Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18379

applied to a sample of over 1,000 federal

prisoners released in 1987.

Approximately 5% of those prisoners

received an improved parole prognosis

category placement as compared with

the current version of the score (SFS–

81). Moreover, the revised version of the

score displayed a high degree of

predictive accuracy. The Mean Cost

Rating increased from .54 to .56, the

highest recorded for a recidivism

prediction device that has been

subjected to validation.

Accordingly, the Commission has

decided that the Salient Factor Score

should be revised, in order to ensure

that the Commission’s decisions are

based upon the most accurate available

risk-prediction device. This decision

accords with the intent of Congress that

the Parole Commission should ‘‘* * *

continue to refine both the criteria

which are used (to judge the probability

that an offender will commit a new

offense) and the means for obtaining the

information used therein.’’ 2 U.S. Code

Cong. and Admin. News at 359 (1976).

Implementation

The revised Salient Factor Score

(SFS–95) would be applied at every

initial parole hearing and revocation

hearing held on or after the effective

date of the final regulation, and

retroactively to federal prisoners who

have already been heard for parole or

reparole, at the next scheduled statutory

interim hearing under 28 CFR 2.14 and

any hearing under § 2.28 or § 2.34.

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 C.F.R. Part 2

Administrative practice and

procedure, probation and parole,

prisoners.

Accordingly, the U.S. Parole

Commission proposes the following

amendment to 28 CFR part 2.

The Proposed Amendment

(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 § 2.20 is proposed

to be amended by adding an instruction

to the Salient Factor Scoring Manual

under a new Item G as follows:

ITEM G. If CURRENT OFFENSE WAS

COMMITTED AT AGE 41 OR

OLDER, ADD 1 POINT IF THE

TOTAL SCORE DETERMINED

ABOVE IS 9 OR LESS.

This instruction would add a seventh

item to the current six-item score,

without changing its current structure as

a prediction device with possible scores

ranging from 0 to 10 points. (A point

would not be added if the total score is

already 10, placing the offender at the

top of the ‘‘very good’’ parole prognosis

category.) As in any case, the

Commission will exercise authority to

override the prediction made by the

revised score if case-specific factors

indicate undiminished risk despite

advancing age, eg, the career criminal

offender who has played a leadership

role in organized crime.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–8912 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P

28 CFR Part 2

Paroling, Recommitting, and

Supervising Federal Prisoners: Fraud

Offenses That Involve Multiple Millions

of Dollars In Losses

AGENCY: Parole Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Parole Commission

is proposing to establish a dollar

amount range of $1 million to $5

million for Category Six fraud offenses

in the paroling policy guidelines at 28

CFR 2.20. Frauds that cause losses of

over $5 million would be rated Category

Seven. At the present time, the Category

Six offense severity rating is reserved for

all frauds exceeding $1 million. The

proposed guideline revision is necessary

because of the increased frequency of

frauds involving losses in multiples of

the $1 million threshold for Category

Six, and the need for an appropriate

benchmark to determine the point at

which dollar amount losses are so

excessive as to warrant a decision above

the Category Six guidelines. The figure

of $5 million will provide that

benchmark.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Office of

General Counsel, U.S. Parole

Commission, 5550 Friendship Blvd.,

Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815. For

further information contact: Pamela A.

Posch, Office of General Counsel.

Telephone (301) 492–5959.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As a result

of the widespread criminal

investigations into unlawful practices in

the banking and savings and loan

industries during the 1980’s, the U.S.

Parole Commission has seen a

significant increase in prisoners serving

sentences for frauds greatly exceeding

the $1 million threshold established by

the Commission in 1987 for Category

Six offenses. (The guidelines at 28 CFR

2.20 do not currently provide a fraud

guideline higher than Category Six.) The

Commission has typically responded to

such cases by determining that, if the

dollar loss caused by the fraud exceeded

the $1 million threshold by significant

multiples (e.g., a $15 million fraud), a

decision above the Category Six

guidelines is warranted.

However, the guidelines have not

provided a way for the Commission

consistently to determine at what point

a large-scale fraud is significant enough

to warrant such a decision. Some frauds

involving multiples of the $1 million

threshold are deemed to be within the

guidelines, and some are not. The

situation has been complicated by the

fact that plea agreements in large-scale

fraud offenses often produce a sentence

of five years (the maximum for one

count of mail fraud), which requires

release (with good time credits) at 39

months. Such sentences preclude the

Commission from determining where a

parole decision should be made in

relation to the guideline range of 40–52

months that is applicable to the typical

first offender who has committed a

fraud offense involving more than $1

million in losses. This makes it difficult

for the Commission to achieve a

consistent practice that can inform its

decision-making when the sentence is

longer than five years.

Accordingly, the Commission has

decided to establish a dollar range of $1

million to $5 million for Category Six

offenses, that will be followed whenever

the sentence is long enough to permit

such a decision. For fraud offenses

exceeding $5 million, the offense will be

rated Category Seven. Under this rating

system, for example, a prisoner serving

an 8-year sentence for a fraudulent

investment scheme that caused losses of

$2.4 million may expect the

Commission to establish a release date

toward the middle of the 40–52 month

guideline range for Category Six

offenses, if he is a first offender and

there are no other aggravating or

mitigating circumstances.
18380 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Finally, it is important to emphasize

that relevant factors not reflected by the

dollar amount alone, such as unusually

vulnerable victims, are always taken

into account in reaching a final parole

decision.

Implementation

The proposed rule would be applied

at any initial parole hearing, or

revocation hearing, conducted on or

after the effective date of the final rule

adopted by the Commission, if the rule

is applicable to the prisoner’s case. The

proposed rule would also be applied

retroactively to prisoners who were

given parole or reparole decisions prior

to that effective date, at the next

statutory interim hearing conducted

pursuant 28 CFR 2.14. For example, at

such a statutory interim hearing, a

prisoner who was continued above the

Category Six guidelines for a $5 million

fraud offense, could argue for a release

date within the guidelines if he can

show that no other factor continues to

justify a departure from the guideline

range.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Statement

The U.S. Parole Commission has

determined that this proposed rule is

not a significant regulatory action for

the purposes 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, probation and parole,

prisoners.

Accordingly, the U.S. Parole

Commission proposes the following

amendment to 28 CFR part 2:

The Proposed Amendment

(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, § 2.20 Chapter 3,

Subchapter D, Paragraph 331, is

proposed to be amended to require a

Category Seven rating if the value of the

property is more than $5,000,000, and to

require a Category Six offense severity

rating if the value of the property is

more than $1,000,000 but not more than

$5,000,000. All other dollar ranges and

offense severity categories will remain

as presently listed.

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Edward F. Reilly, Jr.,

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–8913 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 935

[OH–235; Amendment Number 70]

Ohio Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing the

receipt of a proposed amendment to the

Ohio regulatory program (hereinafter

referred to as the Ohio program) under

the Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

amendment was initiated by Ohio and

is intended to make the Ohio program

as effective as the corresponding Federal

regulations concerning the frequency of

inspections at abandoned coal mining

operations.

This document sets forth the times

and locations that the Ohio program and

proposed amendment to that program

will be available for public inspection,

the comment period during which

interested persons may submit written

comments on the proposed amendment,

and the procedures that will be followed

regarding the public hearing, if one is

requested.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., E.D.T. on May 11,

1995. If requested, a public hearing on

the proposed amendment will be held at

1:00 p.m., E.D.T. on May 8, 1995.

Requests to speak at the hearing must be

received by 4:00 p.m. E.D.T., on April

26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests to testify at the hearing should

be mailed or hand-delivered to Mr.

Robert H. Mooney, Acting Director,

Columbus Field Office, at the address

listed below.

Copies of the Ohio program, the

proposed amendment, and all written

comments received in response to this

document will be available for public

review at the addresses listed below

during normal business hours, Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays.

Each requester may receive one free

copy of the proposed amendment by

contacting OSM’s Columbus Field

Office.

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement, Columbus Field

Office, 4480 Refugee Road, Suite 201,

Columbus, Ohio 43232, Telephone:

(614) 866–0578.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Reclamation, 1855

Fountain Square Court, Building H–3,

Columbus, Ohio 43224, Telephone:

(614) 265–6675.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert H. Mooney, Acting Director,

Columbus Field Office, (614) 866–0578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the Ohio Program

On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of

the Interior conditionally approved the

Ohio program. Information on the

general background of the Ohio program

submission, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and a detailed explanation of the

conditions of approval of the Ohio

program, can be found in the August 10,

1982 Federal Register (47 FR 34688).

Subsequent actions concerning the

conditions of approval and program

amendments are identified at 30 CFR

935.11, 935.12, 935.15, and 935.16.

II. Description of the Proposed

Amendment

The Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Reclamation

(Ohio) submitted proposed Program

Amendment Number 70 by letter dated

March 28, 1995 (Administrative Record

No. OH–2104). In this amendment, Ohio

proposes to revise one rule at Ohio

Administrative Code (OAC) section

1501:13–14–01 to make the Ohio

program as effective as the

corresponding Federal regulations

concerning the frequency of inspections

at abandoned coal mining operations.

The substantive rule revisions proposed

by Ohio in this amendment are briefly

described below:

1. Definition of ‘‘Abandoned Coal

Mining and Reclamation Operation’’:

Ohio is revising paragraph (A)(3) to

define the term ‘‘abandoned coal mining

and reclamation operation.’’ Ohio is

revising paragraph (A)(4) to exclude

abandoned operations from the

definition of ‘‘active coal mining and

reclamation operation.’’

2. Alternative Inspection Frequency at

Abandoned Operations: Ohio is adding

a new paragraph (E) to authorize less

frequent inspections of abandoned

operations. Ohio is proposing to select

a specific inspection frequency for each

abandoned operation which shall be