[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34625-34626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-14715]
[[Page 34625]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 542
[BOP-1159I]
RIN 1120-AB59
Administrative Remedy Program: Exception to Initial Filing
Procedures
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) revises
current regulations on the Administrative Remedy Program to add an
exception to initial filing of Administrative Remedy appeals at the
institution level. The exception will state that formal administrative
remedy requests regarding initial decisions that did not originate with
the Warden, or his/her staff, may be initially filed with the Bureau
office which made the original decision, and appealed directly to the
General Counsel.
DATES: This rule is effective on June 18, 2010. Comments due by August
17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Rules Unit, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC
20534. You may view an electronic version of this rule at http://www.regulations.gov. You may also comment via the Internet by using the
http://www.regulations.gov comment form for this regulation. When
submitting comments electronically you must include the BOP Docket No.
in the subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 307-2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and are made available for public inspection online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal
identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter.
If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also
locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted
online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
contains/includes so much confidential business information that it
cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be
posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information identified and located as set
forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not
posted online. Confidential business information identified and located
as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file. If you
want to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by
appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.
Exception to Initial Filing Procedures
In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) revises current
regulations on the Administrative Remedy Program to add an exception to
initial filing of Administrative Remedy appeals at the institution
level. The exception will state that formal administrative remedy
requests regarding initial decisions that did not originate with the
Warden, or his/her staff, may be initially filed with the Bureau office
which made the original decision, and appealed directly to the General
Counsel.
Section 542.14 describes filing procedures for Administrative
Remedy appeals (also called ``complaints'' or ``requests''), including
the time-frame or deadline for submitting appeals, how to request
extensions in filing time, and instructions for completing and
submitting the requisite appeal form. The regulation states that
inmates must submit appeals to the institution staff member designated
to receive such appeals at the institution where the inmate is located.
The regulation also states that inmates in community confinement may
mail their appeals to the appropriate Community Corrections Manager for
their location.
Subparagraph (d) of Sec. 542.14 currently lists four exceptions to
initial filing at the institution where the inmate is located. For
sensitive issues, Discipline Hearing Officer (DHO) appeals, Control
Unit appeals, and Controlled Housing Status appeals, inmates are
permitted to bypass the institution level and raise the issue/appeal
with the more appropriate authority. In each of these cases, because
the initial decision was not made by institution staff, the appropriate
authority to review appeals from such decisions is not at the
institution level.
Proposed additional exception: Other requests for formal review of
decisions not originating from the Warden. The Bureau now adds a fifth
exception to the initial filing procedures: Formal administrative
remedy requests regarding initial decisions that did not originate with
the Warden, or his/her staff, may be initially filed with the Bureau
office which made the original decision, and appealed directly to the
General Counsel.
This new exception encompasses other situations similar to the
currently existing exceptions, in which the institution level is not
the appropriate or controlling authority to review an appeal because
the decision being appealed was not decided at that level.
The exception is a technical change to the regulation to
accommodate internal redistribution of Bureau functions. For example,
in 2005, the Bureau centralized its designation and sentence
computation functions in a new Bureau branch, the Designation and
Sentence Computation Center (DSCC), to streamline the Bureau's
administrative functions and reduce operational costs. DSCC staff, not
institution staff, make determinations on initial designation and
sentence computation issues. Inmate requests for formal review of these
types of issues are therefore appropriately considered by the DSCC
instead of institution staff.
With regard to initial determinations made by the DSCC and any
other decisions not made at the institution level, Bureau policy on
sentence computation and designation will direct staff to notify
inmates of the alternative administrative remedy filing procedures. It
is important to note, however, that if inmates mistakenly file a
grievance at the institution level, they will not be penalized for that
filing, but will rather be re-directed to the correct Bureau office.
Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) allows exceptions
to notice-and-comment rulemaking for ``(A) interpretive rules, general
statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice; or (B) when the agency for good cause finds * * * that
[[Page 34626]]
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.''
This rulemaking is exempt from normal notice-and-comment procedures
because it is a technical change intended to reflect restructuring of
Bureau of Prisons functions within the agency. We are also modifying
our rule to permit inmates a more direct and efficient route of appeal
of decisions/determinations made by Bureau entities other than
institution-level staff.
Because the regulations still reflect current Bureau policy, and
because the regulations are being changed only to accommodate a
restructuring of Bureau functions, we find that normal notice-and-
comment rulemaking is unnecessary. We are, however, allowing the public
to comment on this rule change by publishing it as an interim final
rule.
Executive Order 12866
This rule falls within a category of actions that the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined to constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 and, accordingly, it was reviewed by OMB.
The Bureau has assessed the costs and benefits of this rule as
required by Executive Order 12866 Section 1(b)(6) and has made a
reasoned determination that the benefits of this rule justify its
costs. This rule will have the benefit of eliminating confusion in the
courts that has been caused by the changes in the Bureau's statutory
interpretation, while allowing us to continue to operate in compliance
with the revised statute. There will be no new costs associated with
this rulemaking.
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 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
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 542
Prisoners.
Harley G. Lappin,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
0
Under rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C
301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the Director, Bureau of
Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 542 as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 542--ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
0
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 542 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042,
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; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510.
0
2. Add a new paragraph (d)(5) to Sec. 542.14 to read as follows:
Sec. 542.14 Initial filing.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Other requests for formal review of decisions not originating
from the Warden. Other than the exceptions listed above, formal
administrative remedy requests regarding initial decisions that did not
originate with the Warden, or his/her staff, may be initially filed
with the Bureau office which made the original decision, and appealed
directly to the General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-14715 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P