20460 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

8. To what extent should participantdirected individual account plans be 

required to provide or promote 

investment education for participants? 

For example, should plans be required 

or encouraged to provide a primer or 

glossary of investment-related terms 

relevant to a plan’s investment options 

(e.g., basis point, expense ratio, 

benchmark, redemption fee, deferred 

sales charge); a copy of the Department’s 

booklet entitled ‘‘A Look at 401(k) Fees’’

(www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/ 

401k_employee.html) or similar 

publication; or investment research 

services? Should such a publication 

include an explanation of other 

investment concepts such as risk and 

return characteristics of available 

investment options? Please explain 

views, addressing costs and other issues 

relevant to adopting such a requirement. 

Disclosure of Information Relating to 

Plan and Individual Account 

Administrative Fees and Expenses 

9. What information is currently 

furnished to participants about the plan 

and/or individual administrative 

expenses charged to their individual 

account? Such expenses may include, 

for example: audit fees, legal fees, 

trustee fees, recordkeeping expenses, 

individual participant transaction fees, 

participant loan fees or expenses. 

10. What information about 

administrative expenses would help 

plan participants, but is not currently 

disclosed? Please explain the nature and 

usefulness of such information. 

11. How are charges against an 

individual account for administrative 

expenses typically communicated to 

participants? Is such information 

included as part of a participant’s 

individual account statement or 

furnished separately? If separately, is 

the information communicated via 

paper statements, electronically, or via 

website access? 

12. How frequently is information 

concerning administrative expenses 

charged to a participant’s account 

communicated? 

13. What, if any, requirements should 

the Department impose to improve the 

disclosure of administrative expenses to 

plan participants? Please be specific as 

to any recommendation and include 

estimates of any new compliance costs 

that may be imposed on plans or plan 

sponsors. 

14. Should charges for administrative 

expenses be disclosed as part of the 

periodic benefit statement required 

under ERISA section 105? 

General Questions 

15. What, if any, distinctions should 

be considered in assessing the 

informational needs of participants in 

plans that intend to meet the 

requirements of section 404(c) as 

contrasted with those of participants in 

plans that do not intend to meet the 

requirements of section 404(c)? 

16. What (and what portion of) plan 

administrative and investment-related 

fees and expenses typically are paid by 

sponsors of participant-directed 

individual account plans? How and 

when is such information typically 

communicated to participants? 

17. How would providing additional 

fee and expense information to 

participants affect the choices or 

conduct of plan sponsors and 

administrators, and/or that of vendors of 

plan products and services? Please 

explain any such effects. 

18. How would providing additional 

fee and expense information to 

participants affect their plan investment 

choices, plan savings conduct or other 

plan related behavior? Please explain 

any such effects and provide specific 

examples, if available. 

19. Please identify any particularly 

cost-efficient (high-value but 

inexpensive) fee and expense 

disclosures to participants, and to the 

contrary any particularly cost-inefficient 

ones. Please provide any available 

estimates of the dollar costs or benefits 

of such disclosures. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

April 2007. 

Bradford P. Campbell, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 

Security Administration, Department of 

Labor. 

[FR Doc. E7–7884 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 334 

United States Marine Corps Restricted 

Area and Danger Zone, Neuse River 

and Tributaries, Marine Corps Air 

Station Cherry Point, NC 

AGENCY: United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is 

proposing to amend its regulations to 

designate an existing rifle range fan as 

a danger zone. The military exercise 

area is located within the Rifle Range of 

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 

North Carolina, along the Neuse River. 

The danger zone will only be activated 

by the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry 

Point during range operational hours. 

The Marine Corps will advise residents 

in the vicinity of the range fan thus 

ensuring their safety by alerting them to 

temporary potential hazardous 

conditions which may exist as a result 

of small arms exercises. There will be 

no change in the use of the existing 

exercise area. The area, however, needs 

to be marked on navigation charts to 

insure security and safety for the public. 

Entry points into the danger zone will 

be prominently marked with signage 

indicating the boundary of the danger 

zone. The placement of aids to 

navigation and regulatory markers will 

be installed in accordance with the 

requirements of the United States Coast 

Guard. If the proposed signage exceeds 

nationwide permit and/or regional 

general permit conditions, the 

Commander, United States Marine 

Corps, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry 

Point, North Carolina will seek 

additional Department of the Army 

authorizations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number COE–

2007–0011, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: 

david.b.olson@usace.army.mil. Include 

the docket number, COE–2007–0011, in 

the subject line of the message. 

Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

ATTN: CECW–CO (David B. Olson), 441 

G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20314–

1000. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to 

security requirements, we cannot 

receive comments by hand delivery or 

courier. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket number COE–2007–0011. All 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the commenter indicates that the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 20461 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an anonymous access system, which 

means we will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail directly to the 

Corps without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, we 

recommend that you include your name 

and other contact information in the 

body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If we 

cannot read your comment because of 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, we may not be able 

to consider your comment. Electronic 

comments should avoid the use of any 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. 

Consideration will be given to all 

comments received within 30 days of 

the date of publication of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Olson, Headquarters, Operations 

and Regulatory Community of Practice, 

Washington, DC at (202) 761–4922, Mr. 

Scott Jones, Corps of Engineers, 

Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch, 

at (252) 975–1616, or Ms. Tracey 

Wheeler, Corps of Engineers, 

Wilmington District, Regulatory Branch, 

at (252) 975–1616. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to its authorities in Section 7 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 

266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the 

Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 

Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps 

proposes to amend 33 CFR 334.430 by 

adding a danger zone along the Neuse 

River as described below. The 

regulations governing the restricted area 

are not proposed to be changed. 

Procedural Requirements 

a. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule is issued with 

respect to a military function of the 

Defense Department and the provisions 

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. 

b. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(Pub. L. 96–354) which requires the 

preparation of a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any regulation that will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

(i.e., small businesses and small 

governments). Unless information is 

obtained to the contrary during the 

public notice comment period, the 

Corps expects that the establishment of 

this danger zone would have practically 

no economic impact on the public, 

result in no anticipated navigational 

hazard, or interfere with existing 

waterway traffic. This proposed rule, if 

adopted, will have no significant 

economic impact on small entities. 

c. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

Due to the administrative nature of 

this action and because there is no 

intended change in the use of the area, 

the Corps expects that this regulation, if 

adopted, will not have a significant 

impact to the quality of the human 

environment and, therefore, preparation 

of an environmental impact statement 

will not be required. An environmental 

assessment will be prepared after the 

public notice period is closed and all 

comments have been received and 

considered. The environmental 

assessment may be reviewed at the 

District office listed at the end of FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Act 

This proposed rule does not impose 

an enforceable duty on the private 

sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal 

private sector mandate and it is not 

subject to the requirements of either 

Section 202 or Section 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also 

found under Section 203 of the Act that 

small governments will not be 

significantly and uniquely affected by 

this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 

Danger zones, Marine safety, 

Navigation (water), Restricted areas, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 

33 CFR part 334, as follows: 

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND 

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 334 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 

2. Section 334.430 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 334.430 Neuse River and tributaries at 

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, 

North Carolina; restricted area and danger 

zone. 

(a) The restricted area. That portion of 

Neuse River within 500 feet of the shore 

along the reservation of the Marine 

Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North 

Carolina, extending from the mouth of 

Hancock Creek to a point approximately 

6,800 feet west of the mouth of Slocum 

Creek, and all waters of Hancock and 

Slocum Creeks and their tributaries 

within the boundaries of the 

reservation. 

(b) The danger zone. The waters 

within an area beginning at latitude 

34.923425° N, longitude—76.853222° 

W; thence northeasterly across Hancock 

Creek to latitude 34.925258° N, 

longitude—76.849864° W; continuing 

northeasterly to latitude 34.933382° N, 

longitude—76.835081° W; thence 

northwesterly to the Neuse River 

shoreline at latitude 34.936986° N, 

longitude—76.841197° W, continuing 

northwesterly to latitude 34.943275° N, 

longitude—76.852169° W; thence 

southwesterly along the shorelines to 

latitude 34.935111° N, longitude—

76.859078° W; thence southeasterly 

along Hancock Creek shoreline to the 

point of origin. 

(c) The regulations. (1) Except in cases 

of extreme emergency, all persons or 

vessels, other than those vessels 

operated by the U.S. Navy or Coast 

Guard, are prohibited from entering the 

restricted area or danger zone without 

prior permission of the enforcing 

agency. 

(2) Entry points into the danger zone 

will be prominently marked with 

signage indicating the boundary of the 

danger zone. 

(3) Firing will take place both day and 

night at irregular periods throughout the 

year. Appropriate warnings will be 

issued through official government and 

civilian channels serving the region. 

Such warnings will specify the time and 

duration of operations and give such 

other pertinent information as may be 

required in the interest of safety. Upon 

completion of firing or if the scheduled 

firing is cancelled for any reason, the 

warning signals marking the danger 

zone will be removed. 

(4) Except as otherwise provided in 

this section, the danger zone will be 

open to general public access. Vessels, 

watercraft, and other vehicles may 

proceed through the danger zone. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
20462 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(5) The regulations in this section 

shall be enforced by the Commanding 

Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry 

Point, North Carolina, and/or persons or 

agencies as he/she may designate. 

Lawrence A. Lang, 

Acting Chief, Operations Directorate of Civil 

Works. 

[FR Doc. E7–7901 Filed 4–24–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Revised Standards for Mailing Sharps 

Waste and Other Regulated Medical 

Waste 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal ServiceTM is 

proposing to revise the mailing 

standards for medical waste so that 

medical professionals can more easily 

use the mail to ship waste to disposal 

sites. For over 15 years we have safely 

permitted approved vendors to use the 

mail for return of sharps and other 

regulated medical waste for disposal. 

Under our current standards, mailback medical waste containers are most 

often used by individuals who selfinject medications to control diseases 

such as diabetes and arthritis. By 

increasing the maximum allowable 

weight of medical waste mail-back 

containers and at the same time 

requiring additional packaging 

safeguards, we intend to provide small 

medical offices the option of using the 

mail for sending medical waste for 

disposal. This proposal would allow 

medical professionals a safe, easy, and 

cost-effective means of disposing of 

sharps and other regulated medical 

waste. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 25, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the Manager, Mailing 

Standards, Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Room 3436, Washington, DC 

20260–3436. You may inspect and 

photocopy all written comments at the 

Postal Service Headquarters Library, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., 11th Floor N, 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bert 

Olsen, 202–268–7276. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal would increase the use of the 

mail for shipping medical waste while 

improving packaging requirements so 

that these items continue to be safe 

while transported in the mail. Currently, 

mailing standards require that primary 

sharps receptacles not exceed 3 gallons 

and that primary receptacles for other 

regulated medical waste not exceed 5 

gallons. This proposal would allow for 

a single larger primary receptacle that 

could accommodate several pre-primary 

sharps receptacles (sharps receptacles 

normally used in doctors’ offices) as 

well as several tie-closed bags of other 

regulated medical waste. This change 

would add additional receptacles (preprimary) to the currently required triplepackaging system and therefore would 

increase protection of the contents. 

The pre-primary receptacles may be 

different in size and design. The 

primary receptacle that holds the preprimary receptacles and the bags of 

other regulated medical waste must be 

capable of passing all current package 

tests. The new standards would set the 

total mailpiece weight limit to 35 

pounds for packages approved as 

‘‘Medical Professional Packaging.’’ All 

other medical waste mailpieces would 

be required to conform to the current 

25-pound weight limit. 

Although we are exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 

of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we 

invite public comment on the following 

proposed revisions to Mailing Standards 

of the United States Postal Service, 

Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201–

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3626, 5001; chapter 

36 of Title 39: Pub. L. No 109–435, 120 Stat. 

3198 (2006). 

2. Revise the following sections of the 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

* * * * * 

600 Basic Standards for All Mailing 

Services 

601 Mailability 

* * * * * 

10.0 Hazardous Materials 

* * * * * 

10.17 Infectious Substances (Hazard 

Class 6, Division 6.2) 

* * * * * 

10.17.6 Sharps Waste and Other 

Mailable Regulated Medical Waste 

* * * * * 

[Add a new second sentence to item 

b5 as follows:] 

* * * Except for Medical Professional 

Packages as identified in 10.17.6c, 

which may not weigh more than 35 

pounds.* * * 

* * * * * 

[Renumber items 6c through 6f as new 

6d through 6g. Add new item 6c as 

follows:] 

c. Medical Professional Packaging. 

One primary receptacle larger than 5 

gallons in volume may be used for 

mailing pre-primary sharps receptacles 

(sharps receptacles normally used in 

doctors’ offices) and other regulated 

medical waste under the following 

conditions: 

1. The mailpiece must meet all the 

requirements in 10.17.6, except for the 

primary receptacle capacity limits in 

10.17.6b1. 

2. Only rigid, securely closed, 

puncture- and leak-resistant pre-primary 

sharps receptacles that meet or exceed 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration standards may be placed 

inside the primary receptacle. Each preprimary sharps container may contain 

no more than 50 ml (1.66 ounces) of 

residual waste liquid. Several preprimary sharps receptacles may be 

enclosed in the single primary 

receptacle. 

3. Multiple tie-closed plastic bags of 

regulated medical waste may be placed 

inside the single primary receptacle. 

4. The primary receptacle must be 

lined with a plastic bag at least 4 mil in 

thickness and include sufficient 

absorbent material within the liner to 

absorb all residual liquid in the primary 

receptacle. 

5. The mailpiece must not weigh more 

than 35 pounds. 

* * * * * 

[Renumber items d1 through d7 as 

new d2 through d8. Add new number d1 

as follows:] 

1. For Medical Professional Packages, 

the additional marking, ‘‘Medical 

Professional Packaging,’’ must be clearly 

printed in lettering at least 2 inches high 

on the address side of the outer 

shipping container. 

* * * * * 

[Add two new sentences to the 

introductory text renumbered item f as 

follows:] 

f. Testing Criteria. Packages tested for 

approval as Medical Professional 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS