80 FR 52982 - Paroling, Recommitting and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 170 (September 2, 2015)
Parole Commission
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 170 (September 2, 2015)
| Page Range | 52982-52984 | |
| FR Document | 2015-21094 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 52982-52984] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-21094] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission 28 CFR Part 2 [Docket No. UPSC 2014-01] Paroling, Recommitting and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The United States Parole Commission is revising its rules pertaining to decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a revocation hearing. The rule allows for a releasee charged with administrative violations or specifically identified misdemeanor crimes to apply for a prison sanction of 8 months or less. If a releasee qualifies and applies for a sanction under this section, the Commission may approve a revocation decision that includes no more than 8 months of imprisonment without using its normal guidelines for decision-making DATES: Effective September 2, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations Administrator U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7061. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the phone. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 79 FR 47603- 47605, we discussed the possible revision of our rules pertaining to decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a revocation hearing for persons charged with only administrative violations or specifically identified misdemeanor crimes. We refer you to the previous publication for a review of the background material. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we encouraged the public to comment on our proposed changes and we received two written comments from interested persons and/or organizations. However, only one public comment, submitted by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, suggested modifications to the proposed rule. Public Comment From the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS) PDS recommends that we develop a new risk assessment tool to be applied to all residents of the District of Columbia. While we may review the effectiveness of risk assessment tools used for all cases under our jurisdiction, we believe that the final rule for special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions should be extended only to those persons who commit low level violations of supervision. Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule stated that, notwithstanding our general policy, when revoking supervised release for administrative violations under this paragraph, we may impose new terms of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term. PDS recommends that we provide training to our Hearing Examiners to impose shorter terms of supervision even when revoking supervised release for other types of violations. Based on the comments, the final rule omits the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are permitted to impose periods of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term for all [[Page 52983]] supervised release violators. Therefore, the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule is unnecessary and inaccurately implies that we are not permitted to impose shorter periods of supervised release when revoking for other types of violations. PDS suggests that the inclusion of the proposed rule under the section entitled Revocation Decision Without a Hearing inaccurately implies that a person sanctioned under this paragraph is waiving any type of hearing and not just a revocation hearing. We believe that the proposed rule was included in the correct section. All other processes for revocation without a hearing outlined in Sec. 2.66 refer to persons that waive a revocation hearing after a probable cause determination has been made. The procedures set forth in paragraph (d) are the same in that regard. PDS expressed a concern that persons arrested outside the District of Columbia will not receive legal advice when deciding to apply for a sanction under paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule. Because all alleged violators of supervision are provided with the right to request an attorney at the probable cause proceeding, we are satisfied that all alleged violators who qualify for sanction under this paragraph will be provided with an attorney if they want one. The proposed rule allows for a prison sanction of ``no more than 8 months'' for persons sentenced pursuant to Sec. 2.66(d). During the pilot project that preceded publishing of the proposed rule, we issued policy statements to guide our Hearing Examiners as to the expected length of the prison term within the 8 month range. The policy statements provided a guide as to the length of the prison sanction based solely on the type of administrative violation that had occurred. However, the policy statements were not included in the proposed rule. PDS commented that failure to include these policy statements is inherently unfair because it punishes all administrative violations the same. We have determined that it is not necessary to include the policy statements in the final rule. We have decided over 1,000 cases under these procedures since the pilot project began in 2012. A review of the data for those cases showed that we were not following the policy statements in a high number of cases. When the length of the prison term differed from what was suggested by the policy statements, the term was usually shorter than what was suggested. This included the decision to sentence over 200 alleged violators who had absconded from supervision to time served despite the policy statement that suggested that they serve between 5 and 8 months. There are a number of factors other than the type of violation that we consider in determining the length of a prison sanction. Based on our extensive experience in sanctioning alleged violators during the pilot project, we believe we can fairly consider all persons that qualify for a sanction under this section without using policy statements that are based solely on the type of administrative violation that has occurred. PDS requested that the Commission eliminate or modify the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the proposed rule that an alleged violator cannot be sanctioned twice under this section. We find this to be an appropriate requirement and consistent with the alleged violator's agreement to modify his or her non-compliant behavior to successfully complete any remaining period of supervision as indicated in (d)(1)(iv). The proposed rule did not include any method for an alleged violator to ask the Commission to reconsider a decision to disapprove a sanction under this paragraph or to approve a sanction that is greater than recommended by a Hearing Examiner. It also did not require a Commissioner, when disapproving a case that qualifies, to provide a written explanation. PDS requested that the final rule include these procedures. We have determined that these procedures are not necessary. To be sanctioned under this paragraph, an alleged violator must agree to a sanction of ``no more than 8 months.'' Thus, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow that same individual the right to petition the Commission to reconsider a decision that is within the scope of the written agreement. Also, a decision not to approve an alleged violator for a sanction under this paragraph only means that the Commission has decided that a revocation hearing will be conducted. If the alleged violator is not satisfied with the result of that hearing, he or she has the right to appeal the decision. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulation Planning and Review,'' section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13565, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. The Commission has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E--Congressional Review Act) These rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E-- Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule 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 the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term ``rule'' as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and parole. [[Page 52984]] The Final Rule Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission adopts the following amendments to 28 CFR part 2. PART 2--[AMENDED] 0 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6). 0 2. In Sec. 2.66, add paragraph (d) to read as follows: Sec. 2.66 Revocation decision without hearing. (d) Special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions for administrative violations of supervision. (1) An alleged violator may, at the time of the probable cause hearing or preliminary interview, waive the right to a revocation hearing and apply in writing for an immediate prison sanction of no more than 8 months. Notwithstanding the reparole guidelines at Sec. 2.21, the Commission will consider such a sanction if-- (i) The releasee has not already postponed the initial probable cause hearing/preliminary interview by more than 30 days; (ii) The charges alleged by the Commission do not include a violation of the law; (iii) The releasee has accepted responsibility for the violations; (iv) The releasee has agreed to modify the non-compliant behavior to successfully complete any remaining period of supervision; and (v) The releasee has not already been sanctioned pursuant to this paragraph (d)(1). (2) A sanction imposed pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section may include any other action authorized by Sec. 2.52, Sec. 2.105, or Sec. 2.218. (3) Any case not approved by the Commission for a revocation sanction pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall receive the normal revocation hearing procedures including the application of the guidelines at Sec. 2.21. Note to paragraph (d). For purpose of paragraph (d)(1) of this section only, the Commission will consider the sanctioning of the following crimes as administrative violations if they have been charged only as misdemeanors: 1. Public Intoxication 2. Possession of an Open Container of Alcohol 3. Urinating in Public 4. Traffic Violations 5. Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace 6. Driving without a License or with a revoked/suspended license 7. Providing False Information to a Police Officer 8. Loitering 9. Failure to Pay court ordered support (i.e. child support/alimony) 10. Solicitation/Prostitution 11. Resisting Arrest 12. Reckless Driving 13. Gambling 14. Failure to Obey a Police Officer 15. Leaving the Scene of an Accident (only if no injury occurred)- 16. Hitchhiking 17. Vending without a License 18. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (indicating purpose of personal use only) 19. Possession of a Controlled Substance (for personal use only) Dated: August 17, 2015. J. Patricia Wilson Smoot, Chairman, United States Parole Commission. [FR Doc. 2015-21094 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![52982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
956, an obligation of a foreign after September 1, 2015. See paragraph more than 8 months of imprisonment
partnership that is held (or that would (b)(4) of § 1.956–1T, as contained in 26 without using its normal guidelines for
be treated as held under § 1.956–2(c) if CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2015, decision-making
the obligation were an obligation of a for the rules applicable to taxable years DATES: Effective September 2, 2015.
United States person) by a controlled of controlled foreign corporations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
foreign corporation is treated as a ending before September 1, 2015 and Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations
separate obligation of a partner in the property acquired before September 1, Administrator U.S. Parole Commission,
partnership when— 2015. For purposes of this paragraph 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530,
(A) The foreign partnership (g)(1), a deemed exchange of property telephone (202) 346–7061. Questions
distributes an amount of money or pursuant to section 1001 on or after about this publication are welcome, but
property to the partner; September 1, 2015 constitutes an inquiries concerning individual cases
(B) The foreign partnership would not acquisition of the property on or after cannot be answered over the phone.
have made the distribution but for a that date.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
funding of the partnership through the (2) Paragraph (b)(5) of this section
obligation; and applies to taxable years of controlled Background
(C) The partner is related to the foreign corporations ending on or after In the notice of proposed rulemaking
controlled foreign corporation within September 1, 2015, and to taxable years published at 79 FR 47603–47605, we
the meaning of section 954(d)(3). of United States shareholders in which discussed the possible revision of our
(ii) Amount of obligation. or with which such taxable years end, rules pertaining to decisions to revoke
Notwithstanding § 1.956–1(e), the in the case of distributions made on or terms of supervision without a
amount that is treated as an obligation after September 1, 2015. revocation hearing for persons charged
of the distributee partner pursuant to (3) [Reserved]. with only administrative violations or
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section is (4) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
specifically identified misdemeanor
equal to the lesser of the amount of the see § 1.956–1(g)(4).
crimes. We refer you to the previous
partnership distribution that would not (h) Expiration date. The applicability
publication for a review of the
have been made but for the funding of of paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
background material. In the notice of
the partnership or the amount (as section expires on or before August 31,
proposed rulemaking, we encouraged
determined under § 1.956–1(e)) of the 2018.
the public to comment on our proposed
obligation of the foreign partnership that Approved: July 30, 2015. changes and we received two written
is held (or that would be treated as held John Dalrymple, comments from interested persons and/
under § 1.956–2(c) if the obligation were
Deputy Commissioner for Services and or organizations. However, only one
an obligation of a United States person) Enforcement. public comment, submitted by the
by the controlled foreign corporation.
Mark J. Mazur, Public Defender Service for the District
(iii) Example. (A) Facts. P, a domestic Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax of Columbia, suggested modifications to
corporation, wholly owns FS, a controlled Policy). the proposed rule.
foreign corporation. P owns a 70% interest in
[FR Doc. 2015–21574 Filed 9–1–15; 8:45 am]
FPRS, a foreign partnership. A domestic Public Comment From the Public
corporation that is unrelated to P and FS BILLING CODE 4830–01–P Defender Service for the District of
owns the remaining 30% interest in FPRS. Columbia (PDS)
FPRS borrows $100x from FS, and distributes
$80x to P. FPRS would not have made the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PDS recommends that we develop a
distribution to P but for the funding by FS. new risk assessment tool to be applied
(B) Result. Under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this Parole Commission to all residents of the District of
section, a portion of the obligation of FPRS Columbia. While we may review the
that FS holds is treated as an obligation of 28 CFR Part 2 effectiveness of risk assessment tools
P, which constitutes United States property, used for all cases under our jurisdiction,
because FPRS made a distribution to P that [Docket No. UPSC 2014–01] we believe that the final rule for special
FPRS would not have made but for the
procedures for swift and short-term
funding of FPRS through the obligation held Paroling, Recommitting and
by FS. Under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this sanctions should be extended only to
Supervising Federal Prisoners:
section, the amount that is treated as an those persons who commit low level
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under
obligation of P is the lesser of the amount of violations of supervision.
the United States and District of
the distribution, $80x, or the amount of the Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule
Columbia Codes
entire obligation of FPRS held by FS, $100x. stated that, notwithstanding our general
For purposes of section 956, therefore, on the AGENCY: United States Parole policy, when revoking supervised
date the loan to FPRS is made, FS is Commission, Justice. release for administrative violations
considered to hold United States property of under this paragraph, we may impose
$80x. ACTION: Final rule.
new terms of supervised release that are
* * * * * SUMMARY: The United States Parole less than the maximum authorized term.
(e)(6) [Reserved]. For further Commission is revising its rules PDS recommends that we provide
guidance, see § 1.956–1(e)(6). pertaining to decisions to revoke terms training to our Hearing Examiners to
* * * * * of supervision without a revocation impose shorter terms of supervision
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
(g) Effective/applicability date. (1) hearing. The rule allows for a releasee even when revoking supervised release
Paragraph (b)(4) of this section applies charged with administrative violations for other types of violations.
to taxable years of controlled foreign or specifically identified misdemeanor Based on the comments, the final rule
corporations ending on or after crimes to apply for a prison sanction of omits the language from paragraph
September 1, 2015, and to taxable years 8 months or less. If a releasee qualifies (d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are
of United States shareholders in which and applies for a sanction under this permitted to impose periods of
or with which such taxable years end, section, the Commission may approve a supervised release that are less than the
with respect to property acquired on or revocation decision that includes no maximum authorized term for all
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Sep 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM 02SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53152/page/1.svg)
![52984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The Final Rule 7. Providing False Information to a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Police Officer 15, 2015, MSHA moved its
Commission adopts the following 8. Loitering Headquarters offices from 1100 Wilson
amendments to 28 CFR part 2. 9. Failure to Pay court ordered support Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209–3939
(i.e. child support/alimony) to 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA
PART 2—[AMENDED] 10. Solicitation/Prostitution 22202–5452. MSHA is amending its
11. Resisting Arrest regulations to include MSHA’s new
■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 12. Reckless Driving address.
part 2 continues to read as follows: 13. Gambling MSHA is also amending its
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and
14. Failure to Obey a Police Officer regulations to update the mailing
4204(a)(6). 15. Leaving the Scene of an Accident address of MSHA’s Office of Technical
(only if no injury occurred)- Support, Pittsburgh Safety and Health
■ 2. In § 2.66, add paragraph (d) to read 16. Hitchhiking Technology Center. MSHA will
as follows: 17. Vending without a License discontinue renting the Post Office
18. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia boxes it uses for mail delivery. The
§ 2.66 Revocation decision without (indicating purpose of personal use mailing address for the Pittsburgh Safety
hearing. only) and Health Technology Center’s
(d) Special procedures for swift and 19. Possession of a Controlled Substance Respirable Dust Processing Laboratory is
short-term sanctions for administrative (for personal use only) 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Building 38,
violations of supervision. (1) An alleged Dated: August 17, 2015. Pittsburgh, PA 15236–3611. The mailing
violator may, at the time of the probable J. Patricia Wilson Smoot, address to submit seal design
cause hearing or preliminary interview, Chairman, United States Parole Commission. applications for approval by the
waive the right to a revocation hearing Pittsburgh Safety and Health
[FR Doc. 2015–21094 Filed 9–1–15; 8:45 am]
and apply in writing for an immediate Technology Center is 626 Cochrans Mill
BILLING CODE P
prison sanction of no more than 8 Road, Building 151, Pittsburgh, PA
months. Notwithstanding the reparole 15236–3611.
guidelines at § 2.21, the Commission In addition, MSHA made other non-
will consider such a sanction if— DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
substantive changes to correct
(i) The releasee has not already inaccurate names: §§ 48.3, 48.23, and
Mine Safety and Health Administration
postponed the initial probable cause 48.32 contain a non-substantive change
hearing/preliminary interview by more to the name of the Administrator for
30 CFR Parts 7, 18, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56,
than 30 days; Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and
(ii) The charges alleged by the 57, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, and 90
Health; §§ 7.505, 56.2, 57.2, and 75.301
Commission do not include a violation MSHA Headquarters, Pittsburgh Safety contain a non-substantive change to the
of the law; and Health Technology Center, and name of the Office of Standards,
(iii) The releasee has accepted Respirable Dust Processing Regulations, and Variances; and §§ 49.3,
responsibility for the violations; Laboratory Address Changes 49.4, and 49.8 contain a non-substantive
(iv) The releasee has agreed to modify change to remove an obsolete or
the non-compliant behavior to AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health inapplicable name.
successfully complete any remaining Administration, Labor. MSHA is also amending previously
period of supervision; and ACTION: Final rule; technical approved incorporation by reference
(v) The releasee has not already been amendment. (IBR) language in some MSHA
sanctioned pursuant to this paragraph regulations. The amendments conform
(d)(1). SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health to current Office of the Federal Register
(2) A sanction imposed pursuant to Administration (MSHA) is amending its (OFR) format requirements for an IBR
paragraph (d)(1) of this section may published regulations that include the regarding publisher addresses,
include any other action authorized by Agency’s addresses. MSHA relocated its telephone numbers, and internet
§ 2.52, § 2.105, or § 2.218. Headquarters offices and also will addresses, and include contact
(3) Any case not approved by the discontinue renting the Post Office information for the National Archives
Commission for a revocation sanction boxes it uses for mail delivery to the and Records Administration (NARA).
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this Pittsburgh Safety and Health This technical amendment is a
section shall receive the normal Technology Center and Respirable Dust procedural ‘‘rule’’ under 5 U.S.C. 551(4),
revocation hearing procedures including Processing Laboratory. In addition, and is not subject to the notice-and-
the application of the guidelines at MSHA is amending the incorporation by comment rulemaking requirements in 5
§ 2.21. reference language in some of its U.S.C. 553. This action also does not
Note to paragraph (d). For purpose of regulations to include current addresses, constitute a ‘‘regulatory action’’ subject
paragraph (d)(1) of this section only, the telephone numbers, and internet to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
Commission will consider the addresses. the regulations in 30 CFR parts 7, 18, 44,
sanctioning of the following crimes as DATES: Effective Date: September 2, 46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, and
administrative violations if they have 2015. 90 are amended to include updated
been charged only as misdemeanors: information.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1. Public Intoxication FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
2. Possession of an Open Container of Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, List of Subjects
Alcohol Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at 30 CFR Part 7
3. Urinating in Public
4. Traffic Violations mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov (email); Explosives, Incorporation by
5. Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace 202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441 reference, Mine safety and health,
6. Driving without a License or with a (facsimile). These are not toll-free Reporting and recordkeeping
revoked/suspended license numbers. requirements, Research.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:00 Sep 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM 02SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_53152/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-26 10:10:44
Document Modified: 2018-02-26 10:10:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | Effective September 2, 2015. | |
| Contact | Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations Administrator U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7061. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the phone. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 52982 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Prisoners and Probation and Parole |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR