Progress Reports Rules Revision, 63875-63877 [2013-25166]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
denominations and have been properly
installed.
(i) Kiosk count standards. (1) Access
to stored full kiosk financial instrument
storage components and currency
cassettes must be restricted to:
(i) Authorized agents; and
(ii) In an emergency, authorized
persons for the resolution of a problem.
(2) The kiosk count must be
performed in a secure area, such as the
cage or count room.
(3) If counts from various revenue
centers and kiosks occur simultaneously
in the count room, procedures must be
in effect that prevent the commingling
of funds from the kiosks with any
revenue centers.
(4) The kiosk financial instrument
storage components and currency
cassettes must be individually emptied
and counted so as to prevent the
commingling of funds between kiosks
until the count of the kiosk contents has
been recorded.
(i) The count of must be recorded in
ink or other permanent form of
recordation.
(ii) Coupons or other promotional
items not included in gross revenue (if
any) may be recorded on a supplemental
document. All single-use coupons must
be cancelled daily by an authorized
agent to prevent improper recirculation.
(5) Procedures must be implemented
to ensure that any corrections to the
count documentation are permanent,
identifiable, and the original, corrected
information remains legible. Corrections
must be verified by two agents.
(j) Controlled keys. Controls must be
established and procedures
implemented to safeguard the use,
access, and security of keys for kiosks.
(k) Variances. The operation must
establish, as approved by the TGRA, the
threshold level at which a variance must
be reviewed to determine the cause.
Any such review must be documented.
4. Amend § 543.21 by adding
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
■
§ 543.21 What are the minimum internal
control standards for surveillance?
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) Kiosks: The surveillance system
must monitor and record a general
overview of activities occurring at each
kiosk with sufficient clarity to identify
the activity and the individuals
performing it, including maintenance,
drops or fills, and redemption of
wagering vouchers or credits.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Oct 24, 2013
Jkt 232001
Dated: September 24, 2013, Washington,
DC.
Tracie L. Stevens,
Chairwoman.
Daniel J. Little,
Associate Commissioner.
Jonodev O. Chaudhuri,
Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2013–23977 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 524
[BOP–AB60–F]
RIN 1120–AB60
Progress Reports Rules Revision
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) removes from
regulations and/or modifies two types of
progress reports: transfer reports and
triennial reports.
DATES: This rule is effective on
November 25, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202)
307–2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
final rule, the Bureau removes from
regulations and/or modifies two types of
progress reports: Transfer reports and
triennial reports. We published a
proposed rule on this topic on
September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012).
Section 524.41, entitled ‘‘Types of
progress reports,’’ lists several types of
progress reports prepared for nonBureau entities, such as for parole
hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90
days before an inmate’s release to a term
of supervision), and for other reasons
(such as upon court request or a
clemency review). The previous
regulations also identified two types of
progress reports that were primarily
intended for internal Bureau purposes:
Those prepared when inmates transfer
to community confinement or another
institution, and those prepared
triennially if not more frequently done
for any other reason.
Transfer Reports. The previous
regulations defined ‘‘transfer report’’ as
one prepared on an inmate
recommended and/or approved for
transfer to community confinement or to
another institution and whose progress
has not been summarized within the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63875
previous 180 days. The Bureau modifies
this definition in the final rule to
indicate that transfer reports will only
be prepared on inmates transferring to
community confinement or non-Bureau
facilities.
Current Bureau practice and advances
in technology have obviated the need to
prepare a specific paper report when an
inmate is transferred between Bureau
facilities. When an inmate is transferred,
all pertinent information regarding the
progress of an inmate being transferred
has already been updated in the
Bureau’s computer system, which staff
may access at all Bureau facilities. It is,
therefore, unnecessary for a separate
and specific progress report to be
prepared by staff at the transferring
Bureau facility for staff at the receiving
Bureau facility, when receiving facility
staff can easily access this information
themselves through the Bureau’s
computer system.
However, when an inmate is
transferring to any non-Bureau facility,
staff at that facility may not have access
to the Bureau’s computer system. The
proposed rule also contemplated
removing the requirement to prepare
transfer reports for inmates transferring
to Bureau community confinement
facilities. However, since publishing the
proposed rule, it has come to the
Bureau’s attention that some Bureau
community confinement facilities do
not yet have the capability to access the
Bureau’s computer system. Therefore,
because they do not have consistent
access to the Bureau’s computer system,
it would be necessary for Bureau staff to
prepare a transfer report detailing an
inmate’s progress for inmate transfers to
both community confinement facilities
and non-Bureau facilities. In an
abundance of caution, therefore, we
modify the proposed rule to indicate
that transfer reports must continue to be
prepared not only for inmate transfers to
non-Bureau facilities, but for transfers to
community confinement as well.
Triennial Reports. In the final rule,
the Bureau deletes triennial reports as a
type of progress report. Previous
regulations stated that a progress report
would be prepared on each designated
inmate at least once every 36 months if
not previously generated for another
reason.
Before the development of the
internal Bureau computer information
network, triennial reports were a
necessary tool used to provide staff with
specific inmate information. As
explained above, however, current
Bureau practice and advances in
technology have obviated the need to
prepare a specific progress report every
36 months, because all information
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
63876
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
regarding an inmate’s progress is
continually updated in the Bureau’s
computer system, which staff may
access at all Bureau facilities.
Response to Comments
We received a total of 4 comments on
the proposed rule. We address issues
raised by each commenter below.
Two commenters expressed concerns
with the Bureau’s computer system,
which we referred to in the proposed
rule. We stated that there is no need for
a transfer report when an inmate is
transferred between Bureau facilities
because inmate information is updated
in the Bureau’s computer system, which
staff may access at all Bureau facilities.
We also stated that information
regarding an inmate’s progress is
continually updated in the Bureau’s
computer system, obviating the need for
a triennial report. The commenter stated
that ‘‘there should be a backup in the
case that the computer system becomes
temporarily or permanently
unavailable.’’
The Bureau’s ‘‘backup’’ in case of
unavailability of the computer system is
the Inmate Central File. All information
regarding an inmate’s progress is
contained in that inmate’s Central File,
which is a physical, paper file which
accompanies the inmate when he/she is
transferred from facility to facility. Staff
update the Central File whenever there
is new activity with regard to the
inmate. For instance, work reports are
filed quarterly or monthly, inmate
program completion certificates are filed
when the inmate completes programs,
disciplinary reports are filed when there
are disciplinary incidents, etc., just as
the computer system is continually
updated.
Another commenter requested that
the Bureau provide a ‘‘more clarified
reason for the removal [of triennial
reports and transfer reports between
Bureau facilities] and how it will benefit
the public and agency.’’ We explain the
benefit in terms of the amount of staff
time per year that would be saved. Both
transfer reports and triennial reports
take an average of one staff hour per
report to complete. In the calendar year
2010, there were 69,517 transfers of
inmates between Bureau facilities.
Eliminating transfer reports between
Bureau facilities would therefore result
in a staff time savings of approximately
69,517 hours per year. As of January
2012, there are approximately 1,080
Bureau of Prisons case managers doing
approximately 75 hour-length triennial
reports per year. This results in an
approximate staff time burden
nationwide of 81,000 hours per year.
Thus, eliminating transfer reports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Oct 24, 2013
Jkt 232001
between Bureau facilities and triennial
reports would save the Bureau
approximately 150,517 staff hours per
year, which could then be devoted to
better ensuring the safety, security, and
good order of the facilities and
protection of the public through means
such as detection of contraband, illegal
communications, criminal activity, and
other such problems.
A commenter had some specific
questions with regard to transfer reports.
He asked: ‘‘Does the [computer] network
address every issue a report would?
Does the staff at the receiving Bureau
[facility] fully examine the inmate’s
record upon arrival or is it possible that
some important information could be
missed?’’
The purpose of the transfer report was
to provide a summary of the inmate’s
progress and adjustment for the
receiving institution. However, on
review of this process, the Bureau
determined this summary to be
unnecessary because (1) the information
input in the computer system included
far more than that contained in the
transfer report; and (2) staff at the
receiving facility are required to review
the Inmate Central File for the
transferred inmate immediately upon
the inmate’s arrival in order to
determine suitability for placement in
general population regardless of
whether they had reviewed the
summary contained in the transfer
report. Further, any decisions pertaining
to the inmate must be based on a review
of the Inmate Central File as a whole
and an evaluation of the inmate during
intake screening, not solely on the
transfer report. While it is always
possible that information may be
missed, it is more likely that
information would be missed during a
cursory review of the summary
contained in a transfer report than
during a more thorough review of the
entire Inmate Central File.
Two commenters also raised concerns
that elimination of the triennial report
requirement would cause less frequent
reviews of inmate progress by staff. One
commenter asked, ‘‘Is it possible to
include in the rule a clause that
demands the information is reviewed
triennially by the staff?’’
The language in the regulation
requiring a triennial report was a
requirement on staff to complete the
report, not a requirement on staff to
review an inmate’s progress. It is
unnecessary to specifically include a
clause in these regulations requiring
staff to review an inmate’s progress
triennially because current regulations
on inmate program reviews (28 CFR part
524) already require staff to review
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
inmate progress through program
reviews at least once every 180 calendar
days or more frequently.
For the aforementioned reasons, we
now finalize the proposed rule
published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR
57012), with a minor change to re-insert
the requirement to prepare transfer
reports for inmates transferring to
community confinement.
Executive Order 12866
This rule falls within a category of
actions that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined not
to constitute ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was
not reviewed by OMB.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, under
Executive Order 13132, we determine
that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation
and by approving it certifies that it will
not have a significant economic impact
upon a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: This
rule pertains to the correctional
management of offenders committed to
the custody of the Attorney General or
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,
and its economic impact is limited to
the Bureau’s appropriated funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This 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
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524
Prisoners.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in
the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and delegated to the Director, Bureau of
Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 524 as
set forth below.
PART 524—CLASSIFICATION OF
INMATES
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR
part 524 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521–
3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046,
4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987),
5006–5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to
offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21
U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
2. In § 524.41, remove paragraphs (d)
and (e), redesignate paragraph (f) as (e),
and add a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
■
§ 524.41
Types of progress reports.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Transfer report—prepared on an
inmate transferring to community
confinement or any non-Bureau facility.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–25166 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392; FRL–9901–83–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware. The
SIP revision addresses the infrastructure
elements of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:42 Oct 24, 2013
Jkt 232001
necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). EPA is approving this SIP
revision in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
November 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box
1401, Dover, Delaware 19903.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49409),
EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed
approval of Delaware’s submittal that
provides the basic elements specified in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary
to implement, maintain, and enforce the
2010 NO2 NAAQS.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
On March 27, 2013, the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC)
submitted a SIP revision that addresses
the infrastructure elements specified in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary
to implement, maintain and enforce the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. This submittal
addressed the following infrastructure
elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L),
and (M).
Specific requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and the rationale
for EPA’s proposed action to approve
the SIP submittal are explained in the
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
63877
NPR and the technical support
document (TSD) and will not be restated
here. No public comments were
received on the NPR.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Delaware’s
submittal which provides the basic
program elements specified in section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA,
necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, as a
revision to the Delaware SIP. This
rulemaking action is being taken under
section 110 of the CAA. This
rulemaking action does not include
approval of Delaware’s submittal for
section of 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which
pertains to the nonattainment
requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, since this element is not required
to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA, and will be addressed in a
separate process.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63875-63877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25166]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 524
[BOP-AB60-F]
RIN 1120-AB60
Progress Reports Rules Revision
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) removes from
regulations and/or modifies two types of progress reports: transfer
reports and triennial reports.
DATES: This rule is effective on November 25, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this final rule, the Bureau removes from
regulations and/or modifies two types of progress reports: Transfer
reports and triennial reports. We published a proposed rule on this
topic on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012).
Section 524.41, entitled ``Types of progress reports,'' lists
several types of progress reports prepared for non-Bureau entities,
such as for parole hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90 days
before an inmate's release to a term of supervision), and for other
reasons (such as upon court request or a clemency review). The previous
regulations also identified two types of progress reports that were
primarily intended for internal Bureau purposes: Those prepared when
inmates transfer to community confinement or another institution, and
those prepared triennially if not more frequently done for any other
reason.
Transfer Reports. The previous regulations defined ``transfer
report'' as one prepared on an inmate recommended and/or approved for
transfer to community confinement or to another institution and whose
progress has not been summarized within the previous 180 days. The
Bureau modifies this definition in the final rule to indicate that
transfer reports will only be prepared on inmates transferring to
community confinement or non-Bureau facilities.
Current Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated
the need to prepare a specific paper report when an inmate is
transferred between Bureau facilities. When an inmate is transferred,
all pertinent information regarding the progress of an inmate being
transferred has already been updated in the Bureau's computer system,
which staff may access at all Bureau facilities. It is, therefore,
unnecessary for a separate and specific progress report to be prepared
by staff at the transferring Bureau facility for staff at the receiving
Bureau facility, when receiving facility staff can easily access this
information themselves through the Bureau's computer system.
However, when an inmate is transferring to any non-Bureau facility,
staff at that facility may not have access to the Bureau's computer
system. The proposed rule also contemplated removing the requirement to
prepare transfer reports for inmates transferring to Bureau community
confinement facilities. However, since publishing the proposed rule, it
has come to the Bureau's attention that some Bureau community
confinement facilities do not yet have the capability to access the
Bureau's computer system. Therefore, because they do not have
consistent access to the Bureau's computer system, it would be
necessary for Bureau staff to prepare a transfer report detailing an
inmate's progress for inmate transfers to both community confinement
facilities and non-Bureau facilities. In an abundance of caution,
therefore, we modify the proposed rule to indicate that transfer
reports must continue to be prepared not only for inmate transfers to
non-Bureau facilities, but for transfers to community confinement as
well.
Triennial Reports. In the final rule, the Bureau deletes triennial
reports as a type of progress report. Previous regulations stated that
a progress report would be prepared on each designated inmate at least
once every 36 months if not previously generated for another reason.
Before the development of the internal Bureau computer information
network, triennial reports were a necessary tool used to provide staff
with specific inmate information. As explained above, however, current
Bureau practice and advances in technology have obviated the need to
prepare a specific progress report every 36 months, because all
information
[[Page 63876]]
regarding an inmate's progress is continually updated in the Bureau's
computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities.
Response to Comments
We received a total of 4 comments on the proposed rule. We address
issues raised by each commenter below.
Two commenters expressed concerns with the Bureau's computer
system, which we referred to in the proposed rule. We stated that there
is no need for a transfer report when an inmate is transferred between
Bureau facilities because inmate information is updated in the Bureau's
computer system, which staff may access at all Bureau facilities. We
also stated that information regarding an inmate's progress is
continually updated in the Bureau's computer system, obviating the need
for a triennial report. The commenter stated that ``there should be a
backup in the case that the computer system becomes temporarily or
permanently unavailable.''
The Bureau's ``backup'' in case of unavailability of the computer
system is the Inmate Central File. All information regarding an
inmate's progress is contained in that inmate's Central File, which is
a physical, paper file which accompanies the inmate when he/she is
transferred from facility to facility. Staff update the Central File
whenever there is new activity with regard to the inmate. For instance,
work reports are filed quarterly or monthly, inmate program completion
certificates are filed when the inmate completes programs, disciplinary
reports are filed when there are disciplinary incidents, etc., just as
the computer system is continually updated.
Another commenter requested that the Bureau provide a ``more
clarified reason for the removal [of triennial reports and transfer
reports between Bureau facilities] and how it will benefit the public
and agency.'' We explain the benefit in terms of the amount of staff
time per year that would be saved. Both transfer reports and triennial
reports take an average of one staff hour per report to complete. In
the calendar year 2010, there were 69,517 transfers of inmates between
Bureau facilities. Eliminating transfer reports between Bureau
facilities would therefore result in a staff time savings of
approximately 69,517 hours per year. As of January 2012, there are
approximately 1,080 Bureau of Prisons case managers doing approximately
75 hour-length triennial reports per year. This results in an
approximate staff time burden nationwide of 81,000 hours per year.
Thus, eliminating transfer reports between Bureau facilities and
triennial reports would save the Bureau approximately 150,517 staff
hours per year, which could then be devoted to better ensuring the
safety, security, and good order of the facilities and protection of
the public through means such as detection of contraband, illegal
communications, criminal activity, and other such problems.
A commenter had some specific questions with regard to transfer
reports. He asked: ``Does the [computer] network address every issue a
report would? Does the staff at the receiving Bureau [facility] fully
examine the inmate's record upon arrival or is it possible that some
important information could be missed?''
The purpose of the transfer report was to provide a summary of the
inmate's progress and adjustment for the receiving institution.
However, on review of this process, the Bureau determined this summary
to be unnecessary because (1) the information input in the computer
system included far more than that contained in the transfer report;
and (2) staff at the receiving facility are required to review the
Inmate Central File for the transferred inmate immediately upon the
inmate's arrival in order to determine suitability for placement in
general population regardless of whether they had reviewed the summary
contained in the transfer report. Further, any decisions pertaining to
the inmate must be based on a review of the Inmate Central File as a
whole and an evaluation of the inmate during intake screening, not
solely on the transfer report. While it is always possible that
information may be missed, it is more likely that information would be
missed during a cursory review of the summary contained in a transfer
report than during a more thorough review of the entire Inmate Central
File.
Two commenters also raised concerns that elimination of the
triennial report requirement would cause less frequent reviews of
inmate progress by staff. One commenter asked, ``Is it possible to
include in the rule a clause that demands the information is reviewed
triennially by the staff?''
The language in the regulation requiring a triennial report was a
requirement on staff to complete the report, not a requirement on staff
to review an inmate's progress. It is unnecessary to specifically
include a clause in these regulations requiring staff to review an
inmate's progress triennially because current regulations on inmate
program reviews (28 CFR part 524) already require staff to review
inmate progress through program reviews at least once every 180
calendar days or more frequently.
For the aforementioned reasons, we now finalize the proposed rule
published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012), with a minor change to
re-insert the requirement to prepare transfer reports for inmates
transferring to community confinement.
Executive Order 12866
This rule falls within a category of actions that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined not to constitute
``significant regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was not reviewed by OMB.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132,
we determine that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by
approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic
impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule pertains to the correctional management of offenders
committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's
appropriated funds.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This 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
[[Page 63877]]
major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-
based companies in domestic and export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524
Prisoners.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr.,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we
amend 28 CFR part 524 as set forth below.
PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES
0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 524 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624,
4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October
12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C.
848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
0
2. In Sec. 524.41, remove paragraphs (d) and (e), redesignate
paragraph (f) as (e), and add a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 524.41 Types of progress reports.
* * * * *
(d) Transfer report--prepared on an inmate transferring to
community confinement or any non-Bureau facility.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-25166 Filed 10-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
