51272 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

regulation to include findings of the 

CDC after a hearing as conclusive 

evidence that the prisoner violated the 

rules of the institution. With more and 

more prisoners being placed in RRC’s 

before their parole dates, it is critical 

that the Commission be able to rely on 

the CDC’s findings to promote the 

smooth transition to the community or 

to pull back an inmate who has 

demonstrated that he or she is not ready 

to be released to the community without 

requiring a second hearing by the DHO 

or a fully contested disciplinary hearing 

conducted by the U.S. Parole 

Commission. 

The Parole Commission is 

promulgating this rule as an interim rule 

and is providing a 60-day period for 

public comment. The amended rule will 

take effect upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. The Commission has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications 

requiring a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule 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). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local, 

or tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

No action under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is 

necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act, now codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 

parole. 

The Interim Rule 

Accordingly, the U.S. Parole 

Commission amends 28 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

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. Amend § 2.34 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 2.34 Rescission of parole. 

(a) When an effective date of parole 

has been set by the Commission, release 

on that date is conditioned upon 

continued satisfactory conduct by the 

prisoner. If a prisoner granted such a 

date has been found in violation of 

institution rules by a Discipline Hearing 

Officer, or the Center Disciplinary 

Committee, or is alleged to have 

committed a new criminal act at any 

time prior to the delivery of the 

certificate of parole, the Commissioner 

shall be advised promptly of such 

information. The prisoner shall not be 

released until the institution has been 

notified that no change has been made 

in the Commission’s order to parole. 

Following receipt of such information, 

the Commissioner may reopen the case 

and retard the parole date for up to 90 

days without a hearing, or schedule a 

rescission hearing under this section on 

the next available docket at the 

institution or on the first docket 

following return to a federal institution 

from a community corrections center or 

a state or local halfway house. 

* * * * * 

(c) A hearing before a Discipline 

Hearing Officer, or the Center 

Disciplinary Committee, resulting in a 

finding that the prisoner has committed 

a violation of disciplinary rules may be 

relied upon by the Commission as 

conclusive evidence of institutional 

misconduct. However, the prisoner will 

be afforded an opportunity to explain 

any mitigating circumstances, and to 

present documentary evidence in 

mitigation of the misconduct at the 

rescission hearing. 

* * * * * 

Patricia K. Cushwa, 

Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19885 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Parole Commission 

28 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. USPC–2021–05] 

RIN 1104–AA10 

Paroling, Recommitting, and 

Supervising Federal Prisoners: 

Prisoners Serving Sentences Under 

the United States and District of 

Columbia Codes 

AGENCY: United States Parole 

Commission, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Parole 

Commission is adopting a final rule to 

conform with the District of Columbia 

Council’s amendment to medical and 

geriatric parole law which removed an 

exception that excluded prisoners 

convicted of certain violent offenses 

from medical parole consideration. 

DATES: Effective September 15, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen H. Krapels, General Counsel, U.S. 

Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE, 

Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530, 

telephone (202) 346–7030. Questions 

about this publication are welcome, but 

inquiries concerning individual cases 

cannot be answered over the telephone. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The U.S. Parole 

Commission is responsible for medical 

parole release decisions for District of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 15, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51273 

Columbia felony offenders who are 

eligible for parole. The Commission 

took over this responsibility on August 

5, 1998 as a result of the National 

Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997, 

Public Law 105–33. 11231(a)(1), 111 

Stat. 712, 745 (effective August 5, 1998). 

The Commission’s new duties included 

medical parole determinations for D.C. 

offenders previously made by the D.C. 

Board of Parole pursuant to the Medical 

and Geriatric Parole Act of 1992, D.C. 

Law 9–271; D.C. Official Code 24–461, 

et seq. (effective May 15, 1993). 

The Commission promptly enacted 

regulations to implement its new duties, 

which included the rule that set forth 

criteria and procedures for 

implementing the medical parole 

provisions in D.C. Code 24–261–64, 267 

at 28 CFR 2.77. 63 FR 39172–39183 

(July 21, 1998). Regulation 28 CFR 2.77 

governs the Commission’s decision to 

release a D.C. prisoner on medical 

parole. The Commission exercises its 

discretion to grant medical parole to 

eligible prisoners on the basis of either 

terminal illness or permanent and 

irreversible incapacitation if the 

Commission determines the prisoner 

meets certain eligibility criteria. 

Originally, prisoners convicted of 

certain violent offenses were excluded 

from benefits of medical parole. (D.C. 

Law 9–271; D.C. Official Code 24–467.) 

In 2012, the D.C. Council amended 

D.C. Code 24–267 when it approved the 

Compassionate Release Authorization 

Amendment Act of 2012, D.C. Law 19– 

318 (Act 19–479). D.C. Law 19–318 

rewrote section 24–467, which formerly 

read: ‘‘Persons convicted of first degree 

murder or persons sentenced for crimes 

committed when armed under 22–4502, 

or under 22–4504(b), and 22–2803, shall 

not be eligible for geriatric or medical 

parole.’’ Effective June 15, 2013, D.C. 

Law 19–318 removed the exception for 

medical parole. 

The Revitalization Act requires the 

Commission to follow District of 

Columbia parole law and regulations 

and authorizes the Commission to 

‘‘amend or supplement’’ the parole 

regulations of the District of Columbia 

as it sees fit. See D.C. Code 24– 

1231(a)(1)(2001). As part of that 

authority, the Parole Commission has 

decided to update its regulation in light 

of the change in D.C. law that relates to 

the medical parole exception by 

promulgating a final rule to amend 28 

CFR 2.77 to remove paragraph (g)(1). As 

a result, prisoners convicted of certain 

violent offenses will not be excluded 

from the benefit of medical parole and 

28 CFR 2.77 will comport with current 

D.C. law. See D.C. Code 24–267. 

The rule change does not impact the 

sole discretion and jurisdiction of the 

Commission to grant medical parole. 

See D.C. Code 24–1231(a)(1)(2001); D.C. 

Code 24–463. Following the rule 

change, the Commission will still 

consider whether to exercise its 

discretion to grant medical parole for 

those prisoners previously excluded 

from medical parole as it will any other 

prisoner. 

Because this action is being taken to 

conform with a change in D.C. statute, 

it is being published as a final rule. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulation Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13565, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. The Commission has 

determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review, and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications 

requiring a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule 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). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not cause State, local, 

or tribal governments, or the private 

sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in 

any one year, and will not significantly 

or uniquely affect small governments. 

No action under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is 

necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act, now codified 

at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

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 amends 28 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

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. Revise § 2.77(g) to read as follows: 

§ 2.77 Medical parole. 

* * * * * 

(g) Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, a prisoner 

shall not be eligible for medical parole 

on the basis of a physical or medical 

condition that existed at the time the 

prisoner was sentenced (D.C. Code 24– 

462). 

Patricia K. Cushwa, 

Chairman (Acting), U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19884 Filed 9–14–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Part 4044 

Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Interest Assumptions 

for Valuing Benefits 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

regulation on Allocation of Assets in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES