Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 51611 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19826 Filed 9–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Parole Commission 

28 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. USPC–2021–03] 

RIN 1104–AA08 

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: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Parole 

Commission is revising its regulation to 

reopen and advance a parole date to 

explicitly reference medical and 

compassionate reasons as bases for 

reopening. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

September 16, 2021. Comments due on 

or before October 18, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification 

number USPC–2021–03 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Mail: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Parole Commission, attention: 

USPC Rules Group, 90 K Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20530. 

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: The Parole 

Commission’s regulation at 28 CFR 2.15 

provides that after the prisoner has 

served the minimum term, the Bureau of 

Prisons (‘‘BOP’’) may petition the 

Commission to reopen the case under 28 

CFR 2.28(a) to consider the case for 

parole prior to the date set by the 

Commission at the initial or review 

hearing. The regulation requires that the 

BOP’s request show cause for earlier 

release and provides examples such as 

‘‘an emergency, hardship, or the 

existence of other extraordinary 

circumstances that would warrant 

consideration of early parole.’’ These 

examples encompass a very broad set of 

circumstances that the Commission 

could consider, which would include 

illness and aging. 

The Commission is not limited to 

only considering requests from the BOP, 

the regulation at 28 CFR 2.28(a), which 

is used for reopening a case for 

favorable information, can be used to 

consider a request from other sources, 

such as the prisoner or a family 

member. Revising the heading of the 

regulation will help to highlight its use 

to consider prisoners for compassionate 

release in addition to the ‘‘favorable 

information’’ that the Commission 

usually considers, such as program 

achievement in the institution. Revising 

the text of the regulation to include 

medical and other ‘‘extraordinary and 

compelling’’ information will broaden 

the circumstances that the Commission 

can consider for possible advancement 

of the release date. 

Section 2.28(a) permits advancement 

of a presumptive parole date to an 

earlier presumptive parole date, 

advancement of a presumptive parole 

date to an earlier effective parole date, 

advancement of a continue to expiration 

decision to a presumptive or effective 

parole date, and advancement of a 15- 

year reconsideration hearing to a 

presumptive or effective parole date 

without conducting a hearing. The 

Commissioner reopening the decision 

does have the option of ordering a 

reconsideration hearing to consider this 

new information. 

The Commission is promulgating this 

rule as an interim rule and is providing 

a 30-day period for public comment. 

The revised 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 they 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). 

51612 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Memorandum of Agreement between the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers and the 

United States Coast Guard, dated June 2, 2000 

(available at: https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/ 

getfile/collection/p16021coll11/id/2518). 

2See USCG Sector Virginia Marine Safety 

Information Bulletin #20–113 (available at https:// 

content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/ 

bulletins/289cb80). 

■ 2. Revise § 2.28(a) to read as follows: 

§ 2.28 Reopening of cases. 

(a) Favorable information or 

information supporting medical parole 

or compassionate release. Upon the 

receipt of new information of 

substantial significance favorable to the 

prisoner, including medical 

information, or other extraordinary and 

compelling information, a 

Commissioner may reopen a case 

(including an original jurisdiction case), 

and order a special reconsideration 

hearing on the next available docket, or 

modify the previous decision. The 

advancement of a presumptive release 

date or a decision to continue to a 15- 

year reconsideration hearing requires 

the concurrence of two Commissioners. 

* * * * * 

Patricia K. Cushwa, 

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

[FR Doc. 2021–19917 Filed 9–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2020–0117] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zones; Hampton Roads BridgeTunnel Expansion Project, Hampton/ 

Norfolk, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing safety zones for certain 

waters of the Hampton Flats, 

Willoughby Bay, a defined area between 

Phoebus Channel and the North Trestle 

Bridge, and 3 zones around the North 

Trestle Bridge including the North 

Island, the South Trestle Bridge 

including the South Island, and the 

north and south side of the Willoughby 

Bay Bridge. This action is necessary to 

provide for the safety of life on these 

navigable waters in support of the 

Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel 

Expansion Project that will take place 

from 2021 through 2025. This rule 

prohibits persons and vessels from 

being in the safety zones unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Sector Virginia or a designated 

representative or under conditions 

specified in this rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective without 

actual notice September 16, 2021, 

though December 25, 2025. For the 

purposes of enforcement, actual notice 

will be used from September 10, 2021, 

until September 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2020– 

0117 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email LCDR Ashley Holm, Waterways 

Management Division Chief, Sector 

Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

757–668–5580, email Ashley.E.Holm@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

HRBT Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel 

HRCP Hampton Roads Connector Partners 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NSRA Navigation Safety Risk Assessment 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USACE United States Army Corps of 

Engineers 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

In April 2019, the Virginia 

Department of Transportation (VDOT) 

awarded the design and construction of 

the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel 

(HRBT) Expansion Project to the 

Hampton Roads Connector Partners 

(HRCP), as the Design-Build contactor. 

The HRBT Expansion Project is a major 

road transport infrastructure project that 

will create an 8-lane facility with 6 

consistent use lanes along 9.9 miles of 

Interstate 64 (I–64), from Settler’s 

Landing Interchange in Hampton, 

Virginia, to the Interstate 564 (I–564) 

interchange in Norfolk, Virginia. To 

better understand the waterways impact 

from the project, the USCG and U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

recommended the submission of a 

formal Navigation Safety Risk 

Assessment (NSRA) and Tunnel 

Construction Plan (TCP) prior to any 

permit or approval action by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers.1 The NSRA 

identified three key objectives for 

consideration. The first included 

potential impacts to current and 

forecasted vessel traffic directly related 

to the bridge and tunnel construction 

including all on-water operations and 

staging areas. The second aimed to 

identify the best/least disruptive times 

to schedule movement of constructionrelated vessels. Finally, it identified the 

measures necessary for implementation 

in order to minimize potential hazards 

to navigation. On-water construction 

activities are expected to last 

approximately 5 years (2021–2025). In 

support of construction efforts, multiple 

surface craft will be necessary on-site, 

transiting to and from, as well as prestaged, to ensure continued operations 

are maintained. The increase in 

waterborne traffic in the vicinity of 

construction areas and staging areas will 

introduce hazards to waterways users 

prior to and throughout the duration of 

the construction project. Specific 

hazards during the construction project 

include the proximity of dozens of 

construction-related vessels in the 

bridge area and fleeting areas, including 

material barges and construction 

equipment barges. In addition, 

construction of navigable spans by this 

equipment, as well as construction 

lighting and loud construction activity 

noises will make normal passage 

through the bridge areas unsafe except 

in areas specifically established as safe 

transit corridors by the project 

contractors, HRCP. The Sector Virginia 

Captain of the Port (COTP) has 

determined that these potential hazards 

associated with the HRBT Expansion 

Project will be a safety concern for 

anyone transiting in the vicinity of onwater construction activities related to 

the project. To discuss these safety 

concerns, representatives of the HRCP 

along with the COTP’s staff conducted 

a series of outreach meetings. These 

meetings covered the HRBT Expansion 

Project and the notional safety zones 

that would mitigate the hazards 

discussed above. Due to the COVID–19 

pandemic, those outreach meetings 

were conducted virtually on May 5th, 

6th, and 7th, 2020. They were 

announced beforehand by a marine 

safety information bulletin 2 issued by 

the COTP, which is distributed to over 

1,000 subscribed maritime stakeholders 

by email, along with direct email 

notification to community organizations 

in the coastal areas of the cities of 

Norfolk and Hampton, Virginia, which 

are the two cities in the immediate area 

of the construction activity. Twenty-six