Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26789

1Multiplying (A) the rehearing range in the

current D.C. guidelines by (B) [the Base Point Score

minus 3 points] (the number of rehearing required

before parole assuming no disciplinary infractions

and ordinary program achievement) produces the

Base Point Range. For example, an inmate with a

Base Point Score of 6 with no disciplinary

infractions and ordinary program achievement at

each hearing would have two rehearings with a

rehearing range of 18–24 months each before the

guidelines indicated parole. This translates to a

guideline range of the Parole Eligibility Date plus

36–48 months. For most cases, the results under the

current and proposes system will be the same.

Continued

700 feet or more above the surface are

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9G, dated September 1,

1999, an effective September 16, 1999,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document

would be published subsequently in the

Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airsapce, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for Part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9G, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 1, 1999, and effective

September 16, 1999, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airsapce areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Tullahoma, TN [Revised]

Tullahoma Regional Airport/Wm Northern

Field, TN

Lat. 35°22′52′′ N, long. 86°14′37′′ W

Arnold Air Force Base

Lat. 35°23′33′′N, long. 86°05′09′′W

Winchester Municipal Airport

Lat. 35°10′39′′ N, long. 86°03′58′′ W

Manchester Medical Center

Point in Space Coordinates

Lat. 35°29′56′′ N, long. 86°05′37′′ W

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface with a 7-mile radius of

Tullahoma Regional Airport/Wm Northern

Field Airport and within a 7-mile radius of

Arnold Air Force Base and within an 11-mile

radius of Winchester Municipal Airport and

within a 6-mile radius of the point in space

(Lat. 35°29′56′′ N, long. 86°05′37′′ W) serving

Manchester Medical Center; excluding that

airspace within the Shelbyville, TN, Class E

airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April

28, 2000.

Nancy B. Shelton,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 00–11578 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2

Paroling, Recommitting, and

Supervising Federal Prisoners:

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under

the District of Columbia Code

AGENCY: United States Parole

Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission

is soliciting public comment on a

proposal to revise the guidelines at 28

CFR 2.80 that govern its decisions to

grant and deny parole in the case of

prisoners serving sentences for felony

crimes under the District of Columbia

Code. The proposal would translate the

current Point Assignment Table at § 2.80

into guideline ranges, and would

authorize the setting of presumptive

release dates up to 36 months from the

date of the parole hearing. The purpose

of this proposal is to improve

understanding by inmates and the

public as to the impact that the

guidelines will have in individual cases,

and to facilitate successful release

planning in advance of parole.

DATES: Comments must be received by

July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Parole

Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd.,

Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela A. Posch, Office of General

Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550

Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase,

Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492–

5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission solicits comment on a

revision of 28 CFR 2.80 that it believes

would make the guidelines for D.C.

Code offenders more understandable to

inmates and the public, fairer, and

easier to administer. The proposal

would: (1) Enhance the ability of

inmates and the public, including

victims of crime, to understand the

guidelines and their impact in

individual cases by translating the

current point score into a guideline

range at the initial and subsequent

considerations; (2) provide more

information to inmates as to their

expected release dates by authorizing

presumptive release dates up to 36

months from the date of the parole

hearing (contingent upon good conduct

and development of an adequate release

plan); (3) facilitate release planning by

setting presumptive release dates up to

36 months from the date of the parole

hearing; (4) eliminate anomalies that

occur in the current system with respect

to penalizing inmates whose rehearings

are delayed through no fault of their

own or who are encouraged by staff to

waive parole consideration until they

complete institutional programs; and (5)

reduce the maximum time between

parole consideration hearings from five

years to three years.

Summary of the Proposal

The proposed revision of § 2.80 would

require the following decisionmaking

procedure.

Under Step 1A, a Base Guideline

Range would be determined from the

Base Point Score. There is no change

from the Base Point Score used in

§ 2.80. The Base Point Range (assuming

no disciplinary infractions and ordinary

program achievement) is simply made

explicit.1

26790 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

There are a few differences because the current

system lumps together certain dissimilar cases; for

example, under the current system, an offender

with a base point score of 5 who has outstanding

program achievement and no disciplinary

infractions will serve the same amount of time as

an offender with ordinary program achievement.

2Multiplying the number of disciplinary points

by the current rehearing range applicable to the

current base point score determines this guideline

range.

3Multiplying the outstanding program

achievement point by the current rehearing range

applicable to the current base point score

determines this guideline range.

Under Step 1B, a disciplinary

guideline range is determined. Under

Option 1, the current D.C. guideline

points (at § 2.80) for disciplinary

infractions are used but are translated

into explicit ranges.2 Option 2 presents

an alternative approach to measuring

the seriousness of disciplinary

infractions. Option 1 would maintain

the policy of the current guidelines with

respect to disciplinary infractions.

Option 2 would focus more directly on

the seriousness of the disciplinary

infraction itself.

Under Step 1C, an outstanding

program achievement range is

determined. Under Option 1, the current

D.C. guideline points for outstanding

program achievement are used but

translated into explicit ranges that are

implicit in the current guidelines.3 In

addition, the guidelines are simplified

because the point for ordinary program

achievement has already been built into

the base guideline range. Option 2

presents an alternative approach to

measuring outstanding program

achievement. Under Option 2, the

guideline range for outstanding program

achievement is linked more directly on

the number of months of outstanding

program achievement.

Purpose

The Base Point Guideline Range,

Disciplinary Range, and Outstanding

Program Achievement Range are

combined into a composite or total

guideline range at the initial hearing.

This would make clear to the inmate the

amount of time he or she may expect to

serve with continued good conduct and

ordinary program achievement. The

impact of outstanding program

achievement as well as disciplinary

infractions would also be made clear.

Equally importantly, if release within

three years was deemed appropriate by

the Commission (as opposed to within

9 months under the current system), the

inmate would be given a presumptive

parole date (contingent upon continued

good behavior and the development of

a satisfactory release plan). In the

Commission’s opinion, presumptive

release dates allow the inmate to plan

better for release and provide a strong

incentive for continued good conduct.

Additionally, with presumptive

release dates the final review nine

months before release (to ensure that the

inmate has continued good conduct and

consider any additional outstanding

program achievement) can be conducted

on the record rather by personal

hearing. This is administratively more

efficient and reduces the possibility of

delay in scheduling the final hearing

(e.g., because of the transfer of the

inmate between facilities) that may

adversely impact the actual release date.

Only if serious institutional misconduct

is found at this record review would an

in-person rehearing be scheduled.

Invitation for Comment

Comment is requested both on the

overall structure, which would provide

the inmate with a projected guideline

range at the initial hearing (and at

subsequent hearings, as modified by

outstanding program achievement or

disciplinary infractions) and allow the

setting of presumptive release dates up

to 36 months away. A record review

would be conducted nine months prior

to release to ensure that the inmate has

continued good conduct and consider

any additional outstanding program

achievement. If a presumptive release

date was not set, the prisoner would be

heard no later than each 36 months in

contrast to the current rules under

which a rehearing may be delayed for

up to 60 months.

Comment is specifically requested on

whether the Commission, if it adopts

the overall structure, should adopt

Option 1 or Option 2 for consideration

of disciplinary infractions. Option 1

replicates the current DC guidelines.

Option 2 would provide results that in

some cases would be the same as the

current guidelines and in some cases

would be different. In general, Option 2

provides results that have more

gradations both at the upper and lower

ends of the scale and deal with generic

behaviors. Option 1 has more limited

categories tied to how the conduct is

classified by the D.C. Department of

Corrections or Bureau of Prisons. Option

1 also weighs the defendant’s current

and prior record; e.g., if two inmates

commit the same disciplinary infraction

but one has a higher base point score

because of a low salient factor score or

current or past violent offense, that

inmate will receive a more severe

disciplinary guideline range for that

infraction (in addition to having

received a longer base guideline range

in the first place). Under Option 2, the

penalties for the same disciplinary

infraction will be the same for the two

inmates. Because the inmate with the

higher base point score will have the

higher base guideline range, that inmate

will continue to have a higher total

guideline range, but the inmate’s current

or prior record will not be counted again

in determining the time to be added for

the disciplinary infraction itself.

Comment is specifically requested on

whether the Commission, if it adopts

the overall structure, should adopt

Option 1 or Option 2 for consideration

of outstanding program achievement.

Option 1 replicates the current D.C.

guidelines. Option 2 would provide

results that in some cases would be the

same as the current guidelines and in

some cases would be different. Under

Option 1, inmates with the same base

point score (e.g., BPS 6) receive the

same credit for outstanding program

achievement whether it is based on 100

months (e.g., the time in custody prior

to the initial hearing) or 18 months (e.g.,

the time until the next rehearing). Under

Option 2, the credit for outstanding

program achievement is tied more

directly to the number of months of

outstanding program achievement.

Proposed Implementation

The proposed revision of 28 CFR 2.80

would be applied prospectively, i.e., to

D.C. Code prisoners who receive their

initial hearings on or after the effective

date of the final rule. If, however, a D.C.

Code prisoner who was previously

heard under § 2.80 would not be

adversely affected by the new

guidelines, the new guidelines would be

applied retroactively at the prisoner’s

next scheduled rehearing.

Outline of Proposed Revised Section

2.80 and Conforming Changes to Other

Guidelines

The proposed alternative to the

guideline instructions at 28 CFR 2.80(h)

would provide as follows. Both Option

1 and Option 2 are included:

Step 1. Determine the Base Guideline

Range

A. Determine the Base Point Score

(Using the SFS, Current or Prior

Violence, and Death)

The Base Guideline Range for the

Base Point Score is set forth below:

Base point

score

Base guideline range=parole

eligibility date (determined by

minimum sentence) + —

10 ................... 136–172 months.

9 ..................... 110–140 months.

8 ..................... 72–96 months.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26791

Base point

score

Base guideline range=parole

eligibility date (determined by

minimum sentence) + —

7 ..................... 54–72 months.

6 ..................... 36–48 months.

5 ..................... 18–24 months.

4 or 3 ............. 12–18 months.

2 or less ......... zero months.

The guideline range for the base point

score assumes no disciplinary

infractions and ordinary program

achievement.

Note: The Base Point Score is determined

exactly the same as under the current

guidelines at § 2.80. There is no substantive

change.

B. Determine the Guideline Range for

Disciplinary Infractions

Two options are set forth for

comment. Option 1 translates the

current D.C. point score into actual

guideline ranges without any

substantive change. Option 2 uses § 2.36

(the guidelines for disciplinary

infractions used in Federal cases).

Option 1. Use the Current D.C.

Disciplinary Points to determine the

guideline range as follows:

Base

point

score

Type of misbehavior Guideline range

10 ......... Aggravated ....... 52–64 months

10 ......... Ordinary ........... 26–32 months

9 ........... Aggravated ....... 44–56 months

9 ........... Ordinary ........... 22–28 months

5–8 ....... Aggravated ....... 36–48 months

5–8 ....... Ordinary ........... 18–24 months

0–4 ....... Aggravated ....... 24–36 months

0–4 ....... Ordinary ........... 12–24 months

Option 2. Determine the guideline

range applicable to disciplinary

infractions from section 2.36.

Note: Option 1 translates the current

disciplinary point score into a guideline

range without any substantive change.

Option 2, in contrast, applies the guideline

ranges for disciplinary infractions used in

federal cases. The two options will produce

different results in different cases. In general,

Option 2 focuses more on the conduct

underlying the disciplinary infraction and

has finer gradations. Option 1 has fewer

gradations for the disciplinary conduct and

also varies the penalty for disciplinary

infractions in part on the original base point

score.

C. Determine the Guideline Range for

Outstanding Program Achievement

Two options are set forth for

comment. Option 1 translates the

current D.C. outstanding program

achievement points into a guideline

range without any substantive change.

Option 2 uses a formula based on the

number months of in custody since the

last consideration (or in the case of the

initial hearing, the number of months in

confinement).

Option 1. The outstanding program

achievement guidelines as translated

from the current D.C . point score are as

follows:

Base point

score Guideline range

0–4 ................. 12–18 months

5–8 ................. 18–24 months

9 ..................... 22–28 months

10 ................... 26–32 months

Option 2. If outstanding program

achievement is found, the outstanding

program achievement guideline is 25%

of the number of months of outstanding

program achievement.

• If this calculation results in a

fractional month, it will be rounded up

to the nearest whole month.

• If outstanding program achievement

is found, the offender is ordinarily

assumed to have outstanding program

achievement for the total time in

custody from the last consideration (or

from the commitment date in the case

of an initial hearing). If, however, the

Commission expressly finds outstanding

program achievement for only part of

the time in custody (e.g., at an initial

hearing the inmate has been in custody

for 10 years but has shown outstanding

program achievement for only 5 years),

the Commission may determine the

outstanding program achievement

guidelines on the actual amount of time

with outstanding program achievement.

Notes: (1) Option 1 (the current D.C.

guidelines) gives the same weight to

outstanding program achievement whether

over a period of 12 months or over a period

of 100 months, and varies the weight

according to the offenders base point score.

Option 2, in contrast, determines on the

number of months of outstanding program

achievement credit for each offender directly

according to the number of months of

outstanding program participation.

(2) The current D.C. guidelines have an

additional complexity of treating lack of

ordinary program participation as equivalent

to a separate disciplinary factor. Under both

options of the proposed system, such lack of

program participation could be addressed by

placement of the decision within the

applicable guideline range—or by an upward

departure in extreme cases (e.g., a serious

offender who refused to participate in a

necessary treatment program).

Step 2. Determine the Total Guideline

Range

At the initial hearing, the total

guideline range is: (1) The Base

Guideline Range; plus (2) the

Disciplinary Guideline Range (if any),

minus the outstanding program

achievement range. This is a

straightforward arithmetic calculation

(the same type of calculation is done in

federal cases).

Example 1

A. Base Guideline Range=[58–64

months]

(Base Pt Score=5; Parole Eligibility

Date at 40 months)

Base guideline range=[ 40 + (18–24)

months]

B. Disciplinary Range=[12–18 months]

C. Outstanding Program Achievement

Range=None

Total Guideline Range=70–82 months

Example 2

A. Base Guideline Range=[76–88

months]

(Base Pt Score=6; Parole Eligibility

Date at 40 months)

Base guideline range=[ 40 + (36–48)

months]

B. Disciplinary Range=Not applicable

C. Outstanding Program Achievement

Range (Based Option 1)=[¥(18–24

months)]

Total Guideline Range=56–64 months

Example 3

A. Base Guideline Range=[116–128

months]

(Base Pt Score=6; Parole Eligibility

Date at 80 months)

Base guideline range=[ 80 + (36–48)

months]

B. Disciplinary Range=Not applicable

C. Outstanding Program Achievement

Range=[¥(20 months) (Based on 80

months outstanding program from

top and bottom achievement—

Option 2) of guideline range]

Total Guideline Range=[96–108

months]

Step 3. Select One of the Following

Decisions

A. Parole effective within 9 additional

months;

B. Presumptive parole after 10–36

additional months; or

C. A Reconsideration hearing after 36

months; or

D. Continue to Expiration within 36

months.

If a presumptive parole date was

given, there would be a record review 9

months prior to release (a changeover

review) that would evaluate any

disciplinary infractions or additional

outstanding program achievement and

retard or advance the date as

appropriate, or schedule a rescission

hearing if required.

Step 4. Conducting a Reconsideration

Hearing [if Required]

At a three-year reconsideration

hearing, the guideline ranges for

26792 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

disciplinary record (since the last

hearing) [step 1(b)] and outstanding

program achievement (from the last

hearing) [step 1(c)] will be determined

and added to or subtracted from the

total guideline range determined at the

last hearing. Otherwise, the actions

available to the Commission will be the

same as at an initial hearing.

Regulatory Assessment Requirements

The U.S. Parole Commission has

determined that this proposed rule

would not be a significant rule within

the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

The proposed rule would 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 will not

substantially affect the rights or

obligations of non-agency parties

pursuant to section 804(3)(C) of the

Congressional Review Act.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and

parole.

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

4204(a)(6).

Dated: May 2, 2000.

Michael J. Gaines,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 00–11521 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 111

Loading Requirements for PVDS

Mailings

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On December 23, 1999, the

Postal Service published a Proposed

Rule (64 FR 72044) seeking comments

on a proposed revision to the Domestic

Mail Manual (DMM) to require that, if

Periodicals mail is on the same vehicle

as Standard Mail in a plant-verified

drop shipment (PVDS), then the

Periodicals mail must be loaded toward

the tail end of the trailer so that

Periodicals mail can be offloaded first

for each destination entry. On February

11, 2000, the Postal Service published a

notice that extended the comment

period for this proposed rule until

March 15, 2000 (65 FR 6950).

Based on the comments received, the

Postal Service is withdrawing the

proposed rule. The loading requirement

for Periodicals mail in a PVDS mailing

will continue to be an optional—or

preferred—method, but will not be

required. Customers may access the

current DMM requirements by going to

the Postal Explorer Web site (http://

pe.usps.gov). These specific mailing

standards can be found in DMM

E651.2.2, E652.4.2, P750.2.12, and

P750.2.13.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary of Comments Received

The Postal Service received a total of

16 comments in response to the

Proposed Rule.

Seven comments supported making

the loading of Periodicals toward the

tail end of the trailer a requirement. All

of these comments came from

Periodicals publishers. Their support for

the Proposed Rule is based on the

assumption that delivery service would

improve if Periodicals mail could be

identified, offloaded from vehicles, and

processed as soon as possible. One

commenter pointed out that this

Proposed Rule is consistent with the

Postal Service’s commitment to the

mailing industry to improve the

delivery service of Periodicals mail. The

same commenter raised questions about

how this Proposed Rule might affect

Periodicals costs.

One commenter gave cautious support

to the Proposed Rule for the reasons

cited above.

Eight comments opposed the

Proposed Rule. Most of these

commenters are in the printing and mail

transportation industries. These

comments focused on the cost and

logistics implications of a requirement

to load Periodicals mail toward the tail

end of the trailer for each stop. Many

commenters believed that having to

‘‘stagger’’ Periodicals and Standard Mail

within a vehicle for each scheduled stop

would increase their costs. There also

were concerns about OSHA and

Department of Transportation

requirements for vehicle loading and

unloading.

All of the commenters who opposed

the Proposed Rule mentioned that they

support the current standards in the

Domestic Mail Manual, which allows

mailers the option of loading Periodicals

mail toward the tail end of vehicles for

each stop.

Based on these reasons and after

extensive discussions with customers

and internal departments, the Postal

Service has decided to withdraw the

Proposed Rule. The Domestic Mail

Manual will continue to contain the

optional, or preferred, method of

loading Periodicals mail toward the tail

end of vehicles so that the Periodicals

mail can be offloaded first at each stop.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–11451 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AR–8–1–7409; FRL—6603–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arkansas;

Regulation 19

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve revisions to the Arkansas State

Implementation Plan (SIP or plan).

Specifically, EPA proposes to approve a

recodification of and revisions to

Arkansas’ SIP. These revisions were

adopted by the Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on

January 22, 1999, and submitted to EPA

by the Governor of Arkansas on March

5, 1999. The EPA also proposes to

incorporate into the Arkansas SIP

portions of Arkansas regulation for its

operating permits program which relate

to the construction and modification of

major sources. This is necessary because

the submitted SIP revision incorporates

these provisions to ensure that major

sources which must receive an

operating permit meet the Federal

requirements relating to the

construction and modification of major

sources.

The EPA proposes to approve these

revisions based upon our finding that

the regulations meet the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (the Act) pertaining to

the approval of SIPs and the Federal

regulations which describe the

requirements that a SIP must meet.

Furthermore, EPA proposes to

approve revisions to Arkansas’ program

for the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) of air quality to

replace the increments for total

suspended particulates (TSP) with

increments for particulate matter less

than 10 microns (PM–10). In

conjunction with this action, EPA also

proposes to remove the TSP area

designation tables in title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) part 81

for Arkansas. The EPA is taking no

action on a Chapter 8 of the submittal

of Regulation 19 which pertains to