34362 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 522

[BOP–1092–F]

RIN 1120–AA87

Civil Contempt of Court Commitments

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau

of Prisons is amending its regulations on

civil contempt of court commitments to

note the statutory distinction between

the order of service of a sentence for

offenses committed before November 1,

1987, and those committed on or after

November 1, 1987. This amendment

merely describes the various

dispositions of the court under the

appropriate statutes and is intended to

be informational in nature.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Rules Unit, Office of

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons,

HOLC Room 754, 320 First Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Nanovic, Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514–

6655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Prisons is amending its

regulations on Civil Contempt of Court

Commitments (28 CFR part 522, subpart

B). A final rule on this subject was

published in the Federal Register on

June 29, 1979 (44 FR 38244), and was

amended April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16406).

Current provisions on civil contempt

of court commitments in § 522.11

describe a court’s discretion pertaining

to offenses committed before November

1, 1987. Section 522.11 (d) and (e) are

being revised to reflect a court’s

discretion pertaining to offenses

committed on or after November 1,

1987. More specifically, federal criminal

sentences of imprisonment might not

commence immediately upon being

imposed for several reasons. For

example, the defendant may be granted

bail pending appeal, or the sentencing

court may order the defendant to selfsurrender at a later scheduled date.

Consequently, § 522.11(d) is revised to

apply in those situations where a person

receives a federal sentence of

imprisonment and, prior to commencing

service of the sentence, is the subject of

a civil contempt commitment order. In

such circumstances, the rule indicates

credit toward service of the criminal

sentence is delayed or suspended for the

duration of the contempt commitment,

unless the committing judge orders

otherwise. The rule still applies to those

defendants serving criminal sentences

of imprisonment who subsequently

become the subject of a civil contempt

commitment order.

Pursuant to federal caselaw decisions,

multiple federal sentences of

imprisonment imposed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. Chapter 227, as applicable to

offenses committed before November 1,

1987, are presumed to run concurrently

unless ordered to run consecutively by

the sentencing judge. To the contrary, as

applied to offenses committed on or

after November 1, 1987, 18 U.S.C. 3584

requires that multiple federal sentences

of imprisonment imposed at different

times run consecutively unless ordered

to run concurrently by the sentencing

judge or statutory directive. Revised

§ 522.11 (e)(1) and (2) reflect these

differences in cases where a civil

contempt commitment order is in effect

and a criminal sentence of

imprisonment is subsequently imposed.

In the case of a criminal sentence of

imprisonment imposed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. Chapter 227, as applicable to

offenses committed before November 1,

1987, the criminal sentence runs

concurrently with the commitment

order unless the sentencing judge orders

otherwise. In the case of a criminal

sentence of imprisonment imposed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227, as

applicable to offenses committed on or

after November 1, 1987, the criminal

sentence runs consecutively to the

commitment order unless the

sentencing judge orders otherwise.

Because this amendment merely

describes the various dispositions of the

court under the appropriate statute, the

Bureau finds good cause for exempting

the provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring

notice of proposed rulemaking, the

opportunity for public comment, and

delay in effective date. Members of the

public may submit comments

concerning this rule by writing to the

previously cited address. These

comments will be considered but will

receive no response in the Federal

Register.

Executive Order 12866

This rule falls within a category of

actions that the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has determined not

to constitute ‘‘significant regulatory

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was

not reviewed by OMB.

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, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

it is determined 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,

in accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and by

approving it certifies that this regulation

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 § 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 foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Plain Language Instructions

We try to write clearly. If you can

suggest how to improve the clarity of

these regulations, call or write Roy

Nanovic, Rules Unit, Office of General

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First

St., NW., Washington, DC 20534;

telephone (202) 514–6655.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34363

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 522

Prisoners.

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer,

Director, Bureau of Prisons.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

rulemaking authority vested in the

Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

delegated to the Director, Bureau of

Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), part 522 in

28 CFR, chapter V, subchapter B, is

amended as set forth below.

SUBCHAPTER B—INMATE ADMISSION,

CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER

PART 522—ADMISSION TO

INSTITUTION

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR

part 522 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), 4161–4166 (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; 28

CFR 0.95–0.99.

2. In § 522.11, paragraphs (d) and (e)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 522.11 Procedures.

* * * * *

(d) If a federal criminal sentence of

imprisonment (including a Narcotic

Addict Rehabilitation Act or Youth

Corrections Act commitment) exists

when a civil contempt commitment is

ordered, credit towards service of the

criminal sentence is delayed or

suspended for the duration of the

contempt commitment unless the

committing judge orders otherwise.

(e)(1) If a civil contempt commitment

order is in effect when a criminal

sentence of imprisonment is imposed

under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227 (as

applicable to offenses committed before

November 1, 1987), the criminal

sentence runs concurrently with the

commitment order unless the

sentencing judge orders otherwise.

(2) If a civil contempt commitment

order is in effect when a criminal

sentence of imprisonment is imposed

under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227 (as

applicable to offenses committed on or

after November 1, 1987), the criminal

sentence runs consecutively to the

commitment order unless the

sentencing judge orders otherwise.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13301 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Prisons

28 CFR Part 543

[BOP–1098–F]

RIN 1120–AA94

Federal Tort Claims Act

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document adopts as final

the proposed rule pertaining to the

Federal Tort Claims Act in accordance

with the mandate to use plain language.

The amendment is intended to provide

clearer instructions for filing and

processing a claim with the Bureau for

money damages for personal injury or

death and/or damage to or loss of

property.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Rules Unit, Office of

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons,

HOLC Room 754, 320 First Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20534.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Nanovic, Office of General Counsel,

Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514–

6655.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Bureau of Prisons is revising its

regulations in 28 CFR 543, subpart C, on

the Federal Tort Claims Act. A proposed

rule on this subject was published in the

Federal Register on June 14, 1999 (64

FR 32172). The Bureau received

comment from three respondents.

One commenter filed a tort claim

alleging that the proposed rule and

various other Bureau policies were

vague and unclear. No specifics,

however, were provided as to the

proposed tort claim procedures. This

commenter’s claim is being processed in

accordance with the existing procedures

for tort claims. The second commenter

stated that the proposed revision was

plain and concise. This commenter also

expressed the opinion that the current

procedures were cumbersome and slow.

As noted above, the intent of the

revision is to provide clearer

instructions for filing and processing a

claim with the Bureau for money

damages for personal injury or death

and/or damage to or loss of property.

The Bureau believes that revising the

procedures for clarity will also serve to

help expedite the process. The third

commenter was seeking guidance

whether to submit a warranty claim or

to file a tort claim for damaged property.

The tort claim procedures are available

for use. It would be a conflict of interest

for the Bureau to advise an inmate on

the question of using the tort claim

procedures or other available avenues of

redress in any specific instance.

With due consideration to the

comments received, the Bureau has

determined to adopt the proposed rule

as final. In adopting the proposed rule

as final, the Bureau is amending

proposed § 543.32(d) to reflect the role

of the Department of Justice’s Torts

Branch in deciding administrative

claims for amounts beyond delegated

settlement authority. Members of the

public may submit comments

concerning this rule by writing to the

previously cited address. These

comments will be considered but will

receive no response in the Federal

Register.

Executive Order 12866

This rule falls within a category of

actions that the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has determined not

to constitute ‘‘significant regulatory

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive

Order 12866 and, accordingly, it was

not reviewed by OMB.

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, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

it is determined 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,

in accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has

reviewed this regulation and by

approving it certifies that this regulation

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