23212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake 

Michigan, is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

who has been designated by the Captain 

of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to act 

on his or her behalf. The on-scene 

representative of the Captain of the Port, 

Sector Lake Michigan, will be aboard 

either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard 

Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the 

Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her 

designated on-scene representative may 

be contacted via VHF Channel 16. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port, Sector 

Lake Michigan, or his or her designated 

on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. Vessel operators 

given permission to enter or operate in 

the safety zone must comply with all 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his 

or her on-scene representative. 

Dated: April 16, 2010. 

L. Barndt, 

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

Port, Sector Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10205 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0021] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; U.S. Coast Guard BSU 

Seattle, Pier 36, Seattle, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a 

security zone at U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) Base Support Unit Seattle, Pier 

36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. This 

permanent security zone is necessary to 

protect military and visiting foreign 

vessels, waterfront facilities, and the 

maritime public from destruction, loss, 

or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, 

or other malicious acts of a similar 

nature. Entry into or movement within 

this security zone is prohibited without 

the permission of the Captain of the Port 

or a Designated Representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before August 2, 2010. Requests for 

public meetings must be received by the 

Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0021 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 Ashley M. 

Wanzer, Sector Seattle Waterways 

Management, Coast Guard; telephone 

206–217–6175, e-mail 

SectorSeattleWWM@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–2010–0021), 

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–2010–0021’’ 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. 

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–2010– 

0021’’ 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 June 2, 2010 using one of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 23213 

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 Ashley 

M. Wanzer at the telephone number or 

e-mail address indicated under the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this notice. 

Background and Purpose 

The potential for terrorist acts 

requires enhanced security of our ports, 

harbors, and vessels. This proposed rule 

will establish a security zone to protect 

waterfront facilities, persons, and 

vessels from subversive or terrorist acts 

on the waters surrounding USCG Base 

Support Unit (BSU) Seattle, Pier 36, 

Elliot Bay, WA. The Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port Puget Sound finds 

sufficient cause to require this security 

zone to protect military vessels, 

facilities and the maritime public 

located at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, WA. This 

proposed security zone will be 

continuously activated in order to 

maintain the security of both moored 

vessels and permanent facilities 

regardless of the physical presence of 

military vessels within the zone. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would establish a 

permanent security zone necessary to 

protect military and visiting foreign 

vessels, waterfront facilities, and the 

maritime public from destruction, loss, 

or injury from sabotage, subversive acts, 

or other malicious acts of a similar 

nature. The security zone would 

encompass all waters in Elliot Bay east 

of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 20.585′ 

W to 47° 35.409′ N 122° 20.585′ W at 

USCG BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, 

Seattle, WA. Entry into or movement 

within this security zone is prohibited 

without the permission of the Captain of 

the Port or a Designated Representative. 

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. This proposed rule is not a 

significant regulatory action because it 

does not adversely affect the transit of 

maritime vessels or the recreational 

boating public to major waterways. 

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 security zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reason: Vessel traffic can 

pass safely around the security zone. 

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 the Small 

Business and Agriculture Regulatory 

Enforcement Ombudsman and the 

Regional Small Business Regulatory 

Fairness Boards. 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 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
23214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 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 record keeping 

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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

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

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

2. Add § 165.1334 to read as follows: 

§ 165.1334 Security Zone; U.S. Coast 

Guard BSU Seattle, Pier 36, Elliot Bay, 

Seattle, WA. 

(a) Location: The following area is a 

security zone: All waters in Elliot Bay 

east of a line from 47° 35.450′ N 122° 

20.585′ W to 47° 35.409′ N 122°20.585′ 

W at Pier 36, Elliot Bay, Seattle, WA. 

(b) Regulations: Under 33 CFR part 

165, subpart D, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the security zone 

established by this section without the 

permission of the Captain of the Port 

Puget Sound or Designated 

Representative. 

(c) Authorization: To request 

authorization to operate within this 

security zone, contact United States 

Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint Harbor 

Operations Center at 206–217–6001. 

Dated: April 6, 2010. 

S.E. Englebert, 

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

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10209 Filed 4–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 

RIN 0991–AB62 

HIPAA Privacy Rule Accounting of 

Disclosures Under the Health 

Information Technology for Economic 

and Clinical Health Act; Request for 

Information 

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: Section 13405(c) of the Health 

Information Technology for Economic 

and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act 

expands an individual’s right under the 

Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 

Privacy Rule to receive an accounting of 

disclosures of protected health 

information made by HIPAA covered 

entities and their business associates. In 

particular, section 13405(c) of the 

HITECH Act requires the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

(‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘HHS’’) to revise the 

HIPAA Privacy Rule to require covered 

entities to account for disclosures of 

protected health information to carry 

out treatment, payment, and health care 

operations if such disclosures are 

through an electronic health record. 

This document is a request for 

information (RFI) to help us better 

understand the interests of individuals 

with respect to learning of such 

disclosures, the administrative burden 

on covered entities and business 

associates of accounting for such 

disclosures, and other information that 

may inform the Department’s 

rulemaking in this area. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through any of the methods 

specified below. Please do not submit 

duplicate comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: You 

may submit electronic comments at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting electronic 

comments. Attachments should be in 

Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; 

however, we prefer Microsoft Word. 

• Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: 

You may mail written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address only: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office for Civil 

Rights, Attention: HITECH Accounting 

of Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, Room 509F, 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: If you 

prefer, you may deliver (by hand or 

courier) your written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address only: Office for Civil Rights, 

Attention: HITECH Accounting of 

Disclosures, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, Room 509F, 200 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. (Because access 

to the interior of the Hubert H. 

Humphrey Building is not readily 

available to persons without Federal 

government identification, commenters 

are encouraged to leave their comments 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS