Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 68791

1The Board’s use of a majority-vote procedure 

was required by former DC Code § 24–201.2 

(renumbered § 24–401.02), but this law and others 

regarding the creation, powers, and rulemaking 

authority of the Board were abolished by section 

11231(b) of the Revitalization Act.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance number applicable to the 

program affected by this rule is 14.850.

List of Subjects 

24 CFR 960

Aged, Grant programs—housing and 

community development, Individuals 

with disabilities, Pets, Public housing. 

24 CFR 966

Grant programs—housing and 

community development, Public 

housing.

■ Accordingly, HUD amends 24 CFR 

parts 960 and 966 to read as follows:

PART 960—ADMISSION TO, AND 

OCCUPANCY OF, PUBLIC HOUSING

■ 1. The authority citation for part 960 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 

1437n, 1437z–3, and 3535(d).

Subpart C—Rent and Reexamination

■ 2. Revise § 960.261 to read as follows:

§ 960.261 Restriction on eviction of 

families based on income. 

(a) PHAs may evict or terminate the 

tenancies of families who are over 

income, subject to paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(b) Unless it is required to do so by 

local law, a PHA may not evict or 

terminate the tenancy of a family solely 

because the family is over the income 

limit for public housing, if the family 

has a valid contract for participation in 

an FSS program under 24 part 984. A 

PHA may not evict a family for being 

over the income limit for public housing 

if the family currently receives the 

earned income disallowance provided 

by 42 U.S.C. 1437a(d) and 24 CFR 

960.255.

PART 966—PUBLIC HOUSING LEASE 

AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

■ 3. The authority citation for part 966 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437d and 3535(d).

Subpart A—Dwelling Leases, 

Procedures and Requirements

■ 4. Amend § 966.4 by redesignating 

paragraph (l)(2)(ii) as (l)(2)(iii) and 

adding a new paragraph (l)(2)(ii) to read 

as follows:

§ 966.4 Lease requirements.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Being over the income limit for the 

program, as provided in 24 CFR 

960.261.

* * * * *

Dated: November 19, 2004. 

Michael Liu, 

Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing.

[FR Doc. 04–26114 Filed 11–24–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–27–U

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: Parole Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission 

is adding a procedural rule to provide 

that parole revocation and reparole 

decisions resulting from a revocation 

hearing for a District of Columbia Code 

offender may be administratively 

appealed. With this change, the 

Commission is also amending several 

rules to permit the initial decisions in 

DC parole revocation cases to be made 

by one Commissioner. Extending an 

appeal procedure to revoked DC 

parolees provides an avenue for these 

parolees to seek administrative 

correction of alleged errors in revocation 

proceedings and to present their views 

before a second Commissioner. The rule 

changes further the Commission’s goal 

of greater uniformity in decision-making 

procedures for all cases within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction.

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2004.

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: Since the 

Parole Commission assumed the 

revocation functions of the former 

District of Columbia Board of Parole in 

August 2000 under the National Capital 

Revitalization and Self-Government 

Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 

105–33, the Commission has required 

that parole revocation and reparole 

decisions for District of Columbia 

offenders be made by the concurrence of 

two Commissioners. The Commission 

adopted this requirement to replicate 

the voting procedures of the former DC 

Board, which made its decisions on the 

basis of a majority of the quorum of 

Board members (i.e., two out of three).1

The Board did not provide for an appeal 

of any of its decisions, and, when the 

Commission took on DC revocation 

functions, neither did the Commission. 

(The Commission is required by statute 

to afford an appeal procedure to U.S. 

Code offenders.) In response to 

recommendations that the Commission 

allow DC offenders to submit appeals, 

the Commission has explained that staff 

resources were not sufficient to justify 

increasing the agency’s workload by 

allowing appeals for DC offenders, and 

that the two-vote requirement was an 

acceptable substitute for an appeal 

procedure. See 65 FR 45885, 45886 (July 

26, 2000).

Last year the Commission began 

modifying its procedures for posthearing voting and appeals in DC cases. 

The Commission promulgated a rule 

permitting appeals of revocation 

decisions for DC supervised releasees, 

and made a corresponding amendment 

that allowed the initial revocation 

decision for these releasees to be made 

by one Commissioner. See 68 FR 41696–

41714 (July 15, 2003). Now the 

Commission is adopting similar changes 

for DC offenders who have had parole 

revocation hearings. DC parolees will 

now have a formal avenue for seeking 

administrative correction of alleged 

errors in revocation proceedings. By 

extending an appeal procedure to DC 

parole violators, the Commission will 

provide for cumulative review of the 

case by two Commissioners for those 

offenders who file an appeal. Under the 

Commission’s long-standing practice, an 

appeal is, whenever possible, reviewed 

by a Commissioner who did not 

participate in the decision under 

review. See 28 CFR 2.26(b)(1). For 

appeals from revoked DC parolees, the 

Commission will employ the same 

policies and practices that the 

Commission identified in the 

publication of the rule granting an 

appeal procedure for revoked DC 

supervised releasees. See 68 FR 41698.

In adding an appeal procedure for 

revoked DC parolees, the Commission 

must also ensure that the initial 

dispositions in these cases continue to 

be made in a timely manner. The 

68792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2 In employing a two-vote requirement in such 

cases, the Commission seeks to allay the concern 

that one Commissioner may reject the panel 

recommendation and make a different decision 

without adhering to the collective policy of the 

Commission.

Commission is particularly vigilant in 

ensuring continued compliance with the 

86-day time period for making 

revocation decisions for DC parolees 

arrested and held within the DC 

metropolitan area. The Commission 

promulgated the rule on this time limit 

under a consent decree that resolved 

class action litigation brought against 

the Commission regarding significant 

delays in the handling of DC revocation 

cases in the early months of the 

Commission’s assumption of revocation 

functions. Over FY 2004, the number for 

all revocation dispositions for DC 

offenders increased 32% from the 

previous fiscal year. The Commission 

must be careful in apportioning its 

workload among the Commissioners so 

as to avoid violations of decisionmaking time limits. Therefore, in 

conjunction with the grant of an 

administrative appeal, the Commission 

is adopting a one-vote requirement for 

cases in which the Commissioner agrees 

with the examiner panel’s 

recommended decisions on whether to 

revoke parole and to grant reparole to a 

DC offender. Consistent with the 

Commission’s traditional practice in 

federal cases, two Commissioners must 

still concur in order to make a decision 

in those cases in which the 

Commissioner who first reviews the 

case disagrees with the panel 

recommendation reached by the hearing 

examiner and the executive hearing 

examiner.2

With these changes, the Commission’s 

post-hearing voting procedures and 

appeal procedures for DC parole 

revocation and supervised release 

revocation are now identical. This result 

is consistent with the Commission’s 

goal of achieving greater uniformity in 

its procedures for all cases under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. But the 

Commission is limiting the amendments 

described in this publication to the 

procedures that follow revocation 

hearings for DC parolees (including 

mandatory releasees), whether the 

hearing is a local, institutional, or 

dispositional revocation hearing. At this 

time, the Commission is not making any 

changes for DC offenders who have 

received parole release hearings, 

including hearings on possible reparole 

that are subsequent to an earlier 

revocation and reparole decision (e.g., a 

rescission or special reconsideration 

hearing). The Commission is continuing 

to employ an incremental approach in 

making appeals available to DC 

offenders and in modifying the agency’s 

voting procedures. The Commission 

wants to see the results of the changes 

made by these amendments before 

making any further modifications. 

Budget constraints and the availability 

of sufficient staff and Commissioners to 

handle the appeals are factors that affect 

the Commission’s ability to expand or 

maintain an appeal procedure. See 68 

FR 41698–99. 

Implementation 

Because these rule changes are only 

rules of procedure, the Commission is 

promulgating the changes as final rules 

without the need for notice and public 

comment. In July 2003, similar rules for 

DC supervised release cases were 

published, along with other rules, for an 

extended period of notice and comment 

and no comment was received. The rule 

amendments are made effective thirty 

days after the date of publication. The 

new rules shall be employed for any DC 

parolee: (1) Who has a revocation 

hearing on or after the effective date; or 

(2) who had a revocation hearing before 

the effective date, but the case has not 

been voted on by a Commissioner as of 

the effective date. If a DC parole 

revocation case has been voted on by a 

Commissioner before the effective date, 

and is before another Commissioner for 

a vote, the case shall be processed under 

the two-vote requirement under the 

former rule and no appeal may be 

submitted. An appeal may be submitted 

in any case in which the Commissioner 

who first voted on the case signed the 

order on or after the effective date. 

The single vote procedure shall be 

used for decisions made under the 

expedited revocation procedure. A 

parolee who accepts an expedited offer 

waives the opportunity to appeal the 

decisions identified in the offer. 

Executive Order 12866

The U.S. Parole Commission has 

determined that this final rule does not 

constitute a significant rule within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866. 

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 final 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 Final Rule

■ Accordingly, the U.S. Parole 

Commission is adopting the following 

amendment 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. Amend § 2.74 by revising paragraph 

(c) to read as follows:

§ 2.74 Decision of the Commission.

* * * * *

(c) The Commission shall resolve 

relevant issues of fact in accordance 

with § 2.19(c). Decisions granting or 

denying parole shall be based on the 

concurrence of two Commissioners, 

except that three Commissioner votes 

shall be required if the decision differs 

from the decision recommended by the 

examiner panel by more than six 

months. A decision releasing a parolee 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 68793

from active supervision shall also be 

based on the concurrence of two 

Commissioners. All other decisions, 

including decisions on revocation and 

reparole made pursuant to § 2.105(c), 

shall be based on the vote of one 

Commissioner, except as otherwise 

provided in this subpart.

■ 3. Amend § 2.105 by revising the first 

sentence of paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (g). The revised and added 

text reads as follows:

§ 2.105 Revocation decisions.

* * * * *

(c) Decisions under this section shall 

be made by one Commissioner, except 

that a decision to override an examiner 

panel recommendation shall require the 

concurrence of two Commissioners. 

***

* * * * *

(g) A parolee may appeal a decision 

made under this section to revoke 

parole, to grant or deny reparole, or to 

modify the conditions of release. The 

provisions of § 2.26 on the time limits 

for filing and deciding the appeal, the 

grounds for appeal, the format of the 

appeal, the limits regarding the 

submission of exhibits, and voting 

requirements apply to an appeal 

submitted under this paragraph.

Dated: November 18, 2004. 

Edward F. Reilly, Jr., 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–26188 Filed 11–24–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–U

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1960

Basic Program Elements for Federal 

Employee Occupational Safety and 

Health Programs and Related Matters; 

Subpart I for Recordkeeping and 

Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), U.S. 

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) is 

issuing a final rule amending the 

occupational injury and illness 

recording and reporting requirements 

applicable to Federal agencies, 

including the forms used by Federal 

agencies to record those injuries and 

illnesses. The final rule will make the 

Federal sector’s recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements essentially 

identical to the private sector by 

adopting applicable OSHA 

recordkeeping provisions as 

requirements for Federal agencies. In 

addition to eliminating the problems in 

the existing system whereby injuries 

and illnesses suffered by some groups of 

employees, such as contract employees, 

are not recorded, this final rule will 

produce more useful injury and illness 

records, collect better information about 

the incidence of occupational injuries 

and illnesses at the establishment level, 

create reporting and recording criteria 

that are consistent among Federal 

agencies, enable injury and illness 

comparisons between the Federal and 

private sectors, and promote improved 

employee awareness and involvement 

in the recording and reporting of jobrelated injuries and illnesses. The final 

rule will also assist in achieving the 

stated goal in Executive Order 12196 

that Federal agencies comply with all 

OSHA standards, and generally, assure 

worker protection in a manner 

comparable to the private sector. This 

final rule applies to all Federal agencies 

of the Executive Branch subject to 

Executive Order 12196, and does not 

apply to military personnel and 

uniquely military equipment, systems, 

and operations. 

The requirements of this final rule do 

not diminish or modify in any way a 

Federal Agency’s responsibility to 

report or record injuries and illnesses as 

required by the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs under the 

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA).

DATES: This final rule becomes effective 

January 1, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Acting Director, Thomas K. Marple, 

Office of Federal Agency Programs, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room N–3622, Washington, DC 20210, 

Telephone 202–693–2122.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Background 

Section 19 of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act (the ‘‘OSH Act’’) (29 

U.S.C. 668) includes provisions to 

ensure safe and healthful working 

conditions for Federal sector employees. 

Under that section, each Federal agency 

is responsible for establishing and 

maintaining an effective and 

comprehensive occupational safety and 

health program consistent with the 

standards promulgated by OSHA under 

Section 6 of the OSH Act. Executive 

Order 12196, Occupational Safety and 

Health Programs for Federal Employees, 

issued February 26, 1980, prescribes 

additional responsibilities for the heads 

of Federal agencies, the Secretary of 

Labor, and the General Services 

Administrator. Among other things, the 

Secretary of Labor, through OSHA, is 

required to issue basic program 

elements with which the heads of 

agencies must operate their safety and 

health programs. These basic program 

elements are set forth at 29 CFR Part 

1960. Section 19 of the OSH Act, the 

Executive Order, and the basic program 

elements under 29 CFR Part 1960 apply 

to all agencies of the Executive Branch 

except military personnel and uniquely 

military equipment, systems, and 

operations. This final rule will amend 

the basic program elements under 29 

CFR Part 1960, Subpart I, to make 

pertinent private sector recordkeeping 

requirements under 29 CFR Part 1904 

applicable to all Executive Branch 

Federal agencies. By amendment to the 

OSH Act on September 28, 1998 

(through the Postal Employees’ Safety 

Enhancement Act), the U.S. Postal 

Service is already complying with the 

recordkeeping requirements under Part 

1904. 

Pursuant to Section 19(a) of the OSH 

Act, each head of a Federal agency is 

responsible for keeping adequate 

records of all occupational injuries and 

illnesses. Section 1–401(d) of the 

Executive Order provides the Secretary 

of Labor with the authority to prescribe 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for Federal agencies. 

Under 29 CFR Part 1960, Subpart I, each 

Federal agency is currently responsible 

for keeping records of all occupational 

injuries and illnesses. Section 19 of the 

OSH Act also provides the Secretary of 

Labor with access to occupational injury 

and illness records and reports kept and 

filed by Federal agencies ‘‘unless those 

records and reports are specifically 

required by Executive Order to be kept 

secret in the interest of the national 

defense or foreign policy, in which case 

the Secretary of Labor shall have access 

to such information as will not 

jeopardize national defense or foreign 

policy.’’

In its role as the lead Agency for 

implementing and reviewing 

compliance with Executive Order 12196 

and the basic program elements set forth 

at 29 CFR Part 1960, OSHA requires 

Federal agencies to comply with all 

occupational safety and health 

standards, and generally, to assume 

responsibility for worker protection in a 

manner comparable to private 

employers. The OSH Act authorizes the 

Secretary of Labor to issue two types of 

final rules, ‘‘standards’’ and