Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking

Agency: Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security
Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking
Citation: 71 FR (No. 63) · FR Doc. 06-3182 · DHS-2006-0012 · 6 CFR 5

Summary

The Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is giving notice of a new system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, the General Counsel Electronic Management System. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of this system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil and administrative enforcement requirements.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2006.

Supplementary Information

Background The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal Register a description of the type and character of each system of records that the agency maintains, and the routine uses that are contained in each system in order to make agency record keeping practices transparent, to notify individuals regarding the uses to which personally identifiable information is put, and to assist individuals in finding such files within the agency. That description appears elsewhere in today's Federal Register . The Privacy Act allows government agencies to exempt certain records from its access and amendment and certain other provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is publishing a new system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. This system, the General Counsel Electronic Management System (GEMS), will consist of information that is created or acquired and used by attorneys working in ICE in the preparation and presentation of cases for a court or adjudicative body before which ICE or DHS is authorized or required to appear. Attorneys for the Department of Justice will also be able to access the system if they have a need for the information in the performance of their official duties. ICE attorneys work closely with investigators throughout the process of adjudicating immigration cases. ICE attorneys must have access to investigative documents and related materials in order to inform their decisions about how to handle particular cases. Additionally, of course, ICE attorneys create attorney work product associated with immigration proceedings. The GEMS system will facilitate the collection and maintenance of materials used by ICE attorneys in immigration adjudications. It will supplement and ultimately replace the current attorney work product paper files that are primarily stored and managed in the hardcopy alien file commonly known as the “A-file.” In this notice of proposed rulemaking, DHS is proposing to exempt this system, in part, from certain provisions of the Privacy Act and to add that exemption to Appendix C to Part 5, DHS Systems of Records Exempt from the Privacy Act. Given the nature and purpose of the proposed system of records, a significant portion of the records are likely to be exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5). This record system, however, will also derive information or incorporate investigative materials from Privacy Act exempt files. In order to ensure that the exemptions applicable to such investigative materials carry over when those materials are incorporated into the GEMS system, DHS is claiming those exemptions in this notice of proposed rulemaking. In appropriate circumstances, where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the litigation-related purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived. List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 Privacy; Freedom of information. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority: Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq. ; 5 U.S.C. 301. Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. 2. At the end of Appendix C to Part 5, which was proposed to be added at 70 FR 14428, March 22, 2005, add the following new paragraph “4”: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 4. The General Counsel Electronic Management System (GEMS) consists of records and information created or collected by attorneys for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will be used in the preparation and presentation of cases before a court or other adjudicative body. ICE attorneys work closely with their investigators throughout the process of adjudicating immigration cases. GEMS allows ICE attorneys to store all the materials pertaining to immigration adjudications, including documents related to investigations, case notes and other hearing related information, and briefs and memoranda of law related to cases. Having this information in one system should not only facilitate the work of the ICE attorneys involved in the particular case, but also will provide a legal resource for other attorneys who are adjudicating similar cases. The system will also provide management capabilities for tracking time and effort expended in the preparation and presentation of cases. Pursuant to exemptions 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) of the Privacy Act, portions of this system are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) and (4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(5) and (e)(8); (f)(2) through (5); and (g). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1) and (k)(2), this system is exempt from the following provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to the limitations set forth in those subsections: 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (f). Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons: (a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or regulatory violation, to the existence of the investigation, which in some cases may be classified, and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or ICE. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, tamper with witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process. (b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation pertaining to an immigration matter, which in some cases may be classified, and prematurely reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, tamper with witnesses or evidence, and avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security. (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of federal immigration law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement and for the protection of national security, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity. (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject of the nature or existence of an investigation, which could cause interference with the investigation, a related inquiry or other law enforcement activities, some of which may be classified. (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information would impede law enforcement in that it could compromise the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants. (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) (Agency Requirements), (f) (Agency Rules), and (g) (Civil Remedies) because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d). (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because in the collection of information for law enforcement purposes it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with ICE's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal, and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence. (i) From subsection (g) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. Dated: March 23, 2006. Maureen Cooney, Acting Chief Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E6-4693 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Part 540 [BOP Docket No. 1135-P] RIN 1120-AB35 Limited Communication for Terrorist Inmates AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes a new regulation that allows for limiting the communication opportunities of inmates charged with, convicted of, or detained in relation to, an offense under Title 18 U.S.C. chapters 113B or 115; or are charged with having engaged in, have engaged in, are detained in relation to, or who have an identifiable link to terrorist-related activity. The Warden may only impose communication restrictions under this regulation, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or other Federal law enforcement agency, makes a request to the Bureau to have an individual inmate's communications limited, unless Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose the communication restriction. Once this request by the FBI or other Federal law enforcement agency is made, the Warden of the facility where the inmate is housed will consider whether such a limitation is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the institution; protection of the public; or national security. If the Warden deems it necessary, the inmate's communications will be limited after approval by the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division. DATES: Comments are due by June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: Our e-mail address is BOPRULES@BOP.GOV. Comments should be submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. You may view an electronic version of this regulation at http://www.regulations.gov. You may also comment via the Internet to BOP at BOPRULES@BOP.GOV or by using the http://www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When submitting comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No. in the subject box. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this document, the Bureau issues a new regulation that allows for limiting the communication opportunities of inmates charged with, convicted of, or detained in relation to an offense under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapters 113B or 115; or are charged with having engaged in, have engaged in, are detained in relation to, or who have an identifiable link to terrorist-related activity. Under this regulation, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or other Federal law enforcement agency, makes a request to the Bureau to have an individual inmate's communications limited, the Warden of the facility where the inmate is housed will consider whether such a limitation is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the institution; protection of the public; or national security. The Warden may also initiate the process if Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose communication restrictions. If the Warden deems it necessary, the inmate's communications will be limited after approval by the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division. While this regulation may allow for limiting the communication of inmates to whom it is applied, it will not extinguish their monitored communication abilities absent abuse or violations committed by the inmate. With this regulation, the Bureau seeks, when warranted, on a case-by-case basis, to minimize communication while still accommodating the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to petition for redress of grievances. By limiting the communications of these inmates, the Bureau seeks to balance First Amendment rights with its obligations to ensure the safety and security of the institution; protection of the public; and/or national security. The proposed regulation would give the Bureau authority for imposing limits and restrictions on the communications of inmates in the Bureau's custody based on criteria or evidence, either from outside sources (such as other federal agencies) or from internal sources (such as intelligence gained through observation of inmates in Bureau custody). Communications would be limited if such evidence indicates, inter alia, a high degree of potential risk to national security. However, this regulation will be applied differently from regulations in 28 CFR part 501, which authorize the Attorney General to impose special administrative measures (SAMs). Under 28 CFR part 501, SAMs are imposed after approval by the Attorney General and are generally based on information from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO), but are typically not based solely on information from internal Bureau of Prisons sources. Unlike 28 CFR part 501, the proposed regulations allow the Bureau to impose communication limits upon request from FBI or other Federal law enforcement agency, or if Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose communication restrictions, evidence which does not rise to the same degree of potential risk to national security or risk of acts of violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General's intervention by issuance of a SAM. Furthermore, while SAMs have the potential to restrict communication entirely, this regulation delineates a floor of limited communication, beneath which the Bureau cannot restrict unless precipitated by the inmate's violation of imposed limitations, and then only as a disciplinary sanction following due process procedures in 28 CFR part 541. Past behaviors of terrorist inmates provide sufficient grounds to suggest a substantial risk that they may inspire or incite terrorist-related activity, especially if communicated to groups willing to become martyrs, or to provide equipment or logistics to carry out terrorist-related activities. The potential ramifications of this activity outweigh the inmate's interest in unlimited communication with persons in the community other than immediate family members, U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, other Federal law enforcement entities, verified consular officers of the inmate's country if the inmate is a national of a foreign country, and the inmate's attorney. Communication related to terrorist-related activity can occur in codes which are difficult to detect and extremely time-consuming to interpret. Inmates involved in such communication, and other persons involved or linked to terrorist-related activities, take on an exalted status with other like-minded individuals. Their communications acquire a special level of inspirational significance for those who are already predisposed to these views, causing a substantial risk that such recipients of their communications will be incited to unlawful terrorist-related activity. The danger of coded messages from prisoners has been recognized by the courts. See Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 93 (1987) (“In any event, prisoners could easily write in jargon or codes to prevent detection of their real messages.”); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 108 (2nd Cir. 1998) (“Because Ajaj was in jail and his telephone calls were monitored, Ajaj and Yousef spoke in code when discussing the bomb plot.”); United States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665, 673 (7th Cir. 2000) (“And we know that anyone who has access to a telephone or is permitted to receive visitors may be able to transmit a lethal message in code.”); United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316, 334 (4th Cir. 2004) (“A conversation that seems innocuous on one day may later turn out to be of great significance, particularly if the individuals are talking in code.”); United States v. Moncivais, 401 F.3d 751, 757 (6th Cir. 2005) (noting police testimony that seemingly nonsensical conversations could be in code and interpreted as indicative of drug dealing activity). Also, an Al Qaeda training manual contains the following advice regarding communications from prison: “Take advantage of visits to communicate with brothers outside prison and exchange information that may be helpful to them in their work outside prison. The importance of mastering the art of hiding messages is self evident here.” There have been cases of imprisoned terrorists communicating with their followers regarding future terrorist activity. For example, after El Sayyid Nosair assassinated Rabbi Kahane, he was placed in Rikers Island, where “he began to receive a steady stream of visitors, most regularly his cousin El-Gabrowny, and also Abouhalima, Salameh, and Ayyad. During these visits, as well as subsequent visits once Nosair was at Attica, Nosair suggested numerous terrorist operations, including the murders of the judge who sentenced him and of Dov Hikind, a New York City Assemblyman, and chided his visitors for doing nothing to further the jihad against the oppressors. Nosair also tape recorded messages while in custody * * * ” United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1999). Imprisoned, Sheikh Abdel Rahman had urged his followers to wage jihad to obtain his release. Violent attacks and murders followed. United States v. Sattar , 314 F.Supp.2d 279, 288-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). To minimize the risk of terrorist-related communication being sent to or from inmates in Bureau custody, this regulation allows the Bureau, upon request from FBI or other Federal law enforcement agency or if Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose communication restrictions, to limit the communication of inmates, individually identified under this regulation, to immediate family members, U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, other Federal law enforcement entities, verified consular officers of the inmate's country if the inmate is a national of a foreign country, and the inmate's attorney. The Bureau allows communication with these individuals to help inmates maintain family ties, and to protect inmates' access to courts and other government officials in order to raise issues related to their incarceration or their conditions of confinement, while minimizing the threat to the safety and security of the institution and protecting the public and national security. The proposed regulation provides that the initial decision regarding whether an inmate's communication will be limited will be made when FBI or another Federal law enforcement agency makes a request to the Bureau to have an inmate's communication limited, or if Bureau of Prisons information indicates a similar need to impose communication restrictions. Upon receiving such a request from the FBI or other Federal law enforcement agency, the Warden of the facility where the inmate is housed will consider whether such limitations are necessary to ensure the safety and security of the institution; protection of the public; or national security. If the Warden deems such limitations necessary, that inmate's communications will be so limited after approval by the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division. The Warden is in the unique position of having access to a wide variety of information regarding an inmate's past and present activity and propensities, and can analyze the totality of an inmate's circumstances to determine whether to limit communications. The Warden will also be aware of national security concerns, and can assess the propensity of inmates to act in a way that presents a national security risk, such as attempting to recruit others, based on available information. Currently, there are several Bureau regulations which underscore the Warden's authority and unique ability to make determinations and take action to ensure protection of the public. For instance, in the Bureau's Federal regulations in volume 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations: • Sections 524.70-524.76, regarding the Central Inmate Monitoring (CIM) System, allows the Warden to evaluate and determine whether certain inmates present special needs for management and therefore require a higher level of review for transfers, temporary releases, or community activities, not to preclude such inmates from such activities where otherwise eligible, but to provide necessary protection to all concerned. Section 540.14(d) states that the Warden may reject correspondence sent by or to an inmate if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, to the protection of the public, or if it might facilitate criminal activity. • Section 540.15 allows the Warden to place an inmate on restricted general correspondence for several reasons, including if the inmate is a security risk, threatens a government official, or otherwise attempts to commit illegal activities. • Section 540.100(a) states that inmate telephone use is subject to those limitations which the Warden determines are necessary to ensure the security or good order, including discipline, of the institution or to protect the public. More specifically, § 540.101(a)(3) allows the Associate Warden to deny placement of a telephone number on an inmate's telephone list if she/he determines that there is a threat to the public. § 540.102 allows for monitoring of inmate telephone calls, also to protect the public. • Section 545.23(d) provides that, when making inmate work assignments, Wardens must consider the institution's security and operational needs, and [the assignment] should be consistent with the safekeeping of the inmate and protection of the public. • Section 570.35(a) requires the Warden to make a determination regarding whether granting an inmate a furlough if the presence of that inmate in the community could attract undue public attention or create unusual concern. When applied to individual inmates under this regulation, the Bureau will actively monitor the frequency, volume, and content of their limited communications, except those to/from the inmate's attorney or a verified consular officer. To effectively and efficiently allow monitoring and review of these inmates' communications with immediate family members, those communications may be limited in frequency and volume as follows: • Written correspondence may be limited to three pieces of paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient; • Telephone communication may be limited to a single completed call per calendar month for up to 15 minutes; and • Visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month. Absent abuse or violations by the inmate, this regulation does not limit the frequency or volume of written communication with U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, other Federal law enforcement entities, verified consular officers of the inmate's country if the inmate is a national of a foreign country, and the inmate's attorney. By limiting the frequency and volume of the communication to/from inmates identified under this regulation, we will reduce the amount of communication requiring monitoring and review. Reducing the volume of communications will help ensure the Bureau's ability to provide heightened scrutiny in reviewing communications, and thereby reducing the terrorism threat to the public and national security. Inmates may incur additional limitations on their communications as the direct result of abusing or violating individualized communication limits imposed under this subsection, but additional limitations will occur only to the extent possible under this regulation and according to the procedures in this subsection. Unmonitored communications with verified attorneys and consular officers may be further limited in the form of monitoring only as provided in part 501 and 28 CFR part 543. Inmates may also be subject to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution for abusing or violating limits imposed under this subsection. Executive Order 12866 This regulation falls within a category of actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined to constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was reviewed by OMB. The Bureau of Prisons has assessed the costs and benefits of this regulation as required by Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this regulation justify its costs. There will be no new costs associated with this regulation. Executive Order 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders and immigration detainees committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This regulation is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 540 Prisoners. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons. Under the rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we propose to amend 28 CFR part 540 as follows. SUBCHAPTER C—INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT PART 540—CONTACT WITH PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 540 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552a; 18 U.S.C. Chapters 113b and 115, 1791, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 530C(b)(6). 2. Add a new subpart J, to read as follows: Subpart J—Limited Communication of Terrorist Inmates Sec. 540.200 Purpose and Scope. 540.201 Definitions. 540.202 Limited Written Correspondence. 540.203 Limited Telephone Communication. 540.204 Limited Visiting. 540.205 Procedures. Subpart J—Limited Communication of Terrorist Inmates § 540.200 Purpose and Scope. (a) This subpart authorizes and defines the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (Bureau) authority to limit the communication of inmates (as defined in 28 CFR 500.1(c)) who have an identifiable link to terrorist-related activity as provided in paragraph (b) of this section. (b) This subpart may be applied to inmates in Bureau custody who are not under special administrative measures as described in 28 CFR part 501, who meet the criteria in § 540.205(b), and who: (1) Are charged with, convicted of, or detained in relation to, an offense under Title 18 U.S.C. Chapters 113B or 115, or (2) Are charged with having engaged in, have engaged in, are detained in relation to, or have an identifiable link to terrorist-related activity. (c) The regulations in this subpart supercede and control to the extent they conflict with, are inconsistent with, or impose greater limitations than the regulations in 28 CFR part 540, or any other regulations in this chapter, except 28 CFR part 501. § 540.201 Definitions. As used in this subpart: (a) Terrorist-related activity means any activity that— (1) Involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (2) Appears to be intended— (i) To intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) To influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) To affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnaping. (b) Engaging in terrorist-related activity means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization: (1) To commit, or to incite to commit activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; (2) To prepare or plan activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; (3) To gather information on potential targets for activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; (4) To contribute, donate or solicit funds or other things of value for: (i) Activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; or (ii) A terrorist-related organization; (5) To solicit any individual: (i) To engage in conduct otherwise described in this subpart; or (ii) For membership in a terrorist-related organization; or (6) To commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training: (i) For the commission of activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; (ii) To any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit activity described in paragraph (a) of this regulation; or (iii) To a terrorist-related organization. (c) Terrorist-related organization means an organization: (1) Designated under section 1189 of Title 8; (2) Otherwise designated, via publication in the Federal Register , by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in terrorist-related activities; or (3) That is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in terrorist-related activities. (d) Immediate family members means spouse, mother, father, siblings, and children. § 540.202 Limited Written Correspondence. The ability of inmates covered by this subpart to engage in written correspondence may be limited as follows: (a) General correspondence. All general correspondence, as defined by part 540, may be limited to immediate family members. Correspondence to and/or from U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, and other Federal law enforcement entities will be considered general correspondence, for the purposes of this regulation, as described below. (1) Correspondence with immediate family members. Volume and frequency of outgoing and incoming general correspondence with immediate family members only, may be limited to three pieces of paper (not larger than 8 1/2 x 11 inches), double-sided writing permitted, once per calendar week to and from a single recipient. (2) Correspondence with U.S. courts, Federal judges, U.S. Attorney's Offices, members of U.S. Congress, the Bureau, and other Federal law enforcement entities. There is no frequency or volume limitation on this type of correspondence, unless the quantity to be processed becomes unreasonable or the inmate abuses or violates these regulations. This correspondence is subject to staff inspection for contraband and for content. (b) Special mail, as defined in part 540, is limited to privileged communication with the inmate's attorney and, if the inmate is a national of a foreign country, a verified consular officer of that country. There is no frequency or volume limitation on this type correspondence, unless necessary as a result of the inmate's abuse or violation of these regulations. All special mail is subject to staff inspection in the inmate's presence for contraband and to ensure its qualification as special mail. § 540.203 Limited Telephone Communication. The ability of inmates covered by this subpart to engage in telephone communication may be limited as follows: (a) Monitored telephone communication may be limited to immediate family members only. The frequency and duration of this communication may be limited to a single connected call per calendar month lasting no longer than 15 minutes. Communication must be in English or simultaneously translated by an approved interpreter. (b) Unmonitored telephone communication is limited to privileged communication with the inmate's attorney and, if the inmate is a national of a foreign country, to telephone conversations with verified consular representatives of that country. Unmonitored privileged telephone communication with the inmate's attorney is permitted: (1) For pretrial inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551), upon request of the inmate, as available resources permit; and (2) For convicted inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551), as necessary in furtherance of active litigation, after establishing that communication with the verified attorney by confidential correspondence or visiting, or monitored telephone use, is not adequate due to an urgent or impending deadline. § 540.204 Limited Visiting. The ability of inmates covered by this subpart to visit with persons from the community may be limited as follows: (a) Regular visiting may be limited to immediate family members. (1) The frequency and duration of regular visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month. The number of visitors permitted during any visit is within the Warden's discretion. Such visits may occur through contact or non-contact visiting facilities, at the discretion of the Warden. (2) Regular visits may be simultaneously monitored and/or recorded, both visually and auditorily, either in person or electronically. (3) Communication during such visits must occur either in English, or be simultaneously translated by an approved interpreter. (b) Attorney visiting is limited to attorney-client privileged communication as provided in part 540. Attorney visiting is permitted for the inmate's verified attorney only, unless the inmate is in the process of obtaining an attorney. These visits may be visually, but not auditorily, monitored. (1) For pretrial inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551), regulations and policies previously established under 28 CFR part 551 are applicable. (2) For convicted inmates (as defined in 28 CFR part 551), regulations and policies previously established under 28 CFR part 543 are applicable. (c) Consular visiting is limited to the inmate's verified consular officer, for inmates who are nationals of a foreign country, as provided in 28 CFR part 540. Consular officer visits may be visually, but not auditorily, monitored. § 540.205 Procedures. When warranted, limited communication under this subpart will be implemented according to the following procedures: (a) Initiation. The process of limiting communications under this subpart may begin either when: (1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agency, makes an initial request to the Bureau of Prisons to have an inmate's communications limited under this subpart; or (2) The Bureau deems it necessary to limit an inmate's communications under this subpart based on consideration of factors described in (b). (b) Consideration of factors. In addition to the criteria provided in § 540.200(b) and any request made by a Federal law enforcement agency under (a), the Warden must also make a determination that limiting the inmate's communication is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the institution; protection of the public; or national security. This determination will be made after considering factors including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Information that leads the Warden, while using sound correctional judgment, to reasonably believe that the inmate may attempt to, or has a propensity to, communicate messages harmful to the safety and security of the institution, the protection of the public, or national security; (2) Actual charges, convictions and/or reasons for detention; (3) Past or present conduct either before or during incarceration, including, but not limited to, terrorist alliances or possession of terrorist-related material; (4) Confirmed membership or leadership role in a terrorist-related organization; (5) Admission by inmate of terrorist-related conduct; (6) Information provided by a law enforcement and/or intelligence entity, or determined by the Bureau in any other manner, including, but not limited to, threat assessments prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, court documents, pre-sentence reports, and similar official documents; (7) Information relating to past practice or attempted past practice of the inmate to communicate messages to others that, if not intercepted, could cause harm to the safety, security, or good order of the institution, the protection of the public, or national security; or (8) The significance of the operational role the inmate had (such as planning, directing, executing, or assisting in actual terrorist acts) or material support role (such as training, arming, transporting, recruiting, communicating for, or providing safe harbor for terrorist operators) in terrorist or terrorist-related activities. (c) Decision authority. If the Warden deems it necessary, the inmate's communications will be limited after approval by the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, or any of their respective designees. (d) Written notice. Inmates designated for limited communication under this subpart will receive written notice from the Warden, or designee, which will: (1) Explain the specific limitations imposed and communication privileges allowed, which should be tailored to the particular circumstances of the inmate; (2) Explain the reasons for the limitations, unless providing such information would jeopardize the safety or security of the institution; protection of the public; or national security; and (3) Indicate the inmate's ability to challenge the decision through the Bureau's administrative remedy program. (e) Annual review. Individual inmate limitations will be reviewed annually from the date of imposition under the same criteria required for the initial determination in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. A determination to renew, modify, or remove the limitations must be communicated to the inmate through written notice, as described in paragraph (d) of this section. Failure to provide such notice to the inmate of renewal or modification of the limitations at least annually from the date of imposition will result in expiration of those limitations. (f) Further Limitations Possible. Inmates may incur additional limitations on their communications as the direct result of abusing or violating individualized communication limits imposed under this subpart. Further limitations for these purposes may only occur as part of a temporary disciplinary sanction pursuant to procedures in 28 CFR part 541 or according to the procedures in this section for initially imposing the limitations. Unmonitored communications with verified attorneys and consular officers may be further restricted only as provided in part 501 and 28 CFR part 543. Inmates may also be subject to disciplinary action or criminal prosecution. [FR Doc. E6-4766 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [CGD05-06-024] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Rappahannock River, Essex County, Westmoreland County, Layton, VA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes a temporary special local regulation for “2006 Rappahannock River Boaters Association Spring and Fall Radar Shootout”, power boat races to be held on the waters of the Rappahannock River near Layton, VA. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in the Rappahannock River during the event. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (oax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, hand-deliver them to Room 119 at the same address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, or fax them to (757) 398-6203. The Coast Guard Auxiliary and Recreational Boating Safety Branch, Fifth Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Sens, Marine Events Coordinator, Fifth Coast Guard District, at (757) 398-6204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-024), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Coast Guard at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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 . Background and Purpose On June 3 and 4, 2006; and October 7 and 8, 2006, the Rappahannock River Boaters Association (RRBA) will sponsor the “2006 RRBA Spring and Fall Radar Shootout”, on the waters of the Rappahannock River near Layton, Virginia. The event will consist of approximately 35 powerboats participating in high-speed competitive races, traveling along a 3-mile strait line race course. Participating boats will race individually within the designated course. A fleet of spectator vessels is anticipated to gather nearby to view the competition. Due to the need for vessel control during the event, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Discussion of Proposed Rule The Coast Guard proposes to establish temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Rappahannock River. The temporary special local regulations will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 3 and 4, 2006; and October 7 and 8, 2006, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel will be allowed to enter or remain in the regulated area. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels. Regulatory Evaluation 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. Although this regulation will prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Rappahannock River during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration that the regulated area will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area between heats, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe to do so. 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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit this section of the Rappahannock River during the event. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only a short period, from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 3 and 4, 2006; and October 7 and 8, 2006. Although the regulated area will apply to a 3 mile segment of the Rappahannock River immediately east of Layton, Virginia, traffic may be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard patrol commander. In the case where the patrol commander authorizes passage through the regulated area during the event, vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. 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 address listed under ADDRESSES. 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 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 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 effect 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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Add a temporary § 100.35-T05-024 to read as follows: § 100.35-T05-024 Rappahannock River, Essex County, Westmoreland County, Layton, Virginia. (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the waters of the Rappahannock River, adjacent to Layton, VA, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded on the west by a line running along longitude 076°58′30″ W, and bounded on the east by a line running along longitude 076°56′00″ W. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983. (b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads. (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign. (c) Regulations: (1) Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall: (i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol and then proceed only as directed. (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Official Patrol. (iii) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake near the race course. (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 3 and 4, 2006; and 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on October 7 and 8, 2006. Dated: March 23, 2006. Larry L. Hereth, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-4788 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-011] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little River (S-20) Bridge, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Mile 347.3, Horry County, SC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the request to open regulation of the Little River (S-20) Bridge across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 347.3 in Horry County, South Carolina. This proposed rule will allow the swingbridge to open as necessary on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. At all other times, the bridge will open upon demand. This proposed action should improve the movement of vehicular traffic while not unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel traffic. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE. 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL 33131, who maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and are available for inspection or copying at the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6743. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-06-011], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 × by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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. Background and Purpose The existing regulations of the Little River (S-20) Bridge, mile 347.3, at Horry County, published in 33 CFR 117.5 require the span to open on signal. On December 20, 2005, the officials of South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) requested that the Coast Guard review the existing regulation governing the request to open operation of the Little River Bridge due to increased vehicular traffic on the bridge. The SCDOT provided traffic count and bridge opening information of a typical summer week and a typical winter week along with the most current 12 month period bridge opening data. The data collected showed an increase in vehicular traffic along the bridge during 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. This proposed rule should improve the movement of vehicular traffic from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, while not unreasonably interfering with the movement of vessel traffic. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed rule will allow as necessary the Little River (S-20) bridge, mile 347.3, at Horry County to open on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour and forty minutes past the hour, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. At all other times, the bridge will open upon demand. This schedule will allow the local vehicular traffic the ability to plan for crossing the bridge while providing for the reasonable needs of navigation. Regulatory Evaluation 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposed rule would modify the existing bridge schedule and should allow for improved vehicle traffic flow and provide scheduled openings for vessel traffic. 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 business, 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 may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit the Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Little River Bridge, persons intending to drive over the bridge and nearby business owners. Vehicle traffic and small business owners in the area might benefit from the increased traffic flow that regularly scheduled openings will offer this area. 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 proposed 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 person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . 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 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 or more in any one year. Though this proposed 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 proposed rule would not affect 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 Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this proposed rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. In § 117.911, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows: § 117.911 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Little River to Savannah River. (b) Little River Bridge Intracoastal Waterway mile 347.3, Horry County, S.C. The draw of the Little River (S-20) bridge, mile 347.3 at Horry County will open as necessary on the hour, twenty minutes past the hour, and forty minutes past the hour, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. At all other times, the bridge will open upon demand. Dated: March 15, 2006. D. B. Peterman, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-4787 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD07-06-041] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek, Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the operating regulation of the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This proposed rule will allow the bridge to remain closed during certain periods. This proposed temporary regulation is needed while the bridge undergoes rehabilitation. It will require the bridge to open on a regulated schedule during the rehabilitation project. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Room 432, Miami, FL, 33131, who maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and are available for inspection or copying at the Seventh Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Lieberum, Project Officer, Seventh Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at (305) 415-6744. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD07-06-041], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know if they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed temporary rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Bridge Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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 . Background and Purpose The existing regulations of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0, Miami-Dade County is published in 33 CFR 117.5 and requires the span to open on signal. On January 17, 2006, the owner of the bridge requested that the Coast Guard temporarily change the existing regulations of the 63rd Street Bridge to allow for rehabilitation in a safe and efficient manner. The bridge closure dates detailed below have been staggered to allow for the movement of navigation before and after each closure period. Discussion of Proposed Rule This proposed temporary rule would require the draw of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida to open as necessary a single-leaf on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and to remain closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that from July 14 to July 17, 2006, August 1 to August 4, 2006, January 10 to January 13, 2007, and January 29 to February 1, 2007, the bridge will be closed to navigation. From June 19 to June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 9, and December 18 to December 23, 2006 the waterway will remain closed to navigation except for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The bridge closure dates have been staggered to allow for the movement of navigation before and after each closure period. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed temporary 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. This proposed temporary rule would modify the existing bridge schedule to allow for the rehabilitation of the bridge and provide scheduled openings for vessel traffic. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed temporary rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small business, 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 temporary rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed temporary rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to transit from the marinas on the south of the bridge to the Intracoastal Waterway, persons intending to drive over the bridge and nearby business owners. 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 proposed rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed temporary 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 person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 proposed temporary 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 temporary 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 or more in any one year. Though this proposed temporary 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 proposed temporary rule would not affect 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary 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 temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed temporary rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed temporary rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, an “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a “Categorical Exclusion Determination” are not required for this proposed temporary rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Add § 117.T293 to read as follows: § 117.T293 Indian Creek. (a) The draw of the 63rd Street bridge, mile 4.0 across Indian Creek, Miami-Dade County, Florida will open a single-leaf as necessary on the hour from 8 a.m. to 12:10 a.m. and will remain closed from 12:11 a.m. to 7:59 a.m. except that the bridge will be closed to navigation on the following dates: July 14 to July 17, 2006; August 1 to August 4, 2006; January 10 to January 13, 2007; and January 29 to February 1, 2007. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, from June 19 to June 24, July 5 to July 10, December 4 to December 9, and December 18 to December 23, 2006 the waterway will be closed to navigation except for hourly openings as necessary between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (c) Effective date: This temporary rule is effective from 8 a.m. on June 19, 2006 through 6 p.m. on February 5, 2007. Dated: March 15, 2006. D.B. Peterman, RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-4786 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [CGD05-06-014] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary security zone on the waters of the upper Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the security of a large number of visitors to the annual July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The security zone will allow for control of a designated area of the river and safeguard spectators and high-ranking officials. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before June 2, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building 70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at telephone number (410) 576-2674 or (410) 576-2693. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD05-06-014), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know that your submission reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Waterways Management Division, at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register . Background and Purpose Due to increased awareness that future terrorist attacks are possible, including continued threats against U.S. interests by Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations, the Coast Guard as lead federal agency for maritime homeland security, has determined that the Captain of the Port Baltimore must have the means to be aware of, deter, detect, intercept, and respond to asymmetric threats, acts of aggression, and attacks by terrorists on the American homeland while still maintaining our freedoms and sustaining the flow of commerce. This security zone is part of a comprehensive port security regime designed to safeguard human life, vessels, and waterfront facilities against sabotage or terrorist attacks. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the public interest, the Coast Guard is proposing to establish a security zone upon all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. This security zone will help the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against a large number of spectators and high-ranking officials during the annual July 4th celebration. Due to these heightened security concerns, and the catastrophic impact a terrorist attack on the National Mall in Washington, DC during the annual July 4th celebration would have on the large number of spectators and high-ranking officials, and the surrounding area and communities, a security zone is prudent for this type of event. Discussion of Proposed Rule It is very likely that hundreds of thousands of visitors will attend the July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland proposes to establish a security zone for the highly-publicized public event in Washington, DC to address the aforementioned security concerns and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a large gathering of spectators and high-ranking officials at or near the July 4th celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, would have. This security zone applies to all waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin from 12:01 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006. Vessels underway at the time this security zone is implemented will immediately proceed out of the zone. We will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners to further publicize the security zone. This security zone is necessary to prevent vessels or persons on designated waters of the Potomac River (including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from going ashore and thereby bypassing the security perimeter established by the U. S. Park Police of the National Park Service for the event. Regulatory Evaluation 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. 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 transit or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River (including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin) from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2006. This security zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This rule will be in effect for less than twenty-four hours. Although the security zone will apply to the entire width of the river, traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone at the direction of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. Additionally, before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected areas. Because the zone is of limited size, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the maritime community. Smaller vessels not constrained by their draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may request permission from the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland on a case-by-case basis to enter the 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 proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 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 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 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 effect 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. We invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal governments, even if that impact may not constitute a “tribal implication” under the Order. 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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation because this rulemaking is a security zone less than one week in duration. A draft “Environmental Analysis Check List” and a draft “Categorical Exclusion Determination” (CED) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review. 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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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 § 165.T05-014 to read as follows: § 165.T05-014 Security Zone; Georgetown Channel, Potomac River, Washington, DC (a) Definitions. (1) The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, Maryland or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf. (b) Location. The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Georgetown Channel of the Potomac River, from the surface to the bottom, 75 yards from the eastern shore measured perpendicularly to the shore, between the Long Railroad Bridge (the most eastern bridge of the 5-span, Fourteenth Street Bridge Complex) to the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge and all waters in between, totally including the waters of the Georgetown Channel Tidal Basin. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons are required to comply with the general regulations governing security zones found in § 165.33 of this part. (2) Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the security zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, Baltimore to seek permission to transit the area. The Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at telephone number (410) 576-2693. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, VHF channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland and proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while within the zone. (4) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies. (d) Effective period. This section will be effective from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. local time on July 4, 2006. Dated: March 24, 2006. Curtis A. Springer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland. [FR Doc. E6-4789 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service 36 CFR Chapter 1 Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area ACTION: Notice of meeting. Notice is hereby given, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), of the second meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Dog Management at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. DATES: The Committee will meet on April 18, 2006 at the Fort Mason Officer's Club in upper Fort Mason, in San Francisco. The meeting will begin at 3 p.m. This, and any subsequent meetings, will be held to assist the National Park Service in potentially developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The proposed agenda for this meeting of the Committee may contain the following items; however, the Committee may modify its agenda during the course of its work. The Committee will provide for a public comment period during the meeting. 1. Agenda review and adoption. 2. Approve previous meeting summary. 3. Committee Protocols. 4. GGNRA Sideboards. 5. Interest statements from Committee representatives. 6. Negotiated rulemaking process and coordination with NEPA. 7. Goals and criteria. 8. Information needs. 9. Committee schedule and logistics. 10. Public comment. 11. Adjourn. To request a sign language interpreter for a meeting, please call the park TDD line (415) 556-2766, a week in advance of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Superintendent, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123 or call the Dog Management Information Line at 415-561-4728. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings are open to the public. The Committee was established pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561-570). The purpose of the Committee is to consider developing a special regulation for dogwalking at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Interested persons may provide brief oral/written comments to the Committee during the Public Comment period of the meeting or file written comments with the GGNRA Superintendent. Dated: March 28, 2006. Bernard C. Fagan, Deputy Chief, Office of Policy. [FR Doc. 06-3182 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am]