Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 25769

exempting them would affect the testing

requirements for a large segment of the

bottled water products on the market.

Such products would not be subject to

a certain frequency of testing that

provides adequate assurance that such

products manufactured by small

businesses are as protective of the

public health as those that have

undergone the testing requirements for

these nine contaminants under part 129.

Therefore, exempting small businesses

would reduce the potential public

health benefits of lifting the stay.

c. Extend compliance period. FDA

considered an extended compliance

period. Lengthening the compliance

period would provide regulatory relief

to small entities because it would

reduce the present value of the costs of

testing. However, as stated in section

V.B.4.b of this document, because small

entities comprise a large part of the

affected industry, longer compliance

periods would delay any potential

public health benefits of the rule. For

example, if a small business had an

excess level of one of the nine chemical

contaminants in its bottled water

product, it would not be aware of the

potential public health problem as a

result of the specific contaminant

because the small business would not be

testing during the longer compliance

period. Therefore, the agency has

concluded that lifting the stay is more

protective of the public health.

d. Reduced testing frequency. Another

alternative for alleviating the burden for

small entities would be to reduce the

testing frequency for certain chemical

contaminants, including the nine

chemical contaminants that are the

subject of this rule. The agency believes

that, in considering the issue of reduced

frequency of testing, it needs to do so in

the context of all chemical

contaminants, not just the nine that are

the subject of this rule. Reduced

frequency of testing may include an

entirely different scheme that may

include waivers for certain chemical

contaminants. The contemplation of

such a scheme is better addressed in a

context that includes consideration of

all chemical contaminants, rather than

considering and implementing a

different regulatory scheme for only the

nine chemical contaminants. Moreover,

Congress mandated that the agency

issue monitoring requirements for these

nine chemical contaminants by August

6, 1998. Because the scope of this rule

is limited to these nine chemical

contaminants, and the agency does not

have sufficient time to enlarge the scope

of this rulemaking to the issue of

reduced frequency of testing for all

chemical contaminants, the agency is

not pursuing this alternative in this

rulemaking. However, the agency plans

to consider the issue of reduced

frequency of monitoring for all chemical

contaminants in bottled water in a

future rule.

5. Summary

FDA has examined the impact of the

direct final rule on small businesses in

accordance with RFA. This analysis,

together with the preamble, constitutes

RFA.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

FDA has examined the impacts of this

direct final rule under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

(Pub. L. 104–4). This rule does not

require a written statement under

section 202(a) of the UMRA because it

does not impose a mandate that results

in an expenditure of $100 million

(adjusted annually for inflation) or more

by State, local, and tribal governments

in the aggregate, or by the private sector,

in any one year.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

FDA concludes that this direct final

rule contains no collections of

information. Therefore, clearance by the

Office of Management and Budget under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is

not required.

VII. Comments

Interested persons may, on or before

July 27, 1998, submit to the Dockets

Management Branch (address above)

written comments regarding this direct

final rule. Two copies of any comments

are to be submitted, except that

individuals may submit one copy.

Comments are to be identified with the

docket number found in brackets in the

heading of this document. Received

comments may be seen in the office

above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

VIII. Effective Date

The agency intends to make the direct

final rule effective 180 days after the

publication of the confirmation notice

in the Federal Register. The agency is

providing a 180 day effective date to

permit affected firms adequate time to

take appropriate steps to bring their

product into compliance with the

standard imposed by the new rule.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 165

Beverages, Bottled water, Food grades

and standards, Incorporation by

reference.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 165 is

amended as follows:

PART 165—BEVERAGES

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 165 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 343–1,

348, 349, 371, 379e.

§ 165.110 [Amended]

2. Section 165.110 Bottled water is

amended in the table in paragraph

(b)(4)(iii)(A) by removing the

superscript ‘‘1’’ after the entries for

‘‘Antimony,’’ ‘‘Beryllium,’’ ‘‘Cyanide,’’

‘‘Nickel,’’ and ‘‘Thallium,’’ and by

removing the footnote to the table; in

the table in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(C) by

removing the superscript ‘‘1’’ after the

entries for ‘‘Diquat,’’ ‘‘Endothall,’’

‘‘Glyphosate,’’ and ‘‘2,3,7,8–TCDD

(Dioxin),’’ and by removing the footnote

to the table; and by removing the note

that follows paragraph

(b)(4)(iii)(G)(3)(iv).

Dated: May 5, 1998.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 98–12381 Filed 5–6–98; 3:57 pm]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2

Paroling, Recommitting, and

Supervising Federal Prisoners:

Expedited Revocation Procedure for

Parole Violators

AGENCY: Parole Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission

is adding to its regulations a provision

whereby certain parolees who have been

arrested and charged with violations of

parole (or who are serving new

sentences for crimes committed while

on parole) may consent to revocation of

parole upon the acceptance of a

sanction within the applicable guideline

range. The purpose of this procedure is

to avoid the need for holding parole

violators in local jails for revocation

hearings, and to save the Parole

Commission the time and expense of

conducting hearings when an

appropriate sanction can be imposed

with the consent of the offender.

DATES: Effective June 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pamela A. Posch, Office of General
25770 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 90 / Monday, May 11, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission, 5550

Friendship Blvd., Chevy Chase,

Maryland 20815, telephone (301) 492–

5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In certain

categories of cases, the U.S. Parole

Commission has found that an

appropriate sanction for parole failure

can be determined through a review of

the parolee’s record and by reference to

the applicable reparole guidelines. The

majority of these cases involve

administrative violations, drug use, and

drug treatment program failure, as well

as petty crimes. The sanction is

revocation and a presumptive reparole

date. In other cases, the violation of

parole may be serious enough that the

only appropriate sanction is revocation

and denial of reparole. The Commission

has found that many arrested parole

violators in these categories are willing

to waive their right to a hearing under

18 U.S.C. 4214 in order to be removed

from a local jail and complete the

prescribed period of imprisonment in an

institution where programming and

other amenities are available.

Accordingly, in 1996, the Commission

approved a pilot project for an

‘‘expedited revocation procedure.’’ After

the preliminary interview has been

conducted following the arrest of the

accused parole violator, the Commission

offers the parolee the opportunity to

consent to revocation and a sanction of

a definite number of months in prison.

The procedure was initially limited to

Category One violations on the

guidelines at 28 CFR 2.20. Category Two

violations and cases where the

Commission proposed to deny reparole

altogether (‘‘continue to expiration’’)

were eventually added. The procedure

is also used in the case of parolees who

will complete an adequate sanction by

serving a new state or federal sentence,

but for whom revocation of parole is

necessary in order to guarantee an

adequate period of parole supervision

following release from imprisonment.

This is accomplished by an order

forfeiting the time spent on parole,

which accompanies an order of

revocation.

Over the course of the pilot project,

1223 cases were considered for the

expedited revocation procedure, with an

acceptance rate of 76.2%. The project

has saved agency resources as well as

critical jail space without diminishing

in any respect the sanctions normally

imposed by the Commission on these

types of parole violators. It is to be

emphasized that the ‘‘expedited

revocation procedure’’ is in no sense a

form of plea-bargaining; the Parole

Commission offers the accused violator

the sanction that is considered

appropriate by the Commission. If the

parolee does not accept the proposed

sanction, a revocation hearing is

conducted. Following the hearing, any

appropriate sanction may be imposed.

Moreover, the parolee’s acceptance of

the Commission’s offer does not create

a ‘‘plea agreement’’ that can be

subsequently enforced to avoid

consequences required by regulation or

law (e.g., a consecutive sentence that is

not referenced in the Commission’s

offer).

It is also to be emphasized that the

Parole Commission may, in its

discretion, decide not to offer an

expedited revocation if there is any

aspect of the case that appears to

warrant an in-person revocation

hearing, and may rescind an offer at any

time in order to schedule an in-person

hearing.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Statement

The U.S. Parole Commission has

determined that this proposed rule is

not a significant rule within the

meaning of Executive Order 12866, and

the proposed rule has, accordingly, not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget. The proposed

rule, if adopted, 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).

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 makes the following

changes 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. 28 CFR Part 2 is amended by

adding § 2.67 to read as follows:

§ 2.67 Expedited Revocation Procedure.

(a) In addition to the actions available

to the Commission under § 2.47(a) and

(b), and under § 2.48, the Commission

may offer an alleged parole violator an

opportunity to accept responsibility for

his violation behavior, to waive a

revocation hearing, and to accept the

sanction proposed by the Commission

in the Notice of Eligibility for Expedited

Revocation Procedure that is sent to the

alleged parole violator.

(b) The following cases may be

considered under the expedited

revocation procedure:

(1) Cases in which the alleged parole

violator has been given a preliminary

interview under § 2.48, and the alleged

violation behavior would be graded

Category One or Category Two;

(2) Cases in which the alleged violator

has been given a preliminary interview

under § 2.48 and the proposed decision

is continue to expiration of sentence,

regardless of offense category; and

(3) Cases in which an alleged violator

has received a dispositional review

under § 2.47, and the Commission

determines that conditional withdrawal

of the warrant would be appropriate, but

forfeiture of street time is deemed

necessary to provide an adequate period

of supervision.

(c) The alleged violator’s consent shall

not be deemed to create an enforceable

agreement with respect to any action the

Commission is authorized to take by law

or regulation, or to limit in any respect

the normal statutory consequences of a

revocation of parole or mandatory

release.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Michael J. Gaines,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–12388 Filed 5–8–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Parole Commission

28 CFR Part 2

Paroling, Recommitting, and

Supervising Federal Prisoners:

Electronic Issuance of Paroling

Violation Warrants

AGENCY: Parole Commission, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission

is amending a regulation that requires

parole violation warrants to be issued by

U.S. Mail. In order to expedite the

receipt of warrants by the U.S. Marshals

Service, the regulation is being amended

to permit warrants to be sent by

electronic transmission. Although an

alleged parole violator may be arrested

by authorized officials who have been

alerted to the issuance of a warrant but

have not actually received the warrant,

a procedure that will ensure the

immediate receipt of warrants by

arresting authorities will avoid

confusion as to the Commission’s

instructions and the parolee’s status.