27494 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

endangered fish and wildlife (50 CFR

part 222).

Issuance of permit No. 954 as required

by the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended, was based on a finding that

such permit: (1) Was applied for in good

faith; (2) will not operate to the

disadvantage of the endangered species

which is the subject of the permit; and

(3) is consistent with the purposes and

policies set forth in section 2 of the

Endangered Species Act.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits & Documentation Division,

Office of Protected Resources, National

Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12724 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Public Information Collection

Requirement Submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

Review.

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title; Applicable Forms; OMB Control

Number: Telecommunications Service

Priority System; SF Forms 315, 316,

317, 318, 319, and 320; OMB Control

Number 0704–0305

Type of Request: Revision

Number of Respondents: 94

Responses Per Respondent: 18

Annual Responses: 1,692

Average Burden Per Response: 2.16

hours

Annual Burden Hours: 3,654

Needs and Uses: The

Telecommunications Service Priority

(TSP) System identifies leased

telecommunications services vital to

National Security and Emergency

Preparedness, and provides the legal

basis for vendor priority installation

and restoration. The information

collected hereby, provides the DoD

with the data necessary to make

appropriate telecommunications

service priority assignments. It is

additionally used to maintain the

currency of associated data bases.

Affected Public: State or local

governments; Businesses or other forprofit; Federal agencies or employees;

and small businesses or organizations

Frequency: On occasion

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain a benefit.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C.

Springer. Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent

to Mr. Springer at the Office of

Management and Budget, Desk Officer

for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC

20503.

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William

Pearce.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,

Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: May 19, 1995.

Patricia L. Topping,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–12730 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–P

Public Information Collection

Requirement Submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

Review

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title: Technical Assistance for Public

Participation in the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program

Type of Request: Expedited

Processing—Approval date requested:

30 days following publication in the

Federal Register

Number of Respondents: 100

Responses Per Respondent: 1

Annual Responses: 100

Average Burden Per Response: 6 hours

Annual Burden Hours: 600

Needs and Uses: The Department of

Defense (DoD) is establishing a

Technical Assistance for Public

Participation in the Defense

Environmental Restoration Program as

authorized by the National Defense

Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1995.

The information collected hereby,

will be utilized to assess whether one

of the options DoD is proposing in the

establishment of this program is

feasible. A separately published

Notice of Expression of Interest will

propose criteria for providers,

including technical expertise,

management capability, and not-forprofit status, as well as offer potential

providers an opportunity to submit

responses expressing their interest in

this program.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions; State, local, or tribal

government

Frequency: Onetime

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C.

Springer.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Springer at the Office of

Management and Budget, Desk Officer

for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. William

Pearce.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215

Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204,

Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: May 19, 1995.

Patricia L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–12731 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–P

Office of the Secretary

Manual for Courts-Martial

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on

Military Justice (JSC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

considering recommending changes to

the Manual for Courts-Martial, United

States, 1984, Executive Order No.

12473, as amended by Executive Order

Nos. 12484, 12550, 12586, 12708,

12767, 12888, and 12936. The proposed

changes are part of the 1995 annual

review required by the Manual for

Courts-Martial and DoD Directive

5500.17. ‘‘Review of the Manual for

Courts-Martial,’’ January 23, 1985.

The proposed changes have not been

coordinated within the Department of

Defense under DoD Directive 5500.1,

‘‘Preparation and Processing of

Legislation, Executive Orders,

Proclamations, and Reports and

Comments Thereon’’, May 21, 1964, and

do not constitute the official position of

the Department of Defense, the Military

Departments, or any other government

agency.

This notice is provided in accordance

with DoD Directive 5500.17, ‘‘Review of

the Manual for Courts-Martial’’, January

23, 1985. This notice is intended only

to improve the internal management of

the Federal government. It is not

intended to create any right or benefit,

substantive or procedural, enforceable at
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27495

law by a party against the United States,

its agencies, its officers, or any person.

The proposed changes follow in their

entirety: R.C.M. 305(g), et seq., is

amended to read as follows: (g) Who

may direct release from confinement.

Any commander of a prisoner, an officer

appointed under regulations of the

Secretary concerned to conduct the

review under subsections (i) and/or (j)

of this rule, or, once charges have been

referred, a military judge detailed to the

court-martial to which the charges

against the accused have been referred

may direct release from pretrial

confinement. For the purposes of this

subsection, ‘‘any commander’’ includes

the immediate or higher commander of

the prisoner and the commander of the

installation on which the confinement

facility is located. (h) Notification and

action by commander.

(1) Report. Unless the commander of

the prisoner ordered the pretrial

confinement, the commissioned,

warrant, noncommissioned, or petty

officer in to whose charge the prisoner

was committed shall, within 24 hours

after that commitment, cause to be made

a report to the commander which shall

contain the name of the prisoner, the

offenses charged against the prisoner, an

the name of the person who ordered or

authorized confinement.

(2) Action by commander.

(A) Decision. Not later than 72 hours

after the commander’s ordering of a

prisoner into pretrial confinement, or

after receipt of a report that a member

of the commander’s unit or organization

has been confined, whichever situation

is applicable, the commander shall

decide whether pretrial confinement

will continue. A commander complying

with RCM 305(d), or this subsection,

may also satisfy the probable cause

review of subsection RCM (i)(1) and (2)

below, provided the commander is a

neutral and detached officer and acts

within 48 hours of the imposition of

confinement under the military’s

control.

(B) Requirements for confinement.

The commander shall direct the

prisoner’s release from pretrial

confinement unless the commander

believes upon probable cause, that is,

upon reasonable grounds, that:

(i) An offense triable by a courtmartial has been committed;

(ii) The prisoner committed it; and

(iii) Confinement is necessary because

it is foreseeable that:

(a) The prisoner will not appear at

trial, pretrial hearing, or investigation,

or

(b) The prisoner will engage in serious

criminal misconduct; and

(iv) Less severe forms of restraint are

inadequate.

Serious criminal misconduct includes

intimidation of witnesses or other

obstruction of justice, seriously injuring

others, or other offenses which pose a

serious threat to the safety of the

community or to the effectiveness,

morale, discipline, readiness, or safety

of the command, or to the national

security of the United States. As used in

this rule, ‘‘national security’’ means the

national defense and foreign relations of

the United States and specifically

includes: military or defense advantage

over any foreign nation or group of

nations; a favorable foreign relations

position; or a defense posture capable of

successfully resisting hostile or

destructive action from within or

without, overt or covert.

(C) Memorandum. If continued

pretrial confinement is approved, the

commander shall prepare a written

memorandum which states the reasons

for the conclusion that the requirements

for confinement in subsection (h)(2)(B)

of this rule have been met. This

memorandum may include hearsay and

may incorporate by reference other

documents, such as witness statements,

investigative reports, or official records.

This memorandum shall be forwarded

to the 7 day reviewing officer under

subsection (i) of this rule. If such a

memorandum was prepared by the

commander before ordering

confinement, a second memorandum

need not be prepared, however,

additional information may be added to

the memorandum at any time.

(i) Procedures for review of pretrial

confinement.

(1) Preliminary review. Review of the

adequacy of probable cause to continue

pretrial confinement shall be made by a

neutral and detached officer within 48

hours of imposition of confinement

under military control. If the prisoner

was apprehended by civilian authorities

and remains in civilian custody at the

request of military authorities,

reasonable efforts will be made to bring

the prisoner under military control in a

timely fashion. In calculating the

number of days of confinement for

purposes of this rule, the initial date of

confinement shall count as one day and

the date of the review shall also count

as one day.

(2) By whom made. The review under

subsection (1) shall be made by a

neutral and detached officer. A

determination made by a commanding

officer under subsection (d) or (h) of this

rule satisfies this requirement.

(3) 7 Day Review. Within 7 days of the

imposition of confinement, a neutral

and detached officer appointed in

accordance with regulations prescribed

by the Secretary concerned shall review

the probable cause determination and

necessity for continued pretrail

confinement.

(4) Nature of the 7 day review.

(A) Matters considered. The review

under this subsection shall include a

review of the memorandum submitted

by the prisoner’s commander under

subsection (h)(2)(C) of this rule.

Additional written matters may be

considered, including any submitted by

the accused. The prisoner, and the

prisoner’s counsel, if any, shall be

allowed to appear before the reviewing

officer and make a statement, if

practicable. A representative of the

command may appear before the

reviewing officer to make a statement.

(B) Rules of evidence. Except for Mil.

R. Evid., Section V (Privileges) and Mil

R. Evid 302 and 305, the Military Rules

of Evidence shall not apply to the

matters considered.

(C) Standard of proof. The

requirements for confinement under

subsection (h)(2)(B) of this rule must be

proved by a preponderance of the

evidence.

(5) Extension of time limit. The

reviewing officer may, for good cause,

extend the time limit for completion of

the initial review to 10 days after the

imposition of pretrial confinement.

(6) Action by reviewing officer. Upon

completion of review, the reviewing

officer shall approve continued

confinement or order immediate release.

(7) Memorandum. The reviewing

officer’s conclusions, including the

factual findings on which they are

based, shall be set forth in a written

memorandum. A copy of the

memorandum and of all documents

considered by the reviewing officer

shall be maintained in accordance with

regulations prescribed by the Secretary

concerned and provided to the accused

or the Government on request.

(8) Reconsideration of approval of

continued confinement. The reviewing

officer shall, after notice to the parties,

reconsider the decision to confine the

prisoner upon request based upon any

significant information not previously

considered.

(j) Review by military judge. Once the

charges for which the accussed has been

confined are referred to trial, the

military judge shall review the propriety

of the pretrial confinement upon motion

for appropriate relief.

(1) Release. The military judge shall

order release from pretrial confinement

only if:

(A) The reviewing officer’s decision

was an abuse of discretion, and there is

not sufficient information presented to
27496 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices

the military judge justifying

continuation of pretrial confinement

under subsection (h)(2)(B) of this rule;

(B) Information not presented to the

reviewing officer establishes that the

prisoner should be released under

subsection (h)(2)(B) of this rule; or

(C) The provisions of subsection (i) (2)

or (3) of this rule have not been

complied with and information

presented to the military judge does not

establish sufficient grounds for

continued confinement under

subsection (h)(2)(B) of this rule.

(2) Pretrial Confinement Credit. The

military judge shall order administrative

credit under subsection (k) of this rule

for any pretrial confinement served. A

military judge shall order 1 day credit

for each day of confinement served in

anticipation of trial by courts-martial,

and may order more than 1 day credit

for each day served as a result of abuse

of discretion or of failure to comply

with the provisions of subsection (f), (h),

or (i) of this rule. The military judge

may order additional credit for each day

of pretrial confinement considered

illegal or which involves unusually

harsh circumstances.

Appendix 21, R.C.M. 305

Amendments be amended by inserting

the following at the end of section

R.C.M. 305(i) Amendments:

1995 Amendment: The amendment to

subsections (h)(2)(A) and (i) conforms

military practice to the 48-hour probable

cause review required by County of

Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44

(1991), and United v. Rexroat, 38 M.J.

292 (C.M.A. 1993). Rexroat, which

applies McLaughlin to courts-martial,

requires that after an accused is ordered

into pretrial confinement, a neutral and

detached official must review the

probable cause for continued pretrial

confinement within 48 hours. Rexroat

makes clear that this neutral and

detached official may be a commander,

but this is not required. Additionally,

nothing in this amendment prohibits the

commander initially ordering an

accused into pretrial confinement under

subsection (d) from conducting the 48-

hour probable cause review required by

the subsection (i) (1) and (2), or the 72-

hour review required by subsection

(h)(2)(A), or all three actions, provided

that commander is neutral and detached

within the meaning of United States v.

Ezell, 6 M.J. 307, 318–319 (C.M.A.

1979), and United States v. Lopex, 35

M.J. 35, 41 Rule 1109. Vacation of

suspension of sentence Rule 1109(d), is

amended to read as follows:

(d) Vacation of suspended general

court-martial sentence or of a special

court-martial sentence including a

suspended bad-conduct discharge.

Rule 1109(d)(1)(A), is amended to

read as follows:

(A) In general. Before vacation of the

suspension of any general court-martial

sentence, or of special court-martial

sentence which, as approved, includes a

suspended bad-conduct discharge, the

officer having special court-martial

jurisdiction over the probationer shall

personally hold a hearing on the alleged

violation of the conditions of

suspension. If there is no officer having

special court-martial jurisdiction over

the accused, who is subordinate to the

officer having general court-martial

jurisdiction over the accused, the officer

exercising general court-marital

jurisdiction over the accused shall

personally hold the hearing under

subsection (d)(1) of this rule. In such

cases, subsection (d)(1)(D) of this rule

shall not apply.

(1) Action by officer having special

court-martial jurisdiction over

probationer.

Rule 1109(e), is amended to read as

follows:

(e) Vacation of suspended special

court-martial sentence not including a

suspended bad-conduct discharge or of

a suspended summary court-martial

sentence.

Rule 1109(e)(1), is amended to read as

follows:

(1) In general. Before a vacation of the

suspension of the special court-marital

sentence not including a suspended

bad-conduct discharge or of a summary

court-martial sentence, the officer

having authority to convene for the

command in which the probabtioner is

serving or assigned to same kind of

court-martial which imposed the

sentence shall cause a hearing to be held

on the alleged violation(s) of the

conditions of suspension.

The following discussion section shall

be inserted after R.C.M. 1109(e)(5):

Discussion

If the special court-martial includes

an approved bad conduct discharge, and

suspended lesser punishments, the

special court-martial convening

authority may approve the vacation of

lesser punishments.

Appendix 21, R.C.M. 1109

Amendments be amended by inserting

the following at the end thereof:

1995 Amendment: The Rule is

amended to clarify that ‘‘the suspension

of a special court-martial sentence

which as approved includes a badconduct discharge,’’ permits the officer

exercising special court-martial

jurisdiction to vacate any suspended

punishments other than an approved

suspended bad conduct discharge.

M.R.E. 1102 is amended to read as

follows:

Substantive amendments to the

Federal Rules of Evidence, in so far as

they affect criminal proceedings, shall

apply to the Military Rules of Evidence

180 days after the effective date of such

amendments unless action to the

contrary is taken by the President.

Appendix 22, Rule 1102 Amendments

be amended by inserting the following

at the end thereof:

1995 Amendment: The rule is

modified to more clearly reflect the

Committee’s original intent that the

Federal Rules of Evidence apply to the

armed forces ‘‘to the extent practicable’’.

The new language is intended to insure

that only changes which affect the

substantive criminal practice, as

opposed to technical language of the

rule, are automatically applicable to the

armed forces.

Part IV of the Manual for CourtsMartial, United States, 1984, be

amended by inserting the following new

paragraph after paragraph 97:

97a. Article 134—(Parole, Violation

of)

a. Text. See paragraph 60.

b. Elements.

(1) That the accused was a prisoner as

the result of a court-martial conviction;

(2) That the accused was on parole;

(3) That the conditions of parole were

that (llllll);

(4) That the accused violated the

conditions of his parole by doing an act

or failing to do an act;

(5) That the conduct was to the

prejudice of good or discipline in the

armed forces or was of a nature to bring

discredit upon the armed forces.

c. Explanation.

(1) ‘‘Prisoner’’ refers only to those in

confinement resulting from conviction

at a court-martial or other criminal

proceedings.

(2) ‘‘Parole’’ is defined as ‘‘word or

honor.’’ A prisoner on parole, or

parolee, has agreed to adhere to a parole

plan and conditions of parole. A ‘‘parole

plan’’ is a written or oral agreement

made by the prisoner prior to parole to

do or refrain from doing certain acts or

activities. A parole plan may include a

residence requirement stating where

and with whom a parolee will live, and

a requirement that the prisoner have an

offer of guaranteed employment.

‘‘Conditions of parole’’ include the

parole plan and other reasonable and

appropriate conditions of parole, such

as paying restitution, beginning or

continuing treatment for alcohol or drug

abuse, or paying a fine ordered executed

as part of the prisoner’s court-martial

sentence. In return for giving his or her

‘‘word of honor’’ to abide by a parole
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Notices 27497

plan and conditions of parole, the

prisoner is granted parole.

d. Lesser included offense. Article

80—attempts.

e. Maximum punishment. Bad

conduct discharge, confinement for 6

months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay

per month for 6 months.

f. Sample specification.

In that llllllll (personal

jurisdiction data), a prisoner on parole,

did, (at/on board—location), on or about

llllll, 199ll, violate the

conditions of his parole by

llllll.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed

changes may be examined at the Office

of the Judge Advocate General, Criminal

Law Division, Building 111, Washington

Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374–

1111. A copy of the proposed changes

may be obtained by mail upon request

from the foregoing address, ATTN: LT

Kristen M. Henrichsen.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

changes must be received no later than

August 7, 1995, for consideration by the

Joint Service Committee on Military

Justice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT

Kristen M. Henrichsen, JAGC, USN,

Executive Secretary, Joint Service

Committee on Military Justice, Office of

the Judge Advocate General, Criminal

Law Division, Building 111, Washington

Navy Yard, Washington, DC 20374–

1111; (202) 433–5895.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–12631 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Department of Defense Education

Benefits Board of Actuaries; Notice of

Meeting

SUMMARY: A meeting of the board has

been scheduled to execute the

provisions of Chapter 101, Title 10,

United States Code (10 U.S.C. 2006 et.

seq.). The Board shall review DoD

actuarial methods and assumptions to

be used in the valuation of the G.I. Bill.

Persons desiring to 1) attend the DoD

Education Benefits Board of Actuaries

meeting or 2) make an oral presentation

or submit a written statement for

consideration at the meeting must notify

Patricia Robertson at (703) 696–6336 by

July 28, 1995.

DATES: August 4, 1995, 10 am to 1 pm.

ADDRESSES: Room 1E801 #4.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Benjamin I. Gottlieb, Executive

Secretary, DoD Office of the Actuary,

4th floor, 1600 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, VA 22209–2593, (703) 696–

5869.

Dated: May 18, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 94–12629 Filed 5–23–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Joint Service Committee on Military

Justice; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Joint Service Committee on

Military Justice (JSC).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the

schedule and proposed agenda for the

1995 annual public meeting of the JSC.

This notice also describes the functions

of the JSC.

DATES: Wednesday, July 12, 1995, 10

a.m. to 11 a.m.

ADDRESS: Building 111, Washington

Navy Yard, Washington, DC.

FUNCTION: The JSC was established by

the Judge Advocates General in 1972.

The JSC currently operates under

Department of Defense Directive

5500.17 of January 23, 1985. It is the

function of the JSC to improve Military

Justice through the preparation and

evaluation of proposed amendments

and changes to the Uniform Code of

Military Justice and the Manual for

Courts-Martial.

AGENDA: The JSC will receive public

comment concerning its 1995 Annual

Review of Manual for Courts-Martial,

United States, 1984, as published on

May 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LT Kristen M. Henrichsen, JAGC, USN,

Executive Secretary, Joint Service

Committee on Military Justice, Building

111, Washington Navy Yard,

Washington, DC 20374–1111; (202) 433–

5895.

Dated: May 24, 1995.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 95–12630 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Department of the Air Force

Record of Decision (ROD) for the

Disposal and Reuse of RichardsGebaur Air Force Base (AFB),

Colorado

On April 28, 1995, the Air Force

signed the ROD for the Disposal and

Reuse of Richards-Gebaur AFB. The

decisions included in this ROD have

been made in consideration of, but not

limited to, the information contained in

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS) filed with the

Environmental Protection Agency on

July 1, 1994.

Richards-Gebaur AFB closed on

September 30, 1994, pursuant to the

Defense Authorization Amendments

and Base Closure and Realignment Act

of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–526) upon

recommendation of the Secretary of

Defense and findings of the Defense

Base Closure and Realignment

Commission. This ROD documents the

Richards-Gebaur AFB disposal

decisions.

The decision conveyed by the ROD is

to dispose of Richards-Gebaur AFB in a

manner that enables airport operation

and commercial, office, and industrial

areas. In addition, there will be two

military reusers. This allows for the full

implementation of the central theme of

the proposed future land use plans

discussed in the FEIS. The

environmental findings and mitigation

measures contained in the ROD remain

fully applicable.

Consistent with the community reuse

plan, the ROD balances aviation,

industrial, office industrial park,

commercial, and military uses

throughout the base.

Several disposal methods and parcels

are involved in the ROD, including a

public benefit conveyance sponsored by

the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA), Federal transfers to the U.S.

Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, and

negotiated sales to public bodies.

Of the 428 acres, the Kansas City

Aviation Department (KCAD) will gain

more than 178 acres in an FAAsponsored public benefit conveyance.

Another 12-acre transfer will be offered

to the City of Belton, Missouri through

negotiated sale. The Air Force will

transfer 184 acres to the Department of

the Army, and 54 acres to the U.S.

Marine Corps. The electric system with

appropriate easements for maintenance

and repair will be conveyed through

negotiated sale to an eligible public

body. The other utilities (gas, telephone,

water, and sewer) were transferred in a

previous disposal action. Utility