Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes, 53114-53116 [E7-17760]

Download as PDF 53114 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations some signs of wear have been detected on diaphragms having logged less than 2,000 hours. Based on the inspection results, it has been decided to decrease this limit from 2,000 hours to 1,500 hours in order to further reduce the probability of delta P diaphragm rupture. The loss of automatic control mode coupled with the deteriorated performance of the backup mode can lead to the inability to continue safe flight, forced autorotation landing, or an accident. Actions and Compliance (e) Unless already done, do the following actions. (1) Replace the HMU with a serviceable HMU before the HMU accumulates 1,500 hours-since-new, since-last-overhaul, or since-incorporation of Turbomeca Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 73 2105; or by July 30, 2007, whichever occurs later. (2) Thereafter, replace HMUs with a serviceable HMU at every 1,500 hours-sincenew, since-last-overhaul, or sinceincorporation of Turbomeca SB No. 292 73 2105, whichever occurs later. (3) For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable HMU is an HMU fitted with a new constant delta P diaphragm in accordance with Turbomeca Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 73 2818, Original Issue, dated October 18, 2006, or Update No. 1, dated April 3, 2007. Other FAA AD Provisions (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information (g) Contact Christopher Spinney, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: christopher.spinney@faa.gov; telephone (781) 238–7175, fax (781) 238–7199, for more information about this AD. Material Incorporated by Reference (h) None. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 11, 2007. Francis A. Favara, Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7–18337 Filed 9–17–07; 8:45 am] Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 45101–45105. Final rule; correcting amendment. ACTION: SUMMARY: This action removes an erroneous reference to a section that appears in the applicability section of operating requirements for commuter and on-demand operations. The intent of this action is to ensure that the regulations are clear and accurate. DATES: This amendment becomes effective September 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Barnette, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: (202) 493–4922; facsimile: (202) 267– 5115; e-mail: kim.a.barnette@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 29, 2005, the FAA published a final rule (70 FR 76974) that withdrew a final rule entitled Service Difficulty Reports. As part of that withdrawal, the FAA should have removed any crossreference to § 135.416 that appeared elsewhere in the regulation, since that section was removed as part of withdrawing the Service Difficulty Reports rule. To correct this oversight, this action removes references to § 135.416 from paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of § 135.411. Federal Aviation Administration mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES 14 CFR Part 135 Service Difficulty Reports; Correcting Amendment VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:27 Sep 17, 2007 BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 2 Justification for Immediate Adoption Because this action removes references to a section that no longer exists, the FAA finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective upon publication. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135 Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 135 is amended as follows: PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT I Jkt 211001 Issued in Washington, DC on September 12, 2007. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking, Aviation Safety. [FR Doc. E7–18350 Filed 9–17–07; 8:45 am] Parole Commission 1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. AGENCY: Applicability. (a) * * * (1) Aircraft that are type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of nine seats or less, shall be maintained under parts 91 and 43 of this chapter and §§ 135.415, 135.417, 135.421 and 135.422. An approved aircraft inspection program may be used under § 135.419. (2) Aircraft that are type certificated for a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more, shall be maintained under a maintenance program in §§ 135.415, 135.417, 135.423 through 135.443. * * * * * The technical amendment will make a minor editorial correction to § 135.411, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2). I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION § 135.411 Technical Amendment The Amendment BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 2. Amend § 135.411 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) to read as follows: I PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes United States Parole Commission, Justice. ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Parole Commission is amending its regulations to incorporate a procedural alternative that allows a parolee or supervised releasee to initiate the process of accepting a revocation decision without the need of a revocation hearing. This ‘‘advanced consent’’ alternative has been used in a pilot project in the District of Columbia since October 2005 and has assisted in the prompt resolution of revocation cases. Through this amendment, the Commission is formalizing the adoption of this variation of the expedited revocation procedure and simplifying the format and language of the rule. DATES: Effective date: October 18, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole E:\FR\FM\18SER1.SGM 18SER1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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: In 1998 the Parole Commission promulgated a rule establishing the expedited revocation procedure. 63 FR 25769–70 (May 21, 1998). Under this procedure, after a preliminary interview and a probable cause determination, the Commission may offer an alleged parole violator the opportunity to receive a revocation and reparole decision without a revocation hearing. By accepting the Commission’s offer and foregoing the revocation hearing, the alleged violator may expedite his transfer from a local jail to a federal institution where vocational, educational, and other prison programs are available. In using this procedure, the Commission saves the costs associated with conducting an in-person hearing. In October 2005, the Commission began an ‘‘advanced consent’’ pilot project at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility at the suggestion of the Commission’s hearing examiners and attorneys from the District of Columbia Public Defender Service. After a parolee or supervised releasee is arrested on a violator warrant issued by the Commission, a Commission hearing examiner conducts a probable cause hearing for the alleged violator at the DC jail within 5 days of the arrest. See 28 CFR 2.101(a). Under the pilot project, the alleged violator may propose to the hearing examiner at the probable cause hearing that he will accept a disposition of the case without a revocation hearing. Usually the alleged violator makes the proposal with the condition that the prison term resulting from the revocation stays at the bottom of the applicable guideline range (see 28 CFR 2.20 and 2.21). The Commission maintains the authority to reject the proposal for any reason, and uses the same substantive criteria in evaluating the case that are described in the present rule at § 2.66, e.g., cases in which the offense severity rating for the alleged violation behavior under the paroling policy guidelines (28 CFR 2.20) is Category Two or less (Categories One and Two are the least serious offense ratings in the guidelines). Under the advanced consent process, the Commission hoped to expedite revocation proceedings and reduce the number of days the offender would be incarcerated at the DC jail before transferring to a federal facility where VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:27 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 211001 more programs would be available to the offender. The results of the advanced consent program show that this procedure does expedite the resolution of less serious parole and supervised release revocation cases. For the period from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, the Commission made 2,607 revocation decisions for violators in the District of Columbia. Of this number, 1048 cases (40%) were decided using the advanced consent procedure. The average processing time of these 1048 cases was 44 days from the date the violator was arrested on a violator warrant to the date of the revocation decision, almost half the time contemplated by the Commission’s regulation governing local revocation hearings. See 28 CFR 2.105(c) and 2.218(g) (a revocation decision for a DC violator must be made within 86 days of arrest on a violator warrant). With the success of the pilot project, the Commission is now amending its rule at § 2.66 to incorporate the advanced consent alternative as a variation of the expedited revocation procedure. No change has been made in the criteria used by the Commission in determining those offenders who may be considered for revocation without the need of a hearing. In applying the amended rule, the Commission will continue to exercise its discretion to conduct a hearing when it deems a hearing to be necessary to protect the public safety, even if the alleged violator’s case appears to meet one of the criteria for consideration under § 2.66. The Commission has also edited the rule to ensure that it is clear and easy to read. With the editing of the rule, a conforming amendment is made to the rule on miscellaneous provisions at 28 CFR 2.89. The Commission is publishing the amended rule at § 2.66 as a final rule without seeking public comment because the rule is procedural in nature and does not establish any new substantive criteria for making revocation and reparole decisions. Implementation The amended rules will take effect October 18, 2007, and will apply to federal and District of Columbia offenders. Executive Order 12866 The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this final 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, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 53115 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), and is deemed by the Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency 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 Section 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 Final Rule Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is adopting the following amendment to 28 CFR part 2. I 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). I 2. Revise § 2.66 to read as follows: § 2.66 Revocation decision without hearing. (a) If the releasee agrees to the decision, the Commission may make a revocation decision without a hearing if— E:\FR\FM\18SER1.SGM 18SER1 53116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations (1) The alleged violation would be graded no higher than Category Two under the guidelines at § 2.20; (2) The alleged violation is in any category under the guidelines at § 2.20 and the decision imposes the maximum sanction authorized by law; or (3) The Commission determines that the releasee has already served sufficient time in custody as a sanction for the violation but that forfeiture of time on parole is necessary to provide an adequate period of supervision. (b) A releasee who agrees to such a disposition shall indicate such agreement by— (1) Accepting the decision proposed by the Commission in the Notice of Eligibility for Expedited Revocation Procedure that the Commission sent to the releasee, thereby agreeing that the releasee does not contest the validity of the charge and waives a revocation hearing; or (2) Offering in writing, before the finding of probable cause or at a probable cause hearing, not to contest the validity of the charge, to waive a revocation hearing, and to accept a decision that is at the bottom of the applicable guideline range as determined by the Commission if the violation would be graded no higher than Category Two under the guidelines at § 2.20, or is the maximum sanction authorized by law. (c) An alleged violator’s agreement under this provision shall not preclude the Commission from taking any action authorized by law or limit the statutory consequences of a revocation decision. 3. Amend § 2.89 by adding an entry for § 2.66 to read as follows: I § 2.89 Miscellaneous provisions. * * * * * 2.66 (Revocation Decision Without Hearing) * * * * * Dated: August 22, 2007. Edward F. Reilly, Jr., Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. [FR Doc. E7–17760 Filed 9–17–07; 8:45 am] mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES BILLING CODE 4410–31–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:27 Sep 17, 2007 Jkt 211001 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 United States Parole Commission, Justice. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Parole Commission is studying the feasibility of conducting probable cause hearings through videoconferences between an examiner at the Commission’s office and alleged parole and supervised release violators in custody at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility. Therefore, Commission is amending the interim rule allowing hearings by videoconference to include probable cause hearings and to authorize the use of videoconferencing for a sufficient number of such hearings to determine the utility of the procedure. DATES: Effective date: October 18, 2007. Comments must be received by November 19, 2007. 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: Since early 2004, the Parole Commission has been conducting some parole proceedings by videoconference to reduce travel costs and to conserve the time and effort of its hearing examiners. 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). Based on the success of that project, the Commission extended the use of videoconferencing to institutional revocation hearings by an interim rule promulgated in April 2005. 70 FR 19262 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (Apr. 13, 2005). The Commission holds the revocation hearing at a federal institution when the releasee has admitted the charged violation, waives a local hearing, or has been convicted of a crime that establishes a release violation. The great majority of institutional revocation hearings are still held with the hearing examiner and the releasee together at the federal institution. The Commission’s experience with the videoconference procedure in institutional revocation hearings is consistent with the satisfactory experience it has had with videoconferencing in parole release hearings. Releasees, their attorneys, and witnesses have been able to effectively participate in the videoconference hearings with the hearing examiner. Now the Commission has decided to explore the utility of the videoconference procedure for probable cause hearings held at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility for parolees and supervised releasees arrested for violations of the conditions of release. Following arrest on a violator warrant and subsequent detention at the DC jail, a releasee is given a hearing with an examiner of the Parole Commission within five days of arrest for the purpose of determining whether probable cause exists for the alleged violation of release. At this hearing, the hearing examiner’s primary task is to determine whether any submissions from the releasee and counsel require a different decision as to the evidentiary support for the issuance of a warrant and the continued custody of the releasee. The releasee is usually represented by an attorney from the DC Public Defender Service. Given the limited purpose of the proceeding and the five-day time frame in which the hearing must be held, witnesses are normally not present at a probable cause hearing. The hearing examiner has the delegated authority to make a determination as to the existence of probable cause. At the end of the hearing, if the hearing examiner makes a finding of probable cause, the releasee is normally held in custody for a local revocation hearing. If probable cause is not found, the releasee is discharged from custody and revocation proceedings are terminated. At the local revocation hearing a Commission hearing examiner accepts written and oral submissions from the releasee and counsel, takes testimony from witnesses, and recommends credibility determinations that lead to a final examination of the evidence regarding the alleged violation. All local revocation hearings are held with the E:\FR\FM\18SER1.SGM 18SER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53114-53116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17760]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Parole Commission is amending its regulations to 
incorporate a procedural alternative that allows a parolee or 
supervised releasee to initiate the process of accepting a revocation 
decision without the need of a revocation hearing. This ``advanced 
consent'' alternative has been used in a pilot project in the District 
of Columbia since October 2005 and has assisted in the prompt 
resolution of revocation cases. Through this amendment, the Commission 
is formalizing the adoption of this variation of the expedited 
revocation procedure and simplifying the format and language of the 
rule.

DATES: Effective date: October 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole

[[Page 53115]]

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: In 1998 the Parole Commission promulgated a 
rule establishing the expedited revocation procedure. 63 FR 25769-70 
(May 21, 1998). Under this procedure, after a preliminary interview and 
a probable cause determination, the Commission may offer an alleged 
parole violator the opportunity to receive a revocation and reparole 
decision without a revocation hearing. By accepting the Commission's 
offer and foregoing the revocation hearing, the alleged violator may 
expedite his transfer from a local jail to a federal institution where 
vocational, educational, and other prison programs are available. In 
using this procedure, the Commission saves the costs associated with 
conducting an in-person hearing.
    In October 2005, the Commission began an ``advanced consent'' pilot 
project at the District of Columbia Central Detention Facility at the 
suggestion of the Commission's hearing examiners and attorneys from the 
District of Columbia Public Defender Service. After a parolee or 
supervised releasee is arrested on a violator warrant issued by the 
Commission, a Commission hearing examiner conducts a probable cause 
hearing for the alleged violator at the DC jail within 5 days of the 
arrest. See 28 CFR 2.101(a). Under the pilot project, the alleged 
violator may propose to the hearing examiner at the probable cause 
hearing that he will accept a disposition of the case without a 
revocation hearing. Usually the alleged violator makes the proposal 
with the condition that the prison term resulting from the revocation 
stays at the bottom of the applicable guideline range (see 28 CFR 2.20 
and 2.21). The Commission maintains the authority to reject the 
proposal for any reason, and uses the same substantive criteria in 
evaluating the case that are described in the present rule at Sec.  
2.66, e.g., cases in which the offense severity rating for the alleged 
violation behavior under the paroling policy guidelines (28 CFR 2.20) 
is Category Two or less (Categories One and Two are the least serious 
offense ratings in the guidelines). Under the advanced consent process, 
the Commission hoped to expedite revocation proceedings and reduce the 
number of days the offender would be incarcerated at the DC jail before 
transferring to a federal facility where more programs would be 
available to the offender.
    The results of the advanced consent program show that this 
procedure does expedite the resolution of less serious parole and 
supervised release revocation cases. For the period from January 1, 
2006 to June 30, 2007, the Commission made 2,607 revocation decisions 
for violators in the District of Columbia. Of this number, 1048 cases 
(40%) were decided using the advanced consent procedure. The average 
processing time of these 1048 cases was 44 days from the date the 
violator was arrested on a violator warrant to the date of the 
revocation decision, almost half the time contemplated by the 
Commission's regulation governing local revocation hearings. See 28 CFR 
2.105(c) and 2.218(g) (a revocation decision for a DC violator must be 
made within 86 days of arrest on a violator warrant).
    With the success of the pilot project, the Commission is now 
amending its rule at Sec.  2.66 to incorporate the advanced consent 
alternative as a variation of the expedited revocation procedure. No 
change has been made in the criteria used by the Commission in 
determining those offenders who may be considered for revocation 
without the need of a hearing. In applying the amended rule, the 
Commission will continue to exercise its discretion to conduct a 
hearing when it deems a hearing to be necessary to protect the public 
safety, even if the alleged violator's case appears to meet one of the 
criteria for consideration under Sec.  2.66. The Commission has also 
edited the rule to ensure that it is clear and easy to read. With the 
editing of the rule, a conforming amendment is made to the rule on 
miscellaneous provisions at 28 CFR 2.89. The Commission is publishing 
the amended rule at Sec.  2.66 as a final rule without seeking public 
comment because the rule is procedural in nature and does not establish 
any new substantive criteria for making revocation and reparole 
decisions.

Implementation

    The amended rules will take effect October 18, 2007, and will apply 
to federal and District of Columbia offenders.

Executive Order 12866

    The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this final 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.

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), 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 Section 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 Final Rule

0
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.  2.66 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.66  Revocation decision without hearing.

    (a) If the releasee agrees to the decision, the Commission may make 
a revocation decision without a hearing if--

[[Page 53116]]

    (1) The alleged violation would be graded no higher than Category 
Two under the guidelines at Sec.  2.20;
    (2) The alleged violation is in any category under the guidelines 
at Sec.  2.20 and the decision imposes the maximum sanction authorized 
by law; or
    (3) The Commission determines that the releasee has already served 
sufficient time in custody as a sanction for the violation but that 
forfeiture of time on parole is necessary to provide an adequate period 
of supervision.
    (b) A releasee who agrees to such a disposition shall indicate such 
agreement by--
    (1) Accepting the decision proposed by the Commission in the Notice 
of Eligibility for Expedited Revocation Procedure that the Commission 
sent to the releasee, thereby agreeing that the releasee does not 
contest the validity of the charge and waives a revocation hearing; or
    (2) Offering in writing, before the finding of probable cause or at 
a probable cause hearing, not to contest the validity of the charge, to 
waive a revocation hearing, and to accept a decision that is at the 
bottom of the applicable guideline range as determined by the 
Commission if the violation would be graded no higher than Category Two 
under the guidelines at Sec.  2.20, or is the maximum sanction 
authorized by law.
    (c) An alleged violator's agreement under this provision shall not 
preclude the Commission from taking any action authorized by law or 
limit the statutory consequences of a revocation decision.

0
3. Amend Sec.  2.89 by adding an entry for Sec.  2.66 to read as 
follows:


Sec.  2.89  Miscellaneous provisions.

* * * * *
2.66 (Revocation Decision Without Hearing)
* * * * *

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. E7-17760 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P