Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63875 

denominations and have been properly 

installed. 

(i) Kiosk count standards. (1) Access 

to stored full kiosk financial instrument 

storage components and currency 

cassettes must be restricted to: 

(i) Authorized agents; and 

(ii) In an emergency, authorized 

persons for the resolution of a problem. 

(2) The kiosk count must be 

performed in a secure area, such as the 

cage or count room. 

(3) If counts from various revenue 

centers and kiosks occur simultaneously 

in the count room, procedures must be 

in effect that prevent the commingling 

of funds from the kiosks with any 

revenue centers. 

(4) The kiosk financial instrument 

storage components and currency 

cassettes must be individually emptied 

and counted so as to prevent the 

commingling of funds between kiosks 

until the count of the kiosk contents has 

been recorded. 

(i) The count of must be recorded in 

ink or other permanent form of 

recordation. 

(ii) Coupons or other promotional 

items not included in gross revenue (if 

any) may be recorded on a supplemental 

document. All single-use coupons must 

be cancelled daily by an authorized 

agent to prevent improper recirculation. 

(5) Procedures must be implemented 

to ensure that any corrections to the 

count documentation are permanent, 

identifiable, and the original, corrected 

information remains legible. Corrections 

must be verified by two agents. 

(j) Controlled keys. Controls must be 

established and procedures 

implemented to safeguard the use, 

access, and security of keys for kiosks. 

(k) Variances. The operation must 

establish, as approved by the TGRA, the 

threshold level at which a variance must 

be reviewed to determine the cause. 

Any such review must be documented. 

■ 4. Amend § 543.21 by adding 

paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 543.21 What are the minimum internal 

control standards for surveillance? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(6) Kiosks: The surveillance system 

must monitor and record a general 

overview of activities occurring at each 

kiosk with sufficient clarity to identify 

the activity and the individuals 

performing it, including maintenance, 

drops or fills, and redemption of 

wagering vouchers or credits. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 24, 2013, Washington, 

DC. 

Tracie L. Stevens, 

Chairwoman. 

Daniel J. Little, 

Associate Commissioner. 

Jonodev O. Chaudhuri, 

Associate Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23977 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7565–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 524 

[BOP–AB60–F] 

RIN 1120–AB60 

Progress Reports Rules Revision 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) removes from 

regulations and/or modifies two types of 

progress reports: transfer reports and 

triennial reports. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 25, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this 

final rule, the Bureau removes from 

regulations and/or modifies two types of 

progress reports: Transfer reports and 

triennial reports. We published a 

proposed rule on this topic on 

September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57012). 

Section 524.41, entitled ‘‘Types of 

progress reports,’’ lists several types of 

progress reports prepared for nonBureau entities, such as for parole 

hearings, pre-release, final (prepared 90 

days before an inmate’s release to a term 

of supervision), and for other reasons 

(such as upon court request or a 

clemency review). The previous 

regulations also identified two types of 

progress reports that were primarily 

intended for internal Bureau purposes: 

Those prepared when inmates transfer 

to community confinement or another 

institution, and those prepared 

triennially if not more frequently done 

for any other reason. 

Transfer Reports. The previous 

regulations defined ‘‘transfer report’’ as 

one prepared on an inmate 

recommended and/or approved for 

transfer to community confinement or to 

another institution and whose progress 

has not been summarized within the 

previous 180 days. The Bureau modifies 

this definition in the final rule to 

indicate that transfer reports will only 

be prepared on inmates transferring to 

community confinement or non-Bureau 

facilities. 

Current Bureau practice and advances 

in technology have obviated the need to 

prepare a specific paper report when an 

inmate is transferred between Bureau 

facilities. When an inmate is transferred, 

all pertinent information regarding the 

progress of an inmate being transferred 

has already been updated in the 

Bureau’s computer system, which staff 

may access at all Bureau facilities. It is, 

therefore, unnecessary for a separate 

and specific progress report to be 

prepared by staff at the transferring 

Bureau facility for staff at the receiving 

Bureau facility, when receiving facility 

staff can easily access this information 

themselves through the Bureau’s 

computer system. 

However, when an inmate is 

transferring to any non-Bureau facility, 

staff at that facility may not have access 

to the Bureau’s computer system. The 

proposed rule also contemplated 

removing the requirement to prepare 

transfer reports for inmates transferring 

to Bureau community confinement 

facilities. However, since publishing the 

proposed rule, it has come to the 

Bureau’s attention that some Bureau 

community confinement facilities do 

not yet have the capability to access the 

Bureau’s computer system. Therefore, 

because they do not have consistent 

access to the Bureau’s computer system, 

it would be necessary for Bureau staff to 

prepare a transfer report detailing an 

inmate’s progress for inmate transfers to 

both community confinement facilities 

and non-Bureau facilities. In an 

abundance of caution, therefore, we 

modify the proposed rule to indicate 

that transfer reports must continue to be 

prepared not only for inmate transfers to 

non-Bureau facilities, but for transfers to 

community confinement as well. 

Triennial Reports. In the final rule, 

the Bureau deletes triennial reports as a 

type of progress report. Previous 

regulations stated that a progress report 

would be prepared on each designated 

inmate at least once every 36 months if 

not previously generated for another 

reason. 

Before the development of the 

internal Bureau computer information 

network, triennial reports were a 

necessary tool used to provide staff with 

specific inmate information. As 

explained above, however, current 

Bureau practice and advances in 

technology have obviated the need to 

prepare a specific progress report every 

36 months, because all information 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
63876 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding an inmate’s progress is 

continually updated in the Bureau’s 

computer system, which staff may 

access at all Bureau facilities. 

Response to Comments 

We received a total of 4 comments on 

the proposed rule. We address issues 

raised by each commenter below. 

Two commenters expressed concerns 

with the Bureau’s computer system, 

which we referred to in the proposed 

rule. We stated that there is no need for 

a transfer report when an inmate is 

transferred between Bureau facilities 

because inmate information is updated 

in the Bureau’s computer system, which 

staff may access at all Bureau facilities. 

We also stated that information 

regarding an inmate’s progress is 

continually updated in the Bureau’s 

computer system, obviating the need for 

a triennial report. The commenter stated 

that ‘‘there should be a backup in the 

case that the computer system becomes 

temporarily or permanently 

unavailable.’’ 

The Bureau’s ‘‘backup’’ in case of 

unavailability of the computer system is 

the Inmate Central File. All information 

regarding an inmate’s progress is 

contained in that inmate’s Central File, 

which is a physical, paper file which 

accompanies the inmate when he/she is 

transferred from facility to facility. Staff 

update the Central File whenever there 

is new activity with regard to the 

inmate. For instance, work reports are 

filed quarterly or monthly, inmate 

program completion certificates are filed 

when the inmate completes programs, 

disciplinary reports are filed when there 

are disciplinary incidents, etc., just as 

the computer system is continually 

updated. 

Another commenter requested that 

the Bureau provide a ‘‘more clarified 

reason for the removal [of triennial 

reports and transfer reports between 

Bureau facilities] and how it will benefit 

the public and agency.’’ We explain the 

benefit in terms of the amount of staff 

time per year that would be saved. Both 

transfer reports and triennial reports 

take an average of one staff hour per 

report to complete. In the calendar year 

2010, there were 69,517 transfers of 

inmates between Bureau facilities. 

Eliminating transfer reports between 

Bureau facilities would therefore result 

in a staff time savings of approximately 

69,517 hours per year. As of January 

2012, there are approximately 1,080 

Bureau of Prisons case managers doing 

approximately 75 hour-length triennial 

reports per year. This results in an 

approximate staff time burden 

nationwide of 81,000 hours per year. 

Thus, eliminating transfer reports 

between Bureau facilities and triennial 

reports would save the Bureau 

approximately 150,517 staff hours per 

year, which could then be devoted to 

better ensuring the safety, security, and 

good order of the facilities and 

protection of the public through means 

such as detection of contraband, illegal 

communications, criminal activity, and 

other such problems. 

A commenter had some specific 

questions with regard to transfer reports. 

He asked: ‘‘Does the [computer] network 

address every issue a report would? 

Does the staff at the receiving Bureau 

[facility] fully examine the inmate’s 

record upon arrival or is it possible that 

some important information could be 

missed?’’ 

The purpose of the transfer report was 

to provide a summary of the inmate’s 

progress and adjustment for the 

receiving institution. However, on 

review of this process, the Bureau 

determined this summary to be 

unnecessary because (1) the information 

input in the computer system included 

far more than that contained in the 

transfer report; and (2) staff at the 

receiving facility are required to review 

the Inmate Central File for the 

transferred inmate immediately upon 

the inmate’s arrival in order to 

determine suitability for placement in 

general population regardless of 

whether they had reviewed the 

summary contained in the transfer 

report. Further, any decisions pertaining 

to the inmate must be based on a review 

of the Inmate Central File as a whole 

and an evaluation of the inmate during 

intake screening, not solely on the 

transfer report. While it is always 

possible that information may be 

missed, it is more likely that 

information would be missed during a 

cursory review of the summary 

contained in a transfer report than 

during a more thorough review of the 

entire Inmate Central File. 

Two commenters also raised concerns 

that elimination of the triennial report 

requirement would cause less frequent 

reviews of inmate progress by staff. One 

commenter asked, ‘‘Is it possible to 

include in the rule a clause that 

demands the information is reviewed 

triennially by the staff?’’ 

The language in the regulation 

requiring a triennial report was a 

requirement on staff to complete the 

report, not a requirement on staff to 

review an inmate’s progress. It is 

unnecessary to specifically include a 

clause in these regulations requiring 

staff to review an inmate’s progress 

triennially because current regulations 

on inmate program reviews (28 CFR part 

524) already require staff to review 

inmate progress through program 

reviews at least once every 180 calendar 

days or more frequently. 

For the aforementioned reasons, we 

now finalize the proposed rule 

published on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 

57012), with a minor change to re-insert 

the requirement to prepare transfer 

reports for inmates transferring to 

community confinement. 

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, 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 section 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 207 / Friday, October 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 63877 

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. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524 

Prisoners. 

Charles E. Samuels, Jr., 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

Under rulemaking authority vested in 

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

and delegated to the Director, Bureau of 

Prisons, we amend 28 CFR part 524 as 

set forth below. 

PART 524—CLASSIFICATION OF 

INMATES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 524 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521– 

3528, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4046, 

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; 21 

U.S.C. 848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. 

■ 2. In § 524.41, remove paragraphs (d) 

and (e), redesignate paragraph (f) as (e), 

and add a new paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 524.41 Types of progress reports. 

* * * * * 

(d) Transfer report—prepared on an 

inmate transferring to community 

confinement or any non-Bureau facility. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–25166 Filed 10–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392; FRL–9901–83– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Delaware. The 

SIP revision addresses the infrastructure 

elements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS). EPA is approving this SIP 

revision in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0392. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 14, 2013 (78 FR 49409), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Delaware. In the NPR, EPA proposed 

approval of Delaware’s submittal that 

provides the basic elements specified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary 

to implement, maintain, and enforce the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On March 27, 2013, the Delaware 

Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC) 

submitted a SIP revision that addresses 

the infrastructure elements specified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, necessary 

to implement, maintain and enforce the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. This submittal 

addressed the following infrastructure 

elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), 

(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

Specific requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the CAA and the rationale 

for EPA’s proposed action to approve 

the SIP submittal are explained in the 

NPR and the technical support 

document (TSD) and will not be restated 

here. No public comments were 

received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Delaware’s 

submittal which provides the basic 

program elements specified in section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) of the CAA, 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, as a 

revision to the Delaware SIP. This 

rulemaking action is being taken under 

section 110 of the CAA. This 

rulemaking action does not include 

approval of Delaware’s submittal for 

section of 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which 

pertains to the nonattainment 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA, since this element is not required 

to be submitted by the 3-year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

of the CAA, and will be addressed in a 

separate process. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES