Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes, 19262-19263 [05-7389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19262
§ 520.1194
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[Amended]
The Parole
Commission’s hearing examiners travel
I 2. Section 520.1194 is amended in
paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘050604’’ and to more than 60 locations of Federal
correctional facilities to conduct parole
by adding in its place ‘‘017135’’.
release and revocation hearings. In order
Dated: March 31, 2005.
to reduce travel costs and to conserve
Bernadette A. Dunham,
the time and effort of its hearing
Deputy Director, Office of New Animal Drug
examiners, in 2004 the Commission
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
initiated a pilot project in which
[FR Doc. 05–7344 Filed 4–12–05; 8:45 am]
examiners conducted some parole
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
release hearings by videoconference
between the Commission’s office in
Maryland and the prisoner’s Federal
institution. The Commission published
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
an interim rule that provided notice that
the Commission would be using the
Parole Commission
videoconference procedure. 69 FR 5273
(Feb. 4, 2004).
28 CFR Part 2
By the end of 2004, the Commission
conducted 102 hearings via
Paroling, Recommitting, and
videoconference at 11 institutions. The
Supervising Federal Prisoners:
videoconference technology has worked
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under
well. Video and audio transmissions are
the United States and District of
clear and the hearings are seldom
Columbia Codes
interrupted by technical difficulties.
AGENCY: United States Parole
The Commission’s experience is that the
Commission, Justice.
prisoner’s ability to effectively
participate in the hearing has not been
ACTION: Interim rule with request for
diminished by the use of the
comments.
videoconference procedure.
SUMMARY: During 2004 the Parole
The Commission’s pilot project only
Commission carried out a pilot project
included parole release hearings. Now
to study the feasibility of conducting
the Commission is extending the use of
parole release hearings through
the videoconference procedure to
videoconferences between an examiner
institutional revocation hearings. A
at the Commission’s office and prisoners revocation hearing is held at a Federal
at selected institutions of the Federal
institution when the releasee admits to
Bureau of Prisons. In order to give
the violation charge, is convicted of a
notice of this project, the Commission
new crime, or waives a local revocation
promulgated an interim rule that
hearing, i.e., a hearing at the place of the
provided that a parole release hearing
alleged violation or arrest. Adverse
may be conducted through a
witnesses are not produced at
videoconference with the prisoner. The
institutional revocation hearings for
pilot project has been a success and the
confrontation and cross-examination.
Commission is now amending the
On rare occasions, the releasee has a
interim rule to include institutional
witness testify on his behalf at the
revocation hearings as hearings that may hearing. Because the violation charge is
either not contested by the releasee or
be conducted by videoconference. The
is conclusively established by the new
Commission is taking this action to
conviction, an institutional revocation
further conserve personnel resources
hearing primarily focuses on the
and reduce the costs associated with
decisions regarding the appropriate
travel by the agency’s hearing
prison term for the releasee’s violation
examiners.
and whether the releasee should be
DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2005.
returned to the community on
Comments must be received by June 13,
supervision. Therefore, an institutional
2005.
revocation hearing bears considerable
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of
similarity to a parole determination
General Counsel, U.S. Parole
proceeding. Given this similarity and
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd.,
the additional cost savings and
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.
conservation of resources that may be
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
gained from use of the videoconference
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole
procedure, the Commission is adding
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd.,
institutional revocation hearings to
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815,
those hearings an examiner may
telephone (301) 492–5959. Questions
conduct by videoconference.
Extending the videoconference
about this publication are welcome, but
procedure to institutional revocation
inquiries concerning individual cases
cannot be answered over the telephone. hearings will provide additional
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:30 Apr 12, 2005
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
flexibility for both the Commission and
the Bureau of Prisons in the disposition
of accused release violators and the use
of personnel. For example, if the
releasee is serving a new prison term at
an institution where the Commission
conducts parole hearings via
videoconference, the Bureau will be
able to designate that same institution as
the site of the releasee’s institutional
revocation hearing. This saves either the
cost of transporting the releasee to FTC
Oklahoma or FDC Philadelphia, the
institutions where the Commission
conducts the majority of institutional
revocation hearings, or the cost of
sending a hearing examiner to travel to
the institution to conduct one
institutional revocation hearing when
all other hearings at that same
institution are conducted via
videoconference. Moreover, conducting
institutional revocation hearings by
videoconference may avoid some
violations of the 90-day time period for
holding such hearings in situations
where transportation difficulties or
other problems have delayed the
scheduling of the hearing.
The Commission is promulgating this
rule as an interim rule in order to
promptly take full advantage of the cost
savings and other benefits in the
deployment of examiner personnel that
result from the extension of the
videoconference procedure to
institutional revocation hearings. The
Commission is providing a 60-day
period for the public to comment on the
use of the videoconference procedure
for such revocation hearings.
Implementation
The amended rule will take effect
May 13, 2005, and will apply to
institutional revocation hearings for
Federal parolees and District of
Columbia parolees and supervised
releasees held on or after the effective
date.
Executive Order 12866
The U.S. Parole Commission has
determined that this interim rule does
not constitute a significant rule within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866.
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 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.
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Flexibility Act
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The interim 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), and is
deemed by the Commission to be a rule
of agency practice that does not
substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties
pursuant to Section 804 (3) (c) of the
Congressional Review Act.
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by Sec. 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. This 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.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Prisoners, Probation and
Parole.
The Interim Rule
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole
Commission is adopting the following
amendment to 28 CFR part 2.
PART 2—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 2 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203 (a) (1) and 4204
(a) (6).
2. Revise § 2.25 to read as follows:
§ 2.25
RIN 0720–AA79
TRICARE; Elimination of NonAvailability Statement and Referral
Authorization Requirements and
Elimination of Specialized Treatment
Services Program
AGENCY:
This 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.
I
32 CFR Part 199
Hearings by videoconference.
Parole determination hearings
(including rescission hearings), and
institutional revocation hearings, may
be conducted by a videoconference
between the hearing examiner and the
prisoner or releasee.
ACTION:
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule implements Section
735 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(NDAA–02) (Pub. L. 107–107). It also
implements Section 728 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (NDAA–01)
(Pub. L. 106–398). Section 735 of
NDAA–02 eliminates the requirement
for TRICARE Standard beneficiaries
who live within a 40-mile radius of a
military medical treatment facility
(MTF) to obtain a nonavailability
statement (NAS) or preauthorization
from an MTF before receiving inpatient
care (other than mental health services)
or maternity care from a civilian
provider in order that TRICARE will
cost-share for such services. Section 735
of NDAA–02, however, authorizes the
Department of Defense to make
exceptions to the elimination of the
requirement for a NAS through the
exercise of a waiver process under
certain specified conditions. This
section also eliminates the NAS
requirement for specialized treatment
services (STSs) for TRICARE Standard
beneficiaries who live outside the 200mile radius of a designated STS facility.
This rule portrays the Department’s
decision to eliminate the STS program
entirely. Finally, Section 728 of NDAA–
01 requires that prior authorization
before referral to a specialty care
provider that is part of the contractor
network be eliminated under any new
TRICARE contract.
DATES:
Effective Date: December 28,
2003.
Medical Benefits and
Reimbursement Systems, TRICARE
Management Activity, 16401 East
Centretech Parkway, Aurora, CO 80011–
9066.
ADDRESSES:
Dated: April 5, 2005.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–7389 Filed 4–12–05; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tariq Shahid, TRICARE Management
Activity, telephone (303) 676–3801.
BILLING CODE 4410–31–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:30 Apr 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19263
I. Elimination of Nonavailability
Statement Requirement and Specialized
Treatment Service Program
The NDAA–02 was signed into law on
December 28, 2001. Section 735 of
NDAA–02 amends Section 721 of the
NDAA–01 with respect to the
nonavailability statement (NAS)
elimination requirements and
eliminates the requirement for nonenrolled TRICARE beneficiaries who
live within a 40-mile radius of a military
medical treatment facility (MTF) to
obtain an NAS or preauthorization from
an MTF before receiving nonemergent
inpatient or obstetrical (inpatient or
outpatient) services from a civilian
provider in order that TRICARE will
cost-share for such services. A nonenrolled TRICARE beneficiary is a
beneficiary who has not enrolled in
TRICARE Prime, but who has chosen to
use the TRICARE Standard and
TRICARE Extra options. Section 735
retains MTF NAS authority for inpatient
mental health services within the usual
40-mile catchment area. The section
establishes that the NAS elimination
requirements are to take effect on the
earlier of the date the health care
services are provided under new
TRICARE contracts or the date that is
two years after the date of the enactment
of NDAA–02. As the health care services
under new TRICARE contracts were to
be available after March 2004, the NAS
requirements are eliminated for
admissions occurring on or after
December 28, 2003, which is the date
that is two years after the date of the
enactment of NDAA–02. For obstetrical
care, the NAS requirement is eliminated
for maternity episodes wherein the first
prenatal visit occurs on or after
December 28, 2003. An NAS is required
when the first prenatal visit occurs
before December 28, 2003, by 10 U.S.C.
1080(b). The NAS for inpatient mental
health care will continue to be required.
With the exception of maternity care,
Section 735 of NDAA–02 gives the
Secretary of DoD the authority to waive
the NAS elimination requirements if: (a)
Significant costs would be avoided by
performing specific procedures at the
affected military treatment facility
(MTF); (b) A specific procedure must be
provided at the affected MTF to ensure
the proficiency levels of the
practitioners at the facility; or (c) the
lack of NAS data would significantly
interfere with TRICARE contract
administration. When this waiver
authority will be exercised, the
Department will notify the affected
beneficiaries by publishing a notice in
the Federal Register and notify the
Congress. The TRICARE policy requires
E:\FR\FM\13APR1.SGM
13APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19262-19263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7389]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
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: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: During 2004 the Parole Commission carried out a pilot project
to study the feasibility of conducting parole release hearings through
videoconferences between an examiner at the Commission's office and
prisoners at selected institutions of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In
order to give notice of this project, the Commission promulgated an
interim rule that provided that a parole release hearing may be
conducted through a videoconference with the prisoner. The pilot
project has been a success and the Commission is now amending the
interim rule to include institutional revocation hearings as hearings
that may be conducted by videoconference. The Commission is taking this
action to further conserve personnel resources and reduce the costs
associated with travel by the agency's hearing examiners.
DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2005. Comments must be received by June
13, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815,
telephone (301) 492-5959. Questions about this publication are welcome,
but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the
telephone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Parole Commission's hearing examiners
travel to more than 60 locations of Federal correctional facilities to
conduct parole release and revocation hearings. In order to reduce
travel costs and to conserve the time and effort of its hearing
examiners, in 2004 the Commission initiated a pilot project in which
examiners conducted some parole release hearings by videoconference
between the Commission's office in Maryland and the prisoner's Federal
institution. The Commission published an interim rule that provided
notice that the Commission would be using the videoconference
procedure. 69 FR 5273 (Feb. 4, 2004).
By the end of 2004, the Commission conducted 102 hearings via
videoconference at 11 institutions. The videoconference technology has
worked well. Video and audio transmissions are clear and the hearings
are seldom interrupted by technical difficulties. The Commission's
experience is that the prisoner's ability to effectively participate in
the hearing has not been diminished by the use of the videoconference
procedure.
The Commission's pilot project only included parole release
hearings. Now the Commission is extending the use of the
videoconference procedure to institutional revocation hearings. A
revocation hearing is held at a Federal institution when the releasee
admits to the violation charge, is convicted of a new crime, or waives
a local revocation hearing, i.e., a hearing at the place of the alleged
violation or arrest. Adverse witnesses are not produced at
institutional revocation hearings for confrontation and cross-
examination. On rare occasions, the releasee has a witness testify on
his behalf at the hearing. Because the violation charge is either not
contested by the releasee or is conclusively established by the new
conviction, an institutional revocation hearing primarily focuses on
the decisions regarding the appropriate prison term for the releasee's
violation and whether the releasee should be returned to the community
on supervision. Therefore, an institutional revocation hearing bears
considerable similarity to a parole determination proceeding. Given
this similarity and the additional cost savings and conservation of
resources that may be gained from use of the videoconference procedure,
the Commission is adding institutional revocation hearings to those
hearings an examiner may conduct by videoconference.
Extending the videoconference procedure to institutional revocation
hearings will provide additional flexibility for both the Commission
and the Bureau of Prisons in the disposition of accused release
violators and the use of personnel. For example, if the releasee is
serving a new prison term at an institution where the Commission
conducts parole hearings via videoconference, the Bureau will be able
to designate that same institution as the site of the releasee's
institutional revocation hearing. This saves either the cost of
transporting the releasee to FTC Oklahoma or FDC Philadelphia, the
institutions where the Commission conducts the majority of
institutional revocation hearings, or the cost of sending a hearing
examiner to travel to the institution to conduct one institutional
revocation hearing when all other hearings at that same institution are
conducted via videoconference. Moreover, conducting institutional
revocation hearings by videoconference may avoid some violations of the
90-day time period for holding such hearings in situations where
transportation difficulties or other problems have delayed the
scheduling of the hearing.
The Commission is promulgating this rule as an interim rule in
order to promptly take full advantage of the cost savings and other
benefits in the deployment of examiner personnel that result from the
extension of the videoconference procedure to institutional revocation
hearings. The Commission is providing a 60-day period for the public to
comment on the use of the videoconference procedure for such revocation
hearings.
Implementation
The amended rule will take effect May 13, 2005, and will apply to
institutional revocation hearings for Federal parolees and District of
Columbia parolees and supervised releasees held on or after the
effective date.
Executive Order 12866
The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this interim rule
does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive
Order 12866.
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 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.
[[Page 19263]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The interim 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), and is deemed by the
Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties pursuant to
Section 804 (3) (c) of the Congressional Review Act.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This 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
This rule is not a major rule as defined by Sec. 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This 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.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and
Parole.
The Interim Rule
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is adopting the following
amendment 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. Revise Sec. 2.25 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.25 Hearings by videoconference.
Parole determination hearings (including rescission hearings), and
institutional revocation hearings, may be conducted by a
videoconference between the hearing examiner and the prisoner or
releasee.
Dated: April 5, 2005.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-7389 Filed 4-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
