34770 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

aircraft operating in visual weather

conditions. The area would be depicted

on appropriate aeronautical charts

thereby enabling pilots to

circumnavigate the area or otherwise

comply with IFR procedures. Class E

airspace designations for airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth are

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current.

Therefore this, proposed regulation—(1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this proposed rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the Federal

Aviation Administration proposes to

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 The Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Miller, SD [New]

Miller Municipal Airport, SD

(Lat. 44°31′31′′N, long. 98°57′29′′)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile

radius of the Miller Municipal Airport and

that airspace extending upward from 1,200

feet above the surface bounded on the west

and northwest by V–263, on the south by V–

120, and on the east by V–15 excluding the

Aberdeen, SD; the Pierre, SD; the Mitchell,

SD; and the Huron, SD, 1,200 foot Class E

airspace areas and all federal airways.

* * * * *

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on June 17,

1996.

Maureen Woods,

Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 96–17041 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

28 CFR Part 31

[OJP No. 1091]

RIN 1121–AA39

OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

ACTION: Proposed rule and request for

public comment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is

publishing for public comment

proposed amendments to its Formula

Grants Regulation, 28 CFR Part 31. The

Formula Grants Regulation implements

Part B of Title II of the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act

of 1974, as amended by the Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Amendments of 1992. The proposed

amendments to the existing Regulation

provide further clarification and

guidance to States in the formulation,

submission and implementation of State

Formula Grant plans and

determinations of State compliance with

plan requirements. They are intended to

provide additional flexibility and

greater clarity to participating States

with respect to key provisions related to

the core requirements of the JJDP Act.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments which must

be received on or before August 19,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments to

Mr. Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 633 Indiana Avenue NW.,

Room 742, Washington, DC 20531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Roberta Dorn, Director, State Relations

and Assistance Division, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 633 Indiana Avenue NW.,

Room 543, Washington, DC 20531; (202)

307–5924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is proposing revisions to the

existing Regulation, codified at 28 CFR

Part 31, and inviting public comment on

the proposed changes. The proposed

changes in the regulatory text

accomplish the following:

(1) Revise § 31.303(d)(1)(i) to clarify the

level of contact that is prohibited between

juveniles in a secure custody status within an

institution and incarcerated adults;

(2) Revise § 31.303(d)(1)(i) by providing an

exception to the core requirement of

separation with respect to brief, and

inadvertent contact between juveniles in a

secure custody status within an institution

and incarcerated adults in nonresidential

areas;

(3) Revise § 31.303(d)(1)(v) to permit the

placement of an adjudicated delinquent in an

institution with adults once the adjudicated

delinquent reaches the State’s age of full

criminal responsibility, when authorized by

State law;

(4) Revise § 31.303(e)(2) to permit the

placement of an accused or adjudicated

delinquent juvenile in an adult jail or lockup

for up to six hours immediately before or

after a court appearance for processing and

transportation purposes;

(5) Revise § 31.303(e)(3) by eliminating the

requirement for OJJDP concurrence in State

approved collocated juvenile facilities, the

requirement that a needs-based analysis

precede a jurisdiction’s request for State

approval, and to permit time-phased use of

nonresidential areas of collocated facilities;

(6) Revise § 31.303(f)(2) to expressly

provide that accused status offenders can be

placed in a secure juvenile detention facility

for up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, prior to an initial

court appearance and up to twenty-four

hours, exclusive of weekends and holidays,

following an initial court appearance;

(7) Revise § 31.303(f)(3)(vi) to eliminate the

regulatory recommendation that a multi

disciplinary team may be used to satisfy the

‘‘public agency’’ requirement, under the valid

court order exception even if some members

represent court or law enforcement agencies;

(8) Revise § 31.303(f)(4)(vi) to eliminate the

requirement that States document and

describe in their annual monitoring report to

OJJDP the specific circumstances

surrounding each use of distance/ground

transportation and weather exceptions to the

jail and lockup removal requirement;

(9) Revise § 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) to define and

clarify the scope of the exception to the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders

requirement for offenses under ‘‘§ 922(x) of

Title 18 or other similar State law’’ (relating

to possession of handguns by juveniles);
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34771

(10) Revise § 31.303(f)(6)(i) to eliminate

portions of the section related to funding

eligibility for fiscal year 1993 and prior years

that are no longer applicable;

(11) Revise § 31.303(f)(6)(ii) to permit

States that do not have a law, regulation, or

court rule prohibiting the incarceration of all

juvenile offenders in circumstances that

would be in violation of the separation

requirement to be eligible for a finding of

compliance if reported violations do not

constitute a pattern or practice and

mechanisms are in place to prevent such

violations from recurring in the future; and

(12) Revise § 31.303(j) to clarify the

purpose of the Disproportionate Minority

Confinement core requirement.

Contact With Incarcerated Adults

OJJDP recognizes that there has been

a lack of clarity surrounding the issue of

contact between juveniles and

incarcerated adults in secure facilities.

OJJDP finds that the term ‘‘sight and

sound contact’’ needs to be clarified. In

the 1992 amendments to the JJDP Act,

Congress amended the existing

‘‘regular’’ contact standard that defined

the level of permissible contact between

juveniles and incarcerated adults by

deleting the word ‘‘regular’’. OJJDP

interpreted Congress’ intent to be that

‘‘haphazard and accidental contact’’

between juveniles and incarcerated

adults should be prohibited because this

was the level of contact permitted under

the regulation implementing the no

‘‘regular contact’’ prohibition in effect

prior to the 1992 amendments. After

further review, OJJDP believes that the

no contact prohibition should be

interpreted to preclude the systematic,

procedural, and condoned contact

between juveniles and incarcerated

adults in secure areas of facilities.

Consequently, OJJDP would not

consider brief and inadvertent or

accidental contact between juveniles

and incarcerated adults in

nonresidential areas of a secure facility

to be a violation of the separation

requirement. Specifically, OJJDP

proposes to amend the regulation to

provide that brief and inadvertent

contact between juveniles and

incarcerated adults in secure

nonresidential areas of a facility such as

dining, recreational, educational,

vocational, health care, sallyports and

passageways (hallways) should not be

considered a violation of the JJDP Act

separation requirement. However, in

any secure residential area of a facility,

any contact between juvenile offenders

and adult inmates is prohibited.

Further, the regulation would provide

definitions for sight and sound contact

to assist in understanding what is

permitted under § 223(a)(13). Sight

contact is defined as clear visual contact

between incarcerated adults and

juveniles in close proximity of each

other. For example, a detained juvenile

who sees an adult inmate who is several

hundred feet away is not in close

proximity to the incarcerated adult. In

this scenario, the juvenile is not

exposed to any conceivable harm as a

consequence of seeing an adult inmate

several hundred feet away. A rule of

reason should be exercised by

jurisdictions in assessing whether a

juvenile who is exposed visually to an

incarcerated adult is in close proximity

to that adult.

With respect to sound contact, the

regulation would state that ‘‘direct’’ oral

communication between incarcerated

adults and juveniles is prohibited. This

addition is intended to alleviate

concerns over misinterpretation of this

provision. The purpose of the provision

is to prevent incarcerated adults from

having direct oral communication with

juveniles, thereby reducing the

likelihood of intimidation and

harassment. A rule of reason should also

be exercised with sound contact. Direct

oral communication such as

conversations and yelling in close

proximity is clearly prohibited.

However, an incarcerated adult yelling

at a juvenile who is several hundred feet

away may not be engaged in direct oral

communication with the juvenile.

Placement of Juveniles in Adult

Facilities

Under the current regulation, States

are prohibited from administratively

reclassifying and transferring

adjudicated delinquents to adult

(criminal) correctional institutions.

OJJDP recognizes that State laws are

increasingly providing for the

mandatory or permissible transfer of

adjudicated delinquents to adult

facilities once the delinquent has

attained the age of full criminal

responsibility under State law.

Consequently, OJJDP proposes to amend

the regulation to provide that it is not

a violation of the separation

requirement to transfer an adjudicated

delinquent to an adult correctional

institution once the adjudicated

delinquent has reached the age of full

criminal responsibility established by

State law. The proposed regulation

would permit the placement of an

adjudicated delinquent who reaches the

age of full criminal responsibility in an

adult correctional facility only when

such transfers are required or authorized

by State law.

OJJDP also proposes to amend the

regulation to permit the placement of an

alleged or adjudicated delinquent in an

adult jail or lockup for up to six hours

immediately before or after a court

appearance. Several States have advised

OJJDP that the detention of a juvenile

prior to a court appearance and the

immediate transport of a juvenile after

a court appearance creates a difficulty if

there is more than one juvenile before

the court on a given day or where

separate facilities are not available. The

secure detention of an alleged or

adjudicated delinquent in a jail or

lockup for up to six hours immediately

before or after a court appearance would

be permissible when circumstances

warrant such a detention, and provided

that such juveniles are separated from

adult offenders.

Collocated Facilities

OJJDP currently requires that a needsbased analysis precede a jurisdiction’s

request for State approval and OJJDP’s

concurrence in order for a juvenile

detention facility that is collocated with

an adult jail or lockup to qualify as a

separate juvenile detention facility.

OJJDP finds that this requirement is best

left to the State to determine whether a

needs-based analysis should be

required. In addition, OJJDP’s

concurrence with a State agency’s

decision to approve a collocated facility

would no longer be required. The

elimination of the needs-based analysis

and OJJDP’s concurrence does not

negate the separation criteria set forth in

§ 31.303(e)(3)(D). The regularly

scheduled review of State monitoring

systems would insure that the facility

continues to meet the separate juvenile

detention facility criteria. Consequently,

OJJDP proposes to modify § 31.303(e)(3)

to reflect the elimination of the needsbased analysis and OJJDP’s concurrence.

Under the current regulation,

collocated facilities are prohibited from

sharing common use nonresidential

areas. Based on State and local input,

OJJDP finds that common use

nonresidential areas should be

permissible in collocated facilities. This

would require the utilization of timephasing in order to allow both juveniles

and adults access to available

educational, vocational, and

recreational areas of collocated

facilities. The allowance of time-phased

use would apply only to nonresidential

areas in collocated facilities.

Deinstitutionalization of Status

Offenders

OJJDP has found that confusion exists

over the secure detention of accused

status offenders and non-offenders. For

purposes of clarification, OJJDP is

adding a paragraph at the end of

§ 31.303(f)(2) to state clearly that it is

permissible to hold an accused status
34772 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

offender or a nonoffender in a secure

juvenile detention facility for up to

twenty-four hours, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, prior to an

initial appearance and up to twenty-four

hours, exclusive of weekends and

holidays, after an initial court

appearance.

Valid Court Order

Under the current statute and

regulation, an independent public

agency (other than a court or law

enforcement agency) is required to

prepare and submit a written report to

a court that is considering an order that

directs or authorizes the placement of a

status offender in a secure facility for

the violation of a valid court order. A

multi disciplinary review team that

operates independently of a court is

described in the regulation as one

option for meeting the requirement,

even where some members of the team

may be law enforcement or court agency

staff. Pretrial Service agencies are

another option for jurisdictions to

consider to meet the criteria of ‘‘other

than a court or law enforcement

agency.’’ These offices operate in

various jurisdictions to assess and

evaluate individuals who are before the

court for a determination on pretrial

release or custody. The intent of this

multi disciplinary provision was to

provide States with an example of a

public agency that would meet the

criteria where some members of a team

were employed by the courts and/or law

enforcement. Because the wording of

this provision had led some States to the

conclusion that multi disciplinary teams

are required, the provision would be

deleted from the regulation.

Removal Exception

States are required to document and

describe, in their annual monitoring

report to OJJDP, the specific

circumstances surrounding each

individual use of the distance/ground

transportation and weather exceptions

to the jail and lockup removal

requirement. OJJDP finds this

requirement to be overly burdensome on

the States and therefore proposes that it

be deleted from the regulation.

Reporting Requirement

The JJDP Act provides that juveniles

may be securely detained or confined

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(x) or a similar

State law. Section 922(x) was added to

the Federal Criminal Code by the Youth

Handgun Safety Act that was passed as

a part of the Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L.

No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994),

codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 13701

et seq. Specifically, § 922(x) makes it a

Federal delinquent offense for a juvenile

to possess a handgun. The possession of

a handgun by a juvenile is, however, a

status offense in those States where

possession of a handgun by an adult is

permitted. Consequently, the Youth

Handgun Safety Act specifically

amended the JJDP Act to exclude from

the deinstitutionalization of status

offenders requirement a juvenile who

has violated § 922(x) or a similar State

law. For the purpose of clarification,

where § 922(x) initially appears in the

regulation, it is described as a federal

law prohibiting the possession of a

handgun by a juvenile and specifically

excluding such a violation, or the

violation of a similar State law, from the

coverage of the deinstitutionalization of

status offenders requirement.

Compliance

OJJDP would delete the first two

sentences of § 31.303(f)(6)(i) because it

pertains to States substantially

complying with the

deinstitutionalization of status offenders

core requirement in fiscal year 1993 and

prior years. The substantial compliance

criteria allowed States to be eligible for

formula grant funding during these

years if the State had achieve a seventy

five percent reduction in the aggregate

number of status offenders and

nonoffenders held in secure detention

or correctional facilities and had made

an unequivocal commitment to

achieving full compliance. Because this

standard does not apply to fiscal years

beyond 1994, OJJDP would remove it

from the regulation. However, the

portion of the section that defines full

compliance would remain.

Under the current regulation,

compliance with the separation

requirement is considered to be

achieved when a State can demonstrate

that in the last monitoring report,

covering a full 12 months of data, no

juveniles were incarcerated in

circumstances in violation of the

separation requirement. Also,

compliance can be achieved where a

State has a law, regulation, court rule,

or other established executive or

judicial policy clearly prohibiting the

incarceration of juvenile offenders in

circumstances that would be in

violation of the separation requirement,

and violations reported do not

constitute a pattern or practice in the

State. However, a State that has no law

or policy that mirrors the JJDP Act

separation requirement could not be in

compliance if any juvenile was held in

violation of the separation requirement.

OJJDP proposes to modify this policy in

order not to unfairly penalize States that

have not enacted laws, rules, regulations

or policies prohibiting the incarceration

of all juvenile offenders under

circumstances that would be in

violation of the separation requirement.

OJJDP proposes a single standard

applicable to all States regardless of

whether a law, regulation, rule or policy

exists that prohibits the detention of

juveniles with incarcerated adults.

Specifically, compliance can be

established under circumstances in

which the instances do not indicate a

pattern or practice and mechanisms or

plans to address exist within the State

to ensure that such instances are

unlikely to recur in the future.

Minority Detention and Confinement

Several States have expressed concern

over the Disproportionate Minority

Confinement (§ 223(a)(23)) core

requirement of the JJDP Act.

Specifically, this core requirement has

been criticized as requiring the

establishment of numerical standards or

quotas in order for a State to achieve or

maintain compliance. This is not the

purpose of the statute or its

implementing regulation. In order to

respond to this concern, two sentences

have been added to § 31.303(j) of the

regulation to state specifically that the

purpose of the statute and regulation is

to encourage States to address,

programmatically, any features of its

justice system that may account for the

disproportionate detention or

confinement of minority juveniles. The

section states clearly that the

Disproportionate Minority Confinement

core requirement neither requires nor

establishes numerical standards or

quotas in order for a State to achieve or

maintain compliance.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ for

purposes of Executive Order 12866

because it does not result in: (1) An

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or state, local or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with action taken or planned

by another agency; (3) materially alter

the budgetary impact of entitlement,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; and (4) does not raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities or

the principles of Executive Order No.

12866. The Office of Management and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34773

Budget has waived its review process

for this rule under Executive Order

12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule, if promulgated,

will not have a ‘‘significant’’ economic

impact on a substantial number of small

‘‘entities’’ as defined by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This action is intended

to relieve existing requirements in the

Formula Grants program and to clarify

other provisions so as to promote

compliance with its provisions by States

participating in the program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

No collections of information

requirements are contained in or

affected by this regulation pursuant to

the Paperwork Reduction Act, codified

at 44 U.S.C. 3504(H).

Intergovernmental Review of Federal

Programs

In accordance with Executive Order

12372 and the Department of Justice’s

implementing regulation 28 CFR Part

30, States must submit Formula Grant

Program applications to the State

‘‘Single Point of Contact,’’ if one exists.

The State may take up to 60 days from

the application date to comment on the

application.

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 31

Grant programs—law, Juvenile

delinquency, Grant programs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, it is proposed to amend the

OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation, 28

CFR Part 31, as follows:

PART 31—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 31

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.

2. Section 31.303 is amended by

revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (v) to

read as follows:

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(d)(1) * * *

(i) Separation. Describe its plan and

procedure, covering the three-year

planning cycle, for assuring that the

requirements of this section are met.

The term ‘‘contact’’ includes any

physical or sustained sight or sound

contact between juveniles in a secure

custody status and incarcerated adults,

including inmate trustees. A juvenile in

a secure custody status is one who is

physically detained or confined in a

locked room or other area set aside or

used for the specific purpose of securely

detaining persons who are in law

enforcement custody. Secure detention

or confinement may result either from

being placed in such a room or area

and/or from being physically secured to

a cuffing rail or other stationary object.

Sight contact is defined as clear visual

contact between incarcerated adults and

juveniles within close proximity to each

other. Sound contact is defined as direct

oral communication between

incarcerated adults and juveniles.

Separation must be accomplished in all

secure areas of the facility which

include, but are not limited to,

admissions, sleeping, toilet and shower,

and other areas, as appropriate. Brief

and inadvertent or accidental contact

between juveniles in a secure custody

status and incarcerated adults, in secure

nonresidential areas of a facility such as

dining, recreational, educational,

vocational, health care, sally ports or

other entry areas, and passageways

(hallways) would not require a State to

document or report such contact as a

violation. However, any contact in a

residential area of a secure facility

between juveniles and incarcerated

adults would be a reportable violation.

* * * * *

(v) Assure that adjudicated

delinquents are not reclassified

administratively and transferred to an

adult (criminal) correctional authority to

avoid the intent of separating juveniles

from adult criminals in jails or

correctional facilities. A State is not

prohibited from placing or transferring

an alleged or adjudicated delinquent

who reaches the State’s age of full

criminal responsibility to an adult

facility when required or authorized by

State law. However, the administrative

transfer, without statutory direction or

authorization, of a juvenile offender to

an adult correctional authority, or a

transfer within a mixed juvenile and

adult facility for placement with adult

criminals, either before or after a

juvenile reaches the age of full criminal

responsibility, is prohibited. A State is

also precluded from transferring adult

offenders to a juvenile correctional

authority for placement in a juvenile

facility. This neither prohibits nor

restricts the waiver or transfer of a

juvenile to criminal court for

prosecution, in accordance with State

law, for a criminal felony violation, nor

the detention or confinement of a

waived or transferred criminal felony

violator in an adult facility.

* * * * *

3. Section 31.303(e) is amended by

revising paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3)

introductory text and (e)(3)(i) to read as

follows:

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) Describe the barriers that a State

faces in removing all juveniles from

adult jails and lockups. This

requirement excepts only those alleged

or adjudicated juvenile delinquents

placed in a jail or a lockup for up to six

hours from the time they enter a secure

custody status or immediately before or

after a court appearance, those juveniles

formally waived or transferred to

criminal court and against whom

criminal felony charges have been filed,

or juveniles over whom a criminal court

has original or concurrent jurisdiction

and such court’s jurisdiction has been

invoked through the filing of criminal

felony charges.

(3) Collocated facilities. (i) Determine

whether or not a facility in which

juveniles are detained or confined is an

adult jail or lockup. The JJDP Act

prohibits the secure custody of juveniles

in adult jails and lockups, except as

otherwise provided under the Act and

implementing OJJDP regulations.

Juvenile facilities collocated with adult

facilities are considered adult jails or

lockups unless paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1)

through (4) criteria established in this

section are complied with.

(A) A collocated facility is a juvenile

facility located in the same building as

an adult jail or lockup, or is part of a

related complex of buildings located on

the same grounds as an adult jail or

lockup. A complex of buildings is

considered ‘‘related’’ when it shares

physical features such as walls and

fences, or services beyond mechanical

services (heating, air conditioning,

water and sewer), or the specialized

services that are allowable under

paragraph (e)(3)(i)(C)(3) of this section.

(B) The State must determine whether

a collocated facility qualifies as a

separate juvenile detention facility

under the four criteria set forth in

paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(C)(1) through (4) of

this section for the purpose of

monitoring compliance with

§ 223(a)(12)(A), (13) and (14) of the JJDP

Act.

(C) Each of the following four criteria

must be met in order to ensure the

requisite separateness of a juvenile

detention facility that is collocated with

an adult jail or lockup:

(1) Separation between juveniles and

adults such that there could be no sight

or sound contact between juveniles and

incarcerated adults in the facility.

Separation can be achieved

architecturally or through time-phasing

of common use nonresidential areas;

and
34774 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules

(2) Separate juvenile and adult

programs, including recreation,

education, vocation, counseling, dining,

sleeping, and general living activities.

There must be an independent and

comprehensive operational plan for the

juvenile detention facility which

provides for a full range of separate

program services. No program activities

may be shared by juveniles and

incarcerated adults. Time-phasing of

common use nonresidential areas is

permissible to conduct program

activities. Equipment and other

resources may be used by both

populations subject to security

concerns; and

(3) Separate staff for the juvenile and

adult populations, including

management, security, and direct care

staff. Staff providing specialized

services (medical care, food service,

laundry, maintenance and engineering,

etc.) who are not normally in contact

with detainees, or whose infrequent

contacts occur under conditions of

separation of juveniles and adults, can

serve both populations (subject to State

standards or licensing requirements).

The day to day management, security

and direct care functions of the juvenile

detention center must be vested in a

totally separate staff, dedicated solely to

the juvenile population within the

collocated facilities; and

(4) In States that have established

standards or licensing requirements for

juvenile detention facilities, the juvenile

facility must meet the standards (on the

same basis as a free-standing juvenile

detention center) and be licensed as

appropriate. If there are no State

standards or licensing requirements,

OJJDP encourages States to establish

administrative requirements that

authorize the State to review the

facility’s physical plant, staffing

patterns, and programs in order to

approve the collocated facility based on

prevailing national juvenile detention

standards.

* * * * *

4. Section 31.303 is amended by

revising paragraphs (f)(2), (3)(vi), and

(4)(vi) to read as follows:

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(2) For the purpose of monitoring for

compliance with section 223(a)(12)(A)

of the Act, a secure detention or

correctional facility is any secure public

or private facility used for the lawful

custody of accused or adjudicated

juvenile offenders or non-offenders, or

used for the lawful custody of accused

or convicted adult criminal offenders.

Accused status offenders or non

offenders in lawful custody can be held

in a secure juvenile detention facility for

up to twenty-four hours, exclusive of

weekends and holidays, prior to an

initial court appearance and for an

additional twenty-four hours, exclusive

of weekends and holidays, following a

court appearance.

(3) * * *

(vi) In entering any order that directs

or authorizes the placement of a status

offender in a secure facility, the judge

presiding over an initial probable cause

hearing or violation hearing must

determine that all the elements of a

valid court order (paragraphs (f)(3)(i),

(ii) and (iii) of this section) and the

applicable due process rights (paragraph

(f)(3)(v) of this section) were afforded

the juvenile and, in the case of a

violation hearing, the judge must obtain

and review a written report that:

reviews the behavior of the juvenile and

the circumstances under which the

juvenile was brought before the court

and made subject to such order;

determines the reasons for the juvenile’s

behavior; and determines whether all

dispositions other than secure

confinement have been exhausted or are

clearly inappropriate. This report must

be prepared and submitted by an

appropriate public agency (other than a

court or law enforcement agency).

* * * * *

(4) * * *

(vi) Pursuant to section 223(a)(14) of

the JJDP Act, the non-MSA (low

population density) exception to the jail

and lockup removal requirement as

described in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) through

(v) of this section will remain in effect

through 1997, and will allow for secure

custody beyond the twenty-four-hour

period described in paragraph (f)(4)(i) of

this section when the facility is located

where conditions of distance to be

traveled or the lack of highway, road, or

other ground transportation do not

allow for court appearances within

twenty-four hours, so that a brief (not to

exceed an additional forty-eight hours)

delay is excusable; or the facility is

located where conditions of safety exist

(such as severely adverse, lifethreatening weather conditions that do

not allow for reasonably safe travel), in

which case the time for an appearance

may be delayed until twenty-four hours

after the time that such conditions allow

for reasonably safe travel. States may

use these additional statutory

allowances only where the precedent

requirements set forth in paragraphs

(f)(4)(i) through (v) of this section have

been complied with. This may

necessitate statutory or judicial (court

rule or opinion) relief within the State

from the twenty-four hours initial court

appearance standard required by

paragraph (f)(4)(i) of this section.

* * * * *

5. Section 31.303(f)(5)(i)(C) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(5) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) The total number of accused status

offenders and nonoffenders, including

out-of-State runaways and Federal

wards, held in any secure detention or

correctional facility for longer than

twenty-four hours (not including

weekends or holidays), excluding those

held pursuant to the valid court order

provision as set forth in paragraph (f)(3)

of this section or pursuant to section

922(x) of Title 18, United States Code

(which prohibits the possession of a

handgun by a juvenile), or a similar

State law. A juvenile who violates this

statute, or a similar state law, is

excepted from the deinstitutionalization

of status offenders requirement;

* * * * *

6. Section 31.303 is amended by

revising paragraphs (f)(6)(i) and (ii) to

read as follows:

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(6) * * *

(i) Full compliance with section

223(a)(12)(A) is achieved when a State

has removed 100 percent of status

offenders and nonoffenders from secure

detention and correctional facilities or

can demonstrate full compliance with

de minimis exceptions pursuant to the

policy criteria contained in the Federal

Register of January 9, 1981 (46 FR 2566–

2569).

(ii) Compliance with section

223(a)(13) has been achieved when a

State can demonstrate that:

(A) The last submitted monitoring

report, covering a full 12 months of

data, demonstrates that no juveniles

were incarcerated in circumstances that

were in violation of section 223(a)(13);

or

(B)(1) The instances reported under

paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section do

not indicate a pattern or practice but

rather constitute isolated instances; and

(2) Existing mechanisms or plans to

address these incidences are such that

they are unlikely to recur in the future.

* * * * *

7. Section 31.303 is amended by

inserting the following sentences after

the 2nd sentence of paragraph (j)

introductory text:
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 3, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34775

§ 31.303 Substantive requirements.

* * * * *

(j) * * * The purpose of the statute

and regulation is to encourage States to

address, programmatically, any features

of its justice system, and related laws

and policies, which may account for the

disproportionate detention or

confinement of minority juveniles in

secure detention facilities, secure

correctional facilities, jails and lockups.

The Disproportionate Minority

Confinement core requirement neither

establishes nor requires numerical

standards or quotas in order for a State

to achieve or maintain compliance.

* * *

* * * * *

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Shay Bilchik,

Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

[FR Doc. 96–16842 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 154 and 155

[CGD 94–032 and 94–048]

RIN 2115–AE87 and 2115–AE88

Tank Vessel and Facility Response

Plans, and Response Equipment for

Hazardous Substances

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is holding

two public meetings on its proposed

regulations under the Oil Pollution Act

of 1990 (OPA 90) relating to the

preparation of hazardous substance

response plans to minimize the impact

of a discharge or release of hazardous

substances into the navigable waters of

the United States. There is substantial

public interest in the rulemaking. The

Coast Guard is conducting the public

meetings to receive view on what

should be regulated and what

appropriate regulations should be.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

July 30, 1996, and August 5, 1996. The

meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m.

Comments must be received on or

before September 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The July 30, 1996, meeting

will be held in room 6200, Department

of Transportation, Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590. The August 5, 1996, meeting will

be held in the lecture hall of the Center

for Advanced Space Studies, 3600 Bay

Area Boulevard, Clear Lake, TX 77058.

Written comments may be mailed to the

Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 94–032

and 94–048), U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20593–0001 or may be

delivered to room 3406 at the above

address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The telephone number if (202)

267–1477

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT

Cliff Thomas, Project Manager, Office of

Standards Evaluation and Development,

at (202) 267–1099. This number is

equipped to record messages on a 24-

hour basis. Copies of the advanced

notice of proposed rulemaking

(ANPRM) may be obtained by

submitting a request by facsimile at

(202) 267–4547.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background Information

Response Plans for Hazardous

Substances

The advanced noticed of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM) (61 FR 20084),

published on May 3, 1996, solicited

comments on 96 questions to assist in

the development of a notice of proposed

rulemaking for vessels and a notice of

proposed rulemaking for marine

transportation-related facilities (MTR).

Section 311(j)(5) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) [33

U.S.C. 1321(j)(5)], as amended by

section 4202(a) of OPA 90, requires

owners and operators of tank vessels,

offshore facilities, and onshore facilities

that could reasonably be expected to

cause harm to the environment to

prepare and submit plans for

responding, to the maximum extent

practicable, to a worst case discharge, or

a substantial threat of such a discharge,

of oil or hazardous substance. Section

4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 establishes an

implementation schedule for these

requirements with regard to oil.

However, section 4202(b)(4) did not

establish a compliance date requiring

response plans for hazardous

substances.

The Coast Guard issued two separate

final rules: one requiring response plans

for tank vessels carrying oil in bulk and

another requiring response plans for

marine transportation-related facilities

(MTR) that handle, store, or transport oil

in bulk. These final rules define many

concepts such as ‘‘marine

transportation-related facility,’’

‘‘maximum extent practicable,’’ and

‘‘worst case discharge.’’ The rules also

provide a specific format for these

response plans; however, they allow for

deviations from this format as long as

the required information is included

and there is a cross reference sheet

identifying its location. The Coast Guard

is considering using these concepts or

modifying them as necessary in the

regulations for response plans for

hazardous substances.

Public Meeting

The Coast Guard will hold two public

meetings, the first on July 30, 1996, and

the second on August 5, 1996. The

public is invited to comment on the

issues discussed in the 96 questions

listed in the ANPRM. The general areas

in which the Coast Guard seeks public

comment are response plan contents

and format, carriage of response

equipment, training requirements, and

economic impacts.

Attendance is open to the public.

Persons who are hearing impaired may

request sign translation by contacting

the person under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT at least one week

before the meeting. With advance

notice, and as time permits, members of

the public may make oral presentations

during the meeting. Persons wishing to

make oral presentations should notify

the person listed above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later

than the day before the meeting. Written

material may be submitted prior to,

during, or after the meeting. Persons

unable to attend the public meetings are

encouraged to submit written comments

as outlined in the ANPRM prior to

September 3, 1996.

Dated: June 27, 1996.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director, of Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 96–17002 Filed 7–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5531–1]

Use of Alternative Analytical Test

Methods in the Reformulated Gasoline

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.