Paroling, Recommitting and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes, 52982-52984 [2015-21094]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52982
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
956, an obligation of a foreign
partnership that is held (or that would
be treated as held under § 1.956–2(c) if
the obligation were an obligation of a
United States person) by a controlled
foreign corporation is treated as a
separate obligation of a partner in the
partnership when—
(A) The foreign partnership
distributes an amount of money or
property to the partner;
(B) The foreign partnership would not
have made the distribution but for a
funding of the partnership through the
obligation; and
(C) The partner is related to the
controlled foreign corporation within
the meaning of section 954(d)(3).
(ii) Amount of obligation.
Notwithstanding § 1.956–1(e), the
amount that is treated as an obligation
of the distributee partner pursuant to
paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section is
equal to the lesser of the amount of the
partnership distribution that would not
have been made but for the funding of
the partnership or the amount (as
determined under § 1.956–1(e)) of the
obligation of the foreign partnership that
is held (or that would be treated as held
under § 1.956–2(c) if the obligation were
an obligation of a United States person)
by the controlled foreign corporation.
(iii) Example. (A) Facts. P, a domestic
corporation, wholly owns FS, a controlled
foreign corporation. P owns a 70% interest in
FPRS, a foreign partnership. A domestic
corporation that is unrelated to P and FS
owns the remaining 30% interest in FPRS.
FPRS borrows $100x from FS, and distributes
$80x to P. FPRS would not have made the
distribution to P but for the funding by FS.
(B) Result. Under paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this
section, a portion of the obligation of FPRS
that FS holds is treated as an obligation of
P, which constitutes United States property,
because FPRS made a distribution to P that
FPRS would not have made but for the
funding of FPRS through the obligation held
by FS. Under paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this
section, the amount that is treated as an
obligation of P is the lesser of the amount of
the distribution, $80x, or the amount of the
entire obligation of FPRS held by FS, $100x.
For purposes of section 956, therefore, on the
date the loan to FPRS is made, FS is
considered to hold United States property of
$80x.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(e)(6) [Reserved]. For further
guidance, see § 1.956–1(e)(6).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Effective/applicability date. (1)
Paragraph (b)(4) of this section applies
to taxable years of controlled foreign
corporations ending on or after
September 1, 2015, and to taxable years
of United States shareholders in which
or with which such taxable years end,
with respect to property acquired on or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Sep 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
after September 1, 2015. See paragraph
(b)(4) of § 1.956–1T, as contained in 26
CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2015,
for the rules applicable to taxable years
of controlled foreign corporations
ending before September 1, 2015 and
property acquired before September 1,
2015. For purposes of this paragraph
(g)(1), a deemed exchange of property
pursuant to section 1001 on or after
September 1, 2015 constitutes an
acquisition of the property on or after
that date.
(2) Paragraph (b)(5) of this section
applies to taxable years of controlled
foreign corporations ending on or after
September 1, 2015, and to taxable years
of United States shareholders in which
or with which such taxable years end,
in the case of distributions made on or
after September 1, 2015.
(3) [Reserved].
(4) [Reserved]. For further guidance,
see § 1.956–1(g)(4).
(h) Expiration date. The applicability
of paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section expires on or before August 31,
2018.
Approved: July 30, 2015.
John Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Mark J. Mazur,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax
Policy).
[FR Doc. 2015–21574 Filed 9–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. UPSC 2014–01]
Paroling, Recommitting and
Supervising Federal Prisoners:
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under
the United States and District of
Columbia Codes
United States Parole
Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The United States Parole
Commission is revising its rules
pertaining to decisions to revoke terms
of supervision without a revocation
hearing. The rule allows for a releasee
charged with administrative violations
or specifically identified misdemeanor
crimes to apply for a prison sanction of
8 months or less. If a releasee qualifies
and applies for a sanction under this
section, the Commission may approve a
revocation decision that includes no
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
more than 8 months of imprisonment
without using its normal guidelines for
decision-making
DATES: Effective September 2, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations
Administrator U.S. Parole Commission,
90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530,
telephone (202) 346–7061. Questions
about this publication are welcome, but
inquiries concerning individual cases
cannot be answered over the phone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the notice of proposed rulemaking
published at 79 FR 47603–47605, we
discussed the possible revision of our
rules pertaining to decisions to revoke
terms of supervision without a
revocation hearing for persons charged
with only administrative violations or
specifically identified misdemeanor
crimes. We refer you to the previous
publication for a review of the
background material. In the notice of
proposed rulemaking, we encouraged
the public to comment on our proposed
changes and we received two written
comments from interested persons and/
or organizations. However, only one
public comment, submitted by the
Public Defender Service for the District
of Columbia, suggested modifications to
the proposed rule.
Public Comment From the Public
Defender Service for the District of
Columbia (PDS)
PDS recommends that we develop a
new risk assessment tool to be applied
to all residents of the District of
Columbia. While we may review the
effectiveness of risk assessment tools
used for all cases under our jurisdiction,
we believe that the final rule for special
procedures for swift and short-term
sanctions should be extended only to
those persons who commit low level
violations of supervision.
Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule
stated that, notwithstanding our general
policy, when revoking supervised
release for administrative violations
under this paragraph, we may impose
new terms of supervised release that are
less than the maximum authorized term.
PDS recommends that we provide
training to our Hearing Examiners to
impose shorter terms of supervision
even when revoking supervised release
for other types of violations.
Based on the comments, the final rule
omits the language from paragraph
(d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are
permitted to impose periods of
supervised release that are less than the
maximum authorized term for all
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
supervised release violators. Therefore,
the language from paragraph (d)(3) of
the proposed rule is unnecessary and
inaccurately implies that we are not
permitted to impose shorter periods of
supervised release when revoking for
other types of violations.
PDS suggests that the inclusion of the
proposed rule under the section entitled
Revocation Decision Without a Hearing
inaccurately implies that a person
sanctioned under this paragraph is
waiving any type of hearing and not just
a revocation hearing. We believe that
the proposed rule was included in the
correct section. All other processes for
revocation without a hearing outlined in
§ 2.66 refer to persons that waive a
revocation hearing after a probable
cause determination has been made.
The procedures set forth in paragraph
(d) are the same in that regard.
PDS expressed a concern that persons
arrested outside the District of Columbia
will not receive legal advice when
deciding to apply for a sanction under
paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule.
Because all alleged violators of
supervision are provided with the right
to request an attorney at the probable
cause proceeding, we are satisfied that
all alleged violators who qualify for
sanction under this paragraph will be
provided with an attorney if they want
one.
The proposed rule allows for a prison
sanction of ‘‘no more than 8 months’’ for
persons sentenced pursuant to § 2.66(d).
During the pilot project that preceded
publishing of the proposed rule, we
issued policy statements to guide our
Hearing Examiners as to the expected
length of the prison term within the 8
month range. The policy statements
provided a guide as to the length of the
prison sanction based solely on the type
of administrative violation that had
occurred. However, the policy
statements were not included in the
proposed rule. PDS commented that
failure to include these policy
statements is inherently unfair because
it punishes all administrative violations
the same.
We have determined that it is not
necessary to include the policy
statements in the final rule. We have
decided over 1,000 cases under these
procedures since the pilot project began
in 2012. A review of the data for those
cases showed that we were not
following the policy statements in a
high number of cases. When the length
of the prison term differed from what
was suggested by the policy statements,
the term was usually shorter than what
was suggested. This included the
decision to sentence over 200 alleged
violators who had absconded from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Sep 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
supervision to time served despite the
policy statement that suggested that
they serve between 5 and 8 months.
There are a number of factors other than
the type of violation that we consider in
determining the length of a prison
sanction. Based on our extensive
experience in sanctioning alleged
violators during the pilot project, we
believe we can fairly consider all
persons that qualify for a sanction under
this section without using policy
statements that are based solely on the
type of administrative violation that has
occurred.
PDS requested that the Commission
eliminate or modify the requirement in
paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the proposed rule
that an alleged violator cannot be
sanctioned twice under this section. We
find this to be an appropriate
requirement and consistent with the
alleged violator’s agreement to modify
his or her non-compliant behavior to
successfully complete any remaining
period of supervision as indicated in
(d)(1)(iv).
The proposed rule did not include
any method for an alleged violator to
ask the Commission to reconsider a
decision to disapprove a sanction under
this paragraph or to approve a sanction
that is greater than recommended by a
Hearing Examiner. It also did not
require a Commissioner, when
disapproving a case that qualifies, to
provide a written explanation. PDS
requested that the final rule include
these procedures.
We have determined that these
procedures are not necessary. To be
sanctioned under this paragraph, an
alleged violator must agree to a sanction
of ‘‘no more than 8 months.’’ Thus, we
do not believe it is appropriate to allow
that same individual the right to
petition the Commission to reconsider a
decision that is within the scope of the
written agreement. Also, a decision not
to approve an alleged violator for a
sanction under this paragraph only
means that the Commission has decided
that a revocation hearing will be
conducted. If the alleged violator is not
satisfied with the result of that hearing,
he or she has the right to appeal the
decision.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and
Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of
Regulation, and in accordance with
Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’
section 1(b), General Principles of
Regulation. The Commission has
determined that this rule is not a
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
52983
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and
accordingly this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Under Executive
Order 13132, this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications
requiring a Federalism Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule will not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial
number of small entities within the
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The rule will not cause State, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector,
to spend $100,000,000 or more in any
one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. No
action under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E—
Congressional Review Act)
These rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by Section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E—
Congressional Review Act, now codified
at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will not
result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on the ability
of United States-based companies to
compete with foreign-based companies.
Moreover, this is a rule of agency
practice or procedure that does not
substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, and
does not come within the meaning of
the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section
804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not
apply.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Prisoners, Probation and
parole.
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
52984
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The Final Rule
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole
Commission adopts the following
amendments to 28 CFR part 2.
PART 2—[AMENDED]
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).
2. In § 2.66, add paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 2.66 Revocation decision without
hearing.
(d) Special procedures for swift and
short-term sanctions for administrative
violations of supervision. (1) An alleged
violator may, at the time of the probable
cause hearing or preliminary interview,
waive the right to a revocation hearing
and apply in writing for an immediate
prison sanction of no more than 8
months. Notwithstanding the reparole
guidelines at § 2.21, the Commission
will consider such a sanction if—
(i) The releasee has not already
postponed the initial probable cause
hearing/preliminary interview by more
than 30 days;
(ii) The charges alleged by the
Commission do not include a violation
of the law;
(iii) The releasee has accepted
responsibility for the violations;
(iv) The releasee has agreed to modify
the non-compliant behavior to
successfully complete any remaining
period of supervision; and
(v) The releasee has not already been
sanctioned pursuant to this paragraph
(d)(1).
(2) A sanction imposed pursuant to
paragraph (d)(1) of this section may
include any other action authorized by
§ 2.52, § 2.105, or § 2.218.
(3) Any case not approved by the
Commission for a revocation sanction
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall receive the normal
revocation hearing procedures including
the application of the guidelines at
§ 2.21.
Note to paragraph (d). For purpose of
paragraph (d)(1) of this section only, the
Commission will consider the
sanctioning of the following crimes as
administrative violations if they have
been charged only as misdemeanors:
1. Public Intoxication
2. Possession of an Open Container of
Alcohol
3. Urinating in Public
4. Traffic Violations
5. Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace
6. Driving without a License or with a
revoked/suspended license
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:00 Sep 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
7. Providing False Information to a
Police Officer
8. Loitering
9. Failure to Pay court ordered support
(i.e. child support/alimony)
10. Solicitation/Prostitution
11. Resisting Arrest
12. Reckless Driving
13. Gambling
14. Failure to Obey a Police Officer
15. Leaving the Scene of an Accident
(only if no injury occurred)16. Hitchhiking
17. Vending without a License
18. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
(indicating purpose of personal use
only)
19. Possession of a Controlled Substance
(for personal use only)
Dated: August 17, 2015.
J. Patricia Wilson Smoot,
Chairman, United States Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–21094 Filed 9–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 7, 18, 44, 46, 48, 49, 56,
57, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, and 90
MSHA Headquarters, Pittsburgh Safety
and Health Technology Center, and
Respirable Dust Processing
Laboratory Address Changes
Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule; technical
amendment.
AGENCY:
The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) is amending its
published regulations that include the
Agency’s addresses. MSHA relocated its
Headquarters offices and also will
discontinue renting the Post Office
boxes it uses for mail delivery to the
Pittsburgh Safety and Health
Technology Center and Respirable Dust
Processing Laboratory. In addition,
MSHA is amending the incorporation by
reference language in some of its
regulations to include current addresses,
telephone numbers, and internet
addresses.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective Date: September 2,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director,
Office of Standards, Regulations, and
Variances, MSHA, at
mcconnell.sheila.a@dol.gov (email);
202–693–9440 (voice); or 202–693–9441
(facsimile). These are not toll-free
numbers.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
On June
15, 2015, MSHA moved its
Headquarters offices from 1100 Wilson
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209–3939
to 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA
22202–5452. MSHA is amending its
regulations to include MSHA’s new
address.
MSHA is also amending its
regulations to update the mailing
address of MSHA’s Office of Technical
Support, Pittsburgh Safety and Health
Technology Center. MSHA will
discontinue renting the Post Office
boxes it uses for mail delivery. The
mailing address for the Pittsburgh Safety
and Health Technology Center’s
Respirable Dust Processing Laboratory is
626 Cochrans Mill Road, Building 38,
Pittsburgh, PA 15236–3611. The mailing
address to submit seal design
applications for approval by the
Pittsburgh Safety and Health
Technology Center is 626 Cochrans Mill
Road, Building 151, Pittsburgh, PA
15236–3611.
In addition, MSHA made other nonsubstantive changes to correct
inaccurate names: §§ 48.3, 48.23, and
48.32 contain a non-substantive change
to the name of the Administrator for
Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and
Health; §§ 7.505, 56.2, 57.2, and 75.301
contain a non-substantive change to the
name of the Office of Standards,
Regulations, and Variances; and §§ 49.3,
49.4, and 49.8 contain a non-substantive
change to remove an obsolete or
inapplicable name.
MSHA is also amending previously
approved incorporation by reference
(IBR) language in some MSHA
regulations. The amendments conform
to current Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) format requirements for an IBR
regarding publisher addresses,
telephone numbers, and internet
addresses, and include contact
information for the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
This technical amendment is a
procedural ‘‘rule’’ under 5 U.S.C. 551(4),
and is not subject to the notice-andcomment rulemaking requirements in 5
U.S.C. 553. This action also does not
constitute a ‘‘regulatory action’’ subject
to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the regulations in 30 CFR parts 7, 18, 44,
46, 48, 49, 56, 57, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, and
90 are amended to include updated
information.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 7
Explosives, Incorporation by
reference, Mine safety and health,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research.
E:\FR\FM\02SER1.SGM
02SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52982-52984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. UPSC 2014-01]
Paroling, Recommitting and Supervising Federal Prisoners:
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of
Columbia Codes
AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Parole Commission is revising its rules
pertaining to decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a
revocation hearing. The rule allows for a releasee charged with
administrative violations or specifically identified misdemeanor crimes
to apply for a prison sanction of 8 months or less. If a releasee
qualifies and applies for a sanction under this section, the Commission
may approve a revocation decision that includes no more than 8 months
of imprisonment without using its normal guidelines for decision-making
DATES: Effective September 2, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations
Administrator U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC
20530, telephone (202) 346-7061. Questions about this publication are
welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered
over the phone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 79 FR 47603-
47605, we discussed the possible revision of our rules pertaining to
decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a revocation hearing
for persons charged with only administrative violations or specifically
identified misdemeanor crimes. We refer you to the previous publication
for a review of the background material. In the notice of proposed
rulemaking, we encouraged the public to comment on our proposed changes
and we received two written comments from interested persons and/or
organizations. However, only one public comment, submitted by the
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, suggested
modifications to the proposed rule.
Public Comment From the Public Defender Service for the District of
Columbia (PDS)
PDS recommends that we develop a new risk assessment tool to be
applied to all residents of the District of Columbia. While we may
review the effectiveness of risk assessment tools used for all cases
under our jurisdiction, we believe that the final rule for special
procedures for swift and short-term sanctions should be extended only
to those persons who commit low level violations of supervision.
Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule stated that, notwithstanding
our general policy, when revoking supervised release for administrative
violations under this paragraph, we may impose new terms of supervised
release that are less than the maximum authorized term. PDS recommends
that we provide training to our Hearing Examiners to impose shorter
terms of supervision even when revoking supervised release for other
types of violations.
Based on the comments, the final rule omits the language from
paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are permitted to impose
periods of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized
term for all
[[Page 52983]]
supervised release violators. Therefore, the language from paragraph
(d)(3) of the proposed rule is unnecessary and inaccurately implies
that we are not permitted to impose shorter periods of supervised
release when revoking for other types of violations.
PDS suggests that the inclusion of the proposed rule under the
section entitled Revocation Decision Without a Hearing inaccurately
implies that a person sanctioned under this paragraph is waiving any
type of hearing and not just a revocation hearing. We believe that the
proposed rule was included in the correct section. All other processes
for revocation without a hearing outlined in Sec. 2.66 refer to
persons that waive a revocation hearing after a probable cause
determination has been made. The procedures set forth in paragraph (d)
are the same in that regard.
PDS expressed a concern that persons arrested outside the District
of Columbia will not receive legal advice when deciding to apply for a
sanction under paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule. Because all
alleged violators of supervision are provided with the right to request
an attorney at the probable cause proceeding, we are satisfied that all
alleged violators who qualify for sanction under this paragraph will be
provided with an attorney if they want one.
The proposed rule allows for a prison sanction of ``no more than 8
months'' for persons sentenced pursuant to Sec. 2.66(d). During the
pilot project that preceded publishing of the proposed rule, we issued
policy statements to guide our Hearing Examiners as to the expected
length of the prison term within the 8 month range. The policy
statements provided a guide as to the length of the prison sanction
based solely on the type of administrative violation that had occurred.
However, the policy statements were not included in the proposed rule.
PDS commented that failure to include these policy statements is
inherently unfair because it punishes all administrative violations the
same.
We have determined that it is not necessary to include the policy
statements in the final rule. We have decided over 1,000 cases under
these procedures since the pilot project began in 2012. A review of the
data for those cases showed that we were not following the policy
statements in a high number of cases. When the length of the prison
term differed from what was suggested by the policy statements, the
term was usually shorter than what was suggested. This included the
decision to sentence over 200 alleged violators who had absconded from
supervision to time served despite the policy statement that suggested
that they serve between 5 and 8 months. There are a number of factors
other than the type of violation that we consider in determining the
length of a prison sanction. Based on our extensive experience in
sanctioning alleged violators during the pilot project, we believe we
can fairly consider all persons that qualify for a sanction under this
section without using policy statements that are based solely on the
type of administrative violation that has occurred.
PDS requested that the Commission eliminate or modify the
requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the proposed rule that an alleged
violator cannot be sanctioned twice under this section. We find this to
be an appropriate requirement and consistent with the alleged
violator's agreement to modify his or her non-compliant behavior to
successfully complete any remaining period of supervision as indicated
in (d)(1)(iv).
The proposed rule did not include any method for an alleged
violator to ask the Commission to reconsider a decision to disapprove a
sanction under this paragraph or to approve a sanction that is greater
than recommended by a Hearing Examiner. It also did not require a
Commissioner, when disapproving a case that qualifies, to provide a
written explanation. PDS requested that the final rule include these
procedures.
We have determined that these procedures are not necessary. To be
sanctioned under this paragraph, an alleged violator must agree to a
sanction of ``no more than 8 months.'' Thus, we do not believe it is
appropriate to allow that same individual the right to petition the
Commission to reconsider a decision that is within the scope of the
written agreement. Also, a decision not to approve an alleged violator
for a sanction under this paragraph only means that the Commission has
decided that a revocation hearing will be conducted. If the alleged
violator is not satisfied with the result of that hearing, he or she
has the right to appeal the decision.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulation Planning and Review,'' section
1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order
13565, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' section 1(b),
General Principles of Regulation. The Commission has determined that
this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and
accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism
Assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it
will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle
E--Congressional Review Act)
These rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by Section 804 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E--
Congressional Review Act, now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies. Moreover, this is a rule of agency practice or
procedure that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations
of non-agency parties, and does not come within the meaning of the term
``rule'' as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does
not apply.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and
parole.
[[Page 52984]]
The Final Rule
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission adopts the following
amendments to 28 CFR part 2.
PART 2--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 4204(a)(6).
0
2. In Sec. 2.66, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 2.66 Revocation decision without hearing.
(d) Special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions for
administrative violations of supervision. (1) An alleged violator may,
at the time of the probable cause hearing or preliminary interview,
waive the right to a revocation hearing and apply in writing for an
immediate prison sanction of no more than 8 months. Notwithstanding the
reparole guidelines at Sec. 2.21, the Commission will consider such a
sanction if--
(i) The releasee has not already postponed the initial probable
cause hearing/preliminary interview by more than 30 days;
(ii) The charges alleged by the Commission do not include a
violation of the law;
(iii) The releasee has accepted responsibility for the violations;
(iv) The releasee has agreed to modify the non-compliant behavior
to successfully complete any remaining period of supervision; and
(v) The releasee has not already been sanctioned pursuant to this
paragraph (d)(1).
(2) A sanction imposed pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section
may include any other action authorized by Sec. 2.52, Sec. 2.105, or
Sec. 2.218.
(3) Any case not approved by the Commission for a revocation
sanction pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall receive the
normal revocation hearing procedures including the application of the
guidelines at Sec. 2.21.
Note to paragraph (d). For purpose of paragraph (d)(1) of this
section only, the Commission will consider the sanctioning of the
following crimes as administrative violations if they have been charged
only as misdemeanors:
1. Public Intoxication
2. Possession of an Open Container of Alcohol
3. Urinating in Public
4. Traffic Violations
5. Disorderly Conduct/Breach of Peace
6. Driving without a License or with a revoked/suspended license
7. Providing False Information to a Police Officer
8. Loitering
9. Failure to Pay court ordered support (i.e. child support/alimony)
10. Solicitation/Prostitution
11. Resisting Arrest
12. Reckless Driving
13. Gambling
14. Failure to Obey a Police Officer
15. Leaving the Scene of an Accident (only if no injury occurred)-
16. Hitchhiking
17. Vending without a License
18. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (indicating purpose of personal
use only)
19. Possession of a Controlled Substance (for personal use only)
Dated: August 17, 2015.
J. Patricia Wilson Smoot,
Chairman, United States Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-21094 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
