[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19262-19263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2


Paroling, Recommitting, and Supervising Federal Prisoners: 
Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of 
Columbia Codes

AGENCY: United States Parole Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: During 2004 the Parole Commission carried out a pilot project 
to study the feasibility of conducting parole release hearings through 
videoconferences between an examiner at the Commission's office and 
prisoners at selected institutions of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In 
order to give notice of this project, the Commission promulgated an 
interim rule that provided that a parole release hearing may be 
conducted through a videoconference with the prisoner. The pilot 
project has been a success and the Commission is now amending the 
interim rule to include institutional revocation hearings as hearings 
that may be conducted by videoconference. The Commission is taking this 
action to further conserve personnel resources and reduce the costs 
associated with travel by the agency's hearing examiners.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2005. Comments must be received by June 
13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole 
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of General Counsel, U.S. Parole 
Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815, 
telephone (301) 492-5959. Questions about this publication are welcome, 
but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the 
telephone.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Parole Commission's hearing examiners 
travel to more than 60 locations of Federal correctional facilities to 
conduct parole release and revocation hearings. In order to reduce 
travel costs and to conserve the time and effort of its hearing 
examiners, in 2004 the Commission initiated a pilot project in which 
examiners conducted some parole release hearings by videoconference 
between the Commission's office in Maryland and the prisoner's Federal 
institution. The Commission published an interim rule that provided 
notice that the Commission would be using the videoconference 
procedure. 69 FR 5273 (Feb. 4, 2004).
    By the end of 2004, the Commission conducted 102 hearings via 
videoconference at 11 institutions. The videoconference technology has 
worked well. Video and audio transmissions are clear and the hearings 
are seldom interrupted by technical difficulties. The Commission's 
experience is that the prisoner's ability to effectively participate in 
the hearing has not been diminished by the use of the videoconference 
procedure.
    The Commission's pilot project only included parole release 
hearings. Now the Commission is extending the use of the 
videoconference procedure to institutional revocation hearings. A 
revocation hearing is held at a Federal institution when the releasee 
admits to the violation charge, is convicted of a new crime, or waives 
a local revocation hearing, i.e., a hearing at the place of the alleged 
violation or arrest. Adverse witnesses are not produced at 
institutional revocation hearings for confrontation and cross-
examination. On rare occasions, the releasee has a witness testify on 
his behalf at the hearing. Because the violation charge is either not 
contested by the releasee or is conclusively established by the new 
conviction, an institutional revocation hearing primarily focuses on 
the decisions regarding the appropriate prison term for the releasee's 
violation and whether the releasee should be returned to the community 
on supervision. Therefore, an institutional revocation hearing bears 
considerable similarity to a parole determination proceeding. Given 
this similarity and the additional cost savings and conservation of 
resources that may be gained from use of the videoconference procedure, 
the Commission is adding institutional revocation hearings to those 
hearings an examiner may conduct by videoconference.
    Extending the videoconference procedure to institutional revocation 
hearings will provide additional flexibility for both the Commission 
and the Bureau of Prisons in the disposition of accused release 
violators and the use of personnel. For example, if the releasee is 
serving a new prison term at an institution where the Commission 
conducts parole hearings via videoconference, the Bureau will be able 
to designate that same institution as the site of the releasee's 
institutional revocation hearing. This saves either the cost of 
transporting the releasee to FTC Oklahoma or FDC Philadelphia, the 
institutions where the Commission conducts the majority of 
institutional revocation hearings, or the cost of sending a hearing 
examiner to travel to the institution to conduct one institutional 
revocation hearing when all other hearings at that same institution are 
conducted via videoconference. Moreover, conducting institutional 
revocation hearings by videoconference may avoid some violations of the 
90-day time period for holding such hearings in situations where 
transportation difficulties or other problems have delayed the 
scheduling of the hearing.
    The Commission is promulgating this rule as an interim rule in 
order to promptly take full advantage of the cost savings and other 
benefits in the deployment of examiner personnel that result from the 
extension of the videoconference procedure to institutional revocation 
hearings. The Commission is providing a 60-day period for the public to 
comment on the use of the videoconference procedure for such revocation 
hearings.

Implementation

    The amended rule will take effect May 13, 2005, and will apply to 
institutional revocation hearings for Federal parolees and District of 
Columbia parolees and supervised releasees held on or after the 
effective date.

Executive Order 12866

    The U.S. Parole Commission has determined that this interim rule 
does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive 
Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132

    This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a federalism 
Assessment.

[[Page 19263]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The interim rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a 
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605 (b), and is deemed by the 
Commission to be a rule of agency practice that does not substantially 
affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties pursuant to 
Section 804 (3) (c) of the Congressional Review Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or 
the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and 
it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No 
action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined by Sec. 804 of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will 
not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; 
a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on 
the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-
based companies.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2

    Administrative practice and procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 
Parole.

The Interim Rule

    Accordingly, the U.S. Parole Commission is adopting the following 
amendment to 28 CFR part 2.

PART 2--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 2 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203 (a) (1) and 4204 (a) (6).

0
2. Revise Sec.  2.25 to read as follows:


Sec.  2.25  Hearings by videoconference.

    Parole determination hearings (including rescission hearings), and 
institutional revocation hearings, may be conducted by a 
videoconference between the hearing examiner and the prisoner or 
releasee.

    Dated: April 5, 2005.
Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-7389 Filed 4-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-31-P