Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 67091 

List of Subjects 

28 CFR Part 503 

Prisoners. 

28 CFR Part 542 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners. 

28 CFR Part 543 

Claims, Lawyers, Legal services, 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

■ Under rulemaking authority vested in 

the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the 

Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 

0.96, we propose to amend 28 CFR 

chapter V as set forth below. 

Subchapter A—General Management and 

Administration 

■ 1. Revise part 503 to read as follows: 

PART 503—BUREAU OF PRISONS 

CENTRAL OFFICE, REGIONAL 

OFFICES, INSTITUTIONS AND STAFF 

TRAINING CENTERS 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4003, 4042, 4081, 4082 

(Repealed in part as to offenses committed on 

or after November 1, 1987), 4161–4166 

(Repealed in part as to offenses committed on 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(Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses 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; 28 U.S.C. 

509, 510. 

§ 503.1 Structure of the Bureau of Prisons. 

The Bureau of Prisons consists of a 

Central Office, located at 320 First 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534, a 

Staff Training Center, and six Regional 

Offices (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, 

Southeast, North Central, South Central, 

and Western). For further information, 

please contact the Central Office at the 

address referenced, or visit 

www.bop.gov for a complete list of 

contact information for Bureau Regional 

Offices and facilities. 

Subchapter C—Institutional Management 

PART 542—ADMINISTRATIVE 

REMEDY 

■ 2. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 542 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed 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November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 (Repealed 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; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510. 

§ 542.15 [Amended] 

■ 3. In § 542.15(b)(3), delete the phrase 

‘‘for addresses of the Central Office and 

Regional Offices’’ in the parenthetical in 

the final sentence and insert ‘‘for 

information on locating Bureau 

addresses’’ in its place. 

Subchapter C—Institutional Management 

PART 543—LEGAL MATTERS 

■ 4. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 543 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 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; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 

1346(b), 2671–80, 28 CFR 0.95–0.99, 0.172, 

14.1–11. 

■ 5. In § 543.31(c), revise the last 

sentence to read as follows: 

§ 543.31 Filing a claim. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 28 CFR part 503 contains 

information on locating Bureau of 

Prisons addresses. 

[FR Doc. 05–21966 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 522 

[BOP–1113–F] 

RIN 1120–AB13 

Civil Contempt of Court Commitments: 

Revision To Accommodate 

Commitments Under the D.C. Code 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) revises its rules on 

Civil Contempt of Court Commitments 

to include references to relevant D.C. 

Code provisions regarding civil 

contempt commitments. We make this 

revision to accommodate D.C. Code 

offenders in Bureau institutions or 

Bureau contract facilities under the 

National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997 

(D.C. Revitalization Act), D.C. Code 

section 24–101(a) and (b). We also 

revise this rule to clarify existing 

provisions by using simpler 

organization and language. For further 

simplification, we remove language 

relating solely to internal agency 

practices and procedures. We do not, 

however, make any substantive changes 

to the current rules. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 5, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Rules Unit, Office of 

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 

First Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20534. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through 

this rule, the Bureau revises its 

regulations in 28 CFR part 522, on Civil 

Contempt of Court Commitments (civil 

contempt commitments). We make this 

rule to comply with the D.C. 

Revitalization Act, enacted August 5, 

1997. This Act makes the Bureau 

responsible for the ‘‘custody, care, 

subsistence, education, treatment and 

training’’ of ‘‘the felony population 

sentenced pursuant to the District of 

Columbia Code’’ (D.C. Code offenders). 

(D.C. Code section 24–101 (a) and (b).) 

As a result of absorbing 

approximately 8,000 D.C. Code 

offenders, we revise our rules on Civil 

Contempt of Court Commitments to 

address D.C. Code offenders. 

We also revise this rule to clarify 

existing provisions by using simpler 

organization and language. To clarify 

section 522.11, which is long and 

unnecessarily complex, we divided it 

into five separate rules with clearer 

headings. For further simplification, we 

remove language relating solely to 

internal agency practices and 

procedures. We do not, however, make 

any substantive changes to the current 

rules. 

Comments: We published this as a 

proposed rule on October 6, 2003 (68 FR 

46138). We received one comment in 

support of this rule. The commenter 

suggested that we ‘‘include references to 

relevant DC Code provisions regarding 

civil contempt commitments.’’ The 

commenter posited that without 

‘‘relevant DC Code provisions,’’ ‘‘DC 

Code section 24–101(a) and (b) cannot 

be properly implemented.’’

The proposed rules published on 

October 6, 2003, describe procedures for 

Federal civil contempt commitments. 

There is no need to cite, in rule text, to 

the particular D.C. Code section 

regarding civil contempt commitments 

(D.C. Code section 11–944) because this 

type of commitment also arises from a 

Federal court. Further, contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, the text of the 

rules effectively implement the D.C. 

Revitalization Act, which gives the 

Bureau authority over D.C. Code 

offenders in Bureau custody in 

accordance with the D.C. Code, without 

citing to the specific D.C. Code section 

that discusses civil contempt 

commitments. 

67092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

We therefore finalize the proposed 

rules published on October 6, 2003, 

with minor changes to the titles/ 

headings of each regulation. 

Executive Order 12866 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

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

Regulation. The Director of the Bureau 

of Prisons has determined that this rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866, section 

3(f), and accordingly this rule has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

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. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications for 

which we would prepare 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. 

By approving it, the Director certifies 

that it will not have a significant 

economic impact upon a substantial 

number of small entities because: This 

rule is about 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 cause State, local 

and tribal governments, or the private 

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

any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. We do not need to take 

action under 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 § 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 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 522 

Prisoners. 

Harley G. Lappin, 

Director, Bureau of Prisons. 

■ Under rulemaking authority vested in 

the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C 301; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510 and delegated to the 

Director, Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 

0.96, we amend 28 CFR part 522 as 

follows. 

Subchapter B—Inmate Admission, 

Classification, and Transfer 

PART 522—ADMISSION TO 

INSTITUTION 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for 28 

CFR part 522 to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3568 

(Repealed November 1, 1987 as to offenses 

committed on or after that date), 3585, 3621, 

3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed 

in part as to conduct occurring on or after 

November 1, 1987), 4161–4166, (repealed 

October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed 

on or after November 1, 1987), 5006–5024 

(Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses 

committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 

509, 510; D.C. Code § 24–101(b). 

■ 2. Revise Subpart B to read as follows: 

Subpart B—Civil Contempt of Court 

Commitments 

Sec. 

522.10 Purpose. 

522.11 Civil contempt commitments. 

522.12 Relationship between existing 

criminal sentences imposed under the 

U.S. or D.C. Code and new civil 

contempt commitment orders. 

522.13 Relationship between existing civil 

contempt commitment orders and new 

criminal sentences imposed under the 

U.S. or D.C. Code. 

522.14 Inmates serving civil contempt 

commitments. 

522.15 No good time credits for inmates 

serving only civil contempt 

commitments. 

Subpart B—Civil Contempt of Court 

Commitments 

§ 522.10 Purpose. 

(a) This subpart describes the 

procedures for federal civil contempt of 

court commitments (civil contempt 

commitments) referred to the Bureau of 

Prisons (Bureau). These cases are not 

commitments to the custody of the 

Attorney General for service of terms of 

imprisonment following criminal 

convictions. 

(b) We cooperate with the federal 

courts to implement civil contempt 

commitments by making our facilities 

and resources available. When we 

receive notification from the federal 

court that the reason for the civil 

contempt commitment has ended or that 

the inmate is to be released for any other 

reason, we will terminate the inmate’s 

civil contempt commitment. 

§ 522.11 Civil contempt commitments. 

Inmates can come into Bureau 

custody for civil contempt commitments 

in two ways: 

(a) The U.S. Marshals Service may 

request a designation from the Bureau 

for a civil contempt commitment if local 

jails are not suitable due to medical, 

security or other reasons; or 

(b) The committing court may specify 

a Bureau institution as the place of 

incarceration in its contempt order. We 

will designate the facility specified in 

the court order unless there is a reason 

for not placing the inmate in that 

facility. 

§ 522.12 Relationship between existing 

criminal sentences imposed under the U.S. 

or D.C. Code and new civil contempt 

commitment orders. 

If a criminal sentence imposed under 

the U.S. Code or D.C. Code exists when 

a civil contempt commitment is 

ordered, we delay or suspend credit 

towards service of the criminal sentence 

for the duration of the civil contempt 

commitment, unless the committing 

judge orders otherwise. 

§ 522.13 Relationship between existing 

civil contempt commitment orders and new 

criminal sentences imposed under the U.S. 

or D.C. Code. 

(a) Except as stated in (b), if a civil 

contempt commitment order is in effect 

when a criminal sentence of 

imprisonment is imposed under the 

U.S. or D.C. Code, the criminal sentence 

runs consecutively to the commitment 

order, unless the sentencing judge 

orders otherwise. 

(b) For federal criminal sentences 

imposed for offenses committed before 

November 1, 1987, under 18 U.S.C. 

Chapter 227: If a civil contempt 

commitment order is in effect when a 

criminal sentence of imprisonment is 

imposed, the criminal sentence runs 

concurrent with the commitment order, 

unless the sentencing judge orders 

otherwise. 

§ 522.14 Inmates serving civil contempt 

commitments. 

We treat inmates serving civil 

contempt commitments in Bureau 

institutions the same as pretrial inmates. 

If an inmate is serving a civil contempt 

commitment and a concurrent criminal 

sentence, we treat the inmate the same 

as a person serving a criminal sentence. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 67093 

§ 522.15 No good time credits for inmates 

serving only civil contempt commitments. 

While serving only the civil contempt 

commitment, an inmate is not entitled 

to good time sentence credit. 

[FR Doc. 05–21968 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AL66 

Patients’ Rights 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

medical regulations to update the 

patients’ rights regulation by bringing its 

provisions regarding medication, 

restraints, and seclusion into conformity 

with current law and practice. The 

changes are primarily intended to 

clarify that it is permissible for VA 

patients to receive medication 

prescribed by any appropriate health 

care professional authorized to prescribe 

medication, and that it is permissible for 

any authorized licensed health care 

professional to order the use of 

restraints and seclusion when 

necessary. The rule also makes 

nonsubstantive changes in the patients’

rights regulation for purposes of 

clarification. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 5, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Audrey Drake, Program Director (108), 

Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 273–9237. (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

document published in the Federal 

Register on August 9, 2004 (69 FR 

48184), we published a proposed rule 

amending VA’s medical regulations at 

38 CFR part 17 to update the patients’

rights regulation by bringing its 

provisions regarding medication, 

restraints, and seclusion into conformity 

with current law and practice. We 

provided a 60-day comment period that 

ended on October 8, 2004. We received 

four comments. Based on the rationale 

set forth in the proposed rule and this 

document, we are adopting the 

proposed rule as a final rule. 

One commenter expressed support for 

expanding the scope of health care 

professionals authorized to prescribe 

medication, and recognizing that 

licensed health care professionals other 

than physicians are authorized to order 

seclusion and restraint. The commenter 

expressed concern, however, that the 

reference to ‘‘appropriate licensed 

health care professional’’ might be 

interpreted as requiring that the 

authority to order restraint and 

seclusion be granted in the State 

licensing law rather than in some other 

State law. The commenter states that 

this is a crucial distinction because the 

authority for psychologists to order 

restraint and seclusion is not necessarily 

found in State licensing laws. The 

commenter asserts that such authority 

may be found in State laws governing 

health care institutions, or identifying 

patients’ rights. The commenter 

recommends clarifying this point in the 

preamble to the regulation. 

With regard to this issue, we note that 

the reference in the regulation to an 

‘‘appropriate licensed health care 

professional’’ was not intended to 

require that the authority of a health 

care professional to order restraint and 

seclusion be specifically contained in 

State licensing law, or any State law, for 

that matter. Licensed health care 

professionals working in VA facilities 

may order the use of restraints and 

seclusion consistent with Federal, not 

State law. VA determines which health 

care providers are deemed ‘‘appropriate 

licensed health care professionals’’ for 

purposes of ordering restraint and 

seclusion through the privileging and 

credentialing process as outlined in VA 

policies and handbooks. No changes are 

made based on this comment. 

One commenter opposed the rule 

because it would eliminate all 

references to physicians and replace 

those references with the words 

‘‘appropriate licensed health care 

professional.’’ The commenter stated 

that there are clear and convincing 

differences between the training and 

education of physicians and other 

health care professionals, and that 

physicians should oversee the care of 

patients. The commenter states that 

although this can be done using a team 

approach, the physician should provide 

the diagnosis and determine the course 

of treatment. The commenter expressed 

concern with the expanding scope of 

practice for non-physician providers 

within the Veterans Health 

Administration and throughout the 

health care delivery system. 

VA’s policy is to provide high quality 

health care to patients. This is 

accomplished through the proper 

utilization of a variety of well-qualified 

and appropriately credentialed health 

care providers. In VA, non-physician 

health care providers commonly 

provide a diagnosis for patients and 

determine the course of treatment 

within their scope of practice. Nationwide, written VA policy establishes 

medication-prescribing authority for 

Clinical Nurse Specialists, Nurse 

Practitioners, Clinical Pharmacy 

Specialists, and Physicians Assistants. 

Written VA policy requires that 

procedures be in place to ensure that 

these practitioners are prescribing 

within their identified scope of practice, 

and licensure when appropriate, and 

that the scope of practice for 

credentialed health care providers is 

approved in accordance with written 

VHA policy. No changes are made based 

on these comments. 

Two commenters expressed support 

for the proposed revision to this 

regulation. No changes are made based 

on these comments. 

One nonsubstantive clarifying change 

has been made to this final rule. 

Longstanding provisions in § 17.33(e) 

require that an attending physician 

review the drug regimen of each patient 

at least every thirty days. In this final 

rule we are changing ‘‘patient’’ to 

‘‘inpatient’’ to more clearly reflect the 

scope of this provision. This change 

does not alter the scope of the rule but 

merely clarifies VA’s intent and 

longstanding interpretation that the 

thirty-day requirement is specific to 

inpatient treatment. As explained in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, we are 

further clarifying that the review must 

be conducted by an appropriate health 

care provider. 

Based on the rationale set forth in the 

proposed rule and this document, VA is 

adopting the provisions of the proposed 

rule as a final rule with the change 

noted above. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

developing any rule that may result in 

an expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

given year. This final rule would have 

no such effect on State, local, or tribal 

governments, or the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521).