Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61619 

the Department of Defense is necessary 

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

known as the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rulemaking for the Department of 

Defense does not involve a Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

and that such rulemaking will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’ 

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have federalism implications. 

The rules do not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701 

Privacy. 

■ Accordingly, 32 CFR part 701 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 701—AVAILABILITY OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

RECORDS AND PUBLICATION OF 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THE 

PUBLIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 701 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 

(5 U.S.C. 552a). 

§ 701.128 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 701.128, paragraph (f) is 

removed and reserved. 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25140 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0509] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; IJSBA World Finals, 

Lower Colorado River, Lake Havasu, 

AZ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

the navigable waters of Lake Havasu on 

the lower Colorado River in Arizona in 

support of the International Jet Sports 

Boating Association (IJSBA) World 

Finals. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to provide for the safety of the 

participants, crew, spectators, 

participating vessels, and other vessels 

and users of the waterway. Persons and 

vessels will be prohibited from entering 

into, transiting through, or anchoring 

within this temporary safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Diego or his designated 

representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR 

on October 6, 2010 through October 10, 

2010. This rule is effective with actual 

notice for purposes of enforcement on 

October 3, 2010. This rule will remain 

in effect until October 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–2010–0509 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2010–0509 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is 

also available for inspection or copying 

at the 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, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane 

Jackson, Waterways Management, U.S. 

Coast Guard Sector San Diego Coast 

Guard; telephone 619–278–7267, e-mail 

Shane.E.Jackson@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On July 6, 2010, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled Safety Zone; IJSBA World 

Finals in the Federal Register (75 FR 

38754). We received no comments on 

the proposed rule. No public meeting 

was requested, and none was held. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The boat races will begin on 

October 3, 2010, and a safety zone is 

necessary to protect the participants and 

spectators. Therefore it would be 

impracticable to delay the effective date 

of the final rule. 

Basis and Purpose 

The International Jet Sports Boating 

Association (IJSBA) is sponsoring the 

IJSBA World Finals. The event will 

consist of 300 to 750 personal 

watercrafts racing in a circular course. 

The race will be broken down into heats 

of one to 20. The sponsor will provide 

five course marshals and rescue vessels, 

as well as four perimeter safety boats for 

the duration of this event. This safety 

zone is necessary to provide for the 

safety of the participants, crew, 

spectators, participating vessels, and 

other vessels and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

The Coast Guard published an NPRM 

on July 6, 2010, proposing to establish 

a temporary safety zone on Lake Havasu 

from October 3 through October 10, 

2010. We received no comments, and 

therefore we are establishing the safety 

zone as proposed in the NPRM. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this 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 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. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this proposed rule to be so minimal that 

a full Regulatory Evaluation is 

unnecessary. This determination is 

based on the size and location of the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

61620 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

safety zone. This safety zone will be in 

effect for only one week, and will only 

be enforced during certain hours each 

day. Furthermore, vessels can transit 

safely around the safety zone. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this 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 rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: the owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor in 

a portion of the lower Colorado River at 

Lake Havasu from October 3, 2010 

through October 10, 2010. 

This safety zone will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities for 

the following reasons. Vessel traffic can 

pass safely around the zone. Before the 

effective period, the Coast Guard will 

publish a local notice to mariners 

(LNM). 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

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

in the NPRM we offered to assist small 

entities in understanding the rule so 

that they could better evaluate its effects 

on them and participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls 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 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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will 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 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 rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does 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 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 rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this 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 concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves the establishment of a safety 

zone. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 61621 

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 amends 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, and 160.5; 

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

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add a new temporary § 165.T11– 

182 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–182 Safety Zone; IJSBA World 

Finals; Lower Colorado River, Lake Havasu, 

AZ. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of Lake Havasu, 

from surface to bottom, encompassed by 

lines connecting the following points: 

Beginning at 34°28.49′ N, 114°21.33′ W; 

thence to 34°28.55′ N, 114°21.56′ W; 

thence to 34°28.43′ N, 114°21.81′ W; 

thence to 34°28.32′ N, 114°21.71′ W; 

thence along the shoreline returning to 

34°28.49′ N, 114°21.33′ W. 

These coordinates are based upon 

NAD 83. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced from sunrise to sunset 

on October 3, 2010 through October 10, 

2010. If the International Jet Sports 

Boating Association World Finals 

concludes prior to the scheduled 

termination of the effective period, the 

Captain of the Port will cease 

enforcement of this safety zone and will 

announce that fact via Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

Designated representative means any 

Commissioned, Warrant, or Petty 

Officers of the Coast Guard or Coast 

Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and 

federal law enforcement officers who 

have been authorized to act on the 

behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in § 165.23, entry into, 

transit through or anchoring within this 

safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

San Diego or his designated 

representative. 

(2) Mariners desiring to enter or 

operate in the safety zone may request 

authorization to do so from the Patrol 

Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM 

may be contacted on VHF–FM Channel 

16. 

(3) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel must proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other federal, state, or local agencies. 

Dated: September 17, 2010. 

P.J. Hill, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25193 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN15 

Charges Billed to Third Parties for 

Prescription Drugs Furnished by VA to 

a Veteran for a Nonservice-Connected 

Disability 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

medical regulations of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) concerning 

‘‘reasonable charges’’ for medical care or 

services provided or furnished by VA to 

a veteran for a nonservice-connected 

disability. More specifically, VA 

amends the regulations regarding 

charges billed for prescription drugs not 

administered during treatment by 

changing the billing formula to reflect 

VA’s actual drug costs for each drug 

rather than using a national average 

drug cost for all prescriptions 

dispensed. The revised formula for 

calculating reasonable charges for 

prescription drug costs will also 

continue to include an average 

administrative cost for each 

prescription. The purpose is to provide 

VA with a more accurate billing 

methodology for prescription drugs. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on March 18, 2011. 

Applicability Date: The final rule will 

apply to prescriptions filled on or after 

March 18, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Romona Greene, Manager of Rates and 

Charges, VHA Chief Business Office 

(168), Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–1595. (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. 1729, VA has the right to recover 

or collect reasonable charges for medical 

care or services (including the provision 

of prescription drugs) from a third party 

to the extent that the veteran or the 

provider of the care or services would 

be eligible to receive payment from the 

third party for: 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

for which the veteran is entitled to care 

(or the payment of expenses of care) 

under a health plan contract, 38 U.S.C. 

1729(a)(2)(D), 38 CFR 17.101(a)(1)(i); 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

incurred incident to the veteran’s 

employment and covered under a 

worker’s compensation law or plan that 

provides reimbursement or 

indemnification for such care and 

services, 38 U.S.C. 1729(a)(2)(A), 38 

CFR 17.101(a)(1)(ii); or 

• A nonservice-connected disability 

incurred as a result of a motor vehicle 

accident in a State that requires 

automobile accident reparations (nofault) insurance, 38 U.S.C. 1729(a)(2)(B), 

38 CFR 17.101(a)(1)(iii). 

However, under current 38 CFR 

17.101(a)(4), which implements 38 

U.S.C. 1729(c)(2)(B), a third-party payer 

liable for such medical care and services 

under a health plan contract has the 

option of paying, to the extent of its 

coverage, either the billed charges or the 

amount the third-party payer 

demonstrates it would pay for care or 

services furnished by providers other 

than entities of the United States for the 

same care or services in the same 

geographic area. 

Prior to the effective date of this 

document, VA billed for prescription 

drugs not administered during treatment 

based on the sum of two components: 

(1) The national average of VA’s drug 

costs for all prescriptions, and (2) the 

national average of VA’s administrative 

costs associated with furnishing 

prescription drugs. Further, in 

accordance with § 17.102(h), prior to the 

effective date of this document, VA 

billed $51 for each prescription filled 

(see 70 FR 66866, Nov. 3, 2005). 

In a document published in the 

Federal Register on July 9, 2009 (74 FR 

32819), we proposed to change the 

billing methodology for prescription 

drugs not administered during 

treatment. With respect to the portion of 

the billing concerning VA’s cost for 

such prescription drugs, we proposed to 

bill based on the actual cost to VA of 

each prescription drug rather than the 

national average of drug costs for all 

prescriptions. In this regard, we 

proposed to bill the total of: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES