Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13579, 78183-78185 [2011-31758]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
‘‘or securities described in paragraphs
(a)(14)(ii) and (a)(14)(iii) of this section’’
is corrected to read ‘‘or securities
described in paragraph (a)(14)(ii) or
(a)(14)(iii) of this section’’.
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
06), which was the subject of FR Doc.
2011–31855, is corrected as follows:
On page 77454, column 3, in the
preamble, under the subject of the
headings, the title ‘‘New Markets Tax
Credit Non-Real Estate Investments;
Hearing Cancellation’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘Section 67 Limitations on Estates
or Trusts; Hearing Cancellation’’.
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[FR Doc. 2011–32280 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
[FR Doc. 2011–32316 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[REG–128224–06]
Parole Commission
RIN 1545–BF80
28 CFR Part 2
Section 67 Limitations on Estates or
Trusts; Correction
[Docket No. USPC–2011–01]
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to a cancellation of
notice of public hearing on proposed
rulemaking.
Preliminary Plan for Retrospective
Review Under E.O. 13579
This document contains a
correction to a cancellation of notice of
public hearing on proposed rulemaking
(REG–128224–06) providing guidance
on which costs incurred by estates or
trusts other than grantor trusts (nongrantor trusts) are subject to the 2percent floor for miscellaneous itemized
deductions under section 67(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code (Code). The
document was published in the Federal
Register on Tuesday, December 13, 2011
(76 FR 77454).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard A. Hurst of the Publications and
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing
Division, Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration), at
Richard.A.Hurst@irscounsel.treas.gov.
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The correction notice that is the
subject of this document is under
section 67 of the Code.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Need for Correction
As published, a cancellation of notice
of public hearing on proposed
rulemaking (REG–128224–06) contains
an error that may prove to be misleading
and is in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of
cancellation of notice of public hearing
on proposed rulemaking (REG–128224–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
United States Parole
Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Parole Commission
is asking for comments on its
preliminary plan for the retrospective
review of its regulations to determine
whether any of the regulations should
be repealed, modified or expanded. The
Commission is undertaking the review
to comply with Executive Order 13579,
‘‘Regulation and Independent
Regulatory Agencies,’’ issued by the
President on July 11, 2011. The purpose
of the review is to ensure that the
Commission’s regulations fulfill the
Commission’s mission and are effective,
cost-efficient and understandable.
Comment Date: Written comments
must be postmarked and electronic
comments must be submitted by
February 17, 2012. Please note that the
electronic Federal Docket Management
System will not accept comments after
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day
of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to
the United States Parole Commission,
attn: USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street
NE., 3d Flr., Washington, DC 20530.
You may also submit comments
electronically or view an electronic
version of this notice and of the plan at
https://www.regulations.gov, at Docket
No. USPC–2011–01.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rockne Chickinell, General Counsel,
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street
NE., 3d Flr., Washington, DC 20530;
Telephone (202) 346–7030.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78183
Posting of
Public Comments. All comments
received are part of the public record
and available for public inspection
online at https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments may include personal
identifying information voluntarily
submitted by the commenter. When
found, personal identifying information
will not be posted online but will be
maintained in the agency’s public
docket file.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview and Background
On July 11, 2011 the President issued
Executive Order 13579 ‘‘Regulation and
Independent Regulatory Agencies.’’ The
order states that each independent
regulatory agency should prepare a plan
for the periodic review of its existing
significant regulations to determine
those regulations that are outdated,
unnecessary or ineffective. The review
enables the agency to modify or repeal
a rule to increase the effectiveness of the
regulatory program or lessen
unnecessary burdens caused by the rule.
This order highlights the importance of
maintaining a culture of retrospective
review of an agency’s regulations.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13579,
the Parole Commission has developed a
preliminary plan for a review of its
regulations. The Commission primarily
performs law-enforcement functions in
releasing an offender from a prison term
imposed by a sentencing judge, setting
conditions of release, revoking the
release if the offender violates the
release conditions or terminating the
sentence early for good conduct on
parole supervision. The Commission’s
rules define the procedures and
standards used to carry out the
functions described above. Many of the
rules incorporate statutory
requirements. Other rules, such as the
paroling policy guidelines, reflect policy
choices made by the Commission
members within the broad grant of
authority given by Congress on
executing the Commission’s functions.
The application of the rules may affect
the lives of individual persons and the
general public welfare, but the
Commission’s rulemaking and actions
do not have a significant impact on
economic entities and businesses.
Over the last ten years, the
Commission has issued 13 publications
of final rules and 5 publications of
interim rules that have yet to be
promulgated as final rules. The majority
of this rulemaking pertained to:
Implementing new legislation and court
decisions; adopting procedural rules on
internal voting requirements and using
new technology in conducting hearings;
streamlining the revocation process for
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
78184
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
parole violators who have committed
non-criminal violations of release; and
eliminating or clarifying rules that are
outdated or confusing.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Scope of the Plan and Previous Agency
Efforts
The Commission’s preliminary plan
for the regulatory review includes all
rules promulgated by the Commission
and all notes and procedures in its
Rules and Procedures Manual (June 30,
2010 edition). The ambitious scope of
this effort may have to be adjusted
depending on the workload of those
staff members who are charged with
carrying out the review. The
Commission’s review will extend to
proposed rules and interim rules that
have not been made final rules.
In 2004 a Commission working group,
headed by the former chief of staff,
undertook a project to rewrite the
Commission’s Rules and Procedures
Manual. The purpose of the project was
to simplify the rules and instructions in
the manual, eliminate obsolete
provisions and make the manual easier
to use. Had this effort been pursued to
its completion, the Commission would
have engaged in significant rulemaking.
But, as often happens, the press of
agency business and the setting of other
priorities overtook the effort.
Nonetheless, this working group
achieved significant progress in
redrafting a large portion of the manual
and its work will be the foundation for
the preliminary plan of regulatory
review that the Commission announces
with this publication.
Preliminary Plan for Regulatory
Review
The Commission Chairman has
appointed an agency working group that
will execute the review of the
Commission’s rules. Every Commission
section is represented on the working
group, which is monitored by
Commissioner J. Patricia Smoot, and
chaired by the Commission’s General
Counsel, Rockne Chickinell. The
group’s task is to determine whether a
rule is outmoded, ineffective or imposes
costs that are disproportionate to the
benefits of the rule, and make
recommendations to the Commission on
the modification, addition or removal of
rules. The group will also review the
rules for clarity and readability.
The review will begin with those
rules and procedures that pertain to
imposing conditions of release for an
offender. Congress instructed the
Commission that the release conditions
‘‘be sufficiently specific to serve as a
guide to supervision and conduct.’’ 18
U.S.C. 4209(b). So it is particularly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
important that the release conditions are
clear and understandable to the offender
under supervision. Also, unduly
burdensome release conditions may be
counterproductive to the offender’s
success on supervision. The
Commission substantially revised its
standard release conditions through an
interim rule in 2003. 68 FR 41696–
41714 (July 15, 2003). The retrospective
review will include an analysis of
whether the revisions of 2003 need to be
updated and whether the manual
should provide guidance as to the
parsimonious application of release
conditions that are not required by law.
The review will proceed to the rules
and procedures that govern the parole
and supervised release revocation
process. Most of the Commission’s
workload consists of responding to
reports of violations, issuing violator
warrants and conducting revocation
proceedings. Carrying out the revocation
function involves a significant number
of participants outside the Commission,
including supervision officers, deputy
U.S. Marshals, police officers, private
attorneys and public defenders,
witnesses from the general public and
the offenders. The retrospective review
of revocation rules and procedures
should benefit a broad range of the
persons who participate in the
Commission’s activities. The
Commission also recognizes that the
parolee who is facing possible
revocation has a substantial interest in
a process that reduces the incidence of
error that may be caused by confusing
or ambiguous rules and instructions.
The review will end with an analysis
of the rules and procedures covering
parole release determinations and
internal procedures such as voting
requirements by hearing examiners and
Commission members.
In its examination the working group
will pay particular attention to those
rules and procedures that: Place high
costs or burdens on the public, require
outdated reporting practices, affect a
large group of persons or entities,
overlap with or duplicate other rules,
are obsolete given changes in laws or
other circumstances or have been the
subject of requests for rulemaking.
Public Participation in the Review and
Rulemaking
In addition to this request for
comment, the Commission will send out
notices to interested organizations
seeking the views and comments on the
continued relevance and effectiveness of
the Commission’s rules. Interested
organizations included in this outreach
effort are correctional and parole
supervision entities such as the Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Bureau of Prisons, the District of
Columbia Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, the U.S. Probation
Service and organizations frequently
representing the interests of federal and
District of Columbia offenders such as
Federal Defender’s offices in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the DC
Public Defender Service, and CURE,
Inc.. At any time during the review
period, the public may provide their
views and recommendations to the
working group by writing the
Commission at U.S. Parole Commission,
attn: USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street,
3rd Flr., Washington, DC 20530 or
sending an email to
USPCRulesGroup@usdoj.gov. If the
Commission decides to proceed with
rulemaking at any stage of the
retrospective review, the Commission
will follow the normal rulemaking
process, usually with a 60-day notice
and public comment period for
proposed rules. The working group will
analyze the public comment for the
Commission’s review and recommend
responses to the comments submitted.
The working group will then forward
their recommendation on final
rulemaking to the Commission for a vote
at the open session of a Commission
business meeting. Any interested person
or organization may observe the
Commission’s discussion of a rule
change at the open business meeting.
As the working group conducts its
review, the Commission will report its
progress on the agency’s Web site,
including any rulemaking initiatives
taken by the Commission in response to
the working group’s review. The
Commission’s goal is to complete its
retrospective review by September 30,
2013.
Maintaining the Review Process
The Commission’s effort to sustain a
culture of review and analysis of its
rules and procedures will not end with
the completion of the retrospective
review required by the executive order.
During the retrospective review, the
Commission will rely on the working
group to review any new regulatory
initiative for issues such as the need for
the rule, the burden placed on the
public and criminal justice agencies by
the rule, any alternatives to the rule and
the clarity of the proposed wording of
the rule. Even after the retrospective
review ends, the Commission intends to
maintain the working group for the
periodic review of its rules and manual
provisions and to analyze new proposed
rules and procedures.
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Dated: December 5, 2011.
Isaac Fulwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—
Long Beach, Assistant Waterways Chief,
telephone (310) 521–3860, email
Stephen.M.Sanders@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V.
Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2011–31758 Filed 12–15–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 110
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0929]
RIN 1625–AA01
Anchorage Regulations: Subpart A—
Special Anchorage Regulations,
Newport Bay Harbor, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
expand the boundaries of the special
anchorage areas in Newport Bay Harbor,
California, to encompass and replace
temporary anchorage grounds C–1 and
C–2, and anchorage ground C–3. This
proposal would realign anchorage
boundaries in order to reflect the way
the harbor currently is used. This
proposed rule also would update the
description of the existing special
anchorage areas to use geographic
coordinates.
SUMMARY:
Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before March 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2010–0929 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: (202) 493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is (202) 366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email ENS Matt Sanders,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Dec 15, 2011
Jkt 226001
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2010–0929),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online (via https://
www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one
of these means. If you submit a
comment online via https://
www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard
when you successfully transmit the
comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by
the Coast Guard when it is received at
the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an email address,
or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will
then become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu
select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert
‘‘USCG–2010–0929’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’
box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the
balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column.
If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by
11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to
know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
postcard or envelope. We will consider
all comments and material received
during the comment period and may
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
78185
change the rule based on your
comments.
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, click on the
‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then
become highlighted in blue. In the
‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010–
0929’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the
‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’
column. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the Department
of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with
the Department of Transportation to use
the Docket Management Facility.
Privacy Act
Anyone can search the electronic
form of comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets
in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
Public Meeting
We do not now plan to hold a public
meeting. But, you may submit a request
using one of the four methods specified
under ADDRESSES. Please explain why
you believe a public meeting 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.
Basis and Purpose
The legal basis for the proposed rule
is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236,
2030, 2035, and 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1;
and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to define anchorage grounds.
This proposed rule would expand the
designated special anchorage areas in
Newport Bay Harbor, and remove other
anchorage grounds, to align with the
actual placement of existing mooring
areas and reflect the way the harbor is
currently used.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
Due to enhanced anchorage
population over the years, the mooring
areas being used in Newport Bay Harbor
are nominally larger than the special
anchorage areas originally charted in 33
E:\FR\FM\16DEP1.SGM
16DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78183-78185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. USPC-2011-01]
Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Review Under E.O. 13579
AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission is asking for comments on its
preliminary plan for the retrospective review of its regulations to
determine whether any of the regulations should be repealed, modified
or expanded. The Commission is undertaking the review to comply with
Executive Order 13579, ``Regulation and Independent Regulatory
Agencies,'' issued by the President on July 11, 2011. The purpose of
the review is to ensure that the Commission's regulations fulfill the
Commission's mission and are effective, cost-efficient and
understandable.
Comment Date: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic
comments must be submitted by February 17, 2012. Please note that the
electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments
after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may mail comments to the United States Parole
Commission, attn: USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street NE., 3d Flr.,
Washington, DC 20530. You may also submit comments electronically or
view an electronic version of this notice and of the plan at https://www.regulations.gov, at Docket No. USPC-2011-01.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rockne Chickinell, General Counsel,
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., 3d Flr., Washington, DC 20530;
Telephone (202) 346-7030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments. All comments
received are part of the public record and available for public
inspection online at https://www.regulations.gov. Comments may include
personal identifying information voluntarily submitted by the
commenter. When found, personal identifying information will not be
posted online but will be maintained in the agency's public docket
file.
Overview and Background
On July 11, 2011 the President issued Executive Order 13579
``Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies.'' The order states
that each independent regulatory agency should prepare a plan for the
periodic review of its existing significant regulations to determine
those regulations that are outdated, unnecessary or ineffective. The
review enables the agency to modify or repeal a rule to increase the
effectiveness of the regulatory program or lessen unnecessary burdens
caused by the rule. This order highlights the importance of maintaining
a culture of retrospective review of an agency's regulations.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13579, the Parole Commission has
developed a preliminary plan for a review of its regulations. The
Commission primarily performs law-enforcement functions in releasing an
offender from a prison term imposed by a sentencing judge, setting
conditions of release, revoking the release if the offender violates
the release conditions or terminating the sentence early for good
conduct on parole supervision. The Commission's rules define the
procedures and standards used to carry out the functions described
above. Many of the rules incorporate statutory requirements. Other
rules, such as the paroling policy guidelines, reflect policy choices
made by the Commission members within the broad grant of authority
given by Congress on executing the Commission's functions. The
application of the rules may affect the lives of individual persons and
the general public welfare, but the Commission's rulemaking and actions
do not have a significant impact on economic entities and businesses.
Over the last ten years, the Commission has issued 13 publications
of final rules and 5 publications of interim rules that have yet to be
promulgated as final rules. The majority of this rulemaking pertained
to: Implementing new legislation and court decisions; adopting
procedural rules on internal voting requirements and using new
technology in conducting hearings; streamlining the revocation process
for
[[Page 78184]]
parole violators who have committed non-criminal violations of release;
and eliminating or clarifying rules that are outdated or confusing.
Scope of the Plan and Previous Agency Efforts
The Commission's preliminary plan for the regulatory review
includes all rules promulgated by the Commission and all notes and
procedures in its Rules and Procedures Manual (June 30, 2010 edition).
The ambitious scope of this effort may have to be adjusted depending on
the workload of those staff members who are charged with carrying out
the review. The Commission's review will extend to proposed rules and
interim rules that have not been made final rules.
In 2004 a Commission working group, headed by the former chief of
staff, undertook a project to rewrite the Commission's Rules and
Procedures Manual. The purpose of the project was to simplify the rules
and instructions in the manual, eliminate obsolete provisions and make
the manual easier to use. Had this effort been pursued to its
completion, the Commission would have engaged in significant
rulemaking. But, as often happens, the press of agency business and the
setting of other priorities overtook the effort. Nonetheless, this
working group achieved significant progress in redrafting a large
portion of the manual and its work will be the foundation for the
preliminary plan of regulatory review that the Commission announces
with this publication.
Preliminary Plan for Regulatory Review
The Commission Chairman has appointed an agency working group that
will execute the review of the Commission's rules. Every Commission
section is represented on the working group, which is monitored by
Commissioner J. Patricia Smoot, and chaired by the Commission's General
Counsel, Rockne Chickinell. The group's task is to determine whether a
rule is outmoded, ineffective or imposes costs that are
disproportionate to the benefits of the rule, and make recommendations
to the Commission on the modification, addition or removal of rules.
The group will also review the rules for clarity and readability.
The review will begin with those rules and procedures that pertain
to imposing conditions of release for an offender. Congress instructed
the Commission that the release conditions ``be sufficiently specific
to serve as a guide to supervision and conduct.'' 18 U.S.C. 4209(b). So
it is particularly important that the release conditions are clear and
understandable to the offender under supervision. Also, unduly
burdensome release conditions may be counterproductive to the
offender's success on supervision. The Commission substantially revised
its standard release conditions through an interim rule in 2003. 68 FR
41696-41714 (July 15, 2003). The retrospective review will include an
analysis of whether the revisions of 2003 need to be updated and
whether the manual should provide guidance as to the parsimonious
application of release conditions that are not required by law.
The review will proceed to the rules and procedures that govern the
parole and supervised release revocation process. Most of the
Commission's workload consists of responding to reports of violations,
issuing violator warrants and conducting revocation proceedings.
Carrying out the revocation function involves a significant number of
participants outside the Commission, including supervision officers,
deputy U.S. Marshals, police officers, private attorneys and public
defenders, witnesses from the general public and the offenders. The
retrospective review of revocation rules and procedures should benefit
a broad range of the persons who participate in the Commission's
activities. The Commission also recognizes that the parolee who is
facing possible revocation has a substantial interest in a process that
reduces the incidence of error that may be caused by confusing or
ambiguous rules and instructions.
The review will end with an analysis of the rules and procedures
covering parole release determinations and internal procedures such as
voting requirements by hearing examiners and Commission members.
In its examination the working group will pay particular attention
to those rules and procedures that: Place high costs or burdens on the
public, require outdated reporting practices, affect a large group of
persons or entities, overlap with or duplicate other rules, are
obsolete given changes in laws or other circumstances or have been the
subject of requests for rulemaking.
Public Participation in the Review and Rulemaking
In addition to this request for comment, the Commission will send
out notices to interested organizations seeking the views and comments
on the continued relevance and effectiveness of the Commission's rules.
Interested organizations included in this outreach effort are
correctional and parole supervision entities such as the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, the District of Columbia Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency, the U.S. Probation Service and organizations
frequently representing the interests of federal and District of
Columbia offenders such as Federal Defender's offices in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the DC Public Defender
Service, and CURE, Inc.. At any time during the review period, the
public may provide their views and recommendations to the working group
by writing the Commission at U.S. Parole Commission, attn: USPC Rules
Group, 90 K Street, 3rd Flr., Washington, DC 20530 or sending an email
to USPCRulesGroup@usdoj.gov. If the Commission decides to proceed with
rulemaking at any stage of the retrospective review, the Commission
will follow the normal rulemaking process, usually with a 60-day notice
and public comment period for proposed rules. The working group will
analyze the public comment for the Commission's review and recommend
responses to the comments submitted. The working group will then
forward their recommendation on final rulemaking to the Commission for
a vote at the open session of a Commission business meeting. Any
interested person or organization may observe the Commission's
discussion of a rule change at the open business meeting.
As the working group conducts its review, the Commission will
report its progress on the agency's Web site, including any rulemaking
initiatives taken by the Commission in response to the working group's
review. The Commission's goal is to complete its retrospective review
by September 30, 2013.
Maintaining the Review Process
The Commission's effort to sustain a culture of review and analysis
of its rules and procedures will not end with the completion of the
retrospective review required by the executive order. During the
retrospective review, the Commission will rely on the working group to
review any new regulatory initiative for issues such as the need for
the rule, the burden placed on the public and criminal justice agencies
by the rule, any alternatives to the rule and the clarity of the
proposed wording of the rule. Even after the retrospective review ends,
the Commission intends to maintain the working group for the periodic
review of its rules and manual provisions and to analyze new proposed
rules and procedures.
[[Page 78185]]
Dated: December 5, 2011.
Isaac Fulwood,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-31758 Filed 12-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P