

122°27′32′′ W; thence south westerly to 

Latitude 47°16′35′′ N, Longitude 

122°28′1′′ W; thence north westerly 

along the shoreline to Latitude 

47°17′10′′ N, Longitude 122°29′14′′ W; 

thence returning to the origin. This 

safety zone resembles a rectangle 

protruding from the shoreline along 

Ruston Way. Floating markers will be 

placed by the sponsor of the event to 

delineate the boundaries of the safety 

zone. All persons and vessels are 

prohibited from entering or remaining 

in the safety zone unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or 

Designated Representative. The Captain 

of the Port Puget Sound may be assisted 

by other local, state, and Federal 

agencies in the enforcement of this 

safety zone. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

The Coast Guard bases this finding on 

the fact that the safety zone is small in 

size, short in duration, and maritime 

traffic will be able to safely transit the 

area outside of this safety zone. 

Maritime traffic may also request 

permission to transit through the zone 

from the Captain of the Port, Puget 

Sound or Designated Representative. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have 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 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 proposed rule would affect 

the following entities, some of which 

might be small entities: The owners or 

operators of vessels intending to enter or 

transit in a portion of Commencement 

Bay, Tacoma, Washington on July 4th 

from 2 p.m. until 12:30 a.m. July 5th, 

annually. This safety zone will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

because the safety zone is short in 

duration, minimal in size, and maritime 

traffic will be allowed to transit through 

the safety zone with permission. 

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 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact Ensign 

Anthony P. LaBoy at the telephone 

number or e-mail address indicated 

under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice. 

The Coast Guard will not retaliate 

against small entities that question or 

complain about this proposed rule or 

any policy or action of the Coast Guard. 

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 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
19292 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

have determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

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

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This rule is not an economically 

significant rule and would not create an 

environmental risk to health or risk to 

safety that might disproportionately 

affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination will be 

made available in the docket where 

indicated under ADDRESSES. This 

proposed rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone. We seek 

any comments or information that may 

lead to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. 

L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend § 165.1305 by revising paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 165.1305 Commencement Bay, Tacoma, 

WA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone for the Tacoma Freedom 

Fair Air Show: All portions of 

Commencement Bay bounded by the 

following coordinates: Latitude 

47°17′38′′ N, Longitude 122°28′43′′ W; 

thence south easterly to Latitude 

47°17′4′′ N, Longitude 122°27′32′′ W; 

thence south westerly to Latitude 

47°16′35′′ N, Longitude 122°28′1′′ W; 

thence north westerly along the 

shoreline to Latitude 47°17′10′′ N, 

Longitude 122°29′14′′ W; thence 

returning to the origin. This safety zone 

resembles a rectangle protruding from 

the shoreline along Ruston Way. 

Floating markers will be placed by the 

sponsor of the event to delineate the 

boundaries of the safety zone. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 24, 2011. 

S. J. Ferguson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8370 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0003; FRL–9291–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon; 

Interstate Transport of Pollution; 

Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment and Interference With 

Maintenance Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a portion of the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 

State of Oregon for the purpose of 

addressing the interstate transport 

provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS