Safety Zone; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA, 19290-19292 [2011-8370]

Download as PDF 19290 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 Coast Guard submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 9826. 33 CFR Part 165 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [Docket No. USCG–2011–0197] Public Participation and Request for Comments DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RIN 1625–AA00 Safety Zone; Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA Coast Guard, DHS. Notice of proposed rulemaking. AGENCY: ACTION: 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. SUMMARY: 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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. E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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). srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 19291 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 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 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 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 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. 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. Energy Effects List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 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. srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Indian Tribal Governments 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’’ VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Apr 06, 2011 Jkt 223001 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: PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 WA. Commencement Bay, Tacoma, (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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: 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 8hour ozone National Ambient Air SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19290-19292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8370]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 8\1/2\; 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.

[[Page 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 e-mail 
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[deg]17'38'' N, 
Longitude 122[deg]28'43'' W; thence south easterly to Latitude 
47[deg]17'4'' N, Longitude 122[deg]27'32'' W; thence south westerly to 
Latitude 47[deg]16'35'' N, Longitude 122[deg]28'1'' W; thence north 
westerly along the shoreline to Latitude 47[deg]17'10'' N, Longitude 
122[deg]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

[[Page 19292]]

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 Sec.  165.1305 by revising 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  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[deg]17'38'' N, Longitude 
122[deg]28'43'' W; thence south easterly to Latitude 47[deg]17'4'' N, 
Longitude 122[deg]27'32'' W; thence south westerly to Latitude 
47[deg]16'35'' N, Longitude 122[deg]28'1'' W; thence north westerly 
along the shoreline to Latitude 47[deg]17'10'' N, Longitude 
122[deg]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