Rule2021-19885
Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 15, 2021
Effective
September 15, 2021
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentParole Commission
Abstract
The United States Parole Commission is revising its regulations to permit findings by a Residential Reentry Center's Disciplinary Committee to be used as conclusive evidence of prisoner misconduct while in a Residential Reentry Center.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51271-51272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19885]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
28 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. USPC-2021-04]
RIN 1104-AA09
Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners:
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of
Columbia Codes
AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Parole Commission is revising its
regulations to permit findings by a Residential Reentry Center's
Disciplinary Committee to be used as conclusive evidence of prisoner
misconduct while in a Residential Reentry Center.
DATES: This regulation is effective September 15, 2021. Comments due on
or before November 15, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
number USPC-2021-04 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
2. Mail: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission,
attention: USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street NE, Washington, DC 20530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel,
U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, Third Floor, Washington, DC
20530, telephone (202) 346-7030. Questions about this publication are
welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered
over the telephone.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: After the U.S. Parole Commission has granted
a prisoner a parole effective date, but before the prisoner signed the
parole certificate, if the prisoner violates the rules of the
institution, the Parole Commission may reopen the case and schedule a
rescission hearing. 28 CFR 2.34(a). At that hearing, the Parole
Commission may consider the report of the Bureau of Prisons (``BOP'')
Disciplinary Hearing Officer (``DHO'') following a disciplinary
hearing, that a prisoner has violated disciplinary rules as
``conclusive evidence of institutional misconduct,'' and does not need
to conduct a full hearing to consider witnesses and evidence. 28 CFR
2.34(c). The disciplinary hearing conducted by the DHO complies with
the procedural due process requirements established by the Supreme
Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, i.e., the prisoner has notice of the
alleged violations at least 24 hours in advance of hearing, a statement
of factfinding, the right to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence. Thus, the Parole Commission may rely on the findings and
conclusions of the DHO to take action in response to the information.
For prisoners who are housed at a Residential Reentry Center
(``RRC'') prior to their release and violate the rules, the in-person
disciplinary hearing is conducted before the RRC's Center Disciplinary
Committee (``CDC''). Under the BOP's Program Statement 7300.09, the CDC
then refers its findings to the DHO for review, final action, and
sanctions. Every court which has examined the procedures established by
Program Statement 7300.09 has held that hearing procedures used by the
CDC satisfy the procedural due process requirements established by the
Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell.
Thus far, the Parole Commission has not taken the step to amend its
[[Page 51272]]
regulation to include findings of the CDC after a hearing as conclusive
evidence that the prisoner violated the rules of the institution. With
more and more prisoners being placed in RRC's before their parole
dates, it is critical that the Commission be able to rely on the CDC's
findings to promote the smooth transition to the community or to pull
back an inmate who has demonstrated that he or she is not ready to be
released to the community without requiring a second hearing by the DHO
or a fully contested disciplinary hearing conducted by the U.S. Parole
Commission.
The Parole Commission is promulgating this rule as an interim rule
and is providing a 60-day period for public comment. The amended rule
will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
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
This 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
This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or
the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and
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)
This 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). This rule
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or
more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse
effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with
foreign-based companies. 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.
The Interim Rule
Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission amends 28 CFR part 2 as
follows:
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. Amend Sec. 2.34 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.34 Rescission of parole.
(a) When an effective date of parole has been set by the
Commission, release on that date is conditioned upon continued
satisfactory conduct by the prisoner. If a prisoner granted such a date
has been found in violation of institution rules by a Discipline
Hearing Officer, or the Center Disciplinary Committee, or is alleged to
have committed a new criminal act at any time prior to the delivery of
the certificate of parole, the Commissioner shall be advised promptly
of such information. The prisoner shall not be released until the
institution has been notified that no change has been made in the
Commission's order to parole. Following receipt of such information,
the Commissioner may reopen the case and retard the parole date for up
to 90 days without a hearing, or schedule a rescission hearing under
this section on the next available docket at the institution or on the
first docket following return to a federal institution from a community
corrections center or a state or local halfway house.
* * * * *
(c) A hearing before a Discipline Hearing Officer, or the Center
Disciplinary Committee, resulting in a finding that the prisoner has
committed a violation of disciplinary rules may be relied upon by the
Commission as conclusive evidence of institutional misconduct. However,
the prisoner will be afforded an opportunity to explain any mitigating
circumstances, and to present documentary evidence in mitigation of the
misconduct at the rescission hearing.
* * * * *
Patricia K. Cushwa,
Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-19885 Filed 9-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 15, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.