Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
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.
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.
We therefore finalize the proposed rules published on October 6, 2003, with minor changes to the titles/headings of each regulation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 UnitedStates-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
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).
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
While serving only the civil contempt commitment, an inmate is not entitled to good time sentence credit.